Who owns the land?
Current events in history remind us that throughout history, people have committed the most horrific acts of violence and destruction over control of land / territory.
A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate.
Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?
Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue.
Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question.
E.g., assuming that it can be determined, do the original inhabitants have rights in perpetuity to said land? Beats me.
Is there some length of time after which you say to the original inhabitants - “Yes, you were there first, but X number of years have passed - it’s time to move on”? Again I have no idea.
A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate.
Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?
Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue.
Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question.
E.g., assuming that it can be determined, do the original inhabitants have rights in perpetuity to said land? Beats me.
Is there some length of time after which you say to the original inhabitants - “Yes, you were there first, but X number of years have passed - it’s time to move on”? Again I have no idea.
Comments (150)
Rather than a bunch of finger pointing at another side, I think it is often best to look in the mirror. For instance, the U.S. entered into two different Treaties with the Lakota/Dakota. Treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, per our own Constitution. We breached those treaties. With no rational excuse. So, forget the Indians for a moment. I mean that. Forget them. Look only at us. We violated our laws. That has nothing to do with the Indians. It's all on us; what we did to ourselves. Why? Because the law doesn't mean shit when might doesn't want it to. And we all agree to look the other way. Israel learned from the best.
Pacta sunt servanda . . . . . . . rebus sic stantibus = BS.
The United States occupied the land of various native people; a large share of the central drainage area was purchased from France (Napoleon needed some quick money); it seized much of Mexico; Florida was obtained more peaceably from Spain. We bought Alaska from Russia, but what were they doing in the Western (our) Hemisphere? The Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico were seized from Spain during the Spanish American War. The sun never went down on the British Empire because they occupied so much property all over the world. Spain, Holland, France, Germany, Russia, Turks, Japan, et al have acquired property that way.
Had Hitler settled for Bylorussia and Ukraine, and had they been able to hold on to it, by now (75 years later) Germany would be enjoying the Lebensraum they desired. What happened under Hitler's management had happened elsewhere, like in the US.
Bad; but that's the way expansion often gets done.
When folk disagree as to the conventions in play, there can be no final arbiter.
I'm hard-pressed to think of any uncontested land. Maybe where one of the contestants has been completely exterminated? But so long as one sole survives, even if they capitulate, was that capitulation voluntary, or under duress, or solely due to lack of will to fight anymore, brought on by might?
Quoting Pfhorrest
That's quite a load to carry. What is "contest"? If there is any contest, even rhetorical, then convention can, by that estimate, go F itself. So-called "convention" is wrong in the eyes of the dispossessed. Wrong is subjective.
That's your convention. Why should we adopt it? Quoting Pfhorrest But the topic is contested use. So your response is useless.
[deleted misattributed quote]
Personally, I would use a few basic rules (to which more can be added):
You or your ancestors would need to have either (1) been the first settlers or (2) lived in a particular place for many generations to lay a justified claim to that particular piece of land.
The original inhabitants would have rights in perpetuity to the said land.
The rights of newcomers would depend on the degree of consent obtained from the original inhabitants to settle on their territory.
So, for example, where a particular group has gained control over another group's territory by force of arms, the original group must be given precedence over the intruding group.
In my view there are no rules.
States are considered Sovereigns.
There isn't actually an authority over them. Put an authority over them and they aren't independent and sovereign. That's what independence is about.
We might create a legal framework to solve such issues, and hopefully both sides can agree on the verdict given by it and don't have to go to war and spill blood over it. We can have a community of nations that can get a nation to accept an agreement. But countries can be very stubborn and when they are, either you leave them to be so or in the end fight them. Yet luckily even nation states can be reasonable as this. Good example is my nation with our neighbors the Swedes when it came to the Åland Islands. One of the successes of the League of Nations, actually
Swedish troops in the Åland Island in 1918:
Now the autonomic region on it's webpage:
In cases where that original convention cannot be determined or is lost to history, or where all the original contestants are dead and the current contestants have been contesting whose property it rightfully is their entire lives, then obviously that original convention can't be applied, and a new convention must be established to settle the question. Until the new convention is established, basically nobody "legitimately owns" anything in question, and so nobody has any right to exclude anybody else from the use of it. For that new convention to be just it must be fair in a Rawlsian sense -- a convention that everyone would agree if they were blinded to their own place in that convention. That is usually tantamount to everyone having as much and as good as everyone else, centered on whatever they're currently using.
...but that is just yet another convention...
Nothing has been gained.
Is it really, or is it just your convention that views on what constitutes the establishment of a convention are themselves just conventions?
In which case nothing has been lost.
I doubt it, since it would require a way of talking about ownership that did not reduce to "such-and-such counts as owning said land"... and the counts as is what renders it a convention.
It is a difficult question. I'm not sure it has an answer, but here's my first thought:
Morally, it's like Rousseau said: “The man who first fenced in a piece of land ...was the true founder of civil society."
Note, the quote is abbreviated. The full quote reads:
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
But I disagree. The fruits of the earth are meagre if effort is not added; and it is universally observed that a man tends his own garden best. So, abbreviation of the quote is justified by the concept of productivity; and exclusive ownership is justified by Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, in that, common ownership leads to neglect and abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership.
It ain't necessarily a tragedy.
The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist myth.
Is it really? I dated an Estonian girl who lived under communism, and she told me that because nothing is owned, everyone steals. That's not a theory. That's a real world consequence of common ownership; and an example of the destructive rational self interest at the heart of the Tragedy of the Commons. It's why communism failed, and capitalism is still going strong.
...
I recently read a statement that went something to the effect: At the pizza party after work, one guy took three slices thinking it would run out. Another guy took one slice thinking the same thing.
I practiced public lands law out west for some time, and got involved in grazing issues and the Taylor Grazing Act. I also studied the tragedy of the commons. It made sense then and it makes sense now. It's not a capitalist myth, but a tragedy when capitalists feed at the public trough. However, some of the critiques, above, are indeed persuasive. I think it comes down to what kind of people are feeding at the public trough. Americans that I know lean toward taking three slices of pizza.
As one who thinks the trees should have standing, I think privatization is a non-starter developer's wet dream. "Condos all around Old Faithful! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
Quoting Banno
I saw the notification, and now I'm disappointed. Are you trying to be funny - because, if so, swing and a miss.
That's mine; I'm keeping that.
I'm using myth as a cover for narratives that say little but justify certain actions. You're right that the myth of the tragedy of the commons will come true if everyone believes it, and as a result takes three slices.
