For practical purposes not. For theoretical purposes, and that was my point, the Taipei regime very much claims to be the legitimate government of all of China. A Taiwanese declaration of independence is a hotly debated topic also in Taiwan, because it would mean giving up that claim.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “my” theory of legal recognition. I said explicitly that for me (as for the majority of international law doctrine), the question of statehood and legitimate government is a factual one, independent of recognition by other countries; it depends on the effective control over the territory in question, which is a factual matter. What I’m saying is that on the basis of this factual matter, it took a while for the American revolutionary governments to gain that necessary degree of effective control to be considered the legitimate government of the colonies. Certainly they had not acquired that degree of control by virtue of the Declaration of Independence alone.
I can think of about four million Englishmen who most definitely didn’t agree, and did not agree that they were denied the rights of Englishmen simply by virtue of moving to a colony. Further, you imply that the English in England flt that way - but in fact there was a significant sympathetic element who may not have supported the Revolutionary War, but definitely felt the Americans were not in the wrong.
Moreover, you are assuming that the Colonial Charter was merely some local privilege that Parliament could amend or rewrite at will. The colonies most definitely disagreed with this interpretation, precisely because it meant they lacked citizenship. And I am not exactly certain you you imagine their opinion is irrelevant, given that Europeans decided to accept that position as legitimate.
That’s exactly wrong, though. The Revolutionary governments simply took over the functions of government, seamlessly and usually without much conflict. In fact, this had effectively happened before 1776. The Royal Governors had already lost control over the colonies, though some of them hadn’t quite realized it yet.
Pshaw. What law are you talking about and what court would enforce it? The jurisdiction of Britain ended with the Declaration of Independence. This fact wasn’t obvious until the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, but there you have it. The United States said that “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved,” and then managed to make it stick with the only law that really matters in such cases: force.
I’m talking about international law, which despite claims to the contrary from peole (including lawyers specialised in other fields of law) is actually law. International law does not bestow statehood to countries by simply a unilateral declaration of being independent - Catalonia is in the process of learning that right now. International law does, however, grant statehood for fulfilling objective statehood criteria. Which the United States meets, of course and have done so for centuries - but not by passing the Declaration of Independence.
I would have thought the main legality establishing the statehood of the USA was the treaty with Britain, that showed that Britain effectively recognized their new status and gave up further claims (and presumably also established some boundaries between the two.)
International law doesn’t bestow statehood. Armies and navies bestow statehood. Would Transnistria be a country (a failed state to be sure, but it is independent, at least from Moldova), without the Russian 14th army? Why isn’t Hyderabad independent like Pakistan? For that matter, why is East Pakistan now Bangladesh and Kashmir is divided? Sometimes central governments (like Czechoslovakia) aren’t able or willing to maintain national unity by force. Other times, as with the United States and Ireland, the central government is convinced by armed force that unity isn’t worth the cost. Sure, other governments often get involved in such conflicts, and bleat about international law, but who takes that b.s. seriously?
The Catalan situation is another example of my thesis. If the Catalan government declares independence and makes it stick, I’m sure that their national day will be the day of that declaration, just as US Independence Day is July 4, not the date the Treaty of Paris became effective in 1783. I don’t think that a declaration alone, though, will create an independent Catalan state, and it’s difficult for me, an outsider, to see that an independent Catalonia will be worth the possible cost.
Mark Twain famously defined a dog as “that which is recognized as a dog by other dogs”. After stripping out the diplomatic niceties, that is essentially how it works with countries too. If enough other countries recognize you (or avoid confronting the fact they do not recognize you) then you are a country. If not, you’re not - you’re just a breakaway province.
Thanks Little Nemo. I’m still not clear on the point of returning loyalists, whether or not they were able to reclaim their property. No doubt there was outright theft by the patriots of loyalist property. But did the returning loyalists sue for restitution? Were they more successful in certain parts of the country as opposed to others?
Arguing that international recognition creates countries is the tail wagging the dog. It’s like claiming that peace treaties win wars. Nations are created and wars are won by the facts on the ground. Then a document is written which acknowledges the situation that already exists.
The situation creates the document; the document does not create the situation.
In general, no. James W. Ely, writing in The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights:
Thanks Freddie. I had read that many Loyalist wives would stay behind to occupy their homes, rather than let them be seized so easily. I guess they knew that once their property was seized there would be little hope of getting it back. if they occupied it however there was a good chance that their returning family/husbands would retain title of their property.