3 ms·
They should have picked disputed territory where all existing states that could reasonably claim it insist that it is not theirs. E.g., Bir Tawil [1], which is
by tzs 3y ago
They should have picked disputed territory where all existing states that could reasonably claim it insist that it is not theirs.
E.g., Bir Tawil [1], which is 2000 km^2 (800 mi^2) of disputed territory on the border between Egypt and Sudan. Egypt says it belongs to Sudan, and Sudan says it belongs to Egypt.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil
- acadapter 3y agoExactly the same situation exists in four places along the Danube river's coastline (although only one of the land pockets is somewhat suitable for creating a country)
- PeterisP 3y agoThis is a literal equivalent to Bir Tawil, with both sides of a border dispute preferring the interpretation of the whole border that leaves this particular plot to the other. However, as demonstrated by this situation, in practice that doesn't mean that some third party can just grab that land - and I'd expect the same thing to happen in Bir Tawil; legal technicalities are nifty but they aren't really sufficient for de facto recognition, which is the main thing that matters in international law.
- bombcar 3y agoIt’s like when two siblings are fighting and a third comes in and insults one and they stop fighting to beat the living daylights out of the interloper.
- c7DJTLrn 3y agoThe fact that nobody wants it is telling. It's an uninhabited, landlocked strip of desert with no water. Would be hard to start a new settlement there.
- ianburrell 3y agoLandlocked is important since have to travel through Egypt or Sudan to reach it. Which means they can block any independence movement by denying entry to participants.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoThat's exactly what they did (iirc, one side claims historical river course, other side claims contemporary river course)