Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Confederate flags again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    By doing nothing for 10 months, the North tacitly agreed.
    The break up of Czechoslovakia was negotiated and agreed, and legal under international law. The secession of the South was not negotiated nor agreed to by both parties.

    Source: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0044.xml


    Introduction

    The term secession designates the unilateral withdrawal from a state of part of its territory and population with the will to create a new state. It is commonly admitted today that, outside the context of decolonization and situations of military occupation, there is no “right” to create an independent state. “External self-determination” was granted to colonized peoples only on the basis of the “salt-water” test. But this does not mean that secession is prohibited. The real criterion for the emergence of a new state, outside the colonial context, is the principle of effectiveness: if a secessionist entity succeeds in fulfilling the conditions of statehood, a new state is born. This traditional view, according to which “secession is not a question of law, but a question of fact,” leads to an impression of perfect “legal neutrality” on the matter of secession. This could be misleading for the following reasons. First, in case of violation of peremptory norms (e.g., external aggression), international law denies the quality of “state” to a secessionist entity, notwithstanding its “effectiveness.” The maxim ex iniuria ius nor oritur defines the external limits of acceptance of the principle of effectiveness. Second, even though secession is not “prohibited,” international law disfavors it and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state. Indeed, the final consent or, at least, the “resignation” of the parent state and the abandonment of its efforts to reassert its authority seem crucial in permitting the secessionist entity to “normalize” its situation by demonstrating the “ultimate success” of the secession. The traditional reluctance (with the exception of Kosovo) of third states to recognize such entities as states pending a strong opposition of the old sovereign authority, leads to the existence of many “de facto” unrecognized entities, which is problematic for international law. Third, it has often been suggested that, even though there is no “general” right to secession outside the colonial context, there is nonetheless a “qualified” right to “remedial secession” in case of gross violations of human rights of individuals belonging to a specific group. Both legal scholars and national states remain strongly opposed concerning the existence of such a right. Finally, the principle of uti possidetis juris also interacts strongly with the principle of effectiveness. Its applicability outside the colonial context has also created considerable debate in international legal scholarship.

    General Overviews

    A researcher wishing to study the question of state secession could feel quite helpless in front of the enormous amount of literature dedicated to this subject, especially given the fact that this topic is treated not only by international lawyers, but also by international relations specialists, sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, ethnologists, and historians. Even if one focuses on international law sources, the task is not easy. An additional methodological problem is that some of the books and articles published on secession and self-determination, instead of suggesting new approaches or delving into under researched topics (such as the problem of Premature Recognition), often follow similar paths. The eight books recommended here constitute a very good point of departure for a general and pluralistic overview of the different aspects of the topic. Crawford 2006 is an essential text concerning the creation of states both within and outside the colonial context. Cassese 1995 demonstrates how closely interwoven the law and politics of self-determination are when it comes to secession. Scrutinizing international legal instruments and state practice, Christakis 1999 and Tancredi 2001 propose two positivistic approaches to the rules governing secession. Both authors seem to agree that international law governs and regulates the phenomenon of secession (certain aspects at least), but they differ on the consequences in case of violation of these rules. Contrary to both these authors, Raič 2002 suggests that “the law of self-determination” is valuable in order to understand secession outside the colonial context. Kohen 2006 and also Dahlitz 2003 offer valuable insights on many different aspects of the topic. The conflicting views of many of the contributors to these two volumes (on subjects such as the parameters of the principle of effectiveness, the applicability of the principle of territorial integrity, the role of recognition or remedial secession) constitute one of the best reflections of the division of international legal scholarship and illustrate the complexity of the topic. This is also evident in the contradictory legal opinions submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by experts during the proceedings concerning the legality of secessionist attempts by Quebec (1996–1998) and published in English in Bayefski 2000.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • “I don’t take a position,” she said. “It’s really important for me to treat it as a question that can go either way. I think that might be surprising to a reader, because today talking about the legality of secession seems so far-fetched, but I want to introduce them to the arguments on both sides. And there wasn’t a clear answer one way or another. This is a place where the Constitution is silent.”

      - Cynthia Nicoletti, who earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School, also holds a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Concerning the separation of Czech Republic and Slovakia

        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia


        Czech Republic and Slovakia

        By 1991, the Czech Republic's GDP per capita was some 20% higher than Slovakia's. Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991.

