4 ms·

This issue came up a few times before in discussion on Hacker News. A little known fact is that "facts on the ground," even entries in reference books or labeli

This issue came up a few times before in discussion on Hacker News. A little known fact is that "facts on the ground," even entries in reference books or labeling on maps, can be taken in international law to indicate acquiescence to territorial claims by other countries (or to indicate assertion of hostile claims by the country in which the reference books or maps are published). This is why some countries with extensive programs of censorship censor maps, dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites, and whatever else is in reach of the government censorship program to make sure that private publications fall in line with the government's official position on territorial claims. (I have in my home office English-language and Chinese-language reference books published in Taiwan during the period of the military dictatorship there, which censor references to the existence of the independent country of Mongolia and assert province names for the mainland region of China that have been obsolete since 1949. Taiwan has since considerably loosened up on this kind of censorship after democratizing, but territorial claims vis a vis China are still a very sensitive issue.) In countries without official programs of widespread censorship, government-published maps of other countries will still say things like "Boundary representations are not authoritative" and private publishers of maps in free countries will have notes near disputed boundary lines like "actual line of control; boundary in dispute" and so on. This is a pretty big deal in international law, so it is a somewhat big deal that Google, a business corporation organized under United States law, has changed its indication of the status of Palestine, even if only for the Google domain registered for the .ps top-level domain. The United States government may feel the need to make a formal statement to the effect that this action is the action of a private business corporation and does not represent an official view of the United States government.

will_brown 14y ago
Under International Law it is the Montevideo Convention, under which the four criteria for statehood are defined: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention) However, I like your phrase "facts on the ground" and think that is more on the practical side of what I might label "standing in the International Community" which is the most realistic aspect of designation of statehood.
- jpatokal 14y ago
  Reality is not as straightforward as the Convention, which is pretty loose anyway (who defines that territory, government and capacity?). There are in fact two very different schools of thought on what creates statehood: http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/declarat...
  - will_brown 14y ago
    Grant argues that current projects for the elaboration of >"Montevideo Plus" criteria for statehood are -- while legitimately attempting to infuse statehood with considerations that better reflect changing normative standards Basically it is the convention plus the state be democratic - but this has already proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas. So to my original reply I stand firm that the convention applies but more practically it is "standing in the international community" that is the norm of current international law (as of yet to be codified) and you can be sure it is not democracy as your referenced article suggests.
    - tellarin 14y ago
      > proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas I'm not trying to condone either government, but why is this a failure? If (I'm assuming this for the argument's sake) they were really elected democratically who are we in other countries to say that's wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving merit to a (hypothetical) North Korea declarations that the US has no legitimate statehood for whatever reason?
      - smsm42 14y ago
        Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example? If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security from arbitrary prosecution by the government, orderly transition of power, general participation of the population in the political process, not inhibited by government restrictions, etc. Now if you look at what happens in Gaza with Hamas, you will find very little of that. Personal rights are not respected, government is a bunch of armed thugs ruling with iron fist and violently suppressing any dissent and any competing movement (it helps little that those are another bunch of armed thugs), and in general almost no benefit of democracy except the ability to vote for whoever is already in power is available to the citizens. If this is not a failure, what is? However, if we look into the matter even more, I'm not sure there was democratic election involved at the first place. Political fate of Gaza was decided in 2007 in violent clashes between Fatah and Hamas, and Fatah lost. It would probably have lost also if the elections were fully democratic, but what actually happened and the process that led Hamas to assume power in Gaza had almost nothing to do with democracy.
bitcartel 14y ago
Here's something few people seem to be aware of - Taiwan agrees it is part of China (aka 'One China' [1]). While we often hear about the government in Beijing claiming the island as the sovereign territory of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), we don't hear much about the claims made by the government in Taipei that the mainland is the sovereign territory of the Republic of China (ROC). Although both sides dispute who is the sole legitimate government of a single China, they both agree that territorially it includes the island of Taiwan. Meanwhile, a recent poll suggests that for people on the ground, opinion is divided.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy [2] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2003561079 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2...
- xiaoma 14y ago
  >Taiwan agrees it is part of China (aka 'One China' [1]). That is laughably wrong. I say that as someone who's spent half his adult life in Taiwan. Only a very, very slim minority of Taiwanese feel that Taiwan is "part of China". Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance. The tension is between those who want to officially (i.e. UN) recognized independence and those accept the status quo of de facto independence in the interests of avoiding a hopeless war with China. Taiwan has never been part of the the PRC. While a significant minority of Taiwanese people hope for a future democratic China, those in favor of unifying with the PRC measure at under 5%.
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    > Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance. Are you sure? Just a few days ago, the President (and leader of the KMT party) said: No matter where we are, here or abroad, we’ll by no means push for ‘Two Chinas’, ‘One Taiwan, one China’ or ‘Taiwan independence’. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to-abide-by-one-china-policy http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to...
    - maaku 14y ago
      "One China" means different things when spoken by the KMT and by PRC.

will_brown 14y ago

Under International Law it is the Montevideo Convention, under which the four criteria for statehood are defined: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention) However, I like your phrase "facts on the ground" and think that is more on the practical side of what I might label "standing in the International Community" which is the most realistic aspect of designation of statehood.

jpatokal 14y ago
Reality is not as straightforward as the Convention, which is pretty loose anyway (who defines that territory, government and capacity?). There are in fact two very different schools of thought on what creates statehood: http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php http://www.lawteacher.net/constitutional-law/essays/declarat...
- will_brown 14y ago
  Grant argues that current projects for the elaboration of >"Montevideo Plus" criteria for statehood are -- while legitimately attempting to infuse statehood with considerations that better reflect changing normative standards Basically it is the convention plus the state be democratic - but this has already proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas. So to my original reply I stand firm that the convention applies but more practically it is "standing in the international community" that is the norm of current international law (as of yet to be codified) and you can be sure it is not democracy as your referenced article suggests.
  - tellarin 14y ago
    > proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas I'm not trying to condone either government, but why is this a failure? If (I'm assuming this for the argument's sake) they were really elected democratically who are we in other countries to say that's wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving merit to a (hypothetical) North Korea declarations that the US has no legitimate statehood for whatever reason?
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example? If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security from arbitrary prosecution by the government, orderly transition of power, general participation of the population in the political process, not inhibited by government restrictions, etc. Now if you look at what happens in Gaza with Hamas, you will find very little of that. Personal rights are not respected, government is a bunch of armed thugs ruling with iron fist and violently suppressing any dissent and any competing movement (it helps little that those are another bunch of armed thugs), and in general almost no benefit of democracy except the ability to vote for whoever is already in power is available to the citizens. If this is not a failure, what is? However, if we look into the matter even more, I'm not sure there was democratic election involved at the first place. Political fate of Gaza was decided in 2007 in violent clashes between Fatah and Hamas, and Fatah lost. It would probably have lost also if the elections were fully democratic, but what actually happened and the process that led Hamas to assume power in Gaza had almost nothing to do with democracy.

bitcartel 14y ago

Here's something few people seem to be aware of - Taiwan agrees it is part of China (aka 'One China' [1]). While we often hear about the government in Beijing claiming the island as the sovereign territory of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), we don't hear much about the claims made by the government in Taipei that the mainland is the sovereign territory of the Republic of China (ROC). Although both sides dispute who is the sole legitimate government of a single China, they both agree that territorially it includes the island of Taiwan. Meanwhile, a recent poll suggests that for people on the ground, opinion is divided.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy [2] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2003561079 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/04/30/2...

xiaoma 14y ago
>Taiwan agrees it is part of China (aka 'One China' [1]). That is laughably wrong. I say that as someone who's spent half his adult life in Taiwan. Only a very, very slim minority of Taiwanese feel that Taiwan is "part of China". Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance. The tension is between those who want to officially (i.e. UN) recognized independence and those accept the status quo of de facto independence in the interests of avoiding a hopeless war with China. Taiwan has never been part of the the PRC. While a significant minority of Taiwanese people hope for a future democratic China, those in favor of unifying with the PRC measure at under 5%.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  > Even the KMT (國民黨）has long given up that stance. Are you sure? Just a few days ago, the President (and leader of the KMT party) said: No matter where we are, here or abroad, we’ll by no means push for ‘Two Chinas’, ‘One Taiwan, one China’ or ‘Taiwan independence’. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to-abide-by-one-china-policy http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/399347/taiwan-leader-pledges-to...
  - maaku 14y ago
    "One China" means different things when spoken by the KMT and by PRC.