Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)
Options
Comments
-
Does that advice apply when you're sending a warship to Dundalk bay to threaten two small fishing boats?
There's a difference between protecting a state's own waters from illegal fishing, and threatening/bullying another state.
A more comparable example than Ireland protecting its own national waters, would be if we sent that warship into Northern Irish waters to protect our own fishing ships and bullied Northern Ireland into doing something we wanted.
Of course, in that situation we'd be laughed at. As if Ireland could bully the UK navy - it'd be suicide. But the inverse (if the UK deployed a warship to demand we allow their boats to fish our waters) would be incredibly intimidating and very much not ok.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That came later.
In 1707, the kingdom of England (which had long included Wales as well) and the kingdom of Scotland were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. That was not [England, with Scotland added] or [Scotland, with England added]; it was a brand new kingdom, distinct from the two predecessor kingdoms.
Then, 1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland were united into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Signficantly, most commentators at the time did not regard this as a brand new kingdom; they regarded it as the existing kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added plus a change of name to reflect the new circumstances. They were probably influenced in this by the fact that Ireland had not previously been an independent or co-equal kingdom; it was very much dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain, legally and politically. (E.g. the legislative powers of the Irish parliament were conferred on it by British law, which had never been true for the Scottish parliament.)
Believe it or not, there’s rules about this. In public international law we call this topic “state succession”. Where states change their identities or characters, or merge, or demerge, to what extent are the new states continuations of the old states, and to what extent are they not?
This matters. In 1917 the Russian Empire collapsed. After a period of confusion and war, several new states emerged - Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the Soviet Union, which itself was at least formally a federation of republics which had come together to form the Union. Which, if any, of these entities was the successor to the Russian Empire? This mattered because the Russian Empire owed considerable debts to foreign creditors; who was going to pay them?
The Soviets took the view that the USSR was not successor of the Empire (and neither was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the largest and most Russian of the member states of the USSR). Therefore they were not bound by arrangements made by Tsarist Russia, had not received any loans from anyone, and would not be repaying them. The international community, for the most part, took the opposite view. This was a running sore in relations between the USSR and the rest of the world for decades.
It’s not always about money. The issue arises in relation to any obligations the old state may have entered into - treaty obligations, for example. British India was a founding member of the United Nations. Quite soon afterwards it was divided into the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. Pakistan regarded itself as a successor state to British India in relation to matters affecting Pakistan, and argued that it was already a member of the United Nations. The UN disagreed, and made Pakistan apply for membership. India, by contrast, was treated as the successor to British India, and therefore already a member.
Right. Hypothetically, the UK is divided into two states - Scotland, and a kingdom (whose name we need not concern ourselves with) covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Which, if either, is the successsor state? Who, if anyone, gets the permanent seat on the UN Council?
Ideall, this will be resolved by discussion and agreement at the time. Most likely Scotland would agree, for example, to take on a proportion of the UK’s national debt. The rest of the world will probably accept this because, really, why wouldn’t you? They are offering to pay, after all. Othe aspects might require a bit more negotiation with the rest of the world; for example Scotland and rumpUK might agree that rumpUK would inherit the UK’s permament seat on the Security Council, but that agreement would mean nothing unless the UN and its member states accepted it.
In general, it’s better for the international community that there should be a successor state, so any succession arrangements that get worked out between the states involved, the rest of the world is prone to accept. And the likely agreed position here would be - rumpUK is the successor state to the UK, inheriting its memberships of international bodies, its international assets, its dependencies around the world, its obligations (except as voluntarily taken on by Scotland), etc. Scotland is a new state, free of the UK’s obligations, except as it chooses to take them on. I’ve already mentioned that Scotland would probably take on an agreed chunk of debt; it would probably also agree to continue to be bound by most or all of the multilateral treaties by which the UK is bound, and it might also take on bilateral treaties of particular relevance to Scotland.
That’s the kind of thing that normally happens when a small state is seceding from a much larger one. It’s different where a state breaks into more equal sized states - when Czechoslovakia split in 1992, for example, neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia claimed to be, or was treated as, the primary succsessor state to Czechoslovakia. They divided up the countries assets and liablities between them by agreement, each indicated which of the treaties made by Czechoslovakia it wished to continue to be bound by, and both applied for admission to the UK as new members.