        Many Czechs and Slovaks desired the continued existence of a federal Czechoslovakia. Some major Slovak parties, however, advocated a looser form of co-existence[citation needed] and the Slovak National Party complete independence and sovereignty. In the next years, political parties re-emerged, but Czech parties had little or no presence in Slovakia, and vice versa. In order to have a functioning state, the government demanded continued control from Prague, while Slovaks continued to ask for decentralization.[1]

        In 1992, the Czech Republic elected Václav Klaus and others who demanded either an even tighter federation ("viable federation") or two independent states. Vladimír Mečiar and other leading Slovak politicians of the day wanted a kind of confederation. The two sides opened frequent and intense negotiations in June. On 17 July, the Slovak parliament adopted the declaration of independence of the Slovak nation. Six days later, Klaus and Mečiar agreed to dissolve Czechoslovakia at a meeting in Bratislava. Czechoslovak president Václav Havel resigned rather than oversee the dissolution which he had opposed;[2] in a September 1992 opinion poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured dissolution.[3]

        The goal of negotiations switched to achieving a peaceful division. On 13 November, the Federal Assembly passed Constitution Act 541 which settled the division of property between the Czech lands and Slovakia.[4] With Constitution Act 542, passed on 25 November, they agreed to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as of 31 December 1992.[4]

        The separation occurred without violence, and was thus said to be "velvet", much like the "Velvet Revolution" that preceded it, which was accomplished through massive peaceful demonstrations and actions. In contrast, other post-communist break-ups (such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) involved violent conflict. Czechoslovakia is the only former socialist state to have an entirely peaceful breakup.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-13-2020, 08:09 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          “I don’t take a position,” she said. “It’s really important for me to treat it as a question that can go either way. I think that might be surprising to a reader, because today talking about the legality of secession seems so far-fetched, but I want to introduce them to the arguments on both sides. And there wasn’t a clear answer one way or another. This is a place where the Constitution is silent.”

          - Cynthia Nicoletti, who earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School, also holds a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Virginia.
          You did take a position:
          "Actually, yes we are. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation once they seceded from the USA. Secession was not illegal until after the Civil War began."
          Secession only takes place after the fact. The Civil was just a consequence, after the South fired on and captured Fort Sumter. Until then the South took no action to enforce their secession.

          Your backing away from your original position, but it is a fact of history and International Law that secession is illegal unless both parties are in an agreement.

          The Confederate Battle flag of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia is indeed a symbol of illegal Confederate secession and carried into battle in front of his troops from 1861 to 1865.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-13-2020, 08:22 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            By doing nothing for 10 months, the North tacitly agreed.
            There never was any tacitly (?) agreement.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Your backing away from your original position,
              No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

              but it is a fact of history and International Law that secession is illegal unless both parties are in an agreement.

              False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

                Your failing to respond to my references, back taking the hard line you had before.

                In come countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.




                False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.[/QUOTE]

                That did not make it legal by international law.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No I am not. The Constitution was silent on it. So until it was decided, it was legal.

                  Your failing to respond to my references, and now back taking the hard line you had before.

                  In some countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.




                  False. Eritrea, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Panama, Bangladesh, and a host of other nations seceded without permission, and had to fight to maintain their independence.
                  The success or failure of forced secession does not make it legal by international law. The secession of Panama from Columbia was forced by the USA, and not legal by international law.I gave the source from the Oxford University, which you choose to ignore.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-13-2020, 08:34 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Your failing to respond to my references, back taking the hard line you had before.
                    Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.

                    In some countries, which are federal confederations there is a provision for secession, but not in the US Constitution. This the legal way to secede.
                    And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.


                    That did not make it legal by international law.
                    International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.

                    The secession of Panama from Columbia was forced by the USA, and not legal by international law.
                    No it wasn't. The US did not force the Panamanians to rebel.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Bill the Cat;701984]Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.



                      And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.




                      International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.



                      No it wasn't. The US did not force the Panamanians to rebel.
                      Yes they did!

                      Source: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/panama-declares-independence


                      With the support of the U.S. government, Panama issues a declaration of independence from Colombia. The revolution was engineered by a Panamanian faction backed by the Panama Canal Company, a French-U.S. corporation that hoped to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with a waterway across the Isthmus of Panama.

