"Sovereignty exists when other recognized governments recognize a government as being the highest legitimate government of the land which it claims. Sovereignty is given by other sovereign nations. You can not bestow it on yourself. And the votes have been in on Taiwan since it got asked to get its ass out of its UN chair so many years ago. . . . Another specifically local confusion is the belief that if you click your heels together three times and say "I want to be sovereign, I want to be sovereign, I want to be sovereign" then you will be. But remember, you gotta be wearing the ruby slippers."
You're simply demonstarting that you don't understand the issues involved.
You presented one URL, which consists of a short history of Afghanistan over the past twenty-odd years, including the usual hypocritical lies about "not recogising" the Taliban.
Elsewhere in this thread, we've had a couple of URLs bringing out the interesting case of Tiawan - another "unrecognised" government. I must confess that I should have thought of that - I'm certaily surprised that my quick google serach didn't pick them up.
It's amusing you want to critic my 'lawyer' status and then follow by asking those fundamental questions.
In this context the 'international community" is the collection of recognized sovereigns capable of recognizing another government.
What's meaningless is you trying to argue about a simple, self evident. statement.
Again, you want to argue against the self evident. If you think the Taliban was a "recognized government' then find a government who 'recognized' it.
No, it's an article of his opinion on what he thinks they 'should', or can, look at. He has no authority to dictate to the court nor the government. He can simply 'argue his case'.
You also confuse domestic commercial matters with the international political. As the article you, yourself, presented "the advance this judgment makes is to prise away the question of who is the government for international, political purposes from the question of who it is for domestic legal purposes."
It's one of those 'pragmatic' aspects of the law you apparently disdain, "they got the money so we still want to sue whether they're a legitimate government or not' (among other matters that may please the court).
And the references further clarify the derivative.
"11.... to the effect that courts may enforce the acts of an UNRECOGNIZED entity where private rights, or acts of everyday occurrence or perfunctory acts of administration are concerned' . . the courts of this country can recognize the laws or acts of a body which is in effective control of a territory even though it has NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED by Her Majesty's Government"
I.E. no reason to dispute the legal marital status of someone simply because they're unfortunate enough to have been married some place controlled by terrorists or other unrecognized entity.
Be interesting to see you cite something but, in any case, US courts cannot dictate who the US government will recognize as the sovereign of any nation.
I'll be more precise, I can't find reference to any sovereign 'recognizing' the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and they definitely did not occupy the UN seat for Afghanistan, a condition normally accepted as being 'recognized'.
And if you're going to keep insisting they were 'recognized' then you need to find some sovereign who did. Otherwise it's just you blustering and complaining about it.
You can laugh all you want but one does not get to 'hold onto' a UN seat because they like the chair. The body must recognize them as the legitimate representative of the government in order to do so. Just ask Taiwan who was instructed to get their butt out.
Nonsense.
formatting link
"The United Nations and the governments of other nations still recognize and maintain diplomatic relations with the Northern Alliance, rather than the Taliban."
Man, you don't even read your own articles.
"This is, again, because States often, for policy rather than legal reasons, have relations with bodies that are not governments or States."
I didn't say it was, or wasn't, 'just because' and I provided proof the Taliban was not recognized by the U.N.
So, giggle boy, instead of stomping around like a 3 year old crying "is so, is so, is so" provide some evidence of which sovereign nations recognized them. And while you're at it you might also explain why this supposedly 'recognized' government wasn't allowed to sit in the Afghanistan UN seat.
"recognized."
LOL. I don't believe it, you actually said it: 'governments don't know if they 'recognize' one another'.
You're simply demonstrating you don't know what a recognized government is.
A pretty stupid thing for you to say when I've presented the supporting evidence, and URLs.
That's an interesting take on it but rather than 'co-operation' the "art of state-to-state dialogue" they practiced seems, from the historical record, more appropriately described as how to feign a smile, curtsey, and 'talk' while contemplating which knife to stab in each other's back.
