Iulus Cofield wrote:Eh, I'm not so sure about that. At least, I'm not so sure that sovereignty is a thing that is applied individually to each parcel of land of a country. Sovereignty is generally thought of as self-determination of the collective territory and people. Furthermore, sovereignty exists from (simplifying) three things, military and political force of the nation itself, the military and political force of another nation (e.g., South Vietnam), or the consent of the people living there. We've gotten to the point in our history that the first two have taken on a connotation of illegitimacy, to the point where other nations will not necessarily recognize sovereignty arising from the first two (case in point, the Arab nations and Israel). So, if the secession is truly from the will of the people of the area, does the country have legitimate sovereignty over the area or do they just have de facto sovereignty by force of arms?
Holding an area by force of arms doesn't necessarily
mean that the sovereignty is invalid, assuming that the area has to be held by force of arms for security reasons. Now, doing so at no benefit just to oppress a population (or for lebensraum), is unacceptable. But holding a place by force of arms because the population in that area has suddenly become hostile? I don't think that's unwarranted, and I don't think it invalidates sovereignty, particularly seeing as a country's right to sovereignty over an area shouldn't be coerced out of it.
I'm not sure I would say the PA has true sovereignty. For that definition, they need full control of their domestic and foreign affairs. For foreign affairs, they do regulate their own diplomatic relations with other governments and are recognized by most governments in the world. But my understanding is that their control of trade is at the mercy of Israel. The blockade of Gaza (any blockade really) is an attack on the sovereignty of Hamas (Blech. I hate that I have to consider Hamas being a sovereign anything), because Hamas is forcibly unable to regulate their trade relations.
I don't think trade in the West Bank is entirely at Israel's mercy. Now, Gaza obviously is, but I think a country's right to self-determination is forfeit (to a certain degree) when it's engaged in a war of aggression. Or even in war in general, it should probably be accepted that that right is going to be infringed upon some. Assuming peaceful relations, the Palestinians have a right to self-determination.
The PA also only has partial control of their foreign affairs, as Israel can cut off their income whenever they do something Israel doesn't like. Cutting off the income of a nation is a direct attack on sovereignty.
I agree that, if Israel were to cut off income, that would be a threat to sovereignty and self-determination. That doesn't necessarily mean it's inappropriate (I haven't really formed a judgment about that, but I'm inclined to say that's an inappropriate response to most things), but it is a violation of sovereignty.
As for domestic affairs, there are numerous points that can be brought up. The Israeli military courts wouldn't exist if Palestine had true sovereignty; Israel would not have been able to deny passport renewal to Palestinians if Palestine was sovereign because sovereign nations issue and regulate their own passports; the list could go on and on.
The passport renewal thing is pre-Oslo, so that doesn't really count. As for courts, I'm pretty sure that Palestine has its own courts. It's just that those courts don't have jurisdiction for crimes committed in Area C and Israel.
I think it's fair truer to say that Israel is suzerain of the Palestinian Territories and all of their self-determination is currently only what is allowed them by Israel. Of course, sovereign nations can have their self-determination limited by other sovereign nations, but doing so is an act of war. And Israel isn't at war with Palestine, right, right?
Eh... Not quite at war, but certainly not at peace. Though the Palestinian government in the West Bank is, for the moment, peaceful with Israel, it's not like the West Bank itself is at peace with Israel. The IDF regularly conducts security operations in the West Bank, thwarting terrorist plots and such. Suzerain is close, but I think Palestine has a bit too much freedom (though not by much) to qualify Israel that way.
Anyways, while I think the Palestinians are able to exercise their right to self-determination, that's not quite the case with Palestine. But as restrictions to a country's right to self-determination can be imposed if necessary for security, until a final peace agreement is reached, then assuming Israel is legitimately working towards peace (and it is), those restrictions are, I think, okay.
yurell wrote:So ... Britain's right to be sovereign overrides the Thirteen Colonies' right to be 'a sore loser'? That's ... nice.
No. The south seceded because they were sore losers, upset about the results of an election and some government policies (that, as part of a democracy, they had a say in.) The colonies seceded because they were denied their right to self-determination: they weren't represented in their government.
What's silly is that you expected everyone else to have been using that definition of sovereign, rather than the common 'authority of a state to govern itself'.
You don't think that the loss of land is a loss of sovereignty under this definition? I'd hardly call the loss of land "trivial" anyways, depending on the size. For example, if we're talking about land that millions of people live off of or that comprise the entire cotton industry (which makes up a lot of the economy), then that's hardly trivial.