• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4324 days ago

    Particularly as the US has a no backsies law, which makes it illegal for any US state or territory to gain independence in the future.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      723 days ago

      External self-determination cares little about national laws. That’s kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don’t recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any “no backsies” rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

      With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven’t been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        623 days ago

        It did not. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament. Indeed the vast majority of possessions gained independence via legal means.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Actually that’s exactly what constitutions are for and why chabges to the constitutions requres a larger majority thsn for normal laws