On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:07 PM Alan Mackie <aamac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many if not most of the entities mentioned in this discussion as being > candidates for "admin level above country" do have geographic reach > encompassing multiple countries, but are also limited in scope, often > severely. To tag such a limited body as fully encompassing a higher admin > level seems fundamentally flawed as a concept. If their powers were > expanded to have unlimited scope within that geographic area you would > effectively have a single larger country. Having an entity grow in scope > from "admin levels that includes (largely) independent countries" down to > admin level of a country seems counter to the general structure. > The defining test probably has to be the power to engage in foreign relations with entities at the same admin_level without deferring to the next higher level. The test as you have stated it fails in federal systems. In the US, at least, the plenary power to govern belongs to the States (Or to the People, but constitutionally this is enforced only by a requirement that each State have a republican form of government.) The national government has only those powers that are delegated to it from the states under the Constitution. When it tries to exercise plenary jurisdiction (as, alas, we're seeing nowadays!), it tends to unfold as a constitutional crisis. The States are above the Federal government, not beneath it. The reason that this principle is not obvious from abroad is that the States have delegated to the Federal government the sole power to engage in foreign relations; a State may not engage in diplomacy abroad because the States have relinquished that power. Which is why, when you arrive at JFK, you clear US customs and not New York's. By the way, a 'containment' test fails as well in the US. While there are no municipal governments that cross state lines (there are some special-purpose entities that do by the consent of both states and the Congress, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), it's not uncommon for a city to lie in more than one county, or a village in more than one township. Having a clean hierarchy of admin_levels just isn't important to USAians. And I have Absolutely No Idea what to do with extraterritorial dependencies or domestic dependent nations. Feel free to stop reading here. I'm going off topic. The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles the US-Canadian border, and whose government is recognized by neither state. The political situation there has deteriorated into shootings as recently as 1990, and sabre-rattling among US, Canadian and Akwesáhsro:non persons as recently as 2009. The disputes usually stem from one or the other large nation deciding to deny the Kanien'kehá free pratique to travel and trade within their own nation, requiring customs and imposts every time the US-Canadian border is crossed. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
