• PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s still a nation-state. It’s fully independent and autonomous from China in every sense of the meaning.

    Whether other countries recognize your seat at the UN is functionally irrelevant.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except no country or international institution would agree with your criteria for a nation-state since that definition also gives legitimacy and sovereignty to lovely people like ISIS when they administered a huge chunk of Iraq or any number of autonomous or semi-autonomous breakaway regions that the international community consistently refuses to acknowledge as sovereign states.

    • randint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah! Whether other countries let you have a seat in the UN or not is not relevant to sovereignty.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah! As long as you don’t read the Montevideo Convention or ask any international legal scholars, your conception of international law is totally correct!

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That has nothing to do with being a state, it’s about south American former colonies gaining recognition from European powers.

          "They agreed among themselves to criteria that made it easier for other dependent states with limited sovereignty to gain international recognition. "

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

            It has nothing to do with being a state, except for being a restatement and codification of the internationally recognized state practice and opinio juris about what constitutes a state.

            Maybe actually read the whole Wikipedia article you’re quoting from instead of just skimming the first few paragraphs.