4 ms·

Two things: 1. Sealand is built on an old defense platform, not an oil rig. 2. Countries become accepted as countries exactly by declaring themselves as such,

by rosser 7y ago

Two things: 1. Sealand is built on an old defense platform, not an oil rig. 2. Countries become accepted as countries exactly by declaring themselves as such, and then having that declaration recognized by other countries. Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary, in order to become one.

stcredzero 7y ago
Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary. Sovereignty is defined as the ability to exert one's will on a given territory.
- rosser 7y ago
  They said a military was necessary to defend the claim, not to assert sovereignty over the claimed territory. It's neither.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    They said a military was necessary to defend the claim, not to assert sovereignty over the claimed territory. Successfully asserting sovereignty over the claimed territory is defending the claim, plus getting other sovereign nations to acknowledge you. So long as you can get other powers to acknowledge you and successfully defend your claim, you can assert sovereignty. And yes, it counts if other sovereign nations just don't want to be bothered to prove you can't assert sovereignty. (Or if you bribe or flatter them somehow.) It counts if you can "win by default." Ever wonder why geopolitics seems like high school politics? It's because it's basically might makes right combined with human dominance instincts. At root, it's "bigger army diplomacy." Or as Mao put it, "All power comes out of the end of a gun."
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >Sovereignty is defined as the ability to exert one's will on a given territory. If I wanted to make a mound of dirt in the UK I could probably take a shovel over there on an airplane ride, does that make me sovereign over the United Kingdom?
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    If I wanted to make a mound of dirt in the UK I could probably take a shovel over there on an airplane ride, does that make me sovereign over the United Kingdom? Start announcing and asserting your sovereignty by doing things the UK doesn't want you to do, and see how it works out. If you had 10 million devoted and physically fit companions armed with modern weapons and organized into an army, navy, and air force, maybe it would work out.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Iraq did things the UK didn't want them to do, and it didn't work out. Does that mean Iraq was never sovereign? Is the United States the only sovereign country in the world?
      - stcredzero 7y ago
        Iraq did things the UK didn't want them to do, and it didn't work out. Does that mean Iraq was never sovereign? When a government gets conquered militarily, they lose their sovereignty. Note how well the definition works. Is the United States the only sovereign country in the world? No, because the United States can't be bothered to go around kicking everyone's butt all the time. The US often finds it more convenient to cooperate and cajole in various ways. Remember, it also works by "default."
        scarejunba 7y ago
        So Iraq was sovereign till it was invaded. Doesn't that just mean Sealand is sovereign too?
- ummwhat 7y ago
  You're actually both right. In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One notion is being recognized as such by other countries. The other notion is having land, a permanent population, and a monopoly on violence. Let's call these de jure nationhood and de facto nationhood. Both notions have their faults (full disclosure, I am partial to the latter). De jure nationhood has absurdities like the order of Malta. De jure nationhood is also terribly misaligned with facts on the ground in cases like transnistria and Palestine. De facto nationhood comes with the bitter pill that anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups. I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence", we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" - the key is not so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders is meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.
    - ummwhat 7y ago
      The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
      - 0815test 7y ago
        > that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.

by rosser 7y ago

stcredzero 7y ago

Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary. Sovereignty is defined as the ability to exert one's will on a given territory.

rosser 7y ago
They said a military was necessary to defend the claim, not to assert sovereignty over the claimed territory. It's neither.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  They said a military was necessary to defend the claim, not to assert sovereignty over the claimed territory. Successfully asserting sovereignty over the claimed territory is defending the claim, plus getting other sovereign nations to acknowledge you. So long as you can get other powers to acknowledge you and successfully defend your claim, you can assert sovereignty. And yes, it counts if other sovereign nations just don't want to be bothered to prove you can't assert sovereignty. (Or if you bribe or flatter them somehow.) It counts if you can "win by default." Ever wonder why geopolitics seems like high school politics? It's because it's basically might makes right combined with human dominance instincts. At root, it's "bigger army diplomacy." Or as Mao put it, "All power comes out of the end of a gun."
whatshisface 7y ago
>Sovereignty is defined as the ability to exert one's will on a given territory. If I wanted to make a mound of dirt in the UK I could probably take a shovel over there on an airplane ride, does that make me sovereign over the United Kingdom?
- stcredzero 7y ago
  If I wanted to make a mound of dirt in the UK I could probably take a shovel over there on an airplane ride, does that make me sovereign over the United Kingdom? Start announcing and asserting your sovereignty by doing things the UK doesn't want you to do, and see how it works out. If you had 10 million devoted and physically fit companions armed with modern weapons and organized into an army, navy, and air force, maybe it would work out.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Iraq did things the UK didn't want them to do, and it didn't work out. Does that mean Iraq was never sovereign? Is the United States the only sovereign country in the world?
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      Iraq did things the UK didn't want them to do, and it didn't work out. Does that mean Iraq was never sovereign? When a government gets conquered militarily, they lose their sovereignty. Note how well the definition works. Is the United States the only sovereign country in the world? No, because the United States can't be bothered to go around kicking everyone's butt all the time. The US often finds it more convenient to cooperate and cajole in various ways. Remember, it also works by "default."
      - scarejunba 7y ago
        So Iraq was sovereign till it was invaded. Doesn't that just mean Sealand is sovereign too?
ummwhat 7y ago
You're actually both right. In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One notion is being recognized as such by other countries. The other notion is having land, a permanent population, and a monopoly on violence. Let's call these de jure nationhood and de facto nationhood. Both notions have their faults (full disclosure, I am partial to the latter). De jure nationhood has absurdities like the order of Malta. De jure nationhood is also terribly misaligned with facts on the ground in cases like transnistria and Palestine. De facto nationhood comes with the bitter pill that anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups. I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence", we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" - the key is not so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders is meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.
  - ummwhat 7y ago
    The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    - 0815test 7y ago
      > that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.