|
Turkey invades Iraq? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The Kurds are self-determining. |
They are not a sovereign state. So therefore, they don't have a right of self-determination. In Turkey at least.... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
They are not a sovereign state. So therefore, they don't have a right of self-determination. In Turkey at least.... |
Self-determination is the right of a national group to BECOME a sovereign state. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Self-determination is the right of a national group to BECOME a sovereign state. |
I would say only a sovereign state has the right of self-determination. Until a nation obtains state status would I say they have a right to self-determination. Until then, that right resides in the state with which they are citizens of. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I would say only a sovereign state has the right of self-determination. Until a nation obtains state status would I say they have a right to self-determination. Until then, that right resides in the state with which they are citizens of. |
That doesn't make sense. Self-Determination is the process whereby states come into being.
From the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights (aka under international law): "Self determination is a principle whereby all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
edit:
Lenin also famously wrote on self-determination:
| quote: | | [T]he tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. ... [T]he national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period. Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations ... by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. ...[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state. |
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm#v20pp72-395 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That doesn't make sense. Self-Determination is the process whereby states come into being.
From the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights (aka under international law): "Self determination is a principle whereby all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
edit:
Lenin also famously wrote on self-determination:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/len...htm#v20pp72-395 |
Well, lebez, you now understand that my interpretation of self-determination is different. I don't believe all peoples have a right to determine their own economic, social, and cultural development. I believe it is a sovereign state's right to such self-determination.
Now, what justifies the creation of a sovereign state?
1. National Identity
2. Functioning social institutions
3. Super-majority support of the separatist nation.
Etc. etc. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, lebez, you now understand that my interpretation of self-determination is different. I don't believe all peoples have a right to determine their own economic, social, and cultural development. I believe it is a sovereign state's right to such self-determination.
Now, what justifies the creation of a sovereign state?
1. National Identity
2. Functioning social institutions
3. Super-majority support of the separatist nation.
Etc. etc. |
That's an even more limited concept of self-determination than the UN operates with. And by that logic even the African states would still be colonial entities. Self-determination incorporates will to govern, not capacity - in fact, rare is the case where a national group is simply given the capacity to create functioning social and political institutions from day one. The concept of self-determination simply allows an attempt at creating such lasting institutions to be undertaken. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That's an even more limited concept of self-determination than the UN operates with. And by that logic even the African states would still be colonial entities. Self-determination incorporates will to govern, not capacity - in fact, rare is the case where a national group is simply given the capacity to create functioning social and political institutions from day one. The concept of self-determination simply allows an attempt at creating such lasting institutions to be undertaken. |
Well, look at what many of these African countries have done with their independence. They are embroiled in constant civil conflicts.
As for 4th world nations such as Kurdistan, Tamil country, and Palestine, they fit my criteria of a nation deserving state status, and thus, self-determination. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, look at what many of these African countries have done with their independence. They are embroiled in constant civil conflicts.
As for 4th world nations such as Kurdistan, Tamil country, and Palestine, they fit my criteria of a nation deserving state status, and thus, self-determination. |
Now I'm just confused.
Are you saying the African states didn't deserve to self-determine their destiny because they had no history of governance?
And are you saying that there ARE superior institutions of political and social significance in Kurdistan? Where is the threshold?
I do see your point, but I don't think it's reasonable - the reason self-determination rose to prominence in the first place is because of minority populations within broader states that were denied any sort of governance, even in localities (this was particularly the case in former colonies and in regions under Ottoman control). Self-determination created a framework whereby these oft-oppressed national groups could achieve self-governance with the support of the international community in order to stave off conflict from the entity they seek separation from. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
They are not a sovereign state. So therefore, they don't have a right of self-determination. In Turkey at least.... |
OH NO HE DIN'T! |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Now, what justifies the creation of a sovereign state?
1. The People
Etc. etc. |
corrected for typos |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
corrected for typos |
People? National identity binds the "people" together into a nation. What does a Iraq do to a nation who is not loyal to Baghdad? Even Saddam couldn't extinguish the Kurdish national identity. They have their own government, their own flag, their own institutions. The Kurds are even signing oil contracts without the consent of Baghdad.
A national identity is a more better term of peoples uniting into a separate national identity.. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
People? National identity binds the "people" together into a nation. What does a Iraq do to a nation who is not loyal to Baghdad? Even Saddam couldn't extinguish the Kurdish national identity. They have their own government, their own flag, their own institutions. The Kurds are even signing oil contracts without the consent of Baghdad.
A national identity is a more better term of peoples uniting into a separate national identity.. |
Nations are not held together with glue. They're held together with will and words. |
|
|
|
|
