I didn’t say it was illegal. You said “international law recognizes it”, which is a far cry from “it hasn’t been challenged”. It is almost certainly illegal, as the underlying treaty was entered into by Cuba under duress. In any event, we have breached the lease by operating a prison there, since we are specifically limited to operating a “coaling and resupply station for naval vessels”.
Cuba is not a signatory to the ICJ Statute so it couldn’t challenge the treaty in “the International Court” (I assume you refer to the ICJ) even if it wanted to.
Cuba has automatic access to the ICJ by its membership of the UN. The US only accepts judgements if it wants to. But if Cuba thought it had a case, it could have been heard by the ICJ just for propaganda reasons; they have not.
What on Earth makes you think that Scotland will become independent without a similar treaty about Faslane? Possibly not a permanent one, but certainly one lasting the forseeable future.
Unless you really think that Scotland will declare independence without a settlement with the UK, then use its vast military might to forcibly remove the Faslane base, all in the teeth of opposition from NATO and the EU, and any other groups the UK belongs to but not Scotland…
They both recognise the ICJ, they just do not necessarily accept its rulings.
“As the op-ed suggests, Cuba might also try the ICJ, but neither Cuba nor the U.S. recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Cuba might nonetheless seek a General Assembly resolution pursuant to Article 96 of the U.N. Charter seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ on whether the U.S. is in violation of the lease. Although merely advisory, such an opinion would embarrass the U.S. further and give Cuba a chance to further needle the U.S. The ICJ has shown itself to be willing to issue controversial advisory opinions (see the Israeli wall decision from last year) so this could actually happen. And the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN might have something useful to do after all…”
You always make the assumption that rUK will have the whip hand. If no agreement can be reached, access to a decision by the ICJ would be the preferred option. If UDI was chosen, there would still be access to the ICJ. Either course would probably lead to a run on sterling which would be avoided at all costs.
Think of it this way, the missiles need to be moved by road every few months for servicing in batches. Is the rUK going to punch through Glasgow as the Russians are trying to do to the Crimea. I do not think so!
Yes, obviously. We’ll be a bigger country with membership of several major international organisations, many of which really, *really *won’t want a small, unpredictable country messing with our nukes.
And you’re assuming that the ICJ will support you… why, exactly? And you’re assuming that even if it does the UK will comply… again, why?
First I think many of the worst case scenarios predicted by both sides will not come to fruition. Scotland is a wealthy nation that could very well survive as a lone country.
There are those on both sides who have made up their mind, and there is no way they will change their votes. Both sides will have those who will be thinking “what if” and if their vote is the right one, with some lingering doubts.
I don’t envy the Scottish people at this moment, my brain would explode having to contemplate how I will vote, weighing the pros and cons of each side.
But there is no turning back now, for either side.
I wonder if Scotland becoming independent, what effect it will have on others such as Catalonia in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, Tyrol in Italy, and elsewhere?
The unicorn was an animal sacred to the American Indians. It got it’s name because of its remarkable ability to live off a single kernel of corn per day.
At present international law doesn’t recognize the existence of an independent Scotland, and would quite properly leave the definition of such a place to negotiation between citizens of the United Kingdom. If such negotiations came to an impasse regarding the status of Faslane, there is nothing on international law to determine which side is right and which is wrong.
The UN under which the ICJ is set up recognises UDI after a democratic process. UDI means sovereignty, and sovereignty would mean that attempting to retain Faslane would be an act of war. No country would risk that.
The local TV station just showed an animation of what will happen if Yes wins: Scotland will turn red, physically separate from Britain, and move off in the general direction of Iceland.
Texas, or more probably California could just about manage independent nationhood if the USA let them go amicably — although this would/will be pretty stupid. Scotland is more in the nature of Alabama. Nearly the same population, and not much physical contact with nations outside the erstwhile USA, just as Scotland is still linked to the rest of Britain.
They both have proud histories, and a similar people in many ways. Wholly ignoring the tired old confederacy bit both yes & no sides would rally around and any racial history, what benefit would there be in the sweet nationalist poison of ‘Making Their Own Decisions !’ and ‘Free At Last !’ and ‘Local People In Charge, Running The New Country Like Their Own Closed Corporation’ ?
I mean tangible measurable benefits. I have no doubt the political class of Alabama and businesspeople and landowners of Alabama are as pure, honest, friendly and desirous of the public good as any others in the world; but it doesn’t seem a good reason for them to have their own Army and Navy, Alabamian currency, Foreign Policy ( with Alabamian diplomatic embassies in each country ), school textbooks, presidency, sealed borders, business regulations and economic policy divorced from their ex-partners and all the rest ad nauseam.
If the USA held referendums and bowed to the People’s Will, they still would find the result annoying, however much they maintained friendly relations. Partly because it was so damn silly.
It wouldn’t be an act of war, it would be the UK arresting its own citizens who try to attack its military base. The UK won’t recognise an independent Scotland that isn’t created by agreement, and that agreement will include us keeping Faslane?
A country doesn’t become independent just by saying so, it becomes independent when enough other nations recognise it as such. If the UK agrees that it’s separate, that will happen promptly. If not, it won’t.
What makes you think any countries are going to recognise a UDI by Scotland? And don’t keep saying “it’s the law”, that’s neither true nor relevant. This is a process decided by diplomacy, not law.