Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 1
    This isn't quite accurate. ICJ decided that since "final status" of Kosovo was left open, some group from Kosovo declaring independence wasn't illegal (after many years of failed negotiations). But there's no circuliarity here because ICJ didn't decide itself that the final status was up for debate. And likewise the UNSC which did leave the final status as an open question, didn't (itself) decide that Kosovo should be independent. Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 10:42
  • 10
    How does talking about "Taiwanese people" imply that Taiwan is an independent country? We can talk about Bavarian people even though Bavaria is not recognized as independent. Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 13:40
  • 2
    @user253751 what is important is not talking about "Taiwanese people", but saying that "Taiwanese people have the right to decide on Taiwan's independence". If they have that right, you already consider them independent, since the opinion of mainland China is not relevant.
    – SJuan76
    Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 13:58
  • 2
    @user253751: You are missing the point. The point is not whether you can define Bavarian people, but whether you rule that the independence of Bavaria is up to Germans or to Bavarian. If you rule the latter, you already gave a measure of independence to Bavarians -- you gave them the choice to recognize Germany's authority, or not. Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 14:40
  • 2
    @MatthieuM. neither is the principle that giving some group a choice means they are independent... Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 17:15