I know you said “since World War II”, but Ireland did separate from the UK early in the 20th century. The Irish did have representation in Parliament (that is, they weren’t really a colony), but we could argue they were oppressed in other ways. Other than that, you’re right that established democracies splitting is rare. Most of the time it happens a few years after democracy is (re)established.
This is probably because democracies are more likely to recognize the different national or sub-national groups in their midst. But that’s not to say that people cannot feel disempowered even under democratic regimes; it obviously does happen. The “tyranny of the majority” is a serious risk. I say there is nothing that makes it impossible for a region to secede from a democratic country. It’s just less likely because the central government may be more open to compromise.
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you- practically nobody in Texas IS really thinking of it!!!
INCLUDING Rick Perry. He was talking nonsense to score points with a few rabid tax-cutters, and he KNEW he was talking nonsense. Texas isn’t going anywhere, and practically nobody in Texas WANTS to go anywhere.
You’re taking secession talk more seriously than anybody in Texas is.
But it would be amusing to call their bluff. Maybe have some sort of loopy Democrat in Congress introduce a bill to make Texas a new country in 2012. Make sure to put in the bill things like pulling Social Security from new Texas citizens and reclaiming military assets before leaving. Make a little noise about it. Let the media make fun of it. i.e. take their nonsense seriously to prove its nonsense.
ETA: I have a Texas cookie cutter - it is a good shape for cookies.
Re “sane”: I knew Governor Good Hair will probably face Kay Bailey Hutchison when he goes up for re-election. And he fears her. I’ll be voting for our Democratic candidate but I’d not feel bad to see a slightly smarter Republican in the office. However, Wikipedia revealed that Larry Kilgore might run, as well. Hey, he advocates secession–so we’ll be free to live under Biblical law.
Looks like Perry has decided to court the “not-sane” vote!
So Texas isn’t going to secede and few Texans would want to. And Perry is saying it to court a particular demographic of the GOP, one likely overrepresented at “tea parties”.
I am still curious, let’s limit it to likely GOP primary voters, what percentage hear this kind of talk as unamerican and disloyal vs those who see it as a positive or at least acceptable to consider?
I think you are totally misunderstanding this. A people, as a whole, have the right to self determination. What that means is that Germany does not have the right to impose its will on the French people. It does not mean that Mr. Lejournal can declare his apartment in Paris an independent republic.
Really, I mean, use some common sense. If you read something and your interpretation is really, really stupid and makes no sense maybe you need to look for another interpretation.
Right, but here you’re choosing two extreme cases. I think everyone would agree that the French and the Germans are distinct peoples, but that Mr. Lejournal or even him and his family don’t make a people. But between these extremes, there are several cases that aren’t so clear-cut. This is why, when attempting to apply this principle of self-determination of peoples, the main problem is defining what composes a people. Does such-and-such group form one, or are they simply a subgroup of another people? And often these decisions are taken on the basis of politics and not on principle.
Nope. The principle is that of the maintenance of the status quo which should not be altered by violence. The Republic of Texas is free to secede as soon as the rest of the USA is in agreement but not before. The Basques will be free to secede as soon as the rest of Spain is in agreement, but not before. That is the principle of International Law. Except that some countries will not respect it and will recognise the independence of, say, Kosovo, because it suits their agenda. Which only ensures that if one day Texas unilaterally declares independence ther are going to be a number of countries who will not wait one minute to recognize it.
But the declaration of the right to self determination in no way is meant as a right for a region to secede form a country. No way. No country would sign that.
Slight threadjack here, but I just wanted to say that was brilliantly put. Simple, concise and accurate.
Self determination was one of the founding principles of the UN Charter, mentioned in Art. 1 and 55. However, in most cases, unilateral succession isn’t allowed. There almost must be an exhaustion of other remedies to fix the problems your group is claiming(i.e. using the political process, civil disobedience, etc.) before your succession movement can gain international legal footing. And then there’s all the problems that Hypnagogic Jerk mentioned. Basically self-determination is core principle of International Law, but one that is more or less just theoretical.
You keep repeating that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
Nope. The UN charter talks about the “self-determination of peoples” meaning “peoples of countries who are members of the UN”. It does not in any way, shape or form recognize any right to self-determination for the people of Texas separate from the USA. None. Theoretical or not. None.
Wasn’t talking about Texas. Talking about SECESSION and self determination in general. Texas doesn’t have any right to unilaterally secede for a variety of reasons, Texas v. White being first and foremost. That wasn’t my point.
And last I checked Texas was part of the United States, a member of the UN. I don’t see how the Charter wouldn’t apply to them.
ETA: Not that I’m saying that Texas does have the right to self-determination. I’m just saying that if they could make a case that they were a unique people separate from the rest of the US, they would have at least have a better argument. Not a winning argument, but better than the one they have now.
There is legal precedent that under international law, colonized or occupied peoples, that is, peoples who do not have access to self-determination under their current national government, have a right to independence. According to the Supreme Court of Canada:
So yes, while it is true that the territorial integrity of states is a recognized principle of international law, there are cases where it does not have primacy. And in any case, this same Canadian Supreme Court decision recognized cases where a secessionist movement cannot be ignored by the national government, even if the circumstances aren’t those specified by international law for unilateral secession.
And this is why I say the question of whether secession is acceptable or not is a political question.
Texas or any state can secede whenever they like… of course they will have to fight a war to at least a stalemate, where the rest of the US decides that it is better to just let them go.
