9 ms·

Weird. Also: > And so, Britain traded the land illegally. Whoa, strong claim. Probably backed by facts below? Nope. At the same time, Wikipedia: > In Novembe

Weird. Also: > And so, Britain traded the land illegally. Whoa, strong claim. Probably backed by facts below? Nope. At the same time, Wikipedia: > In November 1965, the UK purchased the entire Chagos Archipelago from the then self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). So, they bought it for 3 million pounds. Doesn't seem illegal to me.

beepbooptheory 3y ago
[flagged]
gowld 3y ago
That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal" People can't be legally bought and sold.
- rfw300 3y ago
  Ironic, considering the United States literally purchased Florida from Spain.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Yeah, but it wasn't like there were pre-existing inhabitants in the Americas at that time. /HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE
    - bluish29 3y ago
      Is that suppose to be some sort of sarcasm I'm missing, or you just ignore Indigenous people? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Amer...
      - saghm 3y ago
        Not sure if the comment was edited or not, but "/s" is often used as a shorthand for indicating sarcasm due to it not being easy to infer tone in text, so "/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE" is intended mean that you should read their comment in as sarcastic a tone as possible. So yes, they were being sarcastic.
        bluish29 3y ago
        Thanks for clarification. That was new to me.
      - eyelidlessness 3y ago
        The “/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE” is an extension of “/s” which is used as an explicit indicator of sarcasm.
        bluish29 3y ago
        Thanks for clarification
  - olex 3y ago
    And Alaska from Russia.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't think that buying land is the same as buying people.
  - lnenad 3y ago
    Ok, I am buying your house from your neighbor then.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      If you did, you still wouldn't own me. You'd just be in league to steal my house.
  - indigochill 3y ago
    The line is kinda blurry when the land houses people who have no representation in the sale. Sure, you don't own the people, but you now own their land.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > you don't own the people, but you now own their land. Right -- that line doesn't seem blurry to me at all.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Land and territory can. If people don't like their new citizenship, they can leave.
- burke 3y ago
  Legality is a concept defined by the governments doing the things. It's funny to see people react to something they perceive as immoral and just claim it's illegal. I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      > However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored. The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        The combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal". In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        > The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are. The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  How do you see the relationship between war and legality? The US acquired territory from Mexico as part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, intended to end the Mexican-American war. Mexico lost 55% of its territory, but did receive $15M as some sort of compensation. Is that legal and if so in what sense, given that it was driven by a desire to end a war? Much more recently, how about territory acquired by Russia in the vicinity of Ukraine. Suppose that the Crimeans truly did unanimously agree to this, would that make it legal? Is it legal if 50% of the residents agree? What about those with economic interests there who are not residents?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    In modern times, the rule has been that a nation's territory can only be permanently sold with the consent of its government, and that government constitutes the sole authority whose agreement is needed. Sub-areas within a nation may secede and form their own nations, but recognition of the new nations by peer nations is required for legitimacy. So from that perspective: Mexico, agreed to by the government and done. Crimea, not consented by the Ukrainian government, and an open question as to peer recognition of independence (or now incorporation into Russia). The grey areas (e.g. ceding land under duress) are why land has historically been the chief casus belli.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > People can't be legally bought and sold. Bonded labour is still a thing, something that built a large amount of the middle east and parts of china.
deanCommie 3y ago
There's an entire article here on horrific human rights abuses, and internationally recognized crimes against humanity. But you're going to dwell on whether the first initial island purchase itself was "legal" being a strong claim? Reevaluate your ethics. It's utterly irrelevant. Slavery was LEGAL.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  we are veering deep into logical fallacies here. lets pull this back into why they suggested this point. > But you're going to dwell on whether the first initial island purchase itself was "legal" being a strong claim? The article is claiming to be entirely factual. but this assertion is not actually true, so it isn't factual. > internationally recognized crimes against humanity. Most crimes against humanity are internationally recognised, its just not by the right people. frustrating, but not relevant to the point. Human rights watch have asserted that it is a crime against humanity. which is a strong indicator that it might be. but its not the same as a legal ruling from an international court. > Reevaluate your ethics. It's utterly irrelevant. Slavery was LEGAL. But thats the main point, all of this was legal. just not moral to our eyes. To assert that the land was illegally traded was incorrect, and an appeal bolster the original claim that people who buy and use .io are directly and actively supporting a very bad deed. The land was legally traded, the people were illegal moved. Now its fair to say that Mauritius wants the land back, and without them, I doubt we would actually have known too much about this whole affair. (small island nations have a history of forced exile). This tale isn't unique or indeed unusual. what is unusual is that its been taken to court and won compensation.
vidarh 3y ago
Calling the colony self governing to gloss over that this was no legitimate democratic government with actual independence selling it and allowing the expulsion is wildly misleading. Hence e.g an ICJ decision declaring it illegal in recent years, and a UN resolution declaring it illegal within weeks when it happened in 1965 The "self governing" colony was no more a legitimately truly independent government than the Apartheid bantustans.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

