Right of Conquest

[Politesse]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

 

[TSwizzle]

I tend to use the Eddie Izzard rule, "Do you have a flag?".

 

[repoman]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

 

[Elixir]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories?

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".

If so, on what moral or legal basis?

Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

 

[TomC]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

"It should"?

Why? I don't think so.
I want our dominant moral code to get away from the primitive "might makes right" moral code.

By the standard you described, a car jacker "should" now own your car!
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?

 

[Politesse]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories?

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".

If so, on what moral or legal basis?

Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

 

[Elixir]

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more.

What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.

Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership?

Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.

If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.

 

[Politesse]

What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.

Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership?

Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.

If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.

So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

I'm asking a legal, not practical, question. Obviously, the US and Canada and Australia and so forth seized a bunch of land. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the seizure was legal, under their own legal principles, or not.

 

[Trausti]

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.

 

[TomC]

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?

Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?

I wanted to as soon as I read your OP, but I held off.

For now.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.

So you are arguing that it is, or isn't, de jure?

 

[Politesse]

Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?

Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?

I wanted to as soon as I read your OP, but I held off.

For now.
Tom

I certainly feel that it's relevant. It takes things into the even murkier realm of "international law", but they are obviously following the US/Australian model, at this current point in time.

 

[prideandfall]

So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

no, because the protestors were never the overwhelming local force, and never an overwhelming regional force.

basically i'd say that logistically it's a hierarchy: whomsoever lays claim to an area and has the resources to to maintain that claim through violence is the owner of that area.
lesser agents within the area can take temporary control of a small segment for short periods of time, but that's a limited scope issue of pragmatism and only lasts until the owning interest shows up to reestablish their claim.

 

[Politesse]

So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

no, because the protestors were never the overwhelming local force, and never an overwhelming regional force.

basically i'd say that logistically it's a hierarchy: whomsoever lays claim to an area and has the resources to to maintain that claim through violence is the owner of that area.
lesser agents within the area can take temporary control of a small segment for short periods of time, but that's a limited scope issue of pragmatism and only lasts until the owning interest shows up to reestablish their claim.

So if they had fought back and murdered every police officer that stepped foot in their zone, and then every zone, until the world got sickened from the violence and the troops stopped being sent, you would consider the protestors to then "own" that patch of land? Under what law?

 

[prideandfall]

So if they had fought back and murdered every police officer that stepped foot in their zone, and then every zone, until the world got sickened and the troops stopped being sent, you would consider the protestors to then "own" that patch of land? Under what law?

ostensibly, yes.

 

[Derec]

Asking for a First Nation.

Which so-called "first" nation are you asking about? Because there were many wars of conquest among the Amerindians as well.

But why is for example European conquest of the Americas in your view illegitimate and say Apache conquests in the Southwest legitimate?

 

[Politesse]

So if they had fought back and murdered every police officer that stepped foot in their zone, and then every zone, until the world got sickened and the troops stopped being sent, you would consider the protestors to then "own" that patch of land? Under what law?

ostensibly, yes.

Again, a claim.

Under what law or justification?

 

[Politesse]

Asking for a First Nation.

Which so-called "first" nation are you asking about? Because there were many wars of conquest among the Amerindians as well.

But why is for example European conquest of the Americas in your view illegitimate and say Apache conquests in the Southwest legitimate?

Who said they were? Do you think that both were legitimate, or both illegitimate, and on what basis?

 

[Derec]

Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?

Arabs started wars against Israel multiple times and lost. Arabs losing territory to the country they attacked (with genocidal intent) is no different than Germany losing territory after the World Wars.