Those of you who have been subjected to my ramblings for a while will recall that I was obsessed with the legitimacy of statehood.
As if by magic, I came across an entry on slashdot about Pirate Bay moving to Sealand - an abandoned UK fort turned principality. It seems the debate over whether or not Sealand is really an independent state still rages. Those who oppose point out:
- Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
- Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
- Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
- Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
- Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
- Has a government which provides public services and police power.
- Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country’s territory.
- Has external recognition. A country has been “voted into the club” by other countries.
And a quick check of Wikipedia reveals even more on the subject:
In international law, the two most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declarative theories. The constitutive theory was the standard 19th-century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the 20th century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires “diplomatic recognition” or merely “recognition of existence”.
A raging question which was on the whiteboard in my head now has an answer.
Entries (RSS)
I am going to get married on Sealand!