7 ms·

It's either choosing a "no mans land" and hope they'll ignore you until you're established, or you chose something that isn't no mans land, and expect them to c

It's either choosing a "no mans land" and hope they'll ignore you until you're established, or you chose something that isn't no mans land, and expect them to come knocking very quickly. You can't really occupy useful land without expecting quick and dire consequences.

notpushkin 3y ago
I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as “no man’s land” (neither of the bordering countries wanted it, and nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once Liberland established a country there, suddenly everybody wants it. I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. It’s just impossible. Currently existing states would do anything to push you out (unless you maybe play along with their political games somehow – and even then you get maybe just a tiny bit of recognition).
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  It's probably more subtle than that: As part of the dispute, Croatia didn't claim it, and neither did Serbia. But in the meanwhile, Serbia did control various other disputed areas. So it would make sense that in turn, Croatia did the same with 'Liberland'. There's no contradiction between [not claiming an area] but still [asserting some degree of control there]. 'Liberland' people claimed homes demolished "without warning" etc, but then complain about having been harassed for years. So, more likely there were previous warnings, legal procedings or whatever, Liberland ignored those because 'not in our country, doesn't apply', and at some point time is up. Given its history, it's logical Croatia would be sensitive about border disputes. And then some 3rd party steps in, complicates things & proclaims a new country between your neighbour & yourself? Can't have that! So this whole clearing operation would simply be "what a nuissance these people! Let's fix that" on Croatia's side. And in the process, assert some control over the area. All in all it seems the Liberland folks are rather naive about land being abandoned, or how border disputes work. Possibly no-one would care if they'd just squatted there without proclaiming anything.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You can, but you'll have to budget for a sizeable army if you want to keep it.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Probably, yeah. And sizable in this case means that you not only need to be larger than Serbian and Croatian armies, but perhaps all of NATO as well.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Nah. If these people had a reasonable functional economy (somehow), plus enough military gear/people to make it too costly to try invading, then they'd probably be ignored if they didn't cause trouble. That "enough military gear to make it too costly to try invading" is an absolutely key requirement though. In some ways similar to the China/Taiwan thing. China could invade Taiwan (manpower wise, etc). Taiwan knows it though, so they've focused their defences on asymmetric warfare. "You might take us, but you'll bleed forever from the attempt" kind of thing.
      - gerikson 3y ago
        Realistically, the only way to grow an economy in that area is via drug dealing, sex work, and unregulated immigration and unregulated manufacturing. At that point, it's basically academic whether the people running the place are ideologically committed libertarians or a heavily armed criminal gang. Additionally, if you want to go up against an armed force, the Croatian defense forces are more capable than most.
        pixl97 3y ago
        >ideologically committed libertarians or a heavily armed criminal gang. But you repeat yourself. Sorry if any ideologically committed libertarians are reading this thread, but libertarianism is one of those things that theoretically works and practically fails every time. People consolidate power into governments because it is effective.
- cuu508 3y ago
  > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. Couldn't an existing state democratically decide to split into two?
  - masklinn 3y ago
    It’s also possible for a state to implode and multiple successors to arise eventually.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    For example, Czechia and Slovakia.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as “no man’s land” (neither of the bordering countries wanted it, and nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once Liberland established a country there, suddenly everybody wants it. The reason “nobody wants it” is that it’s similar to the Bir Tawil triangle: accepting it as part of your country means abandoning your claim on the larger and more valuable area linked to it in dispute. It does not mean a third party gets to come in and go “well if nobody wants it…” it’s still part of the contention.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Well, yeah, this is how it works now. It's still bullshit though.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      It’s how it works always. If two heirs battle over shares and neither wants property A because it means giving up on the more valuable property B, property A is still part of the inheritance and you will get forcefully ejected if you declare that since nobody wants it property A is now yours.
  - trickstra 3y ago
    > Wikipedia: In international law, terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any state by occupation. that sounds to me exactly like a third party coming and going "well if nobody wants it..." Of course, in reality it's always about whether or not you can defend your territory with military power. And it doesn't even need to be unclaimed.
    - tw04 3y ago
      Right, but this is disputed land, not unclaimed land.
      - trickstra 3y ago
- PeterisP 3y ago