It was social media of some sort, and they don't allow me to cut and paste. I don't know how to screen shot, and I was too lazy to write it down. I wish I could give proper attribution. :sad:
This comes to you from the space between Banno's ears! The wonder is how he can hear his own thoughts in a vacuum!
So - are we doing the flame-war thing? 'cause that don't work well here. But happy to play along, if that's what you want.
Or better, you could offer an argument, as against anecdotes from your lost loves.
Quoting Banno
If we are, you started it.
Quoting Banno
You're not good at it, that much is true.
Quoting Banno
ditto.
Quoting Banno
Quoting counterpunch
Now let's see if I can get a decent reply???
That’s how you truly own a place!
Yeah, I hit you back first.
Quoting counterpunch
Nice to see you leaning towards the labour theory of value. Never took you for a Marxist. Maybe there is hope...
So the guy who works in the factory owns it...?
Not sure that's where you wanted to go, though. Might be a problems here with consistency.
Quoting Banno
In Marxism there are three elements to capitalist production: land, labour and capital. A labour theory of value conveniently forgets the other two, and makes out like the unskilled worker has made the most significant contribution to the productive endeavour. I've never understood this. Maybe you can explain it. Seems utterly incoherent to me.
But you advocated it... or so it seem'd: "Hence, my first thought is that it is the effort it takes to make land productive that is the basis of ownership."
Perhaps it would be better for you to think of ownership of the land in terms of the effort needed to make other folk work it for you... would that suit?
If you've got to the point where you have land and capital - to say nothing of the ideas, and the will, and someone else has nothing but their labour, I see no problem that 'other folk work it for you' ...because your contribution to the productive endeavour far outweighs theirs.
But that aside, I assumed we we're talking about ownership of land from when the world was new - i.e. the first man who drove in a stake, and dug a ditch, and said this is mine, was the true founder of civil society. Not the golden age of capitalism.
Looks a bit like ownership isn't quite what you thought.
Of course, the first folk to work the land did so in small family groups, sharing produce on the basis of need, with no notion of individual ownership. But that doesn't suit your narrative.
Arbitrator and negotiations. The two parties can't decide but with war. A third party who can beat both sides in war, but has no interest in the ownership, can be an arbitrator.
This was used many times in history, except the arbitrator in international interest was always a victorious power and an interested party in the ownership. In other words, there is no moral or legal solution in the absence of an arbitrator.
Intro-country, the law prevails and judges via the court systems are the arbitrators (in extreme disputes).
Between or among two or more very powerful and rich countries, each of which stands to lose much more than the value of the property should they go to war over the ownership of the property, will negotiate. How successful these negotiations are depends on the skills of the negotiators of each party.
I don't have a narrative per se. What I have, as you seem to already know, is some first thoughts - on what I agreed with the OP is a very difficult question. I understood that question to mean, how ownership of land is originally established. If that's not the question - what is?
You are dropping the myth of the "First Man", too?
Quoting counterpunch
As I said, by convention. Folk accepted that Martha over there could look after that digging stick, so as she could help with the gathering.
Further, and in answer to the OP, it's still about convention.
And even further, that it is merely convention explains why it is so hard to settle disputes when there is no agreement on the convention. There are no facts of ownership, apart from what it is we agree on.
What that means for your first man is, despite working the land, he did not own it until his neighbours agreed that he owned it.
That is, the self-made individual Man of capitalist myth can only exist if we let him. So his claim to be a self-made individual is an inherent contradiction.
This is fun.
That, by the way, was my answer to the problem with individualism. But few there were who recognised it's brilliance.
Quoting counterpunch
Sorry if the OP wasn't clear. Basing current ownership on original ownership is one possible solution to resolving these situations, but not necessarily the only (or best) solution. And of course there are many (maybe most) real world situations that are much more complex than simply A vs. B.
I totally agree with that. The British had to deal with very complex situations throughout the empire but especially in East Africa where natives had to compete with intruding Europeans, Indians, etc.
The solution suggested by the Colonial Office at the time was "native paramountcy" which meant that the rights of the native population were paramount in relation to the rights of other groups.
Personally, I tend to believe that this wasn't a bad idea.
:100:
:100: I agree, but I'm a'feared few others do. When we figure out we can't breath, drink or eat money, we might come around. Too bad about all the biodiversity lost in the interim. :sad:
I'm assuming (but correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't subscribe to moral subjectivism, but do believe there is a moral right and wrong that can be generally deciphered when a moral question is presented. My question then would be why you isolate ownership specifically from ought type questions.
Why is it that you can say it's morally wrong for me to murder, for example, but you can't say it's morally wrong for me to take your land (i.e. why is "thou shall not steal" a proper moral imperative?).
Should I take your bicycle from your garage and hold it as my own, would you be incorrect in asserting my thievery were a moral wrong? Was my theft really just a violation of convention (i.e. the convention not to take other's belongings?).
If I murder, is that a different sort of wrong, or is that just also a violation of convention? Describe the difference between moral wrongs and violations of conventions?
So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim?
Good point. JUSTICE is an essential factor that we can't afford to ignore if we don't want to return to the law of the jungle. Justice must be the very foundation of national and international law at all times.
Was the hypothetical previous owner a citizen of a terrorist state, intent on genocide, that refused any and all compromises offered, decade after decade? Because if they were, then the legitimate claim of the descendants of the previous owners would be against an intractable government, and their foreign policy failure!
I don't. All things being equal, one ought abide by agreed conventions. That's what an agreed convention is.
Which is preferable, a person who is true to their word or a person who is not?
What's that, then?
Justice is the implementation of what is legally and morally right, the principle that people receive what they deserve or what is rightfully theirs.
Greek dike, Latin justitia, Hebrew tsedaqah
In the British East Africa example given above, justice provided that the land belonged to the African natives, not to Europeans or Indians.
And what's "legally and morally right"?
Further, do you suppose that these are consistent? That what is legally right is what is morally right? How do you decide, if they were to be in conflict?
The basic point being, these terms less clear than is "property".
That's the thing. Legal and moral justice need to be balanced or harmonized, with moral justice ideally overriding legal justice. That's what we have legal experts for. The principle that Africa belongs to Africans is morally and legally sound in my opinion.
But your opinion is insufficient.
There are a near infinite number of possible scenarios here - but for simplicity's sake assume that the previous owner was the original owner and had always lived at peace with the current owner - up until the current owner forcefully took over the land without the previous owner's permission.
In this admittedly narrow situation do the descendants of the original owner have a legitimate claim to the land. And it so, how do we resolve things? E.g., what happens to the current title owner? They may be many generations removed - is it fair to deprive them of their home due to something that happened centuries past?
I don't have an answer to these questions.
Ought references what morality demands and therefore an objective standard unless you adhere to subjectivism.
The problem is that there aren't mutually respected conventions. If there were, bombs wouldn't be flying in and out of Israel. If one side's conventions yield a different result than the others, do you remain agnostic as to the question of right and wrong, considering there is no principle applicable to all?
And let's be clear here, "convention" simply describes the rules imposed by the ruling power. Convention didn't dictate that the 13 colonies be the possession of the English except to the English. The natives certainly had other conventions and thought the seizure of their land unconventional.
It also seems we could have immoral conventions, like if the US barred blacks from owning real estate or England only allowed certain classes to own land.
Of course it is. You asked me for my opinion and I replied. My opinion is based on tradition, on religious and legal precedent. This is how justice has been historically understood. But it's not for me to decide.
That would need to be decided on a case-to-case basis. There is a general legal principle to be (1) followed as a general guideline and (2) applied differently in different cases as required by the specific circumstances of each particular case.
She was Estonian. They are very smart people. Few, but smart.
And why do think it's a myth? People do put their self interest ahead of a collective interest, where the costs are then is brought upon everybody later. But today is more important than next year.
What about when one never agreed to the convention (never made a promise to honor such-and-such arrangement, that they could be true to or not)? Or similarly, going back to this situation:
Quoting Banno
When if at one point all of the neighbors agreed that he owned it, and then one, several, many, most, even all (please name where's the tipping point for you) of the neighbors changed their minds?
The salient point I've made here is that property is about convention; it's that observation which allows the discussion to proceed.
Sure, that's another discussion we could have.
Quoting Pfhorrest
...and that.
What do you think?
Whether its in agreement with purchasing power, or with brute force. The owner is the one who can defend it.
I think the issue at hand, is a moral question of, will the current owner be oppressed by the requisition of the land. Even governments can force people to give up their land for power lines or gas lines etc.
Or, if your Russia, you just take what you want, when you want.
Quoting EricH
The answer is that ownership is a function of social intentionality. Property is owned only with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement.
There are no rules for determining ownership beyond that.
This is why we have the issues folk have listed here.
I'm not offering a solution, just pointing to the cause.
Sure. But we don't need to agree with that.
Hmm. I think you just made Banno's point about "property is owned with the agreement of those involved, and hence enforced in virtue of that agreement" and thus "There are no rules for determining ownership beyond that". :smile:
I think that a convention comes into existence when there is agreement on how to use something (be that the case of the physical use of land for production, or of using words to mean things, or whatever), so if there are parties (even a minority) who don't agree to the establishment of the convention, then there is no convention, and so "no rules": everything remains permissible, nothing impermissible.
And that since it's the convention that subsequently defines whether use is permissible or not, it's whoever breaks with that prior convention (even a majority) that is doing something impermissible.
and does the same, but with more words.
Property isn't always owned with the agreement of the rightful owners. That's why we need to distinguish between legal and moral rights of ownership.
I think we should all be cautious of taking up another people as reservoir for our moral ideals & fantasies. This stuff sucks for actual indigenous people. Imagine you're a 16 year old native dude trying to chill, doing normal teenage stuff, passing a bowl. Everyone get's baked - 'dude... chris is native. he knows that real land shit. Tell them Chris!" and now Chris is stuck in that role. A shrewd dude can deftfully maneuver out with a mix of self-irony and assertive push-back, but that's not easy, and its a dumb onus to put on people. (my examples tame, really Imagine being a native girl in the matrix of such fantasies at a party.)
(These are my own example, but Tommy Orange (Cheyenne/Arapaho) captures the idea better in his book 'There, There'. )
Anyway:
The Chief Seattle Reply is bullshit - and that shouldn't be a surprise.
As Gilles Deleuze said, 'If you're trapped in the dream of the other, you're fucked'
Apollodorus, what do you think is the basis of either legal or moral rights?
I own my piece of dirt because I bought it, meaning I won the financial war of pricing, and the land is my spoil of war. If I want to keep it I need to provide kickbacks to my local government, in the form of property taxes. This may be seen as normal, and more civil, than violent confrontation for land, however, only the medium has changed. Countless others have owned "my" dirt before me, and countless will after I have passed. That is the way of it. Each time it changes hands there will be a financial battle, which someone will win, while others lose. At no point do I feel entitled enough to have anyone in the future proclaim that I once had title to said land. It will be someone else's then, they have title to it, no need to mention me, or those that came before me. That list is too long, and entirely meaningless.
Are you sure? It seems to me you're driving toward a particular point. The original question was 'Who owns the land?' - and it's an interesting, and difficult question of itself. Now you're asking about descendants of original owners - and the problem with your pretence is that, it consigns me to a hypothetical scenario you construct - with obvious allusions to real world events, without allowing me to make a real world counter argument. I'm not playing a rigged game.
They are no other!
[quote=Gerald Winstanley]And let all men say what they will, so long as such are rulers as call the land theirs, upholding this particular propriety of mine and thine, the common people shall never have their liberty, nor the land be ever freed from troubles, oppressions, and complainings, by reason whereof the Creator of all things is continually provoked...[/quote]
https://www.diggers.org/digger_tracts.htm
But there you go; as white and Christian and historical as you could possibly wish for, and within a cannon shot of where I was born.
As I said, justice.
I could be wrong but I think @EricH was talking about the moral perspective of land ownership.
So, there is an implied distinction between what is morally rightful ownership and what is legally legitimate ownership.
This is why I gave the example of the British policy of native paramountcy in East Africa that was intended to settle the problems arising from Europeans and Indians encroaching on ancestral land belonging to native Africans.
The British were running East Africa under a League of Nations mandate.
The crux of the argument was that "a policy which leaves the native population no future except as workers on European estates cannot be reconciled with the principle of trusteeship". Therefore, the principle of native paramountcy was proposed as a solution.
See "Memorandum on Native Affairs in the East African Protectorates" and other papers.
Interestingly, Indians and Europeans supported the doctrine, even if for no other reason than that the interests of the rival group would not receive primary consideration by the British.
It seems to me that there are parallels between current situations e.g. in the Middle East and elsewhere, and British East Africa.
My apologies if I came across that way - not my intent. I find find it very challenging to express myself succinctly yet clearly. My eyes glaze over when I see a post that goes on for paragraphs - but without sufficient detail you can lose context. Perhaps this will help:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Apollodorus
Jewish people vs Palestinians - who has the rightful claim to the land? Beats me. Perhaps no one.
Northern Ireland - should it be united with Ireland or stay part of Britain? Does anyone have the moral high ground here?
Kurds - are they entitled to their own country or should they forever be split out amongst Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - I don't have the time/energy to understand all the details, but it is an ongoing tragedy.
Etc/Etc/Etc
And one more: I don't know the full history, but here in the US my house sits on land that was undoubtedly seized from Native Americans about 400 years ago. If there are people alive today who could trace their ancestry back to that place & time, are they the rightful owners of the land my house sits on?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So apart from the messy details of each situation, are there any abstract principles that could in some way help come up with equitable solutions? Or are we doomed to having centuries long cycles of violence in these situations?
How do you define a nation? And of course - as several people have pointed out - this is begging the question of whether there should even be should entities as nation-states.
Your example strikes to the very heart of the issue. Nomads cannot be said to own the land, because ownership of the land is the essential difference between nomad-ism, and an agricultural, settled way of life. This is in part why I paraphrased Rousseau:
Quoting counterpunch
This then raises the question of communal versus private ownership, with the justification of private ownership coming from Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, and the universal observation that any freely available resource will be exploited to exhaustion. The other examples are more complex. But morally, a nomad cannot refuse you the right to settle on land he wanders.
So what you've done here is to pull out certain types of offenses, namely property related ones, and declared them not subject to moral analysis. So the argument goes: Theft in my country may be different than yours, but there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to theft. I assume you draw no distinction between real property issues (like who land belongs to) and personal property issues (like who a loaf of bread belongs to).
For further elaboration of your position, we now then have to isolate which wrongs you believe are subject to moral analysis and which aren't.
Using the Georgia Criminal Code as my guide to finding all the terrible things people can do to one another, I have listed out 6 categories of wrongs with examples of those sorts of wrongs. I left out property crimes because we've already decided those are not subject to moral analysis.
So, looking at the 6 categories below, I ask that you place each category into one of two buckets: Bucket A: Moral Question or Bucket B: Social Conventions:.
1. Crimes against persons (assault, battery, kidnapping, cruelty to children, feticide, stalking).
2. Sexual crimes. (rape, child molestation, sexual assault, necrophilia, bestiality, pimping, pandering, masturbation for hire).
3. Forgery and fraudulent practices (deposit account fraud, deceptive business practices, false statements, credit card fraud).
4. Offenses against public administration (obstruction, perjury, escape from prison, abuse of government office)
5. Offenses against public order and safety (treason, invasion of privacy, dangerous instrumentalities and practices, loitering, terroristic threats, unlawful assembly, harassing phone calls, public drunkenness)
6. Offenses against public health and morals (gambling, obscenity, abortion, human trafficking)
Controlled substances
If everything goes in B, then you're arguing for moral subjectivism. If some in A and some in B, then you'll have to explain your calculus as to how you've decided which go in which. If you can't provide that basis, then my objection seems valid, which is that your designation of property crimes as non-moral is arbitrary.
:100: :up:
Well, if we decide from the start that it's an intractable issue, then nothing can be done. But if we are serious about finding an answer in these and similar cases, we need to look at the historical events on which basis we may say that:
Jews have the rightful claim to (most) of Israel.
The Irish have the rightful claim to Ireland.
The Kurds have the rightful claim to Kurdish territories.
The Armenians have the rightful claim to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Obviously, these are just general and preliminary suggestions. They would need to be worked out in detail on the facts of each particular case.
Just to be clear - what is the basis for the "rightfulness" of these claims? Is it solely based on the ability to demonstrate to have inhabited the land before the other claimants?
I would say that would be a big part of it. As I said, if we are serious about finding a just solution, then historical events leading to the current situation can't be ignored.
You're making an unfounded assumption, in fact this question commits the complex question fallacy. By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules but that, as history will attest to, is an utter falsehood - the entire history of humankind, though it began peaceably I suspect, is that of conquest. Conquest is, as we all know, an euphemism for wanton killing, extreme violence, genocide, and so on. We would be doing ourselves a big favor to heed Cicero who in a moment of deep insight uttered the words, Inter arma enim silent l?g?s (in times of war, the laws fall silent), you know, just in case history repeats itself.
[quote=John Lyly (Euphues)]All is fair in love and war[/quote]
:lol:
I thought it was clear that I was asking "Are there any rules?" but obviously not.
My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct.
The fact that there aren't any rules doesn't mean that no rules can be established now or in the future. Or that we can't discuss the possibility.
Well put, sir/madam, well put! A gold star to you for your eloquence.
Quoting EricH
Come on, EricH. How can we be philosophers if we are too afraid to get out of bed in the morning?
As they say, where there is a will there is a way. We can't give up before we've at least tried.
How odd.
Ought you keep your promises? Of course. Hence keeping promises has a moral aspect. Yet promises are as much a social convention as is property.
That property is a social convention does not obviously render it amoral. You'll need more argument here.
It has the word 'social' in it? :snicker:
I let my vindictive self loose on the forums again. :confused:
I don't require white & christian stuff - while I like much in the christian framework, its only one of many frameworks I find helpful, and I integrate it with other stuff. (even now, repentant, I have to point out that my recent upsurge of christian-talk was to reply, in the same genre, to the christian tack you introduced on the other thread.) And it seems to me - though I'm not well-schooled- that there is a lot really good native american thought on these matters; I'm only objecting to projecting onto a non-western culture (over-and-above what they actually say) the inverse of the dominant threads of western culture
Now that I've defended my honor, I do apologize for the way I came into this thread.
They are no other? Are we a single amorphous mass of humanity like a big fat jellyfish floating on the world ocean? Maybe that's how proponents of world government want us to see ourselves. But I doubt that's the way forward.
@EricH, what would be your opinion on that?
That was me. Less of that 'we' while you are denying the connectedness of this highly social species, though admittedly not as highly social as a jellyfish colony. But the separation of cultures is a matter of education, not biology.
Quoting csalisbury
Your Honour is in no danger from me, and you are quite right to point out the spurious attribution. I should be more careful when straying from my formal education topics.
___________________________________________________________
But anyway, property (real estate) as has been mentioned, is a social construct. Accordingly, where there is conflict between cultures, one cannot simply have recourse to "the facts". For instance, the claim of ownership by reason of being first people is a cultural construction. The first people may have no concept of land ownership, or an inverted one where people belong to the land not land to people.
And this can be used by a culture of real estate agents to claim the land for themselves as if a culture that is not so possessive doesn't have any status at all in the matter.
That's how I feel about the commons. Wilderness "untrammeled by man" is sacred, holy, to me.
That's how I feel about the whole world. But some folks worship property, I think it's called "capitalism". To them the commons is a tragedy.
:100:
They are not as important as they think they are.
Once upon a time there were old growth forests in the United States. These trees had grown for hundreds, if not thousands of years, through many types of weather and climate. They grew slow, with tight, hard, clear, straight grains, making the best wood for many different types of construction. But the best of all, for the trees themselves. Unlike the youthful trees, having grown with initial spirts of twenty or thirty years, with their soft wood, widely spaced, including knots from eager limbs, marring the best of what they would become, over and beyond, several hundred years hence, these old trees are the envy of some. The young ones are called, by the older loggers "toothpick timber."
A man, rich beyond all imagination, wanting the best, not because he knows the difference, but simply because he will ask another, an expert, “What is the best? I want it. Get me the best, I have the money, I have the demand. I deserve it! Our system says so.” This man is, irretrievably, a villain. He doesn’t think so, of course. And his defenders, and the defenders of the system that allowed him to be, will all try to justify his externalized cost, his demand. But think about it: Why should anyone who doesn’t know any better insist on settling only for the best? They will never appreciate the tree beyond mere money. They will insist the man who loves the old tree should outbid him, and make the tree his own, if he wants it to live.
Otherwise, cut it down, and build my deck! He will then show his deck to a few friends, describing it, pinky-finger extended from a glass of wine, over cheese and crackers. Once. And that will be the end of it. He will forget. He will be back to his other property, with deck forgotten. Tree, forgotten. The forest from which it came, forgotten. The people who wanted to save the tree, laughed at, and then forgotten.
He is not important. Fuck him. The system that would exalt him above a tree, above a forest, above others who love without money, fuck it. Die! Fertilize a tree with your rotting carcass.
Come, philosophers, and tell me: Why should I care about him and his system? Because they will have my back? Because they will charge me with hypocrisy for my failings? I’m sorry, but I don’t demand the best when I wouldn’t even know the difference. Why should I want to know, when less than best is more than good enough. I've no need to value a deck.
That said, there are a few rays of optimism floating around - the conflict on Northern Ireland - while not resolved - seems to have settled down into an uneasy accommodation. In New Zealand the national government seems to be making some good faith efforts to acknowledge & compensate for past wrongs.
But these are the exceptions.
Just to pick out the most currently visible situation in the news - I see no hope for resolving the Israel-Palestine dilemma. I would gladly be wrong - it would make me very happy to be wrong - but I foresee this cycle of violence & revenge continuing for centuries.
The best we can hope for is that these conflicts can be locally contained.
Until Brexit happened! And a border is needed in a place people wouldn't want there to be a border.
1) UK grants North Ireland independence
2) Ireland recognizes the independence of North Ireland.
Result: Guess how betrayed the tiny faction of North Irelanders who are the warmongering and violence promoting type, who support the violence, be they those of the really-real IRA or those Loyalists marching with silly hats, when their own country has let them down! All this fighting for nothing! When Dublin and London jointly gives them the "We don't fucking care"-middle finger, at least they would share something in common.
But seriously, would Ireland really want North Ireland? All those loyalist paramilitaries that would be a pain in the ass if Northern Ireland became part of Ireland. And if the UK would brush aside North Ireland, then no worries about "The time of Troubles" coming ever back. The UK would be a far happier place.
Quoting ssu
ssu, of course, Ireland wants Ulster back to theirs. The unification of all the island has been one of the 'undone' tasks since 1922 when the Irish got independence from the UK. As well as I have provided arguments about Russia, I would say the same in favour of the Irish people. It is obvious that Ulster is both culturally and politically 'Gaelic'.
@EricH said that at least they are not chucking missiles at each other. They are both members of NATO, and civilised countries which prefer to resolve the conflicts diplomatically.
On the other hand, the Unionist are a small number if we compare them with the Sinn Féin. The number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly is 90. 27 of them are covered by the Sinn Féin, plus 'Social Democratic and Labour Party', which are republicans (8 seats). And, 'Alliance Party of Northern Ireland' which are pro-european and leftists (17 seats).
The 1998 Belfast agreement said: that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom;
that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.
What is the situation 25 years later? On current trends, Northern Ireland will leave the Union 'The figures instead indicate that the liberals from Protestant backgrounds who helped deliver the region’s 56% vote for Remain had already identified as Irish or Northern Irish rather than British.'
It is a question of identity!
Are there any geopolitical / moral / philosophical rules (or mechanism) that could allow us to resolve these situations? Does the land belong to the original inhabitants? If yes, then should everyone around the globe migrate back to their genetic place of origin? Sort of impractical, yes. Plus it does not allow for any changes to take place.
I wish I had an answer.
It seems to me that, in terms of culture and values, they feel more attached to Ireland than ever...
But is there anything about the N. Ireland situation that could be generalized and used to resolve the Ukraine situation?
That's the question I keep asking.
It is a good, intelligent question. I wish I had precise arguments to answer your question, but I will give a try using the data and knowledge that I have.
It is very complex to juxtapose the N. Ireland conflict with the Ukraine-Russia war. The first conflict had religious implications - Protestants vs Catholics - while Ukrainians and Russians share the same religion, orthodox. On the other hand, this was just an isle conflict, where the international arena was not interested enough because the conflict didn't have implications in other regions.
But, above all those characteristics, it is important to highlight the fact that the parties ended with the conclusion that both sides had to win, sooner or later. Despite the conflict, the representatives of each side understood the interests of the other.
The Good Friday Agreement says: The Agreement created a new power-sharing arrangement, including an Executive and Assembly, and was based on a series of fundamental principles including: the [i]parity of esteem of both communities the principle of consent underpinning Northern Ireland’s constitutional status the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland to identify and be accepted as British or Irish, or both, and to hold both British and Irish citizenship[/i] The Belfast Agreement
As you can see, there was mutual respect. The only way to achieve peace, honestly. But, regarding the Ukrainian-Russian war, I do not see an ending if one of the sides ends up devastated. This is a war on destroying others. Nobody seems really interested in reaching peace like the representatives of Sein Feinn and the Unionists back in the 1990's.
Yet, what side of a border you live on can matter.
North and South Korea comes to mind, also Finland and Russia, and maybe the recent Mexico ? US migrant stories.