A very pertinent example. Events unfolded as follows:
June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The Yugoslav government does not accept this, and deploys the army. Fighting breaks out in Croatia. The EU attempts to mediate. The general view is that SFRY is in the process of dissolution, that each of its six republics should recognise the independence of the others, and that this should be facilitated by providing guarantees for the Serbian minorities in other states. Serbia and Montenegro, alone of the six republics of the SFRY, reject this.
September 1991: Macedonia declares independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). SFRY does not resist or protest.
December 1991: Germany recognises the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, arguing (not unrealistically) that it’s already the reality. SFRY rejects this, and also the EU attempts to mediate a peaceful dissolution, but all the other former Yugoslav Republics accept it. Fighting between Yugoslavia and Croatia intensifies; Serb-dominated parts of Bosnia attempt to secede from Bosnia.
January 1992: Independence of Croatia and Slovenia recognised by the international community.
March 1992: Bosnia/Herzegovina declares independence.
April 1992: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is formed, consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro. This is effectively an admission that the SFRY has ceased to exist. FRY claims to be the sole successor state to SRFY, but this is not accepted by the international community, which takes the view that SFRY had effectively dissolved by, at the latest, December 1991
May 1992: Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia/Herzegovina are admitted as UN member states.
September 1992: FRY’s attempt to occupy the UN seat of the former SFRY is rejected by the UN.
1996: FRY abandons its claim to be the sole successor state to SFRY
2000: FRY admitted to UN
2003: FRY renames itself “State Union of Serbia and Montenegro” (SUSM)
2006: Montenegro declares independence of the SUSM. Serbia accepts this, and also declares it independence,ending the SUSM. Serbia is accepted as the successor state and inherits the SUSM seat in the UN; Montenegro is admitted as a new member.
So, the general view is that SFRY dissolved over a period between June and December 1991. Macedonia left half-way through this period, but Slovenia and Croatia had already left. No other states had left by December 1991, so it could well be argued that, yes, Macedonia leaving (without SFRY objection or resistance) was the significant event which convinced the international community that the permanent dissolution of the SFRY was happening, and from December onwards they took the view that it had happened.
It is almost like this kind of thing is complicated and cannot be handwaved away with the glib soundbites that brexiteers are so fond of0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That came later.
In 1707, the kingdom of England (which had long included Wales as well) and the kingdom of Scotland were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. That was not [England, with Scotland added] or [Scotland, with England added]; it was a brand new kingdom, distinct from the two predecessor kingdoms.
Then, 1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland were united into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Signficantly, most commentators at the time did not regard this as a brand new kingdom; they regarded it as the existing kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added plus a change of name to reflect the new circumstances. They were probably influenced in this by the fact that Ireland had not previously been an independent or co-equal kingdom; it was very much dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain, legally and politically. (E.g. the legislative powers of the Irish parliament were conferred on it by British law, which had never been true for the Scottish parliament.)
Just to add to this -technically the kingdom of Ireland was an English creation in the first place. It came into existence in 1542 when Henry VIII declared himself king of Ireland in contravention of the 1175 Treaty of Windsor.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »~Education Happens, snipped to avoid lengthy quote~
I just wanted to say, it's a delight whenever you post. That was a thoroughly interesting piece, and helps illustrate just how complex the potential dissolution of the UK could be if the worst case Brexit scenario (from a British perspective) happens.
How marvelous it's right next door to us. ಠ_ಠ0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »That came later.
In 1707, the kingdom of England (which had long included Wales as well) and the kingdom of Scotland were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. That was not [England, with Scotland added] or [Scotland, with England added]; it was a brand new kingdom, distinct from the two predecessor kingdoms.
Then, 1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland were united into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Signficantly, most commentators at the time did not regard this as a brand new kingdom; they regarded it as the existing kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added plus a change of name to reflect the new circumstances. They were probably influenced in this by the fact that Ireland had not previously been an independent or co-equal kingdom; it was very much dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain, legally and politically. (E.g. the legislative powers of the Irish parliament were conferred on it by British law, which had never been true for the Scottish parliament.)
