A plea for ruthlessness
Lars Erik, Duke of Trekroner - Comity
Subject: [comity] A plea for ruthlessness
Dear Delegates
I have obtained the book by Duursna previously mentioned about
micro-states. With the establishment of UN, its charter emphasised a
"people's" right to self determination, paradoxically simultaneously
sacrosanct any existing territory of current states.
Self-determination was
a principle invented to rationalise the dismantlement of colonial
empires
and creation of new states from former colonies. The principle
backfired in
perfectly logical secession attempts by huge minorities within
existing
(even recently formed) states that were severely condemned - that is
unless, of course, if the secession was ultimately successful (The
Republic
of China being a notorious exception from this rule).
Over about 100 pages the application of these two usually conflicting
principles are invoked with different emphasis to explain, why the UN
recognise the states they do. At the end of the day, the legal system
seems
unconvincing. UN recognise if a state is there, i.e. if statehood is
so
obvious that it's illogical to deny it. That would mean:
- a de facto control over a territory and a population
- - this includes a true independence and e.g. not overtly submissive
relations to another state
- a working apparatus to exert this control (i.e. government)
No requirements to size have previously been formulated or exerted.
The
Vatican State is 0,4 square kilometres, and the population of Pitcairn
is
52 souls! (Technically Pitcairn is a Non-Self-Governing-Territory,
still
meaning that it has a birthright to become a state as far as UN is
concerned).
As for "realness" of statehood, a previously popular theory in
international law called the constitutive (meaning a state exist if
it's
recognised as such) is now largely abandoned in favour of the
declaratory
(meaning a state exist, if it declares to be so, and any dissenting
voice
is effectively silenced). Though not mutually exclusive, the latter in
a
more cynical way takes gritty reality into account. The abandonment of
recognition of the Republic of China in favour of the people currently
controlling the mainland reflect that eventually the mainland regime
effectively squashed the dissenting voices. As of this day states
recognising the Republic of China (i.e. Macedonia) are bullied
severely by
the mainland regime. This policy might seem unjust, but it defines the
realities of international law. International law is by nature unable
to
enforce itself, hence it adapts to reality, and the current
controllers of
mainland China defines this reality.
Similarly, should the micronational community ever evolve out of its
current mess of small-time enterprises, it would need to invoke
similar
ruthlessness in defining legal realities, since the impotence of
exerting
intermicronational law is even more overt than in international law.
In particular, following the example of the mainland China regime,
less
laxity is necessary when recognising each other. Conditions for
recognition
should be not in turn unilaterally to recognise third parties that are
unpalatable to ones peers. Maintaining extensive links lists to each
and
every enterprise out there or referring to such lists are contrary to
the
interests of a working intermicronational community.
Why all this bullying and interference with sovereign
self-determination (a
term mainland China often invoke themselves), you may ask?
Simply because it constitutes all the consequence any common rules
ever
made will have. Ostracism is and remains the only weapon for
communities
unable to interact physically on a regular basis. Ostracism it is then
and
in, consequence should be total and not open to individual laxity. As
of
now, recognition or lack thereof is of little consequence to any
micronational endeavour. Membership of e.g. LOSS is not a requirement
for
being taken seriously as a micronation the way membership of UN is
rather
definitory for a macronational state today (only two current
recognised
states are non- UN members). This might go a long way to explain, why
micronationalism today is so differently defined, that everybody
involved
seems to have run out of things to say to each other (MicroWorld -
dead,
LOSS - gasping its last stokes of breath).
This concludes my plea for more nastiness in foreign micronational
policy.
With friendly regards
Lars Erik, Duke of Trekroner
Sovereign Principality of Corvinia
trek...@corvinia.org
www.corvinia.org
ICQ: 22 62 76 01
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
This message has been forwarded
from the mailing list for the
Comity of Peoples.
HM King Friedrich Albrecht I - Comity
>I have obtained the book by Duursna previously mentioned about
>micro-states. With the establishment of UN, its charter emphasised a
>"people's" right to self determination, paradoxically simultaneously
>sacrosanct any existing territory of current states.
>Self-determination was a principle invented to rationalise the
>dismantlement of colonial empires and creation of new states from
>former colonies.
Therefore, following the "letter of the law" contained within the UN
Charter, signatory nations would be legally obligated to grant
recognition to these "separatist states."
>The principle backfired in perfectly logical secession attempts by
>huge minorities within existing (even recently formed) states that
>were severely condemned - that is unless, of course, if the secession
>was ultimately successful (The Republic of China being a notorious
>exception from this rule).
Nevertheless, if the legalese of the Charter has not been altered, it
remains binding.