                      In 1903, the Hay-Herrán Treaty was signed with Colombia, granting the United States use of the Isthmus of Panama in exchange for financial compensation. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty, but the Colombian Senate, fearing a loss of sovereignty, refused. In response, President Theodore Roosevelt gave tacit approval to a rebellion by Panamanian nationalists, which began on November 3, 1903. To aid the rebels, the U.S.-administered railroad in Panama removed its trains from the northern terminus of Colón, thus stranding Colombian troops sent to crush the insurrection. Other Colombian forces were discouraged from marching on Panama by the arrival of the U.S. warship Nashville.

                      On November 6, the United States recognized the Republic of Panama, and on November 18 the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed with Panama, granting the United States exclusive and permanent possession of the Panama Canal Zone. In exchange, Panama received $10 million and an annuity of $250,000 beginning nine years later. The treaty was negotiated by U.S. Secretary of State John Hay and the owner of the Panama Canal Company. Almost immediately, the treaty was condemned by many Panamanians as an infringement on their country’s new national sovereignty.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Because you are obviously ignorant on how our legal system works. When the Constitution is silent on a matter, it can not be said to be illegal or unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules it so.



                        And the ones I listed seceded via bloodshed.
                        I cited the International Law and legal position. It did not have to be in a treaty nor whether the judicial branch says it is. In fact the judicial branch of the government has no say in international law. Being achieved by bloodshed only translates to achieved by bloodshed and does not make it legal by international law.

                        International Law is only binding due to treaties and standards. Again, irrelevant to those nations I listed.
                        By the Oxford reference I cited this is absolutely false. You have cited nothing, but opinion.

                        As cited the United States forced the secession of Panama from Colombia by the threat of force of arms.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-14-2020, 06:45 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I cited the International Law and legal position.
                          International Law is only binding if the nations agree to it.

                          It did not have to be in a treaty nor whether the judicial branch says it is. In fact the judicial branch of the government has no say in international law. Being achieved by bloodshed only translates to achieved by bloodshed and does not make it legal by international law.
                          And International Law does not trump a sovereign nation's judiciary unless it lets them. That's a fact you lefties just don't get.


                          By the Oxford reference I cited this is absolutely false.
                          The "Oxford reference" states pretty bluntly… "Second, even though secession is not “prohibited,” international law disfavors it and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state."


                          Disfavors is not "illegal", Frank.


                          You have cited nothing, but opinion.
                          And your cite doesn't even support your "secession is illegal" nonsense.

                          As cited the United States forced the secession of Panama from Colombia by the threat of force of arms.
                          No they didn't. The Panamanians were goaded into it by an French and American OWNED COMPANY, not the US. Reading is fundamental.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            International Law is only binding if the nations agree to it.



                            And International Law does not trump a sovereign nation's judiciary unless it lets them. That's a fact you lefties just don't get.




                            The "Oxford reference" states pretty bluntly… "Second, even though secession is not “prohibited,” international law disfavors it and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state."


                            Disfavors is not "illegal", Frank.




                            And your cite doesn't even support your "secession is illegal" nonsense.



                            No they didn't. The Panamanians were goaded into it by an French and American OWNED COMPANY, not the US. Reading is fundamental.
                            The warship was a US warship. You have not responded to the sources cited, nor have you cited anything but your opinion.

                            Not a coherent response. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              The warship was a US warship. You have not responded to the sources cited, nor have you cited anything but your opinion.
                              I cited a History Professor from UVA and YOUR OWN SOURCE!!! You incompetent boob!

                              Not a coherent response. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.
                              What part of "my people fought for the Union" are you failing to translate from my English into your moron?
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                I cited a History Professor from UVA and YOUR OWN SOURCE!!! You incompetent boob
                                You are nit picking words to justify your agenda. You incompetent boob!




                                What part of "my people fought for the Union" are you failing to translate from my English into your moron?
                                Your words speak for your sentiments not your ancestors. Keep flying your Confederate flag with pride.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:39 PM
                                2 responses
                                8 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, Today, 02:30 PM
                                6 responses
                                33 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by whag, Today, 02:17 PM
                                2 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 01:58 PM
                                8 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:03 AM
                                64 responses
                                229 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X