Recently the United States has made overtures at recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights. This is significant in that this would be the first time since the end of World War II where the United States would recognize a territory captured by military means. This recognition could potentially set in place a precedent which could grant other states the public authority to recognize other territories captured by military means in the future. Since there is no superior legal authority within the realm of the international, public authority is dictated by precedent, and the willingness of states to follow through with said precedent. This particular precedent bears the threat of a belligerent sovereign using the threat of violence on a smaller state in order to expand their territorial claims inside the smaller state, and then having these territorial claims be recognized by the allies of the belligerent sovereign. Any attempt by other states to disavow this claim to the belligerent's new territoriality would be nominal, as any military action within these new borders can be interpreted by states which recognize this new border as a violation of sovereignty.
A similiar situation occurred after the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in 2008. Kosovo's territory was located within the sovereign country of Serbia, and (to summarize a complex series of negotions) declared independence in 2008 without the consent of Serbia. Kosovo was promptly recognized by a number of states including the U.S. shortly after declaring itself independent. This set a negative precedent that regional separatist movements do not require any public authority from the sovereign country they are declaring independence from. This precedent was then used by Russia in the Georgian autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to justify military intervention in Georgia to protect the sovereignty of these two regions. One of the main differences between the Golan Heights recognition and the recognition of Kosovo would be that only the U.S. would recognize the Golan Heights and Kosovo received recognition from a broader international audience, however the threat of establishing this precedent still remains and should be taken very seriously.
James this is very interesting. That in this instance you note it is a dangerous precedent. Why is this dangerous when the U.S. similarly announced its independence without approval from the British government. I think this leads us to a good discussion on legitimate use of violence and autonomy as defined by a state actor.
ReplyDeleteThe theme this module looks exactly at these themes of public violence and the role of the state in intervention. I'd like to propose an anti Hobesian view that states do not have the right to stand against any armed resistance of it's people. I believe all groups have the right to self government. I think we should provide a framework of international law that would allow for arbitration in the event of disagreements of this nature. This could allow a peaceful means for states to reorganize as their interests and identity allow.
My major contention is how can a state forcibly control it's citizens that want nothing to do with the state? Doesn't this fly directly in the face of democracy? why is the U.S. Allowed to do this and other countries cannot stand for their rightful claim?
I believe we need to fundamentally adjust our utilization of violence for policy enforcement. We have seen in syria and Iraq rulers brutally utilizing violence as a means of cohesion and this has not worked. I understand that using chemical gas on populations not adhering to the policy preferences is the extreme on the scale but I think that where we draw the line needs to be reexamined.