7 ms·

This is actually exactly how I've recently heard the Peace of Westphalia[0] described (which ended the Thirty Years War in Germany): it established the idea tha

by pluma 11y ago

This is actually exactly how I've recently heard the Peace of Westphalia[0] described (which ended the Thirty Years War in Germany): it established the idea that nations are independent "wholes" with their own laws, religion and politics, and that that's okay. The ideas encoded in the agreement are basically the reason we think of events like the Crimean secession[1] as an unconstitutional Russian annexation regardless of whether it happened by a public vote or not: even if there was a referendum and even if that referendum was formally valid and the outcome was in favour of the secession, the constitution of the Ukraine forbids the secession and therefore renders the referendum invalid by definition. It's also important to note that these ideas of statehood popped up in the (at the time) Christian world and therefore strongly shaped the face of modern Christianity and the separation of state and church in the West (which even in its worst cases still works better today than it did before the Enlightenment). This didn't happen in the Islamic world, at least not in the same way (though there are examples for church-state separation as in post-WW1 Turkey). I think this provides some insights into why that part of the world's politics is so poorly understood by Westerners (e.g. consider the tribal politics in Afghanistan or the Sunni-Shia conflicts all over the map). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia [1]: Whether it was an annexation or secession and whether it was formally valid or not is a separate debate. There is a lot of evidence indicating that it was, to say the least, influenced by Russia, which would have made its validity doubtful even if it wasn't unconstitutional.

derefr 11y ago
> even if there was a referendum and even if that referendum was formally valid and the outcome was in favour of the secession, the constitution of the Ukraine forbids the secession and therefore renders the referendum invalid by definition. That's kind of weird. What does it take to peacefully annihilate/void a constitution, then? I would assume that if every citizen revokes their citizenship to the original country, then the original country ceases to exist, no? (Or rather, retains no more sovereignty than a "country" like Sealand.)
- voidlogic 11y ago
  >What does it take to peacefully annihilate/void a constitution Most constitutions specify processes for amending them, which often could be used to dismantle them.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Most constitutions can be amended, but unless there are people with guns ready to back them up they are, to quote George Bush, "just a piece of paper".
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Either a constitution provides some mechanism to amend/replace itself or politically devolve, or the entire populace has to be very lucky and agreeable at the same time, I suppose.
- pluma 11y ago
  Constitutions work like anything else in politics: if nobody acknowledges their validity, they might as well not exist. In other words, if nobody opposes voiding the constitution, it can be voided regardless of what it claims. Of course most countries with such provisions have some systems in place to prevent this from happening (e.g. by having a supreme court that is legally bound to act in the spirit of the constitution). Countries ceasing to exist is actually an interesting topic. Germany, for example, is generally regarded to have been founded in its current form after WW2 when it received its Grundgesetz (literally "foundational law") that effectively became its constitution. The Federal Republic is not the same government as the Third Reich. However a few decades later the Democratic Republic (East Germany) dissolved and was absorbed by the Federal Republic. So cities in East Germany were formerly German under the Third Reich, then German in the Democratic Republic and now German in the Federal Republic. Additionally the Third Reich is called "the Third" because there were two other empires preceding it: the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) and the German Empire (1871-1918). So if we consider the Federal Republic as a successor to all three of these, does that mean Germany only existed since the foundation of the German Empire in 1871? Well, no. Germany as the political entity we would today recognize as Germany indeed began in 1871, but it was preceded (with a few years of chaos in between) by the looser German Confederation (1815-1866) which in turn was preceded by the much larger Holy Roman Empire (962-1806). If you try to dig any deeper than that you end up with various kingdoms incorporating separate parts of what later became Germany and a lot of parts we wouldn't consider German, so at that point the term "Germany" loses its meaning. But in all that basically means there are three separate entities we could think of as "Germany": 1. The Federal Republic of Germany, which is an internationally recognized country today. 2. The internationally recognized nation of Germany, which has existed since the foundation of the German Empire and which since the reunification is represented solely by the Federal Republic. 3. The socio-cultural entity we call Germany, which dates back to the Holy Roman Empire (and, in parts, even beyond). Also consider the role of Austria during WW2: because Austria had been annexed by Germany ("voluntary" or not) it effectively ceased to exist as a separate entity. However Austrians would very much disagree if you said that Austria as an entity ceased to exist as well (and later popped into existence again). It gets even more complicated if you consider all the various parts that were at various times part of "Germany" (in any of its forms) or not. At the end of the day, a country is whatever other countries agree to be a county and the cultural, geographic and political definitions tend to not always line up.
jotm 11y ago
Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to self-govern or join the Russian federation, it's their choice...
- ddlatham 11y ago
  If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    Did the states vote on the issue? Either way I cannot reconcile saying no to them not being allowed to secede with Wilsons 14 points (and, on a personal point, I very much enjoyed my childhood in Southern Jutland, which was one of the areas that voted to join another country after WWI) or even the American revolution. I also can't argue against going to war with them to end slavery but that shouldn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to join the union afterwards.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      To my knowledge, states did not hold plebicites. However, their legislatures did vote on the issue. You can read the ordinances of secession passed by the legislatures here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp Note that what is shown are excerpts. click the links to view the full measures passed. Note the ones that include the defense of the institution of slavery as their primary motivation.
    - pnut 11y ago
      Looks like quite soon after the civil war ended, the US Supreme Court ruled that secession was not allowable per the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
notahacker 11y ago
To be honest, the unwillingness to recognise Crimean secession had a lot more to do with geopolitics than Westphalian constitutionalism. The idea of constitutions guaranteeing the indivisibility of nations faced a lot of challenge in liberal political thought, especially over the past century. It's why the West generally does recognise the secession of Kosovo but doesn't recognise the secession of Abkhazia, and Russia adopts the reverse position. Not to mention the frankly silly policies adopted by different countries on Beijing/Taipei sovereignty...

by pluma 11y ago

derefr 11y ago

> even if there was a referendum and even if that referendum was formally valid and the outcome was in favour of the secession, the constitution of the Ukraine forbids the secession and therefore renders the referendum invalid by definition. That's kind of weird. What does it take to peacefully annihilate/void a constitution, then? I would assume that if every citizen revokes their citizenship to the original country, then the original country ceases to exist, no? (Or rather, retains no more sovereignty than a "country" like Sealand.)

voidlogic 11y ago
>What does it take to peacefully annihilate/void a constitution Most constitutions specify processes for amending them, which often could be used to dismantle them.
tomjen3 11y ago
Most constitutions can be amended, but unless there are people with guns ready to back them up they are, to quote George Bush, "just a piece of paper".
wavefunction 11y ago
Either a constitution provides some mechanism to amend/replace itself or politically devolve, or the entire populace has to be very lucky and agreeable at the same time, I suppose.
pluma 11y ago
Constitutions work like anything else in politics: if nobody acknowledges their validity, they might as well not exist. In other words, if nobody opposes voiding the constitution, it can be voided regardless of what it claims. Of course most countries with such provisions have some systems in place to prevent this from happening (e.g. by having a supreme court that is legally bound to act in the spirit of the constitution). Countries ceasing to exist is actually an interesting topic. Germany, for example, is generally regarded to have been founded in its current form after WW2 when it received its Grundgesetz (literally "foundational law") that effectively became its constitution. The Federal Republic is not the same government as the Third Reich. However a few decades later the Democratic Republic (East Germany) dissolved and was absorbed by the Federal Republic. So cities in East Germany were formerly German under the Third Reich, then German in the Democratic Republic and now German in the Federal Republic. Additionally the Third Reich is called "the Third" because there were two other empires preceding it: the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) and the German Empire (1871-1918). So if we consider the Federal Republic as a successor to all three of these, does that mean Germany only existed since the foundation of the German Empire in 1871? Well, no. Germany as the political entity we would today recognize as Germany indeed began in 1871, but it was preceded (with a few years of chaos in between) by the looser German Confederation (1815-1866) which in turn was preceded by the much larger Holy Roman Empire (962-1806). If you try to dig any deeper than that you end up with various kingdoms incorporating separate parts of what later became Germany and a lot of parts we wouldn't consider German, so at that point the term "Germany" loses its meaning. But in all that basically means there are three separate entities we could think of as "Germany": 1. The Federal Republic of Germany, which is an internationally recognized country today. 2. The internationally recognized nation of Germany, which has existed since the foundation of the German Empire and which since the reunification is represented solely by the Federal Republic. 3. The socio-cultural entity we call Germany, which dates back to the Holy Roman Empire (and, in parts, even beyond). Also consider the role of Austria during WW2: because Austria had been annexed by Germany ("voluntary" or not) it effectively ceased to exist as a separate entity. However Austrians would very much disagree if you said that Austria as an entity ceased to exist as well (and later popped into existence again). It gets even more complicated if you consider all the various parts that were at various times part of "Germany" (in any of its forms) or not. At the end of the day, a country is whatever other countries agree to be a county and the cultural, geographic and political definitions tend to not always line up.

jotm 11y ago

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to self-govern or join the Russian federation, it's their choice...

ddlatham 11y ago
If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Did the states vote on the issue? Either way I cannot reconcile saying no to them not being allowed to secede with Wilsons 14 points (and, on a personal point, I very much enjoyed my childhood in Southern Jutland, which was one of the areas that voted to join another country after WWI) or even the American revolution. I also can't argue against going to war with them to end slavery but that shouldn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to join the union afterwards.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    To my knowledge, states did not hold plebicites. However, their legislatures did vote on the issue. You can read the ordinances of secession passed by the legislatures here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp Note that what is shown are excerpts. click the links to view the full measures passed. Note the ones that include the defense of the institution of slavery as their primary motivation.
  - pnut 11y ago
    Looks like quite soon after the civil war ended, the US Supreme Court ruled that secession was not allowable per the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

notahacker 11y ago

To be honest, the unwillingness to recognise Crimean secession had a lot more to do with geopolitics than Westphalian constitutionalism. The idea of constitutions guaranteeing the indivisibility of nations faced a lot of challenge in liberal political thought, especially over the past century. It's why the West generally does recognise the secession of Kosovo but doesn't recognise the secession of Abkhazia, and Russia adopts the reverse position. Not to mention the frankly silly policies adopted by different countries on Beijing/Taipei sovereignty...