>Over about 100 pages the application of these two usually conflicting
>principles are invoked with different emphasis to explain, why the UN
>recognise the states they do. At the end of the day, the legal system
>seems unconvincing. UN recognise if a state is there, i.e. if
>statehood is so obvious that it's illogical to deny it. That would
>mean:
>- a de facto control over a territory and a population - - this
>includes a true independence and e.g. not overtly submissive
>relations to another state.
Under this premise, a Micronation can maintain sovereignty and
independence so long as it does not present a threat to the
Macronation it has withdrawn from, so long as it does not present a
problem to the Macronation.
>- a working apparatus to exert this control (i.e. government)
Which most of the stable Micronations possess.
>No requirements to size have previously been formulated or exerted.
>The Vatican State is 0,4 square kilometres, and the population of
>Pitcairn is 52 souls! (Technically Pitcairn is a
>Non-Self-Governing-Territory, still meaning that it has a birthright
>to become a state as far as UN is concerned).
Ah, yet another area where size doesn't matter! ;-)
>As for "realness" of statehood, previously popular theory in
>international law called the constitutive (meaning a state exist if
>it's recognised as such) is now largely abandoned in favour of the
>declaratory (meaning a state exist, if it declares to be so, and any
>dissenting voice is effectively silenced). Though not mutually
>exclusive, the latter in a more cynical way takes gritty reality into
>account. The abandonment of recognition of the Republic of China in
>favour of the people currently controlling the mainland reflect that
>eventually the mainland regime effectively squashed the dissenting
>voices. As of this day states recognising the Republic of China (i.e.
>Macedonia) are bullied severely by the mainland regime. This policy
>might seem unjust, but it defines the realities of international law.
>International law is by nature unable to enforce itself, hence it
>adapts to reality, and the current controllers of mainland China
>defines this reality.
Only if the State granting the recognition allows itself to be
bullied. No Macronation controls the foreign policy of another in its
basic form (generally speaking). Political pressure can naturally be
brought to bear; however, whether or not the Macronation bows to that
pressure is a matter for that particular Macronation to decide.
>Similarly, should the micronational community ever evolve out of its
>current mess of small-time enterprises, it would need to invoke
>similar ruthlessness in defining legal realities, since the impotence
>of exerting intermicronational law is even more overt than in
>international law.
I disagree here. A Micronation is free to define its own legal
realities just like any Macronation. Just as with a Macronation, what
goes on within the Micronation's boundries or spheres of influence,
are its own business.
>In particular, following the example of the mainland China regime,
>less laxity is necessary when recognising each other. Conditions for
>recognition should be not in turn unilaterally to recognise third
>parties that are unpalatable to ones peers. Maintaining extensive
>links lists to each and every enterprise out there or referring to
>such lists are contrary to the interests of a working
>intermicronational community.
Agreed. Recognition, in an of itself, is no benchmark that a
Micronation exists. Falkenberg's policy is that it could care less if
its sovereignty and independence is recognized by any one, Maco- or
Micronationally. It exists!
>Why all this bullying and interference with sovereign
>self-determination (a term mainland China often invoke
>themselves), you may ask?
>Simply because it constitutes all the consequence any common rules
>ever made will have. Ostracism is and remains the only weapon for
>communities unable to interact physically on a regular basis.
>Ostracism it is then and in, consequence should be total and not open
>to individual laxity. As of now, recognition or lack thereof is of
>little consequence to any micronational endeavour. Membership of e.g.
>LOSS is not a requirement for being taken seriously as a micronation
>the way membership of UN is rather definitory for a macronational
>state today (only two current recognised states are non- UN members).
>This might go a long way to explain, why micronationalism today is so
>differently defined, that everybody involved seems to have run out of
>things to say to each other (MicroWorld - dead, LOSS - gasping its
>last stokes of breath).
Quite so. Ostracism was most effectively used as a political weapon
by Corvinia and Falkenberg during its "problem" with Reunion, or
rather with its then Imperial Chancellor. It was a rare diplomatic
victory in Micronational affairs.
>This concludes my plea for more nastiness in foreign micronational policy.
I would argue that a Micronation's existence does not depend on
recognition by Macronations. The latter is not about to grant such
revognition because it lends credibility and legitimacy to the former.
Falkenberg could dispatch a document declaring its sovereignty and
independence to the US State Department and nothing would come of it,
other than having the document placed in a file marked "Ephemeral
States." Macronations only become involved in separatist movements
when the "laws of theland" have been violated or there is concerns for
public safety. The only possible exceptions to this rule would be
Sealand, Hutt River and Segorvia, which possess unique circumstances.
