I omitted an important matter, here.
Under international law, there are two other principles relevant to
territory and sovereignty.
1. To claim statehood, a country must meet four criteria:
a. Control of land
b. Control of population
c. Ability to govern
d. Able to exercise international relations
Sovereignty is not dependent on the diplomatic recognition of other states.
2. It is illegal to seize territory of other countries, and such conquest
does not convey or provide the basis for a claim of sovereignty over the
seized territory. Indeed, conquest and occupation only impose on the
conquering state a series of well-defined obligations to safe-guard the
well-being and rights of the local population of the occupied territory.
Sorry for the omission. I have several reports I am kicking out the door.
Cheers,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:15 PM
To: 'pete'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Map of Middle East
There is no international law that assures an ethnic group its own territory
or nation, contiguous or not. And I would guess that the vast majority of
ethnic groups do not have their own nation. Some of them may want their own
territory, but a right to such has to be established. Prior legitimate
possession is one such argument. The problem, of course, is that groups tend
to assert claims to territories that at some point in their history they
once controlled, and so, by referring to different time periods, the various
claims of groups overlap significantly with the claims of others. Quite
apart from the issue of sovereignty for ethnic groups, this matter of
overlaps reduces the viability of the historical claim. The doctrine of
self-determination is primarily useful against a colonial power; it does not
clarify the problem of overlapping, time-sensitive claims.
The Kurds have no intrinsic right to a state of their own. Were they to
advance such a claim, they would have to reckon with the sovereignty of
Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. I would say that the idea of a Kurdish state is in
fact dead, though they will be able to achieve a measure of autonomy within
Iraq. If the Kurds were to pronounce themselves independent, and Iraq not
able to enforce its sovereignty there due to the present control of the
country by the US, it is sure to be challenged successfully in the future.
My guess is that the Kurds are smart enough to realize this and will
withstand the blandishments of outsiders, and settle for cooperative
relations with the Iraq government, and a significant measure of autonomy,
as negotiated jointly by the government and Kurdish representatives.
Cheers,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of pete
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Map of Middle East
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Interesting. So the Kingdom of Israel existed only in a very short
>period some 3000 years ago. Hmm, what does this say about the
>legitimacy of the "law of return"...?
You will notice that in all that time, the Kurds never had self-rule,
let alone an empire. Does that mean we should decide they don't
exist, and have no right to a contiguous homeland?
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
