several great observations & questions there
i would say the right of secession is as inherent & universal as the right of union
& that doesnt mean people who assert these rights dont have to be very careful about it
indeed we all have to be very careful & deliberate & adhoc about everything political
for there are all sorts of pitfalls landmines snags applecarts resistances etc at every turn
& yes
some fragmentation of states & perhaps of many states
is a most probable outcome
but that is happening anyway
& recombination of some fragments is a very probable secondary outcome
in fact many secessions would likely be with a view to recombination rather than isolation or atomization
& the size of the seceding unit is naturally limited by many factors anyway
& all things being equal
the
majority in each locality would tend to rule anyway
so it
is not as if gradually subordinating territorial integrity to the
greater integrity of self determination really presents any new
practical challenges
indeed it appears
self determination already tends to happen naturally in every way everywhere except when disallowed
& no surprise really to find it is the underlying way of the world
so perhaps it is just a matter of relaxing & letting it happen
--- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FW: aha very clever
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 7:27 PM
Message
The UN
was behind Somalia but not behind augmented Somalia. What happened was
that during the war the Italians conquered British Somaliland briefly, but then
the British took it back and conquered Italian Somaliland. The British
held the Italian part until 1949 or so, when it was returned to the Italians (!)
under UN trusteeship. When that trusteeship terminated in 1960 and the
country became Somalia under UN auspices, the British part, independent for a
few days only, joined Somalia after a referendum. So the marriage of the
two states was not UN-sponsored. But as the whole thing took place within
a few days, everyone (Italians, Brits, UN, local populations) must have known
what was going to happen, and agreed to it. I think I have that
right.
But you put
your finger on the real problem. People should be allowed to
secede, but if everyone has the right to secede, then (1) states are
atomized, and (2) secession is bound to be forcibly resisted. How
large a local majority should you have to be in order to secede?
Could I secede my house from the United States? How about my local
neighborhood? Or San Francisco (it has been suggested more than
once)? How about all of California? We in the USA had a very
unpleasant war about that question once upon a time.
But when the
state from which a local majority wishes to secede is a fiction, and secession
is fait accompli, as in Somaliland, then it seems foolish and harmful
of the international community to regard the fictional state as real and the
real state as fictional. Still the question presents complexities.
Recognizing Somaliland would harm no one. But recognizing Kurdistan in the
north of Iraq, despite the equities of doing so, could set off numerous
local wars. Examples could be multiplied. This is why is seems
best to approach these issues on an ad hoc basis, rather than erect a
general principle that any local majority can secede at will, attractive though
that principle seems in the abstract. But it should be allowed perhaps
more than it is now.
A
shipping protectorate in Somalia is only necessary because of anarchy
there. A protectorate like that would be better than what we have
now. If the Islamic Courts regime had been allowed to survive in
Somalia, pirates might not now infest the place and make the Suez Canal
close to unusable. I find it really hard to understand why the navies of
the world feel they cannot intervene forcefully and directly to suppress piracy,
as used to be done routinely back to the days of
Pompey.
David
Phillips
People's Republic of San
Francisco
-----Original Message-----
From:
International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008
3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha
very clever
well i didnt realize the united nations was behind the
marriage of somaliland to somalia
could you perhaps be thinking
of the unga arranged marriage of eritrea to ethiopia instead
not
that that one was any better
nor much different really in its
outcome
but anyway
it shouldnt matter who mismatched or
mismarried you
if all you want is a divorce or annulment
&
it may already be too late now for any more international
protectorate over somalia
indeed the 17year protectorate led by
the usa & african union & ethiopia
such as it was in all its
fits & starts
appears to be pulling up stakes one last time as we
speak
soon to be replaced again it seems by the local
resurgence
which at least is bound to check the pirates by islamic
law as before
some fresh
takes
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/12/floundering-somali-govt-nears-collapse/
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/africa/-/1066/501798/-/13t5j9kz/-/
http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20081211_geopolitical_diary_significance_pirates
&
how ironic that the new level of protection would be just an onshore
shipping protectorate
or an international license to hunt pirates
& or insurgents with drones commandos etc
a sort of
supersized gaza in which everyone who wishes may play the part of
israel
& i am not saying brute force is necessarily
ineffective in accomplishing its ends
tho it often is
but am only
surmising that it might not actually redound to anyones true benefit
even when it is effective
for the question was about benefit
rather than effectiveness
& we know violence is destructive
all right
but there is no evidence that it is ever directly
creative
beyond producing the holes in which new growth & new
flow might subsequently emerge & proceed
but it seems to
me
unilateral secession by a local majority should be as fundamental
a right & almost as easy an act as political
union
everywhere
& no matter how that union came to
be
one should not have to demonstrate
by dint of force or
reason
how exceptional & specially deserving one is
to simply
maintain ones sovereign divinity & divine sovereignty
the
whole notion of sovereignty began with the assertion of the divine right
of kings
but sovereignty really begins & ends with the
divinity of all people
it should be interesting to see the ibru
evolution on all this
as the april fools sovereignty symposium
approaches
--- On Sat, 12/13/08, [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: aha very
clever
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
[log in to unmask]
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008,
11:47 AM
You
are right and maybe right again.