Fritz
HG Lars Erik, Duke of Trekroner - Comity
Subject: [comity] Re: A plea for ruthlessness
At 17:00 15-05-99 -0700, HM King Friedrich Albrecht I
wrote:
>On Thursday, 13 May 1999, Trekoner wrote:
Now, not AGAIN :-o
>Only if the State granting the recognition allows itself to be bullied. No
>Macronation controls the foreign policy of another in its basic form
>(generally speaking). Political pressure can naturally be brought to bear;
>however, whether or not the Macronation bows to that pressure is a matter
>for that particular Macronation to decide.
Being in a postion to decide, that is. When a UN member with vetoing
rights gets a grudge on you (being a very small and new state), I'd
believe you paid attention.
>>Similarly, should the micronational community ever evolve out of its
>current mess of small-time enterprises, it would need to invoke similar
>ruthlessness in defining legal realities, since the impotence of exerting
>intermicronational law is even more overt than in international law.
>
>I disagree here. A Micronation is free to define its own legal realities
>just like any Macronation. Just as with a Macronation, what goes on within
>the Micronation's boundries or spheres of influence, are its own business.
I was actually referring to defining the realities of international
law. The Republic of China is officially non-existant, because the
mainland regime defines the legal realities in this particular
respect. They don't, of course, define the Republic's internal
legislation.
With friendly regards
Lars Erik, Duke of Trekroner
Sovereign Principality of Corvinia
trek...@corvinia.org
www.corvinia.org
ICQ: 22 62 76 01
Non plaudite. Modo pecuniam jacite.
HG Lars Erik, Duke of Trekroner - Comity
>Being in a position to decide, that is. When a UN member with vetoing
>rights gets a grudge on you (being a very small and new state), I'd believe
>you paid attention.
True enough; however, I would argue that UN membership is not
essential to Statehood. It all depends on what the Macro/Micronation
desires as part of its existence/being.
>I was actually referring to defining the realities of international law.
>The Republic of China is officially non-existant, because the mainland
>regime defines the legal realities in this particular respect. They don't,
>of course, define the Republic's internal legislation.
Yet Taiwan continues to exist and, from all economic indications,
prosper. And what of the quasi-independent Homelands within the
national borders of South Africa? South Africa recognizes them (they
should, they made provisions for their existence), yet no one else
that I know of does.
Kindest regards,
/s/Fritz
Friedrich Albrecht I
King of Falkenberg
Defensor Regnum
Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S
I am not familiar with this incident, could you enlighten me on it?
> >This concludes my plea for more nastiness in foreign micronational policy.
>
> I would argue that a Micronation's existence does not depend on
> recognition by Macronations. The latter is not about to grant such
> revognition because it lends credibility and legitimacy to the former.
> Falkenberg could dispatch a document declaring its sovereignty and
> independence to the US State Department and nothing would come of it,
> other than having the document placed in a file marked "Ephemeral
> States." Macronations only become involved in separatist movements
> when the "laws of theland" have been violated or there is concerns for
> public safety. The only possible exceptions to this rule would be
> Sealand, Hutt River and Segorvia, which possess unique circumstances.
How is Hutt river any closer to legit tan any other micronation in the
comity or LOSS?
What unique circumstances does it possess?
Comity Forwarding Service
>> by Corvinia and Falkenberg during its "problem" with Reunion, or
>> rather with its then Imperial Chancellor. It was a rare diplomatic
>> victory in Micronational affairs.
>
>I am not familiar with this incident, could you enlighten me on it?
>> I would argue that a Micronation's existence does not depend on
>> recognition by Macronations. The latter is not about to grant such
>> revognition because it lends credibility and legitimacy to the former.
>> Falkenberg could dispatch a document declaring its sovereignty and
>> independence to the US State Department and nothing would come of it,
>> other than having the document placed in a file marked "Ephemeral
>> States." Macronations only become involved in separatist movements
>> when the "laws of theland" have been violated or there is concerns for
>> public safety. The only possible exceptions to this rule would be
>> Sealand, Hutt River and Segorvia, which possess unique circumstances.
>
>How is Hutt river any closer to legit tan any other micronation in the
>comity or LOSS?
>What unique circumstances does it possess?
Please note, that the mailing list currently doesn't mirror
alt.politics.micronations bidirectionally. Follow-ups should be cc'ed
to the original sender by e-mail otherwise the post might be
overlooked. Addresses will be included in the msg's in the future.
The present forwarding is performed manually, which might allow for
occasional glitches like 373f0c4...@news.uni2.dk that actually
emerged from the Falkenberger delegate, not the stated sender.
The address of the Falkenberger delegate is kingsc...@hotmail.com
Sincerly
lars...@corvinia.org
(manually-forwarder until the so-called information age comes up with
a workable technical solution).