The plot against the Principality of Sealand
narratively.com
narratively.com
It's part of the reason I hate the concept of countries but unfortunately that's the status quo.
If Sealand did something that the world hated enough, the US military would probably take them out in a heartbeat. They are just not doing enough for people to actually care that much.
1. Sealand is built on an old defense platform, not an oil rig.
2. Countries become accepted as countries exactly by declaring themselves as such, and then having that declaration recognized by other countries. Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary, in order to become one.
Sovereignty is defined as the ability to exert one's will on a given territory.
In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One notion is being recognized as such by other countries. The other notion is having land, a permanent population, and a monopoly on violence. Let's call these de jure nationhood and de facto nationhood.
Both notions have their faults (full disclosure, I am partial to the latter). De jure nationhood has absurdities like the order of Malta. De jure nationhood is also terribly misaligned with facts on the ground in cases like transnistria and Palestine. De facto nationhood comes with the bitter pill that anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.
I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence", we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" - the key is not so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders is meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.
Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.
If I wanted to make a mound of dirt in the UK I could probably take a shovel over there on an airplane ride, does that make me sovereign over the United Kingdom?
Start announcing and asserting your sovereignty by doing things the UK doesn't want you to do, and see how it works out. If you had 10 million devoted and physically fit companions armed with modern weapons and organized into an army, navy, and air force, maybe it would work out.
When a government gets conquered militarily, they lose their sovereignty. Note how well the definition works.
Is the United States the only sovereign country in the world?
No, because the United States can't be bothered to go around kicking everyone's butt all the time. The US often finds it more convenient to cooperate and cajole in various ways. Remember, it also works by "default."
To whatever extent it was, depending on how acknowledged it was. It's more a matter of degree. Once someplace is invaded and occupied, then the settled answer is definitely "no" on sovereignty.
It's neither.
Successfully asserting sovereignty over the claimed territory is defending the claim, plus getting other sovereign nations to acknowledge you. So long as you can get other powers to acknowledge you and successfully defend your claim, you can assert sovereignty. And yes, it counts if other sovereign nations just don't want to be bothered to prove you can't assert sovereignty. (Or if you bribe or flatter them somehow.) It counts if you can "win by default."
Ever wonder why geopolitics seems like high school politics? It's because it's basically might makes right combined with human dominance instincts. At root, it's "bigger army diplomacy." Or as Mao put it, "All power comes out of the end of a gun."
Not even.
Countries don't become accepted as countries by declaring themselves as such.
That's just one step. One of the first steps. Sealand has a court case in its favor.
They become countries by having a sizeable military to protect their claims OR the threat of other established nations' sizeable militaries protecting their claims as allies.
"Bigger Army Diplomacy" - CGP Grey
one can argue that you might need more than one other country to accept you.
Countries maintain themselves as countries by having the power to repel anyone trying to take away their stuff, although this also is not the only method of maintenance required.