Believe it or not, there’s rules about this. In public international law we call this topic “state succession”. Where states change their identities or characters, or merge, or demerge, to what extent are the new states continuations of the old states, and to what extent are they not?
This matters. In 1917 the Russian Empire collapsed. After a period of confusion and war, several new states emerged - Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the Soviet Union, which itself was at least formally a federation of republics which had come together to form the Union. Which, if any, of these entities was the successor to the Russian Empire? This mattered because the Russian Empire owed considerable debts to foreign creditors; who was going to pay them?
The Soviets took the view that the USSR was not successor of the Empire (and neither was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the largest and most Russian of the member states of the USSR). Therefore they were not bound by arrangements made by Tsarist Russia, had not received any loans from anyone, and would not be repaying them. The international community, for the most part, took the opposite view. This was a running sore in relations between the USSR and the rest of the world for decades.
It’s not always about money. The issue arises in relation to any obligations the old state may have entered into - treaty obligations, for example. British India was a founding member of the United Nations. Quite soon afterwards it was divided into the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. Pakistan regarded itself as a successor state to British India in relation to matters affecting Pakistan, and argued that it was already a member of the United Nations. The UN disagreed, and made Pakistan apply for membership. India, by contrast, was treated as the successor to British India, and therefore already a member.
Right. Hypothetically, the UK is divided into two states - Scotland, and a kingdom (whose name we need not concern ourselves with) covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Which, if either, is the successsor state? Who, if anyone, gets the permanent seat on the UN Council?
Ideall, this will be resolved by discussion and agreement at the time. Most likely Scotland would agree, for example, to take on a proportion of the UK’s national debt. The rest of the world will probably accept this because, really, why wouldn’t you? They are offering to pay, after all. Othe aspects might require a bit more negotiation with the rest of the world; for example Scotland and rumpUK might agree that rumpUK would inherit the UK’s permament seat on the Security Council, but that agreement would mean nothing unless the UN and its member states accepted it.
In general, it’s better for the international community that there should be a successor state, so any succession arrangements that get worked out between the states involved, the rest of the world is prone to accept. And the likely agreed position here would be - rumpUK is the successor state to the UK, inheriting its memberships of international bodies, its international assets, its dependencies around the world, its obligations (except as voluntarily taken on by Scotland), etc. Scotland is a new state, free of the UK’s obligations, except as it chooses to take them on. I’ve already mentioned that Scotland would probably take on an agreed chunk of debt; it would probably also agree to continue to be bound by most or all of the multilateral treaties by which the UK is bound, and it might also take on bilateral treaties of particular relevance to Scotland.
That’s the kind of thing that normally happens when a small state is seceding from a much larger one. It’s different where a state breaks into more equal sized states - when Czechoslovakia split in 1992, for example, neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia claimed to be, or was treated as, the primary succsessor state to Czechoslovakia. They divided up the countries assets and liablities between them by agreement, each indicated which of the treaties made by Czechoslovakia it wished to continue to be bound by, and both applied for admission to the UK as new members.
A very pertinent example. Events unfolded as follows:
June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The Yugoslav government does not accept this, and deploys the army. Fighting breaks out in Croatia. The EU attempts to mediate. The general view is that SFRY is in the process of dissolution, that each of its six republics should recognise the independence of the others, and that this should be facilitated by providing guarantees for the Serbian minorities in other states. Serbia and Montenegro, alone of the six republics of the SFRY, reject this.
September 1991: Macedonia declares independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). SFRY does not resist or protest.
December 1991: Germany recognises the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, arguing (not unrealistically) that it’s already the reality. SFRY rejects this, and also the EU attempts to mediate a peaceful dissolution, but all the other former Yugoslav Republics accept it. Fighting between Yugoslavia and Croatia intensifies; Serb-dominated parts of Bosnia attempt to secede from Bosnia.
January 1992: Independence of Croatia and Slovenia recognised by the international community.
March 1992: Bosnia/Herzegovina declares independence.
