Nice try. Please quote this definition of sovereignty which you've
alleged I've invented.
You do make it difficult to quote a 'definition' because you spend more
time stomping around crying "no it ain't" than anything else but you've
made it clear that 'controlling' territory is pretty much it.
You will, no doubt, say that's inaccurate but it doesn't really matter
because you deny the reality of it, which means whatever you will fail to
explain it is while opining "that isn't it" is still, being contrary to
reality, an invention.
For your further education, this is known as setting a up a "straw
man".
And you work real hard at it too.
And I tend to be a bit stuffy about fatuous inventions - try arguing
with what I've written, rather than what you would have liked me to
have written.
For some strange reason I actually do.
<snipped a chunk of very selective quotation>
You're a hoot. I pull 5 whole sections of the article and you call it "very
selective quotations" and rebut with a 14 word sentence fragment ripped out
of context. Not only that but, to make your attempted deception even more
apparent, the sentence fragment you ripped out as 'your quote', while
suggesting mine was 'selective', was *INCLUDED* in my quotation, except
with the rest of the words around it that YOU selectively eliminated.
And then, to complete the farce, you snip my fuller quotations out.
Anyone who reads the whole article will find a rather more balanced
assessment of the issues involved in recognition.
What they'll find is that most of the rest is examples and explanations of
why the portions I pulled out are the case
Here's a quote which is more to my taste
" the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state
population, state territory, effective government) "
Isn't that nice? Except that all the words around it, that you ripped it
out of, are explaining why that isn't the case, why it could not be the
case, and why it isn't desirable that it ever be the case. Which is *IN*
what you call my "very selective quotation."
Putting that one (of 5) "very selective quotation" back in...
"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."
What I 'selectively' removed at the ..... was an example to emphasis the
point using Rhodesia and the Serbian Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
removing it did not alter the meaning, just saved some space.
*Your* selective culling of those 14 words is a deception attempting to
suggest exactly the opposite of what the text says.
I also cut the paragraph short as the rest of it reinforces the last
sentence in my quote but, lest anyone doubt and is too lazy to follow the
link, here's the rest.
"Legal personality under international law, which non-recognition was
intended to prevent, would already have been acquired, and non-recognition
would then in a sense be futile and would merely be an expression of
political censure of the way in which the state came into existence,
without this flaw having any significant legal consequences under
international law. Such an assumption is not consistent with state practice."
In other words, it ain't the case, can't be the case, isn't desirable that
it be the case, *and* is inconsistent with state practice.
Which was - as even you ought to appreciate - a joke.
Well, it sometimes helps to laugh when you haven't got a leg to stand on.
The Northern Alliance might have been a recognised entity, but it
wasn't a government, and certainly not of the 90% of Afghanistan ruled
by the Taliban.
What you *think* should have been the case doesn't matter. The fact is the
Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan and, as the
article explains, there are reasons why 'recognition' matters, that there's
more to a government that simply 'control' over territory, and just having
'power' doesn't automatically bestow legitimacy.
That international diplomacy has lot in common with high comedy, and
very little to do with reality. You should love it.
If we were sitting around talking about the ironies of life in a general
sort of way I might agree with you, or at least find it amusing, but it
isn't very funny when someone is harboring and aiding the folks who
declared war on you and just mass murdered a few thousand of your fellow
countrymen.