3 ms·
Sadly we, the "good guys", created a dangerous precedent in the balkans when Kosovo unilaterally split from Serbia, under foreign (NATO) occupation moreover. I
by epolanski 10mo ago
Sadly we, the "good guys", created a dangerous precedent in the balkans when Kosovo unilaterally split from Serbia, under foreign (NATO) occupation moreover.
International law does not promote nor support unilateral secessions. If a region or autonomous republic wants to secede it should only do so in accordance to the host country laws. E.g. the Quebec and Scotland referendums were made in accordance to the host countries of Canada and UK.
But then we created that dangerous case where now every region can secede from their host one unilaterally, even if it's occupied by foreign forces. And in practice, the "legality" of it, really depends on international recognition and the undergoing narratives.
International laws have always been pleasantries, as there's no real ways to enforce them, but there were powerful incentives for everybody to play by the rules.
- baxtr 10mo agoThank you. This is a very insightful answer to my snarky cynic comment. And you’re right, of course. We dug our own grave.
- oytis 10mo agoIt's hardly a precedent, probably half of the countries worldwide have been formed by seceding from some other country against its will. U.S. would be in this half.
- epolanski 10mo agoIt's the first country to do so under foreign military presence since UN inception. The only precedents of unilateral secession were Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia and Bangladesh from Pakistan but none did so under foreign military presence.
- Citizen_Lame 10mo ago[flagged]
- epolanski 10mo agoAvoid witch hunting, it adds nothing to discussions and it's against the rules of this board.
- Citizen_Lame 10mo agoA yes, those pesky facts.
- epolanski 10mo agoYou didn't bring any fact, only an accusation. I stated a fact, Kosovo seceded unilaterally under foreign forces occupation and created a dangerous precedent.
- Zigurd 10mo agoBut for some face-saving gestures, a lot of colonies of the Soviet empire left unilaterally.
- oytis 10mo agoIreland: am I joke to you?
- epolanski 10mo ago1. Soviet countries were already countries. They left a supra national entity. 2. Not sure how it relates to my comment. Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Latvia, etc, were not under military occupation by a foreign force.
- Zigurd 10mo agoKazakhstan, Ukraine, Latvia, etc, were not under military occupation by a foreign force. You haven't been to the Museum of the Occupation in Riga, have you?
- oytis 10mo agoAll of the Arab countries have basically seceded from Ottoman empire under an occupation of this or that European country. "Unilaterally" is not easy to define. Sometimes there is a long and violent struggle for independence and the metropole eventually gives in and signs some paper, sometimes it is stubborn and doesn't sign anything - the difference is not that important in my opinion.
- epolanski 10mo agoPre UN.