  It's not that "suddenly everybody wants it" - there literally haven't been any changes to Croatia (or Serbia) policy regarding the border. However, they are implicitly reasserting that no, Liberland did not establish a country there, that Croatia doesn't consider this as a state, that there is no such thing as Liberland. And perhaps they are intentionally making a point of it to demonstrate that yes, they can and will push it out if you make unwarranted claims of sovereignty without their consent - for example, prosecuting individuals for using fictitious passports, as according to Croatia Liberland and its passports are fictitious. The key part of setting up a new state is an agreement with your neighbours that they acknowledge your sovereignty over certain borders (i.e. "play along with their political games"), which certainly is possible as there have been multiple new states set up during 21st century, but until that is achieved, you don't really have a state.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  Countries have to be strict on things that are detrimental to their existence. First and foremost they have to be stringent on taxes, but also on money laundering, gambling and sometimes ideology. A lot of countries maintain small areas where they are more relaxed about these things than in the rest of the territory they de facto control. Sometimes these areas are states in a federal system (Delaware), other times they take the form of special economic zones (Cayman Islands) but in a few cases they form de jure sovereign nations. I think the (more or less) hidden agenda of Liberland is to become the de jure sovereign, de facto tolerated, "special economic zone" of Croatia. When they will have built a hotel, the casino is probably not far and like the other tax haven, money laundering, gambling areas of this world it will be tolerated because it is of mutual benefit to them and their host country. If it pans out: new (de jure) sovereign nation, without a (significant) army.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Becoming de jure sovereign requires getting de jure recognition of others (even if you don't control the land de facto). It doesn't look like Croatia has even the slightest intent to recognize Liberland de jure, so whatever their agenda is, they aren't on their way to get there.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state South sudan and east timor would have a word.
- jrockway 3y ago
  > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. You probably can, but just not where people want to. It all comes down to whether your country wins the military battles that inevitably take place, and one modern soldier can really do a lot these days. The US exists, for example, because the British absolutely bungled the response to the revolution. Nowadays, it would take a lot more incompetence from their end to lose territory; if the ground troops are all neutralized, just hit 'em with an ICBM or something. It's crazy the amount of resources you'd be up against. People are trying to secede from countries that literally have nuclear weapons. Your 3D printed guns aren't going to win against that. But, if you're fighting the local warlord or whatever, you probably have a chance.
  - akkartik 3y ago
    You could secede from a nuclear power. Most sane people tend to not want to use them in/near their territory. So it's not enough to have military power, you need also the political will to use it. I get the sense India exists because the British were fatigued after WWII. There just wasn't the will to try to hold on to something they didn't feel like they had the moral right to anymore.
    - jrockway 3y ago
      That's a very good example. In my mind I was thinking about the Falklands ("the empire strikes back" magazine cover floats ominously), but yeah. Britain could have nuked India if they wanted to. Civil wars are weird.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  > I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. It’s just impossible. Scotland had a chance, but the population democratically refused to take it.
- yankput 3y ago
  you can set up a new state the way it always worked. With either a large swath of population to break away, or with a large army to take over some other population’s land. I mean even Joshue needed to kill all the Canaanites to get to Israel (it’s the point of Exodus that “your people will live in other people’s houses”). I don’t think Jedlička is 21st century’s Alexander the Macedonian.
gerikson 3y ago
It's only terra nullius because Croatia considers it to be Serbian territory according to its interpretation of the border, while Serbia is fine with it being part of Croatia according to their interpretation. Croatia claiming the territory would undermine their claim on much bigger land parcels now administered by Serbia. But that's de jure. De facto, it's part of Croatia, and as a basic national security issue Croatia isn't interested in letting squatters have free reign on a parcel of land adjacent to their border.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  can you say more about the 20th century involvement of Sweden, their government and bureaucracy, in re-shaping the Balkans since 1970 or so ? (all new to me, news media seems filled with ads)
  - gerikson 3y ago
    Sorry, not my area of expertise. I do know that parts of Swedish foreign aid is in the form of building public institutions, reforming tax collection, etc.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Sweden?? And surely the start date has to be 1991?
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      no, certainly ten years+ after that series.. Is it unusual that the Swedish wrote documents, also published in English, documenting the forest and natural species of the range of mountains in the South West of the Balkans. Those documents were later used as part of a declaration headed by an American group. Real estate sales is also listed, along with the "pristine" nature. Somehow, the nature preserves are not respected now?

notpushkin 3y ago

I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as “no man’s land” (neither of the bordering countries wanted it, and nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once Liberland established a country there, suddenly everybody wants it. I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. It’s just impossible. Currently existing states would do anything to push you out (unless you maybe play along with their political games somehow – and even then you get maybe just a tiny bit of recognition).