Arbitrary or not, there can be stark differences, and they matter to the affected people.
That being said, in a different sense ...
Ownership is as fleeting as the lifetime of an owner.
Owning a piece of land won't matter to the owner once they're gone, if you will.
How the living treats each other is more pertinent, and country borders can mark a difference, which can be fairly important if one such country declares ownership of another.
UN resolutions aren't binding I think, however, they can indicate some principled decisions that one can look to.
Does the Irish government it really want to deal with the Ulster Loyalists? Protestants are still majority in Northern Ireland and the country is still very segregated. When high walls separate communities, there isn't much social cohesion.
Perhaps the majority wouldn't take up arms, but all it has to be is a few. How many dead Irish policemen or Irish military servicemen who now are enjoying a safe career is Northern Ireland worth? Or you think that the loyalist paramilitaries will just accept Irish rule after all the fighting? All it takes is a small cabal who know how to make bombs and there's blood on the streets of Dublin.
Secondly, Northern Ireland is the poorest part of the UK. And the Irish enjoy a higher GDP per capita than the UK. Hence Northern Ireland will be a huge drain of welfare payments from Ireland.
Quoting javi2541997
More civilized than Turkey and Greece, I guess. But yes, one of NATO's reasons to exist is it's first article. Something we still do need in Europe.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes. And the next generations can romanticize the past "Troubles".
There are political ones. And in war, one side can win the other. It's a very effective way to end the problematic situation.
Actually, we saw on problematic area gotten "solved" just a short time ago. With a quick decisive military attack Azerbaijan has taken over Nagorno-Karabakh and there is no Republic of Artsakh anymore. The Russia peacekeepers didn't lift a finger and Armenia didn't come to help as they already had lost the last war. Armenia should be the ally of Russia, but being an ally of Russia doesn't mean the same thing at all like being a NATO member.
Refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh arriving in Armenia.
And that's the solution. You may not find it nice, I don't either, but that's how many times in history these things go down.
I agree that the Irish government doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with Unionists. But, if the separation of Ulster was a possible way, I think both governments would have had their conversations and treaties, as well as they did in the 1990s with the aim of stopping the conflict. It is important to consider that both sides have mutual respect, so I guess that a solution should be found sooner or later. I am not seeing it 'impossible', not like the difficult between Armenia and Azerbaijan, for example.
On the other hand, since when police officers - or public workers in overall - have been covered by the government? It will be a difficult situation, but with some differences, because the new generations of N. Ireland haven't been raised at the core of the conflict. They are the sons and daughters of the 1998 Belfast agreement. I don't think they would be as violent as their parents or grandparents.
Quoting ssu
I didn't know this. I understand your point, and yes, maybe Ireland is not really interested in the utopian union with N. Ireland due to financial matters, - apart from the rest of the social problems we both mentioned previously -
On the other hand, do you truly believe that Russia is the only country with such an oppressive judicial system? I can't critique the royal families of the Persian Gulf countries either... oh wait! We need to keep purchasing their petrol! The hypocrisy, kicking in again.
On the other hand, I agree that Putin bans people from referring to this conflict as a war and some had trouble doing so. Yet, what is your point at all? We already know that Putin loses his patience and mind often. As well as if you 'boo' the American anthem at a sports game. Don't you think?
I feel that your aims are twisted. Like, you are pursuing or seeking a personal benefit from a 'screwed up' from Russia. You seemed to be pretty obsessed with them.
At the risk of not-picking, the discussion I started - Who Owns the Land - was not specifically about N. Ireland. Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence.
The N. Ireland part of this discussion came very late in the game and it was simply to present a rare case where a "who owns the land situation" (for want of a better term) was resolved peacefully. However it does not appear that N. Ireland applies generally.
Might makes right still seems to be the typical way these situations get resolved.
If you think I am such a fool, why do you want to argue with me constantly?
Quoting tim wood
Yes, they do. When did I refuse to admit that reality? I just don't want to be a Westernised brainwashed boy, and being paradigmatic. You seem to have a noble goal to pursue freedom of speech. Why am I not allowed to express my respect for Russia freely? Why do you consider me a Buffon for disagreeing with you? It seems pretty dishonest of you, mate.
The Western world for crossing all the red lines which were warned by Moscow.
Am I taking an examen on politics or what? Would you be satisfied if I respond to the answers you are looking for?
The conflict itself is part of one's identity for many. That's the problem.
It's like for a Palestinian living somewhere else than Palestine or Israel, the Nakba is something that makes you a Palestinian. It's not that you are of Palestinian ancestry, but now you are a citizen of country X, but you are a Palestinian and you are a refugee expelled from your home. You cannot brush away from it or let just time heal, when you
Here's a good present documentary about North Ireland. Even if it can be said it's pro-Republican and views that Brexit gives hope for unification, never underestimate the youth:
And furthermore, the paramilitaries do exist in the North Irish community. They won't go simply away. The UK truly has to alienate the Unionists / Loyalist that they really start hating Queen and Country. A lot more than just Brexit have to be done.
Perhaps to me and you it would be equivalent of that the Civil Wars our grandparents endured never went away: that your cities would be separated by walls where on one side would live the Republicans and on the other side the Nationalists, and in my country the division would be between the Reds and the Whites. There would be gangs around who would say that they are either fighting for the Republican and Nationalist cause and I would have here gangs of the Reds and the Whites. And there would be murals everywhere remembering the fallen and these two societies would go to different schools. That would really, really suck. But so it does in Northern Ireland. In that kind of environment, it's difficult to put the past away, because the past is upheld and cherished as part of your identity who you are.
That's not quite what I'm trying to do here, but it is a legit interpretation. Let me try a sort of quirky different approach.
Suppose we appoint you (or anyone else listening in) as a judge in the strictly hypothetical World Supreme Court and your judgements in these manners are always obeyed (the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question).
So the question here is this:
If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)?
OR
Must every situation be decided on an ad hoc basis?
Now if folks here could agree on some set of laws/rules/philosophical positions then those laws/rules/philosophical positions would at least help guide the discussion over in the Ukraine thread.
But if we here cannot come up with some rules, then the whole discussion regarding Ukraine's nationhood seems sort of pointless. I've read the various arguments and it seems like there is data to support almost any position. So now you're doing dueling historical data.
My historical data beats your historical data! So there! :razz:
But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. If we go with the historical data, does this mean that the people living in country X are stuck forever being part of Y even if they overwhelmingly want a divorce?
The particular details of Ukraine or N. Ireland are irrelevant here.
I am going to use a more practical example. Imagine you warn me that I must not dig or plant next to your ground. Yet, I do not respect your caution, and after some warnings you punched me in the face. Did I deserve it, right?
Hey, thanks for sharing. I will look at it tomorrow because I am tired now. :sweat: It is 22:40 here, and I wake up at 05:30 every day.
Quoting ssu
I agree. Excellent post.
There are LEGAL frameworks that establish a basis of ownership. Wherever colonists landed in North America (and everywhere else), they transferred the European system of land ownership. When Israel seizes Palestinian land, they lay LEGAL claim to the property, usurping the Palestinian LEGAL claim.
If colonialized natives had a system of property ownership, it was set aside (ignored). If they didn't have a system of property ownership (the case in North America) then the land was freely available in the European legal system.
A legal system means little if there are no courts and proceedings whose jurisdiction all parties accept. Under normal circumstances, the colonializer will provide the courts which will be heavily biased in their favor.
A MORAL framework might stay the hands of colonizers, but that's unlikely if the land in question is very valuable to the colonial power, and if the colonialized people are unable to enforce their moral framework.
The upshot is that forced acquisition of land ownership have been the routine and customary method of expansion for millennia. You know, your explorers find some nice land and they claim it on behalf of the sponsoring king. Later colonists will be sent in to exploit the value of the property, If the natives become restless under the new management, then heavies will be sent in to show the locals how the new system works: We are here and it all belongs to us now. If you object too much we will shoot you. Get used to it. Who you gonna call?
In our current enlightened era (the last few years) a few beneficiaries of the European colonization of the Americas have felt guilty enough to rename a few lakes using the native words. Extremely guilt-plagued individuals have donated a little land to a tribe, or given them some cash. These are nice but feckless gestures. Feckless, because the natives are not going to get back more than a symbolic portion of the land back that they once lived on (without title).
A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'.
Force is the essential ingredient when it comes to shifting ownership of national lands. Hitler took a lot of various national lands, and by force the national lands were taken back -- at great human cost, both ways. Britain claimed a huge amount of land occupied by others, as did several other nations. They didn't abandon those holdings for moral reasons. Force was applied, to the British and other colonizing nations.
Even in the best of times that is in short supply.
In cases that are unambiguous (or as unambiguous as possible) such as European occupation of Western Hemisphere it might be possible to come up with some sort of formula. But that redistribution also puts a burden on the current inhabitants who are not at fault = so there has to be a balance.
But things get more complicated in more ambiguous situations where multiple groups of people have migrated/conquered/occupied a particular piece of land over millennia.
I do not have an answer.
I don't either. But...
I don't look at European arrival in the western hemisphere as "an occupation", which sounds too much like a military program to me, as when Germany Occupied France and several other countries.
It just isn't a human trait (or custom) to discover a new continent richly supplied with all sorts of good things and just leave it alone because somebody else got there first, especially a somebody else that didn't seem to be exploiting it sufficiently. King Leopold was very happy to get his hands on the Congo because the natives had little interest in latex, and he knew there was a growing market for it among other good things. Japan was perfectly aware that China had been next door for thousands of years, but at the time they needed a lot of what China had, and they took it.
All that displays extraordinarily bad manners, but that's the way people are -- sometimes. We behave fairly well when we're reasonably happy and not too resentful about other people. That can change fairly quickly.
The rest of the world didn't let Germany and Japan get away with it. They were bombed into submission. The armies of the just (AKA the Allies) had long since claimed a lot of other people's territories and there wasn't anybody around strong enough to take it away from them or make them give it back, Lucky us! However, the Axis powers came fairly close.
Yet before this it had already attacked Ukraine and annexed territory and fought a war against Ukraine. Whenever the proxy fighters were losing, Russian army intervened. Well before the 2022 invasion.
And not only was Russia making ultimatums about approaching their territory, it was also questioning the sovereignty of other countries by seeking a veto in NATO membership and declaring that that new eastern NATO should dissolve their security arrangements. This was simply out of the question for these countries and showed Sweden and Finland the writing on the wall. All this was to get an illogical reason for a bellicose attack on Ukraine to deal with it once and for all and get the Novorossiya into Russia, something that Putin had talked and wanted so much.
But of course people can opt for the whimsical "Nato made Russia do it" option, which the new territorial annexations should show to be a bogus reason.
(Yet we have been through this for over an year in the Ukraine thread.)
But coming back to this thread:
Land is basically owned by sovereign states, which control the area and can make up the laws there.
This ownership is basically depended on everyone else recognizing this ownership and thus also recognizing this state's soveireignty over the territory and it's people.
Hence sovereignty and recognition of this sovereignty are simply the political and legal foundations of owning land.
Because otherwise ownership of land is a murky difficult problem. Yes, this makes it a worthwile discussion on a Philosophy Forum, but any other idea for legality of ownership is problematic.
As an (very small) landowner myself, it's the goddam piece of paper and data in the various registries in the government that makes me own the small summer place and it's surroundings. It's that legal contract that is important. That my great grandparents built the house, that I got from my grandparents, that I've spent all my childhood and adulthood there when possible (and my children are now enjoying the same thing on holidays) are a side issue. How can I have any right to that small patch of land otherwise? It's going to be still there when I die and was there before me (although a part of it was under the sea in the Middle Ages and earlier as the land has risen here).
And there's an example of the importance of institutions. If someone could just bribe a judge and come to me with a piece of paper which states that he actually owns the place, or that there wouldn't be any official recongized documentation, that would make my ownership quite unsure.
In a way this is true for independent states too: if their neighbors and the World community accepts their sovereignty, there's no problem. If it is questioned, if part's of the territory are disputed, then you have problems. Yet in the same way it is about recognition and a legal framework.
According to a 2009 article on Russian website Pravda.ru, the Presidium of the Supreme Council gathered for a session on 19 February 1954 when only 13 of 27 members were present. There was no quorum, but the decision was adopted unanimously. https://english.pravda.ru/history/107129-ussr_crimea_ukraine/
Who owns the Crimean Peninsula? This map shows how the land was always part of Russian sovereignty. It dates from 1938, and it is not really old.
Quoting ssu
Exactly, and this is where the problems arise. The Western world does not want to recognise the sovereignty of Russia in those 'disputed' lands because they do not respect the Russian constitution when it is clear that the 65th article says: Chapter 3. The Russian Federation includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:
Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Altai, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Daghestan, Republic of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Republic of Kalmykia, Karachayevo-Circassian Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, Republic of Tatarstan, Republic of Tuva, Udmurtian Republic, Republic of Khakassia, Chechen Republic, Chuvash Republic.
