Skip to main content
Politics

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.

4
  • Your last section is a bit confusing, because it implies that "independence" is always created by expelling or repelling occupiers. Surely it's possible for a modern state to exist that has never been occupied, but has been independent as far back as we can recognise "states"? Most obviously, states that have generally been the occupiers rather than the occupied remain independent.
    – IMSoP
    Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 12:07
  • 1
    Well, I did say "most" :). Also, if you go back far enough in history, even the recent occupiers have been occupied by someone. Take England: they were a disunited set of tribes with at most weak central leadership, then invaded by Rome in the 1st century. They were became independent again a few hundred years later by abandonment (an unusual situation), were invaded by Angles and Saxons, had a complicated series of wars with the Danes, were invaded by Normans, then started invading everyone else. But England, or something like it, has been "independent" since the Romans left in 410.
    – user3553031
    Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 15:50
  • 1
    Also, even most places that have been "independent" for a very long time have successfully defended that independence on various occasions, which falls under my third bullet-point. To pick on England again, they successfully fended off a number of attempts by France to assert dominance over them (and France did the same to them).
    – user3553031
    Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 15:55
  • The assertion that "there is no settled law international law on declaring independence" is rather asinine since it presumes there would be any body to enforce it. Most things in international law are enforced because high party's subject themselves to international courts like arbitrators which typically provides guarantees to those wanting to do business with them that they would act fairly. When things escalated to the threat of military interventions, its typically beyond the point when the aggressor has much care about such "courts".
    – Silvassy Petrirov
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 22:55