Right of Conquest

[Derec]

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

Because unless you see Indian wars of conquest as legitimate, you really have no grounds to call this or that piece of land as belonging as this or that tribe. What makes say the Sioux claim the Black Hills? Isn't it that they conquered it at some point in the past? So why is their conquest of that territory more legitimate than the US one?

 

[Politesse]

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

Because unless you see Indian wars of conquest as legitimate, you really have no grounds to call this or that piece of land as belonging as this or that tribe. What makes say the Sioux claim the Black Hills? Isn't it that they conquered it at some point in the past? So why is their conquest of that territory more legitimate than the US one?

Are you telling me your perspective, or are you telling me my perspective? The question I posed in this thread was about the legal basis of the idea of "right of conquest". Or I suppose, by whatever extralegal means a territorial gain could be legitimated.

 

[Trausti]

.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.

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

The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

 

[Politesse]

.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.

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

The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

So would you consider the Islamic State to be a legitimate state, therefore? On what basis?

 

[Trausti]

The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

So would you consider the Islamic State to be a legitimate state, therefore? On what basis?

What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.

 

[Politesse]

The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

So would you consider the Islamic State to be a legitimate state, therefore? On what basis?

What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has did “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.

So you do not believe that any nation-states are legitimate? Or you believe that it is the use of mass violence that makes them legitimate?

How is it that you define "rights", exactly?

 

[TomC]

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.

Muslims conquered "The Holy Land" around 1500 years ago. It's been Muslim ever since.

Except for the last few decades, when Zionists got military support from Christendom.

Jerusalem was a Muslim city for far longer than any other conqueror culture held it. The Jews only held it for a few centuries, and that ended 2500 years ago. The only time the Jews were much in control was the first few centuries after they took it from the Caanites, around 3000 years ago. The rest of that first millennium B.C. was dominated by the Chaldeans (it's called The Exile), then the Persians, then the Greeks, and then the Romans. The Romans kicked the Jews out permanently(it's called The Diaspora) 2000 years ago.

Jerusalem has been Muslim for far longer and more recently than it was Jewish.

Tom

 

[Trausti]

What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has did “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.

So you do not believe that any nation-states are legitimate? Or you believe that it is the use of mass violence that makes them legitimate?

How is it that you define "rights", exactly?

Violence is necessary for legitimacy, whether by the nation state or proxy. It’s about exercising control over an area. If you can’t dislodge a people from control of an area, then whether you think the occupation of that area is legitimate is irrelevant. Is Taiwan legitimate?

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure I agree. Does the perceived right to govern proceed from the use of violent coercion, or does tolerance of coercion come from the social legitimacy of the persons exercising it? We don't generally tolerate violence from entities whose validity we don't recognize, it's quite the other way around. We accept violence from, say, a police force, because we accept that the state has a monopoly of domestic violence. If the people's trust in the police or the government wanes, you get riots, as we have recently seen. Riots that are themselves met with counter-protest and even more severe violence because the rioters are not, themselves, seen by their neighbors as having a legitimate right to employ violence.

It also doesn't really apply, on a nation-to-nation level, to how supremacy is usually established. Not all polities are carved in blood, and indeed you see the actual violence used more sparingly than the threat of violence.

 

[BH]

Governments are just gangs of elites pilfering the countries they supposedly govern. The military and police for the most part realize this and go along with it because they think they are better off doing so.

 

[untermensche]

It all depends on whether you see legal behavior as also moral behavior.

If you think immoral behavior can also be legal behavior for a government then all is lawful behavior for a government.

If you think behavior must be moral for it to be legal then what a government can legally do is a different matter.

 

[Bomb#20]

Asking for a First Nation.

For "a" First Nation.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.

 

[Politesse]

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?

Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.

It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that, as I assume you know. But are you voicing agreement with this principle?

 

[Politesse]

It all depends on whether you see legal behavior as also moral behavior.

If you think immoral behavior can also be legal behavior for a government then all is lawful behavior for a government.

If you think behavior must be moral for it to be legal then what a government can legally do is a different matter.

Well, it's not just governments that take land by violence. I'd like to be surprised by how few people have made any serious effort to answer the actual questions in the OP, but of course I am not.