Finucane's widow subsequently claimed that Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister at the time of the murder, "knew exactly what was going on". She claimed that Cory had told her that he had seen papers marked 'for cabinet eyes only', and they involved collusion and the killing of her husband. On 12 December 2012, the government released the Pat Finucane Review, the results of the inquiry conducted by Sir Desmond de Silva. The report documented extensive evidence of State collaboration with loyalist gunmen, including the selection of targets, and concluded that "there was a wilful and abject failure by successive governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively within the law.
Imagine using the state power to kill a lawyer for just representing and defending IRA members in court. At least, we never did that with Catalan members and later on, we call Putin a psychopath in some threads...
But karma kicks in and now his son, John Finucane, is the first Irish nationalist MP in the history of the constituency. :smile:
No, no no! It doesn't go like that.
The Western world either doesn't want to recognize the sovereignty of Spain over Gibraltar or the sovereingty of Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla. The reason simply is that they have recognized the sovereignty of UK, Spain and Morocco. Period. If Spain writes in it's constitution where it states that Gibraltar is Spanish territory or Morocco proclaims that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Morocco, that doesn't matter. It's simply bitching about territory. Because the UK hasn't given Gibraltar back to Spain and you haven't handed over Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, both countries aren't giving up their territory. Go then and fight the UK or have Morocco capture Ceuta and Melilla. And guess what! It's extremely likely that "The West" wouldn't recognize the either invasions as lawful and would likely support the claim of the previous holder of these territories.
Just look at what kind of limbo it has been for the area formerly called "Spanish Sahara" (since 1884) and now called Western Sahara and it's occupation by Morocco in 1976. Morocco fought the Ifni war with Spain and then with Mauritania got the deal with Spain with the Madrid Accords. Yet several countries don't recognize Morocco's claim on West Sahara and the US only accepted the Moroccan claims tunder Trump's administration after Morocco normalized relations with Israel (the Abraham Accords). So yes, you can haggle a deal and get recognition. (Just like (surprise surprise) Cuba, North Korea and Syria have recognized the annexations of Ukraine that Russia has done.)
Hence Russian constitution itself doesn't matter. Heck Russian's can write in their constitution whatever they want! It matters what has been recognized by others! And when Russia and others have recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, that's it. That's the end of the marriage. And one side cannot afterwards just start backtracking the whole thing, that actually they didn't have a divorce. Or it was unlawful. The merit of these accusations have gone after not only Russia recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, but reaffirmed it later in the Budapest memorandum.
Thus it is now an aggressive expansion and an attack on a sovereign state. No way over it.
This is a good example of the complexities in these situations. Why should the 1938 demographics be the deciding factor? If we want things to be resolved in a fair & just manner, then at a minimum shouldn't we go back to the Crimean Khanate?
I didn't attempt to consider the 1938 map as a determinant, but to show how perfectly it is drawn. We are debating here about sovereignty, and we can see that the coloured part is Russian. Yes, I read some information on the Crimean Khanate. It seems to be a Turkic tribe who inhabited the zone for some centuries and then, they were part of an Ottoman protectorate, and then the peninsula was transferred to the Russian Empire after the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). That tribe no longer exists since the end of the war, so it will not be worth debating if the peninsula belongs to them. Russia has been maintaining more power and presence since then.
The same happened to Celtiberians. They were the original inhabitants of Spain, until the Roman Empire vanished from them. Are they the real owners of the Iberian Peninsula? Or the Romans, Moors, Visigoth? Well, the Reconquista established that this land belonged to Castile and the rest of the Iberian kingdoms, which they united themselves to become Spain.
The position of Spain after the death of Franco was similar to the end of the Soviet Union. A country with the need to be respected by the international arena again, and our people gave a big effort, transferring a lot of sovereignty - and dignity sometimes - to Brussels. So, our politicians never claimed Gibraltar back because it is so 'nationalist' and we were feared of being rejected by the European Union. The years passed by, and most of the Spaniards no longer care about Gibraltar because we understand it has always been English.
I thought the European Union would make a movement in favour of Spain after Brexit. But most people do not want to get involved in these issues...
On the other hand, Ceuta and Melilla were never part of Morocco, but Portugal. Nonetheless, those cities decided to move on to the Castile - Spanish - Kingdom and Portugal agreed on this transference. Morocco claims those territories - as well as the Canary Islands - with the aim of establishing a Great Morocco, which never existed, and it is only in their dictator's mind.
It has been 319 years under British rule. Yet above all, the treaty of Utrecht signed it to the crown of Great Britain for "perpetuity" in 1714. And that "perpetuity" has kept as Spain has seen it not worthy of a war with the UK about it.
We too have no interest of the lands we lost in WW2. All the people were relocated to other parts of Finland and everybody understand that Russia won't give up a place inhabited by Russians now for 79 years. It only a sleazy way to get votes of older ex-Karelians that a politician upholds the idea of somehow negotiating these lands back. So we too have accepted that former Finnish lands aren't anymore Finnish.
It hasn't been so in Russia. And especially for Putin, for whom the collapse was an traumatic experience. Why Putin refers to the greatest tragedy is simply that it was Russia itself that wanted the break up of the Soviet Union. And once Russia was against the Union, there wasn't anything support the union. Once the August coup of 1991 happened, they didn't catch Yeltsin (likely was drunk somewhere) and finally (a sober) Yeltsin then made the famous talk on top of a tank. And that was it. The armed forces broke up into different sides and later the coup (which would be more correctly an autocoup) fell. It would be if all the states that make the US would simply reject the current Federation and leave a President and Congress in charge of just Washington DC.
The continuation of the union in the form of CIS never happened. Yet because the Soviet Union simply dissolved, for Putin it was a huge error or something that could be corrected. The real tragedy is that here the war that the last Soviet leadership prevented has now being fought by soldiers that were born later than the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Why the Soviet Empire collapsed: If Russia wasn't for the continuation of the union, who would be?
Quoting javi2541997
Both Ceuta and Melilla have been around in antiquity. Ceuta was only conquered by Portugal in 1415. Although then I assume it was the Marinid dynasty controlling Morocco. But of course 600 years of control of a city is something. Nearly as long as the Moors controlled southern Spain.
Typically people want to find the "correct peace" which is most advantageous for their country, but I still insist it's the last peace treaty or the last recognition of independence, that actually matters.