April 1992: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is formed, consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro. This is effectively an admission that the SFRY has ceased to exist. FRY claims to be the sole successor state to SRFY, but this is not accepted by the international community, which takes the view that SFRY had effectively dissolved by, at the latest, December 1991
May 1992: Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia/Herzegovina are admitted as UN member states.
September 1992: FRY’s attempt to occupy the UN seat of the former SFRY is rejected by the UN.
1996: FRY abandons its claim to be the sole successor state to SFRY
2000: FRY admitted to UN
2003: FRY renames itself “State Union of Serbia and Montenegro” (SUSM)
2006: Montenegro declares independence of the SUSM. Serbia accepts this, and also declares it independence,ending the SUSM. Serbia is accepted as the successor state and inherits the SUSM seat in the UN; Montenegro is admitted as a new member.
So, the general view is that SFRY dissolved over a period between June and December 1991. Macedonia left half-way through this period, but Slovenia and Croatia had already left. No other states had left by December 1991, so it could well be argued that, yes, Macedonia leaving (without SFRY objection or resistance) was the significant event which convinced the international community that the permanent dissolution of the SFRY was happening, and from December onwards they took the view that it had happened.
so, whatever happened, there were no guarantees that an independent Scotland (or even an independent England) would automatically be members of the EU?
The only way to secure this (at the time), was by voting no to Scottish independence?0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The pertinent point here Rob, is that we don't have 'war'ships, we have what are called 'coastal patrol' ships.
The answer you are looking for is in there.
Offshore Patrol Vessels as well actually and yes, they would be considered a war ship.0 -
Offshore Patrol Vessels actually and yes, they would be considered a war ship.
Only if you have a centuries old penchant for being a belligerent invader of other nations. We do not call them warships.
Same as there are two ways of looking at a knife...a useful tool for cutting and slicing or as a murder weapon.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Only if you have a centuries old penchant for being a belligerent invader of other nations. We do not call them warships.
Same as there are two ways of looking at a knife...a useful tool for cutting and slicing or as a murder weapon.
call them what you like.
They have a very potent 76mm gun on the front than can fire 80 high explosive 6kilo rounds over 17km, per minute.
if it isn't a warship, then what the **** is it?0 -
call them what you like.
They have a very potent 76mm gun on the front than can fire 80 high explosive 6kilo rounds over 17km, per minute.
if it isn't a warship, then what the **** is it?
If you have a 'habit' of going to war, then of course it could be seen as a warship.
Why am I not surprised that two 'British' posters see them as 'warships'?0 -
Advertisement
-
0
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Just to add to this -technically the kingdom of Ireland was an English creation in the first place. It came into existence in 1542 when Henry VIII declared himself king of Ireland in contravention of the 1175 Treaty of Windsor.
Who cares?0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »If you have a 'habit' of going to war, then of course it could be seen as a warship.
Why am I not surprised that two 'British' posters see them as 'warships'?
****ing hell:rolleyes:0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »The pertinent point here Rob, is that we don't have 'war'ships, we have what are called 'coastal patrol' ships.
The answer you are looking for is in there.
Our naval vessals are considered Warships in the commonly accepted convention. The use they are put to is a different thing.0 -
-
Our naval vessals are considered Warships in the commonly accepted convention. The use they are put to is a different thing.
Whose 'commonly accepted conventions'?
We don't go to war and are a neutral country. We therefore have no use for 'war'ships and purposefully call them OPV's.
That two British posters here, want to now call them 'warships' and imply that they are tools of a belligerent nation to deflect attention from their own nation's repeated use of warships and aircraft carriers to bully and to protect their selfish interests, is fairly typical tbh.0 -
Well no, that's it.
The Scots were told there would be a hard border between England and Scotland, as an external border of the EU. The SNP claimed this was part of project fear.
The issue around the Irish border show that it is a reality.
so you are lying when you say the issue of a hard border was a lie?
EDIT: Ah - the scottish border ... my apologies0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Whose 'commonly accepted conventions'?
We don't go to war and are a neutral country. We therefore have no use for 'war'ships and purposefully call them OPV's.
Ireland isn't a neutral country, not that it makes any difference because neutral countries still have warships.
Is Le James Joyce rocked up at Suez tomorrow, it would have to identify itself as a warship. Even it's Automated Identification System classifies it as "Military Ops".FrancieBrady wrote: »That two British posters here, want to now call them 'warships' and imply that they are tools of a belligerent nation to deflect attention from their own nation's repeated use of warships and aircraft carriers to bully and to protect their selfish interests, is fairly typical tbh.
no, the only person saying that is you.
You are wrong Francis. The majority of the Irish fleet consists of OffShore patrol vessels, they are a type of warship.
Call them fluffy bunnies and paint them pink if you like, they are defence weapons, built with the sole purpose of defending Ireland's territorial waters.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »Whose 'commonly accepted conventions'?
We don't go to war and are a neutral country. We therefore have no use for 'war'ships and purposefully call them OPV's.
That two British posters here, want to now call them 'warships' and imply that they are tools of a belligerent nation to deflect attention from their own nation's repeated use of warships and aircraft carriers to bully and to protect their selfish interests, is fairly typical tbh.
"Warship" is a status that is used to clasify different types of vessel internationally. You have merchant ships, leisure craft, warships and other types of vessel opperating at sea.
The most concrete example I can give you of this kind of clasification in opperation is in the use of canals like Suez, you have to que up to use the canal sometimes for hours or days and warships get priority over civilian vessals. Irish naval vessals have made use of this in the past when in passage to visit other countries.
What makes a warship a warship is that it is a vessel of significant size (ie not a lifeboat or dinghy) that is armed and comissioned as part of a recognised military force. That the country in question is neutral or has never engaged in international agression has nothing to do with a ships clasification as a Warship.0 -
Ireland isn't a neutral country, not that it makes any difference because neutral countries still have warships.
Is Le James Joyce rocked up at Suez tomorrow, it would have to identify itself as a warship. Even it's Automated Identification System classifies it as "Military Ops".
no, the only person saying that is you.
You are wrong Francis. The majority of the Irish fleet consists of OffShore patrol vessels, they are a type of warship.
Call them fluffy bunnies and paint them pink if you like, they are defence weapons, built with the sole purpose of defending Ireland's territorial waters.
Are they used as 'warships' Aegir? As Rob inferred?
No, they aren't, however much it suits your agenda here to imply that is what they are.
As said about the 'knife' or even a 'gun', how they are used defines what they are.
You guys need 'warships' because funnily enough you frequently find yourselves in 'wars'.0 -
"Warship" is a status that is used to clasify different types of vessel internationally. You have merchant ships, leisure craft, warships and other types of vessel opperating at sea.
The most concrete example I can give you of this kind of clasification in opperation is in the use of canals like Suez, you have to que up to use the canal sometimes for hours or days and warships get priority over civilian vessals. Irish naval vessals have made use of this in the past when in passage to visit other countries.
What makes a warship a warship is that it is a vessel of significant size (ie not a lifeboat or dinghy) that is armed and comissioned as part of a recognised military force. That the country in question is neutral or has never engaged in international agression has nothing to do with a ships clasification as a Warship.
There is no mention of a 'warship' classification here Imreoir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_types There is a Coastal Defence Vessel classification though.
Ships are classified as to their use.
We have no 'use' for warships so I don't see why we should call them warships...and we very clearly don't do that.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Whose 'commonly accepted conventions'?
We don't go to war and are a neutral country. We therefore have no use for 'war'ships and purposefully call them OPV's.
That two British posters here, want to now call them 'warships' and imply that they are tools of a belligerent nation to deflect attention from their own nation's repeated use of warships and aircraft carriers to bully and to protect their selfish interests, is fairly typical tbh.
Oh come on, Francie. 'Warship' is pretty common parlance to denote armed vessels owned by a state's armed forces. It's not an official designation (I'll get to that in a moment) that our ships have not been afforded. The "war" in there is a linguistic fluke rather than an admission that the vessels are intended to be used belligerently. They are armed and operated by our armed forces.
They fit all the criteria to be warships.
"Offshore Patrol Vessel" is a classification of a warship, similar to the more well known classifications like "corvette", "frigate" or "destroyer" or "aircraft carrier". All militaries have them (although larger militaries like the US tend to fob them off on the coast guard) specifically for coastal defence. Were Ireland to be attacked, we would use them in a military capacity (for all of the thirty seconds they would last against any of the navies capable of attacking us) in defence. Ie: we would use them in war.
The Japanese have warships, but are quite definitely defensive only in capacity due to their constitution and cannot (legally) use them belligerently. It doesn't make them 'not warships'.
There are many times I think you make valid arguments (even if I disagree with them) Francie, but this is unfortunately not one of them.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »There is no mention of a 'warship' classification here Imreoir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_types There is a Coastal Defence Vessel classification though.
If we're going to use Wikipeda over common sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boatThey may be broadly classified as inshore patrol vessels (IPVs) and offshore patrol vessels (OPVs). They are warships typically smaller in size than a corvette and can include fast attack craft, torpedo boats and missile boats, although some are as large as a frigate.0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »There is no mention of a 'warship' classification here Imreoir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_types There is a Coastal Defence Vessel classification though.
Ships are classified as to their use.
We have no 'use' for warships so I don't see why we should call them warships...and we very clearly don't do that.
I am not bothered enough to go find the international naval treaty where such a clasfication is set out, but it is in use and Irish naval vessals are seen as being warships and make use of that status.
You are dancing on the head of a pin with this argument.0 -
I am not bothered enough to go find the international naval treaty where such a clasfication is set out, but it is in use and Irish naval vessals are seen as being warships and make use of that status.
You are dancing on the head of a pin with this argument.
Alright lads, we'll go with Rob's inference that our ship acting as a 'coastal defence' vessel was actually a 'warship', engaging in an act of war.
Rock on there. :rolleyes:0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Alright lads, we'll go with Rob's inference that our ship acting as a 'coastal defence' vessel was actually a 'warship', engaging in an act of war.
Rock on there. :rolleyes:
Thats not what we are saying. Our ship is a warship, it was acting as a costal defence vessal because that is the role that specific warship has and it was not engaging in an act of war. Being a warship does not mean anything you do is an "act of war"!
The answer to Robs question is no, your advice does not apply to that case. An Irish warship enforcing Irish laws in Irish waters is not tantamount to invating another country.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »That came later.
In 1707, the kingdom of England (which had long included Wales as well) and the kingdom of Scotland were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. That was not [England, with Scotland added] or [Scotland, with England added]; it was a brand new kingdom, distinct from the two predecessor kingdoms.
Then, 1801, the kingdom of Great Britain and the kingdom of Ireland were united into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Signficantly, most commentators at the time did not regard this as a brand new kingdom; they regarded it as the existing kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added plus a change of name to reflect the new circumstances. They were probably influenced in this by the fact that Ireland had not previously been an independent or co-equal kingdom; it was very much dependent on the kingdom of Great Britain, legally and politically. (E.g. the legislative powers of the Irish parliament were conferred on it by British law, which had never been true for the Scottish parliament.)
Believe it or not, there’s rules about this. In public international law we call this topic “state succession”. Where states change their identities or characters, or merge, or demerge, to what extent are the new states continuations of the old states, and to what extent are they not?
This matters. In 1917 the Russian Empire collapsed. After a period of confusion and war, several new states emerged - Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the Soviet Union, which itself was at least formally a federation of republics which had come together to form the Union. Which, if any, of these entities was the successor to the Russian Empire? This mattered because the Russian Empire owed considerable debts to foreign creditors; who was going to pay them?
The Soviets took the view that the USSR was not successor of the Empire (and neither was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the largest and most Russian of the member states of the USSR). Therefore they were not bound by arrangements made by Tsarist Russia, had not received any loans from anyone, and would not be repaying them. The international community, for the most part, took the opposite view. This was a running sore in relations between the USSR and the rest of the world for decades.
It’s not always about money. The issue arises in relation to any obligations the old state may have entered into - treaty obligations, for example. British India was a founding member of the United Nations. Quite soon afterwards it was divided into the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. Pakistan regarded itself as a successor state to British India in relation to matters affecting Pakistan, and argued that it was already a member of the United Nations. The UN disagreed, and made Pakistan apply for membership. India, by contrast, was treated as the successor to British India, and therefore already a member.
Right. Hypothetically, the UK is divided into two states - Scotland, and a kingdom (whose name we need not concern ourselves with) covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Which, if either, is the successsor state? Who, if anyone, gets the permanent seat on the UN Council?
Ideall, this will be resolved by discussion and agreement at the time. Most likely Scotland would agree, for example, to take on a proportion of the UK’s national debt. The rest of the world will probably accept this because, really, why wouldn’t you? They are offering to pay, after all. Othe aspects might require a bit more negotiation with the rest of the world; for example Scotland and rumpUK might agree that rumpUK would inherit the UK’s permament seat on the Security Council, but that agreement would mean nothing unless the UN and its member states accepted it.
In general, it’s better for the international community that there should be a successor state, so any succession arrangements that get worked out between the states involved, the rest of the world is prone to accept. And the likely agreed position here would be - rumpUK is the successor state to the UK, inheriting its memberships of international bodies, its international assets, its dependencies around the world, its obligations (except as voluntarily taken on by Scotland), etc. Scotland is a new state, free of the UK’s obligations, except as it chooses to take them on. I’ve already mentioned that Scotland would probably take on an agreed chunk of debt; it would probably also agree to continue to be bound by most or all of the multilateral treaties by which the UK is bound, and it might also take on bilateral treaties of particular relevance to Scotland.
That’s the kind of thing that normally happens when a small state is seceding from a much larger one. It’s different where a state breaks into more equal sized states - when Czechoslovakia split in 1992, for example, neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia claimed to be, or was treated as, the primary succsessor state to Czechoslovakia. They divided up the countries assets and liablities between them by agreement, each indicated which of the treaties made by Czechoslovakia it wished to continue to be bound by, and both applied for admission to the UK as new members.
A very pertinent example. Events unfolded as follows:
June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). The Yugoslav government does not accept this, and deploys the army. Fighting breaks out in Croatia. The EU attempts to mediate. The general view is that SFRY is in the process of dissolution, that each of its six republics should recognise the independence of the others, and that this should be facilitated by providing guarantees for the Serbian minorities in other states. Serbia and Montenegro, alone of the six republics of the SFRY, reject this.
September 1991: Macedonia declares independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). SFRY does not resist or protest.
December 1991: Germany recognises the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, arguing (not unrealistically) that it’s already the reality. SFRY rejects this, and also the EU attempts to mediate a peaceful dissolution, but all the other former Yugoslav Republics accept it. Fighting between Yugoslavia and Croatia intensifies; Serb-dominated parts of Bosnia attempt to secede from Bosnia.
January 1992: Independence of Croatia and Slovenia recognised by the international community.
March 1992: Bosnia/Herzegovina declares independence.
April 1992: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is formed, consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro. This is effectively an admission that the SFRY has ceased to exist. FRY claims to be the sole successor state to SRFY, but this is not accepted by the international community, which takes the view that SFRY had effectively dissolved by, at the latest, December 1991
May 1992: Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia/Herzegovina are admitted as UN member states.
September 1992: FRY’s attempt to occupy the UN seat of the former SFRY is rejected by the UN.
1996: FRY abandons its claim to be the sole successor state to SFRY
2000: FRY admitted to UN
2003: FRY renames itself “State Union of Serbia and Montenegro” (SUSM)
2006: Montenegro declares independence of the SUSM. Serbia accepts this, and also declares it independence,ending the SUSM. Serbia is accepted as the successor state and inherits the SUSM seat in the UN; Montenegro is admitted as a new member.
So, the general view is that SFRY dissolved over a period between June and December 1991. Macedonia left half-way through this period, but Slovenia and Croatia had already left. No other states had left by December 1991, so it could well be argued that, yes, Macedonia leaving (without SFRY objection or resistance) was the significant event which convinced the international community that the permanent dissolution of the SFRY was happening, and from December onwards they took the view that it had happened.
Great post, Peregrinus. Thanks for the history lesson.0 -
Advertisement
-
Aegir - do you have anything tonsay about Brexit?
In months of reading your posts, it ammounts to 'yeah? Well what about Ireland? Ireland is bad'.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement