3 ms·

"Stable leadership" has never been a precondition for sovereignty. That sounds like an easy excuse to invade whenever you think another countries leadership isn

"Stable leadership" has never been a precondition for sovereignty. That sounds like an easy excuse to invade whenever you think another countries leadership isn't doing the things you want it to. Hong Kong was leased from China to Britain on a 99 year lease, it was always part of China, so it was never a sovereign nation. That is the "international law" angle on Hong Kong, the lease expired and China got their Hong Kong back. Btw, I'm not sure the initial leasing of Hong Kong was overly legal in the first place, seems to have been a lot of duress in play.

fastball 5y ago
I'm happy to use some other precondition for sovereignty, but unless you deliberately construct a definition to include Afghanistan, something tells me sovereignty won't apply.
- reillyse 5y ago
  So, I'm curious. Do you think a nation ceases to be sovereign when it's in civil war or if there is some conflict over the government. E.g. in the US, when Trump was claiming he was elected President, did the US become less sovereign? (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) Afghanistan became something that looks like a modern sovereign state sometime in the 18th century and continued on from then. You seem to think that if there is some conflict over government it ceases to be sovereign, I'm pretty sure that is not how that works. On a side note, I'm genuinely happy to be able to have a conversation with someone about it, it seems most people are more happy on here to downvote opinions they don't agree with and that challenge their world views.
  - fastball 5y ago
    I think when a nation is in a civil war other nations can pick a side and they are not violating sovereignty. Also random individuals can pick a side and also not be violating sovereignty. Knowing what is allowed behavior is predicated on their being some clear central entity to dictate it. If there is none, then...
    - reillyse 5y ago
      I think that idea is fundamentally wrong. Essentially that means that if there is a governmental conflict might is right. So wait for any dispute (the example I gave of trump disputing election results suffices) and then invade. That doesn’t seem to be how things should work.
      - fastball 5y ago
        A "dispute" is not at all the same thing as a literal civil war and/or actual power vacuum. And yes, when existing power and societal structures fail, might is right. That is how the world works.

fastball 5y ago

I'm happy to use some other precondition for sovereignty, but unless you deliberately construct a definition to include Afghanistan, something tells me sovereignty won't apply.

reillyse 5y ago
So, I'm curious. Do you think a nation ceases to be sovereign when it's in civil war or if there is some conflict over the government. E.g. in the US, when Trump was claiming he was elected President, did the US become less sovereign? (From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) Afghanistan became something that looks like a modern sovereign state sometime in the 18th century and continued on from then. You seem to think that if there is some conflict over government it ceases to be sovereign, I'm pretty sure that is not how that works. On a side note, I'm genuinely happy to be able to have a conversation with someone about it, it seems most people are more happy on here to downvote opinions they don't agree with and that challenge their world views.
- fastball 5y ago
  I think when a nation is in a civil war other nations can pick a side and they are not violating sovereignty. Also random individuals can pick a side and also not be violating sovereignty. Knowing what is allowed behavior is predicated on their being some clear central entity to dictate it. If there is none, then...
  - reillyse 5y ago
    I think that idea is fundamentally wrong. Essentially that means that if there is a governmental conflict might is right. So wait for any dispute (the example I gave of trump disputing election results suffices) and then invade. That doesn’t seem to be how things should work.
    - fastball 5y ago
      A "dispute" is not at all the same thing as a literal civil war and/or actual power vacuum. And yes, when existing power and societal structures fail, might is right. That is how the world works.