'Fluent and elegant deception' seems to have been a prized talent.
I doubt overwhelming the existing population was quite as trivial as you make it sound but perhaps Americans are prone to a more 'direct' approach because 'fluent and elegant deception' was likely to get an arrow up the butt as the existing population never did appreciate that talent very much.
"chief of state: President CHEN Shui-bian (since 20 May 2000) and Vice President Annette LU (LU Hsiu-lien) (since 20 May 2000) head of government: Premier (President of the Executive Yuan) Frank HSIEH (since 1 February 2005) and Vice Premier (Vice President of the Executive Yuan) - WU Rong-i) (since 18 February 2005) "
" Taiwan currently enjoys de facto independence and - whatever the ultimate outcome regarding reunification or independence - that Taiwan's people must have the deciding voice"
"Army, Navy (includes Marine Corps), Air Force, Coast Guard Administration, Armed Forces Reserve Command, Combined Service Forces Command, Armed Forces Police Command"
"The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest."
In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the rule of a current one. De facto leaders need not hold a constitutional office, and may exercise power in an informal manner
sovereignty, supreme authority in a political community. The concept of sovereignty has had a long history of development, and it may be said that every political theorist since Plato has dealt with the notion in some manner, although not always explicitly. Jean Bodin was the first theorist to formulate a modern concept of sovereignty. In his Six Bookes of a Commonweale (1576) Bodin asserted that the prince, or the sovereign, has the power to declare law. Thomas Hobbes later furthered the concept of kingly sovereignty by stating that the king not only declares law but creates it; he thereby gave the sovereign both absolute moral and political power. Hobbes, like other social-contract theorists, asserted that the king derives his power from a populace who have collectively given up their own former personal sovereignty and power and placed it irretrievably in the king. The concept of sovereignty was closely related to the growth of the modern nation-state, and today the term is used almost exclusively to describe the attributes of a state rather than a person. A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs. In its external relations it claims the right to enforce its own conception of rights and to declare war.
This description of a sovereign state is denied, however, by those who assert that international law is binding. Because states are limited by treaties and international obligations and are not legally permitted by the United Nations Charter to commit aggression at will, they argue that the absolute freedom of a sovereign state is, and should be, a thing of the past. In current international practice this view is generally accepted. The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for restraining the exercise of sovereignty.
In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and each state are considered sovereign. Among conflicts in which the concept comes into play are those between the federal and state governments (see states' rights) and those between citizens and either the federal or a state government. Governments are generally held to be immune from suit for consequences of their sovereign acts (those acts the government was constituted or empowered to perform). This "sovereign immunity" must be waived to permit suit against the government. It is also encountered in claims that government officials, in pursuance of their duties, be immune from having to give evidence before a tribunal or inquiry.
"David Maynard" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...
Feel free to cut and paste where you think that page says the US has recognized them as a sovereign.
What is does say is "goals of the Taiwan independence movement include establishing a sovereign nation on Taiwan and entering the UN."
Being a "goal" implicitly tells you it ain't the case.
And if that isn't enough for you it also tells the relationship: "Diplomatic representation...: none; unofficial commercial and cultural relations with the people of the US are maintained through an unofficial instrumentality,"
Oh but I do. The only thing I don't understand is what makes you think you can simply 'invent' your own definition of recognized government and expect all the governments of the world, not to mention the UN, to obey your arbitrary decree.
They tend to be a bit stuffy about that sort of thing like "who made you god?"
