Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Cor Azer]

No it doesn't. If my army can maintain my borders and I can produce what I need, your recognition is irrelevant.

If you don't want to be constantly at war with your neighbors, then yes, outside recognition is very relevant.

Such a war ends in one of two situations:
1. Your opponents defeat you, which means you never established yourself as a state
2. Your opponents stop attacking (be it through you defeating them, signing a treaty, or them simply lacking the will to continue), which means they explicitly or implicitly acknowledge your control over your territory, and thus, establishing yourself as a state

You do realize that even states that aren't recognized trade, right?

Of course, I do. Hence why I wrote:

The need for trade or lack thereof is not in and of itself a criteria for statehood; it's just one way in determining if other states view you as a state.

Do you understand what you're reading?

Countries like to think of themselves as the center of everything. "If I don't recognize you, you must not be legitimate." I just doesn't work that way in reality.

There is a finite amount of land in the world, and all (?) of it has been claimed (or at least, accounted for - ie: Antarctica). For a new state to rise up, it must take over land from someone else (barring somehow creating artificial islands in international waters). There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.

People like to think of themselves as divorced from larger issues. "If it doesn't directly impact me, it must not be important." It just doesn't work that way in reality.

Right, and of ISIS wins, it's right and a state regardless of what everyone else thinks. If it loses, it isn't. The war will decide.

Exactly. Daesh has not yet established themselves as a state.

International law doesn't apply to any country that doesn't want it to and can hold itself sovereign against aggressors.

While true, this is a non sequitur.

 

[Maxperson]

If you don't want to be constantly at war with your neighbors, then yes, outside recognition is very relevant.

Such a war ends in one of two situations:
1. Your opponents defeat you, which means you never established yourself as a state
2. Your opponents stop attacking (be it through you defeating them, signing a treaty, or them simply lacking the will to continue), which means they explicitly or implicitly acknowledge your control over your territory, and thus, establishing yourself as a state

Great. That I can agree with. Either way, you are a state until A) they beat you, or B) you beat them or they stop and they acknowledge you. Your statehood is not dependent on recognition.

There is a finite amount of land in the world, and all (?) of it has been claimed (or at least, accounted for - ie: Antarctica). For a new state to rise up, it must take over land from someone else (barring somehow creating artificial islands in international waters). There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.

Conquest has been an accepted method of gaining territory or statehood for thousands of years. The whole idea of legitimacy coming from other countries flies directly in the face of what sovereign means. You can't possibly be sovereign if others determine if you are a state or not. Statehood recognition is based on international law. Law that doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to. You can impose trade embargoes or complain a lot when a state refuses to follow international law, but short of invasion and conquest, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from being a state or force them to follow international law.

Exactly. Daesh has not yet established themselves as a state.

Yes, ISIS has. They just haven't proven themselves capable of keeping it yet. It's being contested and unless the U.S. and its allies go in on the ground, they will win.

I don't want us to go in on the ground, but there's no other way to beat them.

While true, this is a non sequitur.

Not at all. Your whole argument is based on international law. It's international law that requires states to have recognition in order to be states. Since you agree with me that international law doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to, then the requirement that a state be recognized also does not apply to any country that does not want it to.

 

[Umbran]

There must be a consideration of legitimacy when dealing with who owns a given territory so that there isn't constant war over every piece of land or resource on it.

Moreover, when your potential state's long-term existence is dependent on selling those resources to others, legitimacy becomes exceptionally important.

 

[Maxperson]

Moreover, when your potential state's long-term existence is dependent on selling those resources to others, legitimacy becomes exceptionally important.

Only kinda sorta. Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction. There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.

 

[Cor Azer]

Great. That I can agree with. Either way, you are a state until A) they beat you, or B) you beat them or they stop and they acknowledge you. Your statehood is not dependent on recognition.

Yeah... no. You don't get to assert something as true and challenge others to prove you wrong. You have to prove the assertion is true.

Conquest has been an accepted method of gaining territory or statehood for thousands of years. The whole idea of legitimacy coming from other countries flies directly in the face of what sovereign means. You can't possibly be sovereign if others determine if you are a state or not. Statehood recognition is based on international law. Law that doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to. You can impose trade embargoes or complain a lot when a state refuses to follow international law, but short of invasion and conquest, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from being a state or force them to follow international law.

I never said conquest wasn't an accepted method to gain or expand a state. But the conquest isn't considered complete until other states acknowledge that you're now the legitimate authority in that territory and thus acknowledge you as a state.

Being sovereign is completely dependent on whether or not others determine if you're a state or not. Being sovereign all but literally means "everyone agrees that I'm the one in charge in this territory"; that everyone means that it requires the explicit (via treaty or victory) or implicit (via a lack of will to challenge it) acknowledgement by other states.

Yes, ISIS has. They just haven't proven themselves capable of keeping it yet. It's being contested and unless the U.S. and its allies go in on the ground, they will win.

Daesh needs to be capable of keeping their territory before they can be considered a state. For now, they're just an occupying force.

I don't want us to go in on the ground, but there's no other way to beat them.

This, I'm afraid, is very likely true, barring any far worse alternatives.

Not at all. Your whole argument is based on international law. It's international law that requires states to have recognition in order to be states. Since you agree with me that international law doesn't apply to any country that does not want it to, then the requirement that a state be recognized also does not apply to any country that does not want it to.

It's a non sequitur because if international law doesn't apply, then the label of being a state is meaningless. Being a state requires there to be one government in control of a group of people and/or territory, but in the case of Daesh-occupied parts of Syria and Iraq, there are multiple governments asserting control (albeit, Daesh's occupation is making it difficult for those other governments of carrying out that control).

 

[Cor Azer]

Only kinda sorta. Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction. There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.

You seem to be conflating the idea that people can object to how a state is run (Iran, North Korea) with whether or not it is a legitimate state to begin with.

 

[Ryujin]

The modern concept of what constitutes a Sovereign Nation can be traced back to the "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States" (1933).

ARTICLE 1

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.

 

[Umbran]

Only kinda sorta. Iran and North Korea still managed to sell goods through embargoes and sanction. There are many countries that will yell and scream about you not being a legitimate state, then go under the table and trade with you in secret anyway.

They is beyond embargo and sanction. This is having no legal relations whatsoever.

And it isn't like you can move millions of barrels of oil around secretly. "Sneak, sneak, sneak with my massive oil tanker!" Not so much.

 

[Kramodlog]

The modern concept of what constitutes a Sovereign Nation can be traced back to the "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States" (1933).

ARTICLE 1

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.

But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

 

[Ryujin]

But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

So does "The Pirate Bay."