 

[Politesse]

I do find it fascinating that a mere allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title in any way causes people to immediately get all nostalgic for the Dark Ages. Was the 11th century really Europe's best years? I know that this isn't the case, because the original philosophical basis for imposition of right of conquest - that is, the divine right of kings and the presumption that only God could determine the outcome of a battle - is not a principle anyone here is actually prepared to endorse. Or I'll eat my hat.

 

[fromderinside]

Exodus!

Eat hat here.

 

[Politesse]

Exodus!

Eat hat here.

Wait, really? Divine right of kings?

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.

It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that, as I assume you know.

Everything is a fair bit more complicated than any description; but that's the chief underlying principle of English land law in a nutshell; the rest of the complicated reality is theoretically derivable from it. (Note: not applicable in Scotland.)

(And of course if the sitting Duke of Normandy ever tried to make her de jure ownership turn into de facto ownership then Parliament would undoubtedly change the law; but since she doesn't, they don't.)

But are you voicing agreement with this principle?

Not in the least. You asked if any living nation state legally recognizes right of conquest. Yes, one living nation state that I know of. Not how I'd set up a system of government; but the English didn't ask for my ratification.

I do find it fascinating that a mere allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title in any way causes people to immediately get all nostalgic for the Dark Ages. Was the 11th century really Europe's best years?

Um, which nostalgic people are you referring to? Not seeing any nostalgia here except perhaps some nostalgia for the long-lost Chochenyo Territory.

...the original philosophical basis for imposition of right of conquest - that is, the divine right of kings and the presumption that only God could determine the outcome of a battle...

What's fascinating to me is that people who allude to the idea of "recognizing" "indigenous" title somehow persuade themselves that it's in any substantive way different from QEII's title to the land of England. They are both equally endorsement of legal transfer of ownership by right of conquest. Further, the philosophical bases for the two impositions are identical: they are both equally appeals to counterfactual mythic history.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, it's not just governments that take land by violence. I'd like to be surprised by how few people have made any serious effort to answer the actual questions in the OP, but of course I am not.

Well, in all fairness, you asked your questions wrong -- your presentation presumed a fact not in evidence. But if you wish we can set that aside...

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis?

From a Natural Law perspective, no, it doesn't. If you hold to a different Philosophy of Law, tell us which PoL you have in mind.

Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal,

"Legal" by the law of the invading country, yes, of course; but I think that's not what you're asking. Legal by the law of the invaded country, no, not as a rule; but the devil's in the details and you'd have to check the specific invaded country's laws. (The Partitions of Poland by Russia, Prussia and Austria were probably legal by Polish law, given that Poland's government legally could do jack squat without a unanimous vote.) Retroactively legal by the laws of the new regime (assuming the invasion succeeds), again, it depends. Typically it's retroactively legalized immediately; and then, generations later when there's no risk of the facts on the ground being reversed, it may be retroactively illegalized again and an empty apology may be issued.

or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Well, now that we've disposed of right of conquest as a legal basis equally for granting title to the attackers or for letting the defenders retain title, that pretty much leaves us with only one passable legal basis for anyone to get title to disputed land: self-determination of the residents. Which is to say, yes: when enough random Albanians acting unofficially settle in Kosovo that ethnic Albanians can outvote the local preexisting Serb population, if they vote to make Kosovo an independent Albanian-majority country instead of a region of Serbia then they get to do that; and it's legal because Democracy. And if the Serb minority don't like it, I don't blame them; but sympathy doesn't magically turn "We were here first" into a substantive argument for letting a minority rule over a majority.

"We were here first" is a non-substantive argument for two reasons. First, because it isn't literally true. The Kosovars have been there exactly as long as the Kosovo Serbs: all their lives. The Kosovars aren't immigrants; they're mainly the native-born descendants of Albanians who immigrated in the 1700s and 1800s.

And second, for moral/Natural Law purposes it's non-substantive because although "We were here first" is metaphorically true when Serbs metaphorically use "We" to mean "Not me, but different people I'm descended from", nonetheless, the argument amounts to "This is Serb land and not Kosovar land because Serbs inherited it from the rightful owners and Kosovars didn't." And that's a non-substantive argument, because it's exactly the same argument as "England is Queen Elizabeth's land because she inherited it from William the Bastard."