How about The European Journal of International Law? Surely that can't be a 'Bush invention'.
formatting link
"Recognition of a new state is an act that confers a status; as a result of recognition, the recognized entity acquires the legal status of a state under international law. In this sense, a (new) state is not born, but chosen as a subject of international law. Only when the new state has been recognized does it become a subject of international law, and this initially only with respect to the existing states recognizing it.2 On admission as a member of the United Nations, the new state then becomes part of the globally organized community of states by way of co-optation. . . . It is only by recognition that the new state acquires the status of a sovereign state under international law in its relations with the third states recognizing it as such. If it were to acquire this legal status before and independently of recognition by the existing states, solely on the basis of the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state population, state territory, effective government)..... It would not be possible to bring about the `negative' legal consequence intended by non-recognition, i.e. denial of the legal status of a state under international law. . . . contrary to the doctrine of the de facto regime,12 which is thus misleading on this point, the validity and operative effect of rules of international law in international relations always depend on the recognition (in whatever form) of the new state by the existing ones. . . . it is not true that a de facto regime assumes a certain legal position on account of its existence, without any particular recognition being required. . . . Thus, in order for it to enjoy the protection of the prohibition of the use of force applicable in international relations, integration to a greater or lesser extent into the international community is always necessary by way of (collective) recognition..."
All it takes is one to show they didn't sit in the UN seat and the Northern Alliance did.
Stomp, cry, bellow, giggle, do whatever you feel like. The fact of the matter is the Taliban was not a recognized government. Worse yet, for you, the other one WAS.
And what have you learned from your new found knowledge?
?? I've been avoiding the political threads.. but..
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates all recognized the Taliban government prior to 9/11.
There are still a couple of dozen states (a fairly pathetic lot generally, some of whom have been paid off by aid) who recognize the government in little Taipei as the sole legitimate government of all of China. It took from 1949 until 1971 (22 years) for the UN to recognize the facts on the ground, boot the ROC and replace it with the PRC. It took another 8 years for the US to accept it (30 years total).
The "unofficial" nature of relations with the Republic of China is pretty much a convenient lie. The American Institute in Taiwan is an embassy in all but name, shielded by a shell nonprofit corporation, but in reality funded by the US State Department. It can even get you a US passport, assuming you qualify. Further, I can assure you that the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office" in New York City issues Republic of China visas that are quite real and quite official. I have one right here and it worked just fine.
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it\'s the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Mr. Maynard is an attorney. Somehow I missed that.
To quote an attorney friend of mine (and I don't think it is original with him)
"When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, just argue."
The operative phrase of the first is "often described as" and is neither a complete description nor a formal one.
Yes, the UN is today considered the principle organ.
The United States is a recognized government. How it handles internal sovereignty it's own matter, and rather unique I might add.
A typical fragment quote to obfuscate but the meaning is clear in the original text.
"The claim that Taiwan is sovereign is usually based on three possible confusions. Many of the pundits base their arguments for Taiwanese sovereignty on some pseudo-legal argument that some treaty in the last century somehow ceded Taiwan to Taiwan or some such. I must confess I never paid much heed, because as an attorney, I am well aware of the fact sovereignty is not a legal/international law issue. The other thing that confuses people is they equate limited independence with sovereignty. Taiwan certainly does have some form of limited autonomy but that is not sovereignty."
He's saying you cannot 'litigate' yourself into sovereignty. You cannot take the international community to 'court' and obtain a court 'judgment' that you are a sovereign as there is no 'legal' argument to be made, and no 'law' which says if you meet thus and thus 'poof' you're a sovereign, which is why he calls it "pseudo legal" and why, as a lawyer, he never paid much heed to any of that nonsense and why it "is not a legal/international law issue." You cannot 'litigate' it.
"Sovereignty exists when other recognized governments recognize a government as being the highest legitimate government of the land which it claims. Sovereignty is given by other sovereign nations. You can not bestow it on yourself."
As I have been trying to tell you folks all along.
Except that whether a government is recognized is the topic and the "many other things" are not.
The issue is what constitutes a recognized government and 'opinion' does not control the matter.
Now that we're past your meaningless babble...
If you hadn't snipped the rest of what I said you wouldn't be confused but, no matter, you left enough for the important gist of it: "international, political purposes" vs "domestic legal purposes."
"Domestic legal purposes" have no bearing on the international recognition matter.
It is perfectly accurate and I've provided the international law references to support it.
If I ever see something from a "Spehro" I'll read it.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.