It
is hard to reply to you with normal paragraphing.
And
indeed why try?
This is very liberating.
I
may use it in all my correspondence.
The
Somaliland case is a particularly easy one
because Somalia itself was set up by the
UN.
What the UN giveth,
the
UN can take away.
Maybe.
We
need an international protectorate over Somalia.
That would be relatively easy to proclaim
in
the Security Council
if
no one vetoed it,
but
hard to establish on the ground.
Proclaiming it would be enough,
though,
for
the UN as de jure protector
next to proclaim
Somaliland's divorce.
Maybe when the pirates snatch a Russian
ship
and
a Chinese ship
this will take shape in the Security
Council.
Or
maybe it needs a General Assembly resolution.
Do
I know these things?
What am I, a philosopher?
That's the punch line to an old
joke.
Your verse form is not as easy as it
looks.
My
lines are too short.
But
it feels great to write.
Perhaps the powers are right,
though,
to
keep this remedy
for
exceptional cases.
If
things are allowed to flow as they will
there will be a lot of people who want
things
to
flow their way
and
don't mind using
force
to
get or keep them flowing.
It
has taken centuries to get Europe
out
of that kind of jungle law,
and
Yugoslavia shows how shallowly
it
is buried.
East Timor too.
The Falklands too.
Kuwait too.
And
on
and
on.
To
allow that kind of thing
on
a routine basis in Africa
would be really dangerous.
But
it should be available
in
special cases
like Somaliland
so
people who are trying
to
establish lawful regimes
in
place of anarchy
can
do so.
Amen.
-----Original Message-----
From:
International boundaries discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia
kallos
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 8:25
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Re: aha very clever
great thanx david for so generous a
review of such scribblings
& your reservations
& other comments are well taken too
& indeed
why not somaliland
i echo
that doesnt seem to be a
case of postcolonial successor & possessor state uti
possidetis at all
for it would have been & can still be
a blessed event
to simply restore the territory &
borders of independent postbritish somaliland
rather it
seems only to be a case of ordinary hotel california uti
possidetis
the principle being if you are stuck in a
collapsed state of any description
under the socalled
sovereign state system
you are stuck with your possession
& or its possession of you
such that
you can check
out any time you like
but you can never leave
until the
dead state that possesses you can be resurrected
so the
divorce can then be formalized under mutually acceptable &
properly civilized terms
or
until one or more of the
major powers removes you forcibly by war & or hopefully
only diplomacy from your otherwise sacrosanct
union
& that is the socalled sovereign state system
& that is its international law
i think
so that is
perhaps the greatest part of why not somaliland
&
to try to answer your other question also
it may be
that the major powers are actually benefitted by this
semblance of stability
in terms of economics or security or
whatever
but i believe that may be a grand illusion
& that in reality no one is ever actually benefitted
by disallowing anyone else
since things do seem to work
best generally if allowed to flow as they will
--- On
Thu, 12/11/08, [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re:
[INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To:
[log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, December
11, 2008, 11:53 PM
Once again, Aletheia, you show yourself
to be the most artistic writer on this blog. It is
always a pleasure to read your verse commentaries (as I
think of them).
Unfortunately it is not an easy matter to
discern authoritatively the will of the people in a
subdivision of a larger unit which claims to be a
"nation-state," because the larger unit will not want to
risk losing the vote, and all other states side with the
affected state on this, because making uti possidetis
into an eternal law lets them keep their maximum power,
however minimal that power turns out to be in
practice. That's why, for example, the Kashmir
issue was not settled decades ago.
It is especially heartening to see you
supporting international recognition of such earnest
attempts at civilized conduct as we see in Somaliland.
That the international order prefers, on wholly fictitious
grounds, to tie Somaliland to a state in anarchy rather
than allow it to succeed on its own (especially as its
adherence to Somalia was so recent an event) is pretty
outrageous. Who benefits by that, when the only
"government" of Somalia is a few guys cowering in a dusty
village behind the soon-to-be-withdrawn guns of the
Ethiopian intervenors? If the world can support the
reduction of Yugoslavia into separate parts, and most
recently the independence of Kosovo, why not
Somaliland?
