dreamcatcher on 26/8/2008 at 15:39
Quote Posted by Bikerdude
they are far too small
Quote:
This is a comprehensive listing of the world's seventeen independent smallest countries, from smallest to largest. They each contain less than 200 square miles in area. If we combined the land area of these 17 countries, we would have a country just a bit larger than the state Rhode Island. Even tiny Singapore is too big for this list (it's 246 square miles)!
1. Vatican City - 0.2 square miles - The world's smallest state, the Vatican has a population of 770, none of whom are permanent residents. The tiny country which surrounds St. Peter's Basilica is the spiritual center for the world's Roman Catholics (over 1 billion strong). Also known as the Holy See, Vatican City is surrounded by Rome, Italy.
2. Monaco - 0.7 square miles - The tiny state of Monaco lies along the French Riviera on the French Mediterranean coast near Nice. An impressive 32,000 people live in this state known for its Monte Carlo casinos and Princess Grace. It has been independent off-and-on since the 13th century.
3. Nauru - 8.5 square miles - The 13,000 residents of the Pacific island Nauru rely on diminishing phosphate deposits. The state became independent in 1968 and was formerly known as Pleasant Island.
4. Tuvalu - 9 square miles - Tuvalu is composed of 9 coral atolls along a 360 mile chain in Polynesia. They gained independence in 1978. The former Ellice Islands are home to 12,000.
5. San Marino - 24 square miles - Located on Mt. Titano in north central Italy, San Marino has 29,000 residents. The country claims to be the oldest state in Europe, having been founded in the fourth century.
6. Liechtenstein - 62 square miles - This microstate of 34,000 is located on the Rhine River between Switzerland and Austria in the Alps.
7. Marshall Islands - 70 square miles - The atolls (including the world's largest, Kwajalein), reefs, and 34 islands (population 58,000) gained independence in 1986; they were formerly part of the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands (and administered by the United States).
8. Saint Kitts and Nevis - 104 square miles - This Caribbean country of 39,000 gained independence in 1983. Nevis is the smaller island of the two and is guaranteed the right to secede.
9. Seychelles - 107 square miles - The 81,000 residents of this Indian Ocean island group have been independent of the United Kingdom since 1976.
10. Maldives - 115 square miles - Only 200 of the 2000 Indian Ocean islands which make up this country are occupied by 340,000 residents. The islands gained independence from the U.K. in 1965.
11. Malta - 122 square miles - This island is just south of the Italian island of Sicily. It became independent from the United Kingdom in 1964 and the British military were completely gone by 1979. The population is 400,000.
12. Grenada - 133 square miles - This Caribbean country (population 90,000) became independent of the U.K. in 1974. It's located quite close to Venezuela.
13. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - 150 square miles - 117,000 people live on these Windward Caribbean islands which gained independence from Britain in 1979.
14. Barbados - 166 square miles - About 280,000 people live on this Caribbean island, the farthest east of the Lesser Antilles. Barbados obtained independence from the U.K. in 1966.
15. Antigua and Barbuda - 171 square miles - This Caribbean nation of 69,000 has been independent from the United Kingdom since 1981. The three islands which compose this country rely on tourism (as do many of the Caribbean countries and territories).
16. Andorra - 180 square miles - The independent Principality of Andorra is co-governed by the President of France and the Spain's Bishop of Urgel. With just over 70,000 people, this mountainous tourist destination tucked in the Pyrenees between France and Spain has been independent since 1278.
17. Palau - 191 square miles - Palau (also known as Belau) was a Trust Territory of Pacific Islands. It was formerly known as the Carolines and is composed of more than 200 islands in the Pacific; the population is about 20,000. It became independent in 1994.
a slightly more curious example would be the Principality of Sealand.
Matthew on 26/8/2008 at 15:55
Technically Sealand hasn't actually been recognised by anyone, though ;)
demagogue on 26/8/2008 at 16:19
I think what you guys should be doing to give this perspective is looking at all the case studies of conflict over territorial integrity and enclaves.
There's a long history of it in the post-colonial world (Africa - usi posidentis & dozens of disputed enclaves, West Sahara, etc; MidEast - West Bank; Asia - the Indian/Pakistan pocketed border) and the post-communist world (the breakup of Yugoslavia & enclaves like S Ossieta, Transnistria, Chechnya, and Crimea) ... and there's a whole regime of legal and policy norms for it. You should have all that in perspective first to see how S Ossetia is part of a larger trend.
What it gives you ... similar issues always come up you'd want to refer to, with a whole laundry list of things you're supposed to look at ... the Montevideo Convention, legal control, de facto control, population and nationality, previous treaties and agreements, history, custom, international and UN recognition, etc. There's a long history between Georgia and Russia over this area with lots of agreements and customs that you can't paper over, in addition to the particular strategic needs of the moment.
Just going down the checklist: the Montevideo Convention rules largely side with Georgia; there are some prior agreements between Russia and Georgia over legal control; Georgia doesn't have de facto control; it has some bases for legal control; there are independence referendum results, although the procedures tend to side with Georgia (which aren't just arbitrary rules but supposed to support the legitimacy of the referendum); and overwhelmingly the opinion of the int'l community is on the side of Georgia ... and when you're talking about the creation of a new sovereign State, int'l opinion isn't just opinion ... all "sovereignty" means is recognition of legitimacy by the int'l community of fellow States. Actually, all of these things point to the big picture you have to always keep in mind. A sovereign State isn't something that just happens when a group of people want it. It isn't really about the people on the inside, it's about everybody else in the world that has to deal with them as equal partners. The question isn't so much if they can be internally viable, but can they keep commitments to everybody else; can they be a responsible in governing/ controlling their own people. That's what it means to be a sovereign State ... accepted as a legitimate, responsible, equal member of the club by other States. It has to be done responsibly and legitimately or it won't be accepted as responsible or legitimate.
Then add to that the whole laundry list you're supposed to look at for the law of armed conflict ... jus ad bellum and jus in bello rules, that is, what is proper grounds in acting at all (and the rules couldn't be clearer: get a security council res or self def), and what was proper/proportionate if you have grounds. A lot of early criticism wasn't that Russia didn't have an interest in its Russian nationals, but (assuming its Art 51 "self defense" grounds were sufficient; I don't know all the facts but can imagine the arguments) that it was disproportionate in its response given its interest, which is more objectively clear. There were criticisms of Georgia's disproportionality, too, although that is never a defense.
And even when you have the legal p's and q's clear, like you were writing a UN Court of Justice ruling, there's still the practical political world of big States like Russia and their interests you have to be sensitive to on strategic grounds. No doubt there has to be some accomodation for the long-term.
Then there's always a political-inside story ... actions that look beweildering to an outsider (like why Saakashvili acted when and how he did) always make more sense when you look at the internal pressure they were under, often to maintain some power-base. I also saw the tactical thinking of attacking during the Olympics (put int'l scrutiny on Russia's response) and why it was a tactical blunder (because Russia's response was so scripted; int'l scrutiny actually puts more pressure to not back down, or else "everyone learns Russia won't fight back during Olympic ceremonies".)
I'm not an expert on this region, but I do know something about the more general perspective, and the right way to argue about these sorts of issues. But it's always good to take a more general perspective, anyway, otherwise you can get swept away in the emotional particular details and lose sight of the general picture. Just thought I'd add a little bit for the record.
Turtle on 26/8/2008 at 17:02
An important point that you're missing though, dreamcatcher, is that most of those nations rely heavily on tourism to get by.
dreamcatcher on 26/8/2008 at 17:45
well, stick a few casinos in there and they will come. but seriously, I don't fathom that S.O. can now become an independent country, though autonomy is within reason imho.
SD on 26/8/2008 at 18:31
They already have as much autonomy as they're going to get. All that's under question is whether they operate as an autonomous part of democratic Georgia, or an "autonomous" part of an increasingly autocratic Russia.
TTK12G3 on 26/8/2008 at 20:06
Quote Posted by SD
They already have as much autonomy as they're going to get. All that's under question is whether they operate as an autonomous part of democratic Georgia, or an "autonomous" part of an increasingly autocratic Russia.
Quit slapping "democratic" in front of "Georgia". Back in 2007, Georgian police smashed up protesters a good bit. Also, your friend Badri Patarkatsishvili called Georgia's government a fascist regime.
Zygoptera on 27/8/2008 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Turtle
An important point that you're missing though, dreamcatcher, is that most of those nations rely heavily on tourism to get by.
Many of them are tax havens too, or have high value cash crops to go with their small populations, neither of which are practical for Ossetia. The Pacific ones are pretty much all dirt poor, though.
Quote Posted by various
..Chechenya
Their current president wouldn't accept independence now, and it's hardly a certainty that it would be accepted even if a fair referendum were to be held. They already have autonomy, and when they had
de facto independence previously it was a disaster for all involved, especially the average Chechen.
Quote Posted by Noone
Abkhazia
Has a far better case for independence as it has more population, direct access to the Black Sea so does not have to rely on either Russia or Georgia, and better potential for making money through tourism, horticulture etc.
Starrfall on 27/8/2008 at 00:59
Quote Posted by Thirith
I appreciate your question, Starrfall, but in return, why shouldn't Chechnya be its own country? Not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm honestly interested in your answer.
Hahahah what makes you think I know a thing about Chechnya? I'm not making arguments here, these are requests for information.
