The UN Charter, by its plain text, does not give California right to secession, does not obligate the United States to allow subnational secession, and even if it did, it doesn’t overrule the Supreme Court rulings on the matter.
The right to self-representation under the UN is left up to the members to decide for themselves, and there’s no referee on this matter. There’s no UN requirement to let pieces of your country break away, nor has there ever been.
Note it was specifically denoted when the UN Charter was written, that the right to self-determination did not at all (and specifically did not) imply a right to secession: link
The U.S. wouldn’t even be dealing with a remote international incident whatsoever if it legally or physically blocked secession. There are UN members right now that are actively suppressing, with military force, secessionist movements, and very rarely does the UN even address the matter. When they do, it’s often to denounce the secessionists as terrorists, very occasionally they’ve come down on calling the member state’s actions war crimes or etc.
And as I’ve pointed out, it’s not like no sub-national units have tried to break away since States signed the UN charter. Some countries have held referendums (United Kingdom, Canada), some countries have voluntarily broken up (Czechoslovakia, USSR), some are involved in wars of secession of varying degrees and activity (Ukraine, Georgia, Somalia, Turkey, Sri Lanka for a long time etc.) The UN’s response has never been to assert a right to secession that anyone is violating, and most of the time they’ve simply viewed these as internal issues best ignored by the UN.
Reality isn’t black or white.
Here.
Manifestations under the Aegis of the United Nations
a (14) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute.
The UN can’t enforce anything on the US. Nothing. The UN exists because the great nations allow it to.
I gotta say Morgenstern, you’re barking up the wrong tree with the UN.
The UN is like a Mafia, and the US is like the Don. Yeah, there are major players like Russia and China, but the Mafia isn’t going to tell the Don what to do, and any player who tries is likely to get shot.
Without US support, the UN folds.
What? How is the US self-governing if bound by UN rules? I guess it’s time for the US to leave the UN and not be bound by the UN’s rules. Now what authority do you appeal to?
An interesting fact to litigate.
But there’s a problem.
If it’s litigated in Federal court, that will proves CA isn’t self-governed, but the people are subject to an authority, and judges, that they most likely never voted for.
If it’s litigated in an international tribunal, well, sort of proves CA is independent.
I would expect that -(assuming)- this passes, there will be a list of countries ready to recognize CA as an independent nation, further complicating the issues faced by the US.
I think a much better road for the US would be to recognize CA, bond with CA, and work with RoCA for the benefit of both nations.
When California county A has a beef with county B over where to put nuclear power plant #20 for desalination power what court will oversee that battle? That’ll be proof that county A and county B aren’t self governed and could secede. You really aren’t thinking the issue through in an intellectually consistent manner.
I’ll bet Russia and China would have quite a time showing the hypocrisy of the US if it doesn’t play this according to Hoyle. Unfortunately, they’d be right in many respects. Use of military force being one.
Yes California announced today that it has accepted an invitation to represent the California Republic at a self-determination conference hosted by the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia on July 31 in Moscow. The conference will be dedicated to the struggle of different regions and nations fighting for their independence and self-determination. Entitled, “The Dialogue of Nations: The Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and Building a Multipolar World”, the conference will include representatives of Texas, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Western Sahara, Veneto, Kurdistan, as well as the Californian independence movements.
You don’t know anything about Chinese politics or Russian for that matter if you think they are pro-secession. And they don’t have the navy to intervene if they wanted to.
You see military intervention as the answer to so many issues. It’s not.
It is for treason.
Where do you live that has no police, no sheriff deputies, no state police, no marshals, no FBI? Every last one of those exist to maintain law and order via the threat of force. You just don’t get it.
Are you one of those “sovereign citizens?”
Litigation in an international tribunal such as the ICJ requires state parties, which California is not. And nobody of consequence is going to recognize “independent California” given that it would harm commerce with the much-larger-and-populous remainder US.
I see. Force solves everything. :rolleyes:
Oh, I doubt that very much. California will continue exporting what it exports, importing what it imports. Nothing will change, except the last line of the address.
There may be a way to thread the needle without defaulting to military force. A military outcome is the most likely result, but that really depends on the scenario in play. I said as much in the other (related) thread: Right now, far less than 50% of Californians support secession. For that to flip to a majority or super majority willing and able to push the issue, the political landscape would have to be massively changed. What’s going on in the other states? The US could crush any individual state, but if it’s exploding at all sides they might be forced to the bargaining table without firing a shot.
Most of these are state agencies. As we’re assuming at least a majority of Californians are in favor of the secession as would be required for this referendum to even matter, it stands to reason that the majority of these agencies would also align with the secessionists.
The FBI wouldn’t have the manpower to deal with that big of a population. It almost certainly would come down to the military for threat of force. But you’re correct in that the threat is there.
While I think Morgensten’s chosen avenue of approach is full of holes, comparing it to sovereign citizenry is like criticizing Trump’s presidential run on the grounds that his shoes resemble Hitlers. The argument itself is nonsensically flawed (massive false equivalence) and hardly begins to address any real issue.
I’d be very surprised if a seceding CA got much international recognition at all. I can’t imagine the benefits of currying favor with CA would outweigh the consequences of pissing off the rest of America for most nations.
You’re free to think whatever you want, but unless you’re one of President Trump’s advisers, your opinion doesn’t much matter.
Do you realize that stuff gets brought to ports in CA largely so that it can be distributed to the rest of America? If CA doesn’t have direct, free and unfettered access to the larger American market, many of those ships will sail to ports in Oregon or Washington (or perhaps Canada or Mexico). Most of California’s imports are going to dry up about the same time the ink on their declaration of secession does.
BTW, it looks like a majority of Californians oppose this plan. Get that? It’s too wacky an idea even for California.