-----Original
Message-----
From: International boundaries
discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of aletheia kallos
Sent: Thursday,
December 11, 2008 5:21 PM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: aha
very clever
yes thank you my friend
right
wholesome full viable & brave
uti
possidetis
or somehow by dog latin uti
possidetis juris
is not at all the revered
pedigreed hoary & permanent principle of
international law it pretends to be
but is a
bastard & an upstart
& in fact a totally
inappropriate & slapdash application to modern
international law
of a
temporary restraining
order
of all things
in ancient roman common
property law
uti possidetis ita possideatis
in full
as you possess so you may continue to
possess
but only in order to keep the peace
& only until a proper court of law can
permanently decide the true & legal ownership of
the disputed object
& that express
restriction upon personal ownership
&
qualification upon personal ownership
has somehow
gotten magically transmogrified
beginning around
1922 in latin america & 1963 in africa
into
the supposed axiom behind the purported principle of
sovereign territorial integrity
of
states
yes it is that ridiculous
i am
not making this up
see my favorite border
bible prescott & triggs 2008 pp142ff & 245f
for starters
if you doubt this reading of the
facts at hand
so i would say ok
if thats
the way the powers that be have wanted it &
continue to want it
no problem at all
but
again
in strict keeping with this cockamamie
citation of law such as it is
i would not only
demur but demand & insist
uti possidetis may
again be asserted only to keep the peace
&
only until true ownership of the lands in question
can be decided by the proper authority in this case
also
which is of course
the will of the people
living on them
region by region
but also
district by district if necessary
yes
existing boundaries on all levels should remain
sacrosanct
but local secessions &
recombinations should be a commonplace within such a
regime of international law
it is all there
already
written in stone & indeed in
latin
with no need for anyone to become a
revolutionary
now where was that cat you
didnt ask me to bell
--- On Thu, 12/11/08,
[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re:
[INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To: "Aletheia
Kallos" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc:
[log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday,
December 11, 2008, 4:26 PM
Dear Aletheia,
Without asking you to bell the cat am I right
to understand that you stand for a
wholesome discussion about existing
boundaries in Africa altogether and for a full
discussion about current geographic descriptions
as viable states or are you saying
uti possidetis is an everlasting truth.
Somehow I suspect the earlier for which if I am
right you are a brave man indeed.
Regards
Gbenga
----- Original Message
-----
From:
Aletheia Kallos <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:47 pm
Subject:
Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] aha very clever
To:
[log in to unmask]
> but aha
again
> as well as yikes
> &
hopefully not in quadruplicate any more
either
>
> for even more clever than
conflict avoidance in this case would
> be
the
> realization that no extended shelf
claims are even possible in the
> referenced
dispute areas
> of the kuriles &
senkakus & takeshima
> as
this handy & probably reliable map also
appears to confirm
>
http://geology.usgs.gov/connections/mms/landscapes/508_descriptions/shelf_map_image_text.htm
>
> so most likely no puzzle at all here
after all barbara
>
>
> &
for gbenga et al
> if i might conserve
a message by also adding here to the other
current
> discussion
> about boundary
ultraconservatism in africa
> whether
of the purely sentimental or the really
proactive variety
> i feel the present
drift of international boundary practice is
> already far
> too conservative
everywhere on earth for the general well being
> to really be
> served
> but
most especially too conservative as applied by
africans in africa
>
> the
unexamined & sometimes even express assumption
is that boundary
> conservatism &
boundary conservation
> no matter how
inappropriate or ignorant the boundary being
conserved
> actually is
> prevents
wars & genocides & other miseries
>
> but our actual experience appears to fly
directly into the face
> of such a
>
lame belief
>
> the fact that places
like the congo or sudan or somalia etc dont
> & wont &
> cant be allowed
to disintegrate into more natural groupings
> but are artificially sustained in all
their dysfunctionality by the
>
international system
> led by the usa &
other majors
> while functional &
sensible places like somaliland or south
>
sudan etc go
> begging & hoping &
praying for recognition
> is an extra
tragedy that africans are inexplicably visiting
upon
> themselveseven today
> as if
they hadnt yet had enough of the enslavement &
other
> exploitationvisited upon them by
outsiders
>
> & this appears to
happen
> mainly if not exclusively
>
because the oas & au have always been so
largely comprised of
> thug regimes
>
that are simply paranoid on principle about their
personal
> security & turf
> that
anything novel which might work better or that
already
> clearly works
> remains a
nonstarter
>
> it is not a matter of
letting sleeping dogs lie or not
>
>
the solution in my view is simply to elevate the
principle of self
> determination above the
principle of territorial socalled
integrity
> where it rightly belongs
>
> first things first
> & then we
will have real integrity
>
> just as
the sea follows the land
> so in reality
does the land follow the people
>
>
& only then would it make any real sense to
repair the few technical
> imperfections in
the delimitations & densify the demarcations
etc
>
> cheers
> ak md
>
Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
Lecturer in
International Commercial Law,
Kent Law School,
Eliot College,
University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NS, UK.
Phone:
Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000
(ext 4817)
Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831
Email:
[log in to unmask]
http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm
