Neutral Ground - an Open Discussion Thread

[Unibot III]

What's perhaps being missed here is that RL political mechanics (security, economics, cyber security, politics, kickbacks, rentier states) also allow for all governments to be overthrown to some extent. The vulernabilities that exist are not self-legitimizing.

There's no easy answer in my opinion, I believe state legitimacy has to be determined by considering a range of factors, features of interests and red flags with a significant degree of skepticism during regime transitions. It's not a simple test. Legitimacy is graduated, there's different levels of legitimacy: (1) rogue / not rogue, (2) self-governing / non-autonomous, (3) popular sovereignty / no popular sovereignty. The more criteria you pass, the more legitimate you are, or rather, the more likely you are legimitate.

Problems arise when you're trying to delineate in hard terms which states are legitimate and which ones are not in a binary fashion. Legitimacy is a political and sociological concept, so its application is not straightforward.

[Kylia Quilor]

A country is a country when enough countries agree a country is a country. By the same token, a regime is legitimate when enough people agree the regime is legitimate. I mean, there's very few people (I'm guessing) who are still calling the NPO 'illegitimate', for example. Most people tended to agree that OFO 1.0 was legitimate soon enough, relatively speaking.

[Tim-Opolis]

To derail this discussion, is there anyone interested in writing a TL;DR of all the shit Onder's saying across like 4 threads? It's really too much to read, but I figure there may be 1-2 amusing snippets.

[Canton Empire]

To derail this discussion, is there anyone interested in writing a TL;DR of all the shit Onder's saying across like 4 threads? It's really too much to read, but I figure there may be 1-2 amusing snippets.

I second this

[Greater Moldavi]

A country is a country when enough countries agree a country is a country. By the same token, a regime is legitimate when enough people agree the regime is legitimate. I mean, there's very few people (I'm guessing) who are still calling the NPO 'illegitimate', for example. Most people tended to agree that OFO 1.0 was legitimate soon enough, relatively speaking.

Exactly. So if a so-called rogue Delegate maintains its position long enough it will become 'legitimate' in the eyes of the rest of society. Therefore the primary factor in the initial legality is the mechanics of the position itself, since the rest is an arbitrary factor relating to the passage of time.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

For a change of pace, I'm attempting to Commend Euro.

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=423982

Figured I'd poke here to drum up some more people to swing by and give me input on content, even if you have no interest in the actual proposal-editing

[The North Polish Union]

A country is a country when enough countries agree a country is a country. By the same token, a regime is legitimate when enough people agree the regime is legitimate. I mean, there's very few people (I'm guessing) who are still calling the NPO 'illegitimate', for example. Most people tended to agree that OFO 1.0 was legitimate soon enough, relatively speaking.

This line of reasoning ignores real life states like Taiwan, which functions perfectly well as a country with little recognition and NS governments that either do or try to do the same thing like the NLO, which for a time wielded supreme executive authority over Lazarus in spite of its lack of mainstream recognition.

I would tend to agree with Ivan that ability to exercise in-game authority lends an immense amount of legitimacy to any GCR government but also acknowledge that such governments are likely to fail without outside recognition. Therefore, recognition is an incredibly important aid to legitimate governments but recognition does not in and of itself imply legitimacy. That is, I would argue that the Celestial Union is illegitimate in spite of its continued recognition by many in the GP world because it cannot wield executive authority over Lazarus.

This is not to say that governments wielding authority over their regions should not seek outside recognition, I still think that that's vitally important in ensuring the long-term stability of the government.

[Kylia Quilor]

A country is a country when enough countries agree a country is a country. By the same token, a regime is legitimate when enough people agree the regime is legitimate. I mean, there's very few people (I'm guessing) who are still calling the NPO 'illegitimate', for example. Most people tended to agree that OFO 1.0 was legitimate soon enough, relatively speaking.

This line of reasoning ignores real life states like Taiwan, which functions perfectly well as a country with little recognition and NS governments that either do or try to do the same thing like the NLO, which for a time wielded supreme executive authority over Lazarus in spite of its lack of mainstream recognition..

I'm not ignoring Taiwan at all. Taiwan (among other places in the world) functions as a country, yes, but it isn't one, because not many people actually recognize it as such. What something functionally is and actually is is rather different. Equally, there are countries that are nominally countries, but don't really act like them in the conventionally understood way, at least not completely.

[Unibot III]

This line of reasoning ignores real life states like Taiwan, which functions perfectly well as a country with little recognition and NS governments that either do or try to do the same thing like the NLO, which for a time wielded supreme executive authority over Lazarus in spite of its lack of mainstream recognition..

I'm not ignoring Taiwan at all. Taiwan (among other places in the world) functions as a country, yes, but it isn't one, because not many people actually recognize it as such. What something functionally is and actually is is rather different. Equally, there are countries that are nominally countries, but don't really act like them in the conventionally understood way, at least not completely.

Then there's Palestine whose statehood is recognized by like 70% of the planet, but not by the people for whom it matters the most - blowing a hole in the idea of quantity of recognition = recognition.

More to the point, descriptively, the recognition of legitimacy in practice helps support a state's claim to legitimacy, yes. But normatively, legitimacy has to be identified and conferred objectively, not subjectively, for the concept to have any rational and purposeful value.

For instance, an extreme example: Onder would claim Concosia is a legitimate possession of TNI. Most people would contest the legitimacy of TNI's seizure, but according to Onder, the legitimacy of the occupation must be determined by objective terms, independent of popular recognition. Otherwise the entire foundation of imperialism is bunk; if you can only claim territory as your own if the rest of NS by and large agrees, you're not practicing any conventional form of imperialism.

I wouldn't agree with how imperialists confer legitimacy, but I think it's ludicrous to suggest Kelkian imperialism is 'responsive' to interregional opinion.

IE: You guys do stuff all the time claiming legitimacy without international backing, that's kind of your thing...

[Kylia Quilor]

A claim to legitimacy isn't the same thing as actual legitimacy. Actual legitimacy is when people confer that legitimacy to it.

As for Palestine, I didn't set a threshold, I said, 'enough', which is a deliberately vague term. But those 70% do call it and treat it as a country - for for those 70%, it *is* a country. For the ones that don't see it as one... it isn't one.

[Unibot III]

Actual legitimacy is when people confer that legitimacy to it..

The premise of this is ludicrously destructive to imperialist thought and you know it (and are going to glibly skip over it.)

Actual legitimacy has nothing to do with how many people outside the region confer legitimacy to it; international support helps bolster and reinforce one's claim to legitimacy, granted but it doesn't define it. "Legitimacy = International Recognition," in its purest form is contradictory to both imperialism and defenderism since both confer legitimacy independent of popular sentiment when push comes to shove - they just do so under different terms.

TNI is not going to respond to international blowback with "eh, perhaps our occupation of Concosia is untenable after all. Oh geez, sorry guys."

I would argue that something all five main ideologies have in common - Imperialism, Defenderism, Francoism, Independentism, Invaderism - is they don't identify state legitimacy based on interregional opinion, they identify legitimacy based on something distinct (claims, rights, classes, interests and liberties.) Although I think an interesting essay for someone to pursue would be how independentism and state legitimacy interact in theory; independents can be expected to extend and confer recognition of legitimacy based on their perceived interests, but there's the more complicated question of what independents believe is and isn't legitimate beyond that which they publicly declare - that's a difficult question to answer because if you aren't making a declaration publicly about your stance or your public declaration is insincere, what you actually believe is interest-neutral (that is to say, it doesn't affect your state at all). For the most part, independentism doesn't concern itself with the interest-neutral. With that in mind, there's a few directions you could go with that question, either (1) independents don't possess any sincere, objective understanding of what legitimacy is, simply invoking and conferring legitimacy (a term meaningless to them except for the value others place in it) as a power move at the appropriate junctures, (2) independentism is a political philosophy significantly limited in its scope, (3) for a state to be truly legitimate in the eyes of an independent. it must share with them an independentist character; that is to say, the state must be 'rational' and self-interested - defender regions need not apply.

I think (1) is pretty empty and revealing for outsiders, (2) is the most compelling answer but severely limits independentism as a political philosophy, (3) is pretty radical and likely contradicts independentism's first premises (self-interest) by placing independent regions' recognition of widely recognized states in jeopardy rather dogmatically.

[Ikania]

Perhaps a significant factor in the concept of regional legitimacy is the presence of people actively disputing an incumbent's claim to it. I'll try and detail some of my personal experiences to support this, freely disputable, opinion. In the wake of last year's coup in Osiris, there was and is no doubt for me that Cormac's regime had no legitimacy, and there existed an entire host of exiled citizens fighting to take the region back. It fell through after a little while, and that lack of concerted resistance, the complete absence of any viable alternative, gave immediate and indisputable legitimacy to the next few months of rule. Now, there is no one who will try and lay claim to the Delegacy claiming the mandate of the people, the law, etc, without going through the proper processes of the OFO. No, not even me. You cannot regain legitimacy by virtue of community without acquiring it through that same method.

Legitimacy in Lazarus can be argued to belong to the members of the resistance, because we comprise a large part of the community, and what makes Lazarus what it is, and has been for a long time. Legitimacy, in my opinion, will continue to rest with our movement as long as we are active, vocal and persevering about it. Because that provides a consistent alternative to something that broke the law of the region at the time and forced a new government against both the law and the people, two huge factors in legitimacy.

To use real life examples, as others have, if we look at Turkey, its Republic has existed for almost a hundred years now. Without regard to the current regime, it would be impossible to argue that the entire structure must be torn down and rebuilt in an opposite, authoritarian fashion, since Ataturk performed an illegal coup against the Ottoman Empire with ideological motives. While in NS, natives don't just die off, rather, they fade away. The more they continue to wage a resistance against an illegal government, the more longevity their movement has, and the greater claim they have due to their relentless consistency. This isn't to say that every active resistance will always have legal rights to a country/region. Should Lukashenko ever die or resign, I doubt anyone expects or wants the Belarusian Government-in-exile to come in and take the reins. You have legitimacy as long as you continue to fight against your being supplanted. But if, in spite of your efforts, plantation is successful, and enough time has passed for most affected parties of the dispute to have moved on from it already, then you have probably lost your legitimacy. This idea, on a much grander and complex, and sectarian scale, has been at the heart of the issues surrounding Northern Ireland.

The Ulster plantation of the 16th century was undoubtedly wrong from our standpoint, but at the same time, it has been many centuries since then. A Catholic cannot lay claim to county Antrim today and be taken seriously by many people outside of the continuity IRA. There comes a point where you simply have to accept what is done as being done, and doing your best to build upon that instead of tearing it down (the RL equivalent being, of course, ethnic cleansing, but that's a rather touchy/derailing topic). I certainly don't mean to compare the viewpoints of Onder to that of the Irish Republican Army, but I believe the point stands nonetheless.

Ultimately, in my opinion, legitimacy is a matter of perception. Both sides will claim legitimacy, for various reasons, but three factors represent the crux of the issue: community, law, and recognition. A community ruling its own region, by laws upheld by its government, and recognized by most significant players, is almost undoubtedly legitimate in the eyes of most people. Take away one of these factors, and there is very much a grounds for disputing legitimacy, which is exactly what is being done and has been done. All three of these can change, and regardless of their manner, if enough time passes and opposition fades away, then you can put up your illegitimacy as the real deal and thus attain it, with no one important to deny you that right. And that is precisely the motivation to carry on resistance to unlawful and unjust governments that violate the rights of its people- if you don't fight it, soon you'll lose everything that made you what you were in that community. Lazarus is not a done deal for precisely that reason, and Osiris is certainly a done deal for precisely that reason. Which fool will now say that the government of Osiris bears no legitimacy? Few, if any. Because there is no competition, and no one is interested at this point in challenging the stability and activity that has developed in the wake of something which was, at the time, purely wrong: what was illegitimate has gained legitimacy, borne out of all the things I mentioned earlier.

And I would like to only briefly address the idea of Delegate supremacy; Moldavi is free to argue that there exists no real thing as a coup in NS because of the inherent game mechanics, but I would say that it is a matter of perspective. By the grace of God, I am freely capable of, for example, shooting someone in the head, not that I would, of course. And because there exists no (objectively proven) universal force to tell me that I have not just committed murder, should I argue that there exists no such thing as murder? Everything we create, both in real life and in-game, are things existing only in the matters of us as humans and the way we think. If I take your property, it is theft, and if I throw a grenade at you, it is murder, or at least attempted murder, as well as countless property destruction charges. We don't rely on God to tell us that we did that, well, some do, but even without religion we have the laws that we have created within the framework of nature to define these kinds of things. If you set up a government with your fellow peers and all agree on common definitions of the way things work, and what you are and are not allowed to do, you've no right to dispute the labeling of your crime when you commit it.

When an unstable banana republic undergoes a coup d'etat, no one will say that it was the right of that particular warlord to take over the country merely because he had the largest army. It is always for the good of the people that countries tend to be run best, or, so goes western philosophy. I would apply that to NS too. Max Barry gives you the power to exercise absolute power as a virtual monarch in your own region. By the standards set by the game, by this constructed reality, there's no real label for doing that benevolently or maliciously other than a simple exercise of power. But just as we have created laws and rules for ourselves as humans outside the parameters of the divine, so too have we done that for NS. Secular law, if you will. There is little disputing that if you forcibly overthrow a government against its constitutional law, and all that, then it is, in fact, a coup d'etat. Not because the game Gods said so, but because we as players and as humans have established that definition within our concept of philosophy, justice, and morality.

Funny how game philosophy and real-life philosophy intertwine like they do.

[Kylia Quilor]

Actual legitimacy is when people confer that legitimacy to it..

The premise of this is ludicrously destructive to imperialist thought and you know it (and are going to glibly skip over it.)

Actual legitimacy has nothing to do with how many people outside the region confer legitimacy to it; international support helps bolster and reinforce one's claim to legitimacy, granted but it doesn't define it. "Legitimacy = International Recognition," in its purest form is contradictory to both imperialism and defenderism since both confer legitimacy independent of popular sentiment when push comes to shove - they just do so under different terms.

TNI is not going to respond to international blowback with "eh, perhaps our occupation of Concosia is untenable after all. Oh geez, sorry guys."

I would argue that something all five main ideologies have in common - Imperialism, Defenderism, Francoism, Independentism, Invaderism - is they don't identify state legitimacy based on interregional opinion, they identify legitimacy based on something distinct (claims, rights, classes, interests and liberties.) Although I think an interesting essay for someone to pursue would be how independentism and state legitimacy interact in theory; independents can be expected to extend and confer recognition of legitimacy based on their perceived interests, but there's the more complicated question of what independents believe is and isn't legitimate beyond that which they publicly declare - that's a difficult question to answer because if you aren't making a declaration publicly about your stance or your public declaration is insincere, what you actually believe is interest-neutral (that is to say, it doesn't affect your state at all). For the most part, independentism doesn't concern itself with the interest-neutral. With that in mind, there's a few directions you could go with that question, either (1) independents don't possess any sincere, objective understanding of what legitimacy is, simply invoking and conferring legitimacy (a term meaningless to them except for the value others place in it) as a power move at the appropriate junctures, (2) independentism is a political philosophy significantly limited in its scope, (3) for a state to be truly legitimate in the eyes of an independent. it must share with them an independentist character; that is to say, the state must be 'rational' and self-interested - defender regions need not apply.

I think (1) is pretty empty and revealing for outsiders, (2) is the most compelling answer but severely limits independentism as a political philosophy, (3) is pretty radical and likely contradicts independentism's first premises (self-interest) by placing independent regions' recognition of widely recognized states in jeopardy rather dogmatically.

TNI doesn't even exist anymore Unibot, for all intents and purposes. I'm not sure why you're using them as your hobby horse here.

We're talking in broad and more objective terms than the subjective realities of day to day life in NationStates Gameplay, or at least, that's what I thought we were doing. And we're not just talking about international legitimacy, but also internal legitimacy.

If I thought a central notion was destructive to Imperialism, I wouldn't go around spreading it, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't go around pretending to beble to read my mind. There's a difference between assuming you know what someone things ("I'd bet that...") and asserting that you do (".... and you know it.")

[Unibot III]

TNI doesn't even exist anymore Unibot, for all intents and purposes. I'm not sure why you're using them as your hobby horse here.

They barely existed then! And Concosia is still occupied.

We're talking in broad and more objective terms than the subjective realities of day to day life in NationStates Gameplay, or at least, that's what I thought we were doing. And we're not just talking about international legitimacy, but also internal legitimacy.

We're talking about legitimacy as an objective idea. The distinction between international legitimacy (official recognition) and internal legitimacy ("actual" legitimacy) is relevant but disputed here.

If I thought a central notion was destructive to Imperialism, I wouldn't go around spreading it, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't go around pretending to beble to read my mind. There's a difference between assuming you know what someone things ("I'd bet that...") and asserting that you do (".... and you know it.")

A central notion of imperialism is that you make a legitimate claim over a region with force, you don't depend on the recognition of this claim by the majority of NS to declare your claim legitimate.

[The North Polish Union]

This line of reasoning ignores real life states like Taiwan, which functions perfectly well as a country with little recognition and NS governments that either do or try to do the same thing like the NLO, which for a time wielded supreme executive authority over Lazarus in spite of its lack of mainstream recognition..

I'm not ignoring Taiwan at all. Taiwan (among other places in the world) functions as a country, yes, but it isn't one, because not many people actually recognize it as such. What something functionally is and actually is is rather different. Equally, there are countries that are nominally countries, but don't really act like them in the conventionally understood way, at least not completely.

So what we disagree on, then, is what fundamentally constitutes a country. I would argue that a government's legitimacy stems from its ability to independently wield authority over the areas (physical land or NS regions) it claims and that outside recognition is then a way of ensuring stability and the continuation of that regime. You would argue (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting your argument) that a government can be illegitimate even if it independently wields executive authority if it is not recognized by outside entities.

I would argue that Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Somaliland are all legitimate countries despite lack of recognition since they can and do wield executive power over their territories. Likewise, I would argue that Palestine in its current state is not a country, given its inability to exercise authority over its claims. You would appear to take the opposite view, while still giving individual governments the right to choose for themselves whether any of the above mentioned entities are legitimate countries.

Note that I do not view South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria as legitimate countries since I question their ability to maintain authority in the absence of Russian intervention i.e. they cannot wield their authority independently.

A claim to legitimacy isn't the same thing as actual legitimacy. Actual legitimacy is when people confer that legitimacy to it.

As for Palestine, I didn't set a threshold, I said, 'enough', which is a deliberately vague term. But those 70% do call it and treat it as a country - for for those 70%, it *is* a country. For the ones that don't see it as one... it isn't one.

As can be seen, another difference between my view and your view (as I read it) is that I would argue that the legitimacy of governments can be measured objectively; while your view the legitimacy of a government is more subjective, and determined on a case-by-case basis by other governments independently of each other.

I would argue in favor of my position based on RL international law, especially Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention, "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit." I would argue that this reasoning ought to apply to NS just as well as to the real world.

[Kylia Quilor]

Except if that is true, then why does it matter so much if a country recognizes a country as a country? Why do we (that is, lots of countries) all pretend China is right when it calls Taiwan "Chinese Taipei" until china is out of the room, then we go back to calling it Taiwan? Why does China care so much? Why is Palestine not a member of the UN?

International Law can say one thing, but international reality can say something completely different.

[The North Polish Union]

Except if that is true, then why does it matter so much if a country recognizes a country as a country? Why do we (that is, lots of countries) all pretend China is right when it calls Taiwan "Chinese Taipei" until china is out of the room, then we go back to calling it Taiwan? Why does China care so much? Why is Palestine not a member of the UN?

International Law can say one thing, but international reality can say something completely different.

I would argue that it matters when governments recognize each other because recognition lends itself to greater stability and thus to prolongation of authority. An unrecognized state is one that could be toppled with little international backlash. However, I define the legitimacy of a government by its ability to independently exercise authority over its territory, not by the relative difficulty of toppling it. Recognition is important as far as it lends stability to the state and not important in determining the state's legitimacy.

China and Taiwan are both countries with contesting claims to both mainland China and the island of Taiwan. As such, they do not recognize the legitimacy of each other and would rather that other governments recognize themselves but not the other (China has been very successful in pushing this stance, Taiwan less so). In my non-expert view, the reason Taiwan is commonly referred to as "Chinese Taipei" is that China cannot reasonably assert that it exercises authority over Taiwan but would still prefer wording that leaves Taiwan's actual independent status ambiguous. This is similar to how TSP and its supporters would likely refer to "Lazarus" privately, but refer to what they define as "Lazarus" as the "Celestial Union" in a public setting, they cannot reasonably assert that the Celestial Union exerts authority over the actual in-game region of Lazarus; that is, in public and private settings the Celestial Union may be referred to by different names. As for China and Taiwan, I would claim that both governments are legitimate in that they each exercise authority over their territories and their competing claims (over which neither state exercises authority) do not delegitimize either state (to argue otherwise one must necessarily also argue that India and Pakistan's competing claims over the Jammu and Kashmir region delegitimize both states, which is absurd).

As for Palestine, it is not a member of the UN and ought not to become a member of the UN until it is capable of exercising authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If it ever becomes capable of exercising such authority, I would not see any problems with admitting it to the UN. However, I also do not think that UN membership is a requirement for legitimacy; I believe Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland are legitimate governments in spite of their lack of recognition and UN membership.

We seem to be arguing from two completely different philosophies. I argue that legitimacy is an objective standard independent of international recognition and you seem to be arguing that legitimacy is a subjective concept defined by governments on a case-by-case basis as they choose to recognize other entities.

[Kylia Quilor]

You're arguing from a qualitarian view, as it were - does something have the qualities that make it a country. I'm arguing that those qualities mean nothing if you're not treated as a country.

If other countries don't treat you like a country, how much of a country are you?

[The North Polish Union]

You're arguing from a qualitarian view, as it were - does something have the qualities that make it a country. I'm arguing that those qualities mean nothing if you're not treated as a country.

If other countries don't treat you like a country, how much of a country are you?

An unrecognized country, that is, a full country without international recognition.

[Kylia Quilor]

You're arguing from a qualitarian view, as it were - does something have the qualities that make it a country. I'm arguing that those qualities mean nothing if you're not treated as a country.

If other countries don't treat you like a country, how much of a country are you?

An unrecognized country, that is, a full country without international recognition.

"Country" doesn't exist in isolation.

[The North Polish Union]

An unrecognized country, that is, a full country without international recognition.

"Country" doesn't exist in isolation.

How so?

[Kylia Quilor]

"Country" doesn't exist in isolation.

How so?

"Country" is a social construct, thus, its effective definition exists in a broader social matrix.

[The North Polish Union]

How so?

"Country" is a social construct, thus, its effective definition exists in a broader social matrix.

I would disagree, at least when the word is used in a political sense. Perhaps nation-state (no pun intended) would be a better word for what I'm thinking of.

[Kylia Quilor]

"Country" is a social construct, thus, its effective definition exists in a broader social matrix.

I would disagree, at least when the word is used in a political sense. Perhaps nation-state (no pun intended) would be a better word for what I'm thinking of.

State, maybe, not not every state is a Nation-State

(and can I say I hate how the word 'Nation' technically referrs to ethnic identity instead of... well, a government and its people? Really feels counterintuitive )

[Unibot III]

(and can I say I hate how the word 'Nation' technically referrs to ethnic identity instead of... well, a government and its people? Really feels counterintuitive )

Quasi-related: you guys are so lucky I don't write NS Essays anymore, I was reading a book on Canadian politics recently* and was introduced to the concept of a Region-State. I could have spent TREATISES of my life on that subject.

* "From Heartland to North American Region State. The Social, Fiscal and Federal Evolution of Ontario." (Courchene & Telmer)