It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.
It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.
Considering it is International law that grants the states existence in the first place, I would say that is a moot point.
That’s just not true. State exists or they don’t de facto. Self determination applies to people, not states. States have a right to territorial integrity, aka not getting attacked, but that’s it.
The simple fact that under international law a state has a right to territorial integrity and safety from aggressive actions means that a state has a right to exist within their borders under international law.
You are free to elaborate at any time on your point of view.
If that were the case then a state formed after conquest would be legitimate. But it clearly isn’t.
Feel free to refer to Francesca Albanese, lawyer and scholar of internal law and current UN rapporteur for more question. I have no doubt that she is just vaguely more competent (and clearly more morally correct) than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbFSpNASO4
That’s circular logic, though. International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers. It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed. What gives any nation a “right” to exist?
International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers
And? What’s circular about it? Nations arise from self organizing societies, and these nations come together to define international laws. And then they define the right of self affirmation, and if the main powers recognize a state it is assigned the right to exist. And if the core powers of this world decide that a country does not matter, they’ll look the other way as those rights are bombed. It’s an emergent property of international politics.
It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed.
No rights do, so I don’t understand where you’re going with this.
It isn’t circular logic because international law is what gives a country a right to exist. It isn’t any more complicated than that for the sake of this conversation.
Honest question, what gives any country a right to exist?
All rights are made up. They’re just things that enough people thought were good, so we formed consensus on them.
Thats not a demerit against them, though.
International Law.
It’s interesting you would make this point, since there is no right to for a given state to exist in international law. There’s a right to self determination. But that is not the same thing.
Considering it is International law that grants the states existence in the first place, I would say that is a moot point.
That’s just not true. State exists or they don’t de facto. Self determination applies to people, not states. States have a right to territorial integrity, aka not getting attacked, but that’s it.
A right to territorial integrity and to not be attacked is literally the right to exist.
Except it isn’t. They are two different legal concepts.
The simple fact that under international law a state has a right to territorial integrity and safety from aggressive actions means that a state has a right to exist within their borders under international law.
You are free to elaborate at any time on your point of view.
If that were the case then a state formed after conquest would be legitimate. But it clearly isn’t.
Feel free to refer to Francesca Albanese, lawyer and scholar of internal law and current UN rapporteur for more question. I have no doubt that she is just vaguely more competent (and clearly more morally correct) than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbFSpNASO4
That’s circular logic, though. International Law is just a set of agreements between sovereign powers. It doesn’t spring from seafoam, fully formed. What gives any nation a “right” to exist?
And? What’s circular about it? Nations arise from self organizing societies, and these nations come together to define international laws. And then they define the right of self affirmation, and if the main powers recognize a state it is assigned the right to exist. And if the core powers of this world decide that a country does not matter, they’ll look the other way as those rights are bombed. It’s an emergent property of international politics.
No rights do, so I don’t understand where you’re going with this.
It isn’t circular logic because international law is what gives a country a right to exist. It isn’t any more complicated than that for the sake of this conversation.
This explain really why the question of israel right to exists propaganda talking point https://youtube.com/shorts/k12E7LuD2_4
It’s just self determination
But international law is more like “is recognized”, if no one recognizes your claim then there isn’t much you can do