RetroTechie 3y ago
It's probably more subtle than that: As part of the dispute, Croatia didn't claim it, and neither did Serbia. But in the meanwhile, Serbia did control various other disputed areas. So it would make sense that in turn, Croatia did the same with 'Liberland'. There's no contradiction between [not claiming an area] but still [asserting some degree of control there]. 'Liberland' people claimed homes demolished "without warning" etc, but then complain about having been harassed for years. So, more likely there were previous warnings, legal procedings or whatever, Liberland ignored those because 'not in our country, doesn't apply', and at some point time is up. Given its history, it's logical Croatia would be sensitive about border disputes. And then some 3rd party steps in, complicates things & proclaims a new country between your neighbour & yourself? Can't have that! So this whole clearing operation would simply be "what a nuissance these people! Let's fix that" on Croatia's side. And in the process, assert some control over the area. All in all it seems the Liberland folks are rather naive about land being abandoned, or how border disputes work. Possibly no-one would care if they'd just squatted there without proclaiming anything.
jacquesm 3y ago
You can, but you'll have to budget for a sizeable army if you want to keep it.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Probably, yeah. And sizable in this case means that you not only need to be larger than Serbian and Croatian armies, but perhaps all of NATO as well.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Nah. If these people had a reasonable functional economy (somehow), plus enough military gear/people to make it too costly to try invading, then they'd probably be ignored if they didn't cause trouble. That "enough military gear to make it too costly to try invading" is an absolutely key requirement though. In some ways similar to the China/Taiwan thing. China could invade Taiwan (manpower wise, etc). Taiwan knows it though, so they've focused their defences on asymmetric warfare. "You might take us, but you'll bleed forever from the attempt" kind of thing.
    - gerikson 3y ago
      Realistically, the only way to grow an economy in that area is via drug dealing, sex work, and unregulated immigration and unregulated manufacturing. At that point, it's basically academic whether the people running the place are ideologically committed libertarians or a heavily armed criminal gang. Additionally, if you want to go up against an armed force, the Croatian defense forces are more capable than most.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        >ideologically committed libertarians or a heavily armed criminal gang. But you repeat yourself. Sorry if any ideologically committed libertarians are reading this thread, but libertarianism is one of those things that theoretically works and practically fails every time. People consolidate power into governments because it is effective.
cuu508 3y ago
> I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. Couldn't an existing state democratically decide to split into two?
- masklinn 3y ago
  It’s also possible for a state to implode and multiple successors to arise eventually.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  For example, Czechia and Slovakia.
masklinn 3y ago
> I'm pretty sure Liberland's case classifies as “no man’s land” (neither of the bordering countries wanted it, and nobody else bothered with it, too). Still, once Liberland established a country there, suddenly everybody wants it. The reason “nobody wants it” is that it’s similar to the Bir Tawil triangle: accepting it as part of your country means abandoning your claim on the larger and more valuable area linked to it in dispute. It does not mean a third party gets to come in and go “well if nobody wants it…” it’s still part of the contention.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Well, yeah, this is how it works now. It's still bullshit though.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    It’s how it works always. If two heirs battle over shares and neither wants property A because it means giving up on the more valuable property B, property A is still part of the inheritance and you will get forcefully ejected if you declare that since nobody wants it property A is now yours.
- trickstra 3y ago
  > Wikipedia: In international law, terra nullius is territory which belongs to no state. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius can be acquired by any state by occupation. that sounds to me exactly like a third party coming and going "well if nobody wants it..." Of course, in reality it's always about whether or not you can defend your territory with military power. And it doesn't even need to be unclaimed.
  - tw04 3y ago
    Right, but this is disputed land, not unclaimed land.
    - trickstra 3y ago
PeterisP 3y ago
It's not that "suddenly everybody wants it" - there literally haven't been any changes to Croatia (or Serbia) policy regarding the border. However, they are implicitly reasserting that no, Liberland did not establish a country there, that Croatia doesn't consider this as a state, that there is no such thing as Liberland. And perhaps they are intentionally making a point of it to demonstrate that yes, they can and will push it out if you make unwarranted claims of sovereignty without their consent - for example, prosecuting individuals for using fictitious passports, as according to Croatia Liberland and its passports are fictitious. The key part of setting up a new state is an agreement with your neighbours that they acknowledge your sovereignty over certain borders (i.e. "play along with their political games"), which certainly is possible as there have been multiple new states set up during 21st century, but until that is achieved, you don't really have a state.
weinzierl 3y ago
Countries have to be strict on things that are detrimental to their existence. First and foremost they have to be stringent on taxes, but also on money laundering, gambling and sometimes ideology. A lot of countries maintain small areas where they are more relaxed about these things than in the rest of the territory they de facto control. Sometimes these areas are states in a federal system (Delaware), other times they take the form of special economic zones (Cayman Islands) but in a few cases they form de jure sovereign nations. I think the (more or less) hidden agenda of Liberland is to become the de jure sovereign, de facto tolerated, "special economic zone" of Croatia. When they will have built a hotel, the casino is probably not far and like the other tax haven, money laundering, gambling areas of this world it will be tolerated because it is of mutual benefit to them and their host country. If it pans out: new (de jure) sovereign nation, without a (significant) army.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Becoming de jure sovereign requires getting de jure recognition of others (even if you don't control the land de facto). It doesn't look like Croatia has even the slightest intent to recognize Liberland de jure, so whatever their agenda is, they aren't on their way to get there.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
> I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state South sudan and east timor would have a word.
jrockway 3y ago
> I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. You probably can, but just not where people want to. It all comes down to whether your country wins the military battles that inevitably take place, and one modern soldier can really do a lot these days. The US exists, for example, because the British absolutely bungled the response to the revolution. Nowadays, it would take a lot more incompetence from their end to lose territory; if the ground troops are all neutralized, just hit 'em with an ICBM or something. It's crazy the amount of resources you'd be up against. People are trying to secede from countries that literally have nuclear weapons. Your 3D printed guns aren't going to win against that. But, if you're fighting the local warlord or whatever, you probably have a chance.
- akkartik 3y ago
  You could secede from a nuclear power. Most sane people tend to not want to use them in/near their territory. So it's not enough to have military power, you need also the political will to use it. I get the sense India exists because the British were fatigued after WWII. There just wasn't the will to try to hold on to something they didn't feel like they had the moral right to anymore.
  - jrockway 3y ago
    That's a very good example. In my mind I was thinking about the Falklands ("the empire strikes back" magazine cover floats ominously), but yeah. Britain could have nuked India if they wanted to. Civil wars are weird.
dist-epoch 3y ago
> I think nowadays you can't properly set up a new state, period. It’s just impossible. Scotland had a chance, but the population democratically refused to take it.
yankput 3y ago
you can set up a new state the way it always worked. With either a large swath of population to break away, or with a large army to take over some other population’s land. I mean even Joshue needed to kill all the Canaanites to get to Israel (it’s the point of Exodus that “your people will live in other people’s houses”). I don’t think Jedlička is 21st century’s Alexander the Macedonian.

gerikson 3y ago

It's only terra nullius because Croatia considers it to be Serbian territory according to its interpretation of the border, while Serbia is fine with it being part of Croatia according to their interpretation. Croatia claiming the territory would undermine their claim on much bigger land parcels now administered by Serbia. But that's de jure. De facto, it's part of Croatia, and as a basic national security issue Croatia isn't interested in letting squatters have free reign on a parcel of land adjacent to their border.

mistrial9 3y ago
can you say more about the 20th century involvement of Sweden, their government and bureaucracy, in re-shaping the Balkans since 1970 or so ? (all new to me, news media seems filled with ads)
- gerikson 3y ago
  Sorry, not my area of expertise. I do know that parts of Swedish foreign aid is in the form of building public institutions, reforming tax collection, etc.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Sweden?? And surely the start date has to be 1991?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    no, certainly ten years+ after that series.. Is it unusual that the Swedish wrote documents, also published in English, documenting the forest and natural species of the range of mountains in the South West of the Balkans. Those documents were later used as part of a declaration headed by an American group. Real estate sales is also listed, along with the "pristine" nature. Somehow, the nature preserves are not respected now?