[flagged]

gowld 3y ago

That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal" People can't be legally bought and sold.

rfw300 3y ago
Ironic, considering the United States literally purchased Florida from Spain.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Yeah, but it wasn't like there were pre-existing inhabitants in the Americas at that time. /HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE
  - bluish29 3y ago
    Is that suppose to be some sort of sarcasm I'm missing, or you just ignore Indigenous people? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Amer...
    - saghm 3y ago
      Not sure if the comment was edited or not, but "/s" is often used as a shorthand for indicating sarcasm due to it not being easy to infer tone in text, so "/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE" is intended mean that you should read their comment in as sarcastic a tone as possible. So yes, they were being sarcastic.
      - bluish29 3y ago
        Thanks for clarification. That was new to me.
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      The “/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE” is an extension of “/s” which is used as an explicit indicator of sarcasm.
      - bluish29 3y ago
        Thanks for clarification
- olex 3y ago
  And Alaska from Russia.
JohnFen 3y ago
I don't think that buying land is the same as buying people.
- lnenad 3y ago
  Ok, I am buying your house from your neighbor then.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    If you did, you still wouldn't own me. You'd just be in league to steal my house.
- indigochill 3y ago
  The line is kinda blurry when the land houses people who have no representation in the sale. Sure, you don't own the people, but you now own their land.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > you don't own the people, but you now own their land. Right -- that line doesn't seem blurry to me at all.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Land and territory can. If people don't like their new citizenship, they can leave.
burke 3y ago
Legality is a concept defined by the governments doing the things. It's funny to see people react to something they perceive as immoral and just claim it's illegal. I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.
- vidarh 3y ago
  However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored. The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      The combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal". In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      > The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are. The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
How do you see the relationship between war and legality? The US acquired territory from Mexico as part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, intended to end the Mexican-American war. Mexico lost 55% of its territory, but did receive $15M as some sort of compensation. Is that legal and if so in what sense, given that it was driven by a desire to end a war? Much more recently, how about territory acquired by Russia in the vicinity of Ukraine. Suppose that the Crimeans truly did unanimously agree to this, would that make it legal? Is it legal if 50% of the residents agree? What about those with economic interests there who are not residents?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  In modern times, the rule has been that a nation's territory can only be permanently sold with the consent of its government, and that government constitutes the sole authority whose agreement is needed. Sub-areas within a nation may secede and form their own nations, but recognition of the new nations by peer nations is required for legitimacy. So from that perspective: Mexico, agreed to by the government and done. Crimea, not consented by the Ukrainian government, and an open question as to peer recognition of independence (or now incorporation into Russia). The grey areas (e.g. ceding land under duress) are why land has historically been the chief casus belli.
KaiserPro 3y ago
> People can't be legally bought and sold. Bonded labour is still a thing, something that built a large amount of the middle east and parts of china.

deanCommie 3y ago

There's an entire article here on horrific human rights abuses, and internationally recognized crimes against humanity. But you're going to dwell on whether the first initial island purchase itself was "legal" being a strong claim? Reevaluate your ethics. It's utterly irrelevant. Slavery was LEGAL.

KaiserPro 3y ago
we are veering deep into logical fallacies here. lets pull this back into why they suggested this point. > But you're going to dwell on whether the first initial island purchase itself was "legal" being a strong claim? The article is claiming to be entirely factual. but this assertion is not actually true, so it isn't factual. > internationally recognized crimes against humanity. Most crimes against humanity are internationally recognised, its just not by the right people. frustrating, but not relevant to the point. Human rights watch have asserted that it is a crime against humanity. which is a strong indicator that it might be. but its not the same as a legal ruling from an international court. > Reevaluate your ethics. It's utterly irrelevant. Slavery was LEGAL. But thats the main point, all of this was legal. just not moral to our eyes. To assert that the land was illegally traded was incorrect, and an appeal bolster the original claim that people who buy and use .io are directly and actively supporting a very bad deed. The land was legally traded, the people were illegal moved. Now its fair to say that Mauritius wants the land back, and without them, I doubt we would actually have known too much about this whole affair. (small island nations have a history of forced exile). This tale isn't unique or indeed unusual. what is unusual is that its been taken to court and won compensation.

vidarh 3y ago

Calling the colony self governing to gloss over that this was no legitimate democratic government with actual independence selling it and allowing the expulsion is wildly misleading. Hence e.g an ICJ decision declaring it illegal in recent years, and a UN resolution declaring it illegal within weeks when it happened in 1965 The "self governing" colony was no more a legitimately truly independent government than the Apartheid bantustans.