Quote from: Branko on October 21, 2022, 11:20:03 AM

Quote from: Veleor on October 20, 2022, 06:47:02 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 20, 2022, 12:17:53 AM

<...>

Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#

Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>

Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.

paxmao, when you describe the concept of "legal annexation", what relevant international legal documents did you follow so that I could also get acquainted with them?

In the course of your comment, I had a few questions. If you don't mind, please answer them. I have put my questions in brackets in your quote.

Quote from: paxmao on October 19, 2022, 11:48:29 PM

Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace (How many months or years exactly?), a referendum with all guarantees (What are these guarantees and who provides them?), time to put forward arguments against and in favour (Who chooses such time?) and abundant international observers (How many observers should be there and who should appoint them?) is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.

According to the definition of "annexations" which I found, they are illegal.

Code:

<...>F. Evaluation
38 Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.

Links:
http://www.anamnesis.info/node/624
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376

Quote from: paxmao on October 19, 2022, 11:48:29 PM

It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.

Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.

Source in Russian

* Updated quote from Encyclopedia of Public International Law on Annexation

...

Pretty much all irrelevant to the case. Adolf Putin ordered a few fakeferedums to make annexations as something demanded by the population. It is impossible for a population to express a will a gunpoint. Trying to pass the the illegal (thanks) annexations as something demanded by the population, but is simply impossible to recognise in the middle of a war, mass graves, killing and soldiers forcing people to vote. For those who want to understand, it is fairly simple.

As for you legal quotes ... well, sure... all annexations are illegal. No problem is that is what you are trying to prove?? So that would include the recent ones by Adolf Putin, sure, thanks - illegal they are - pretty much my point.

It is very clear for whoever wants to understand - for a change is the status of a region you would allow people to express views, pros and cons openly and in peace and then let the majority decide. It does not matter if it is one month, or two months or a year, it is about a large majority of countries and institutions considering the polling and campaigning free and pacific (pacific enough sometimes).

Is it relative? Yes. Does anything fly as you suggest? No, it does not. There is a minimum. Times are changing so much (thanks Trump, Boris, Putin, Xi,...) that is easy to put everything into doubt and make facts appear as "maybes" and you are just trying to relativize and put forward some legal opinions as if that was an exact science - it is not. The citizens of a territory can chose to organise themselves however they please, and that could be joining an existing country or abandoning an existing one.

If you are here to argue about semantics just do not use "annexation", but rather voluntarily joining or voluntary union - short of what happens when a country joins the EU (and that sometimes is without referendum). Does secession or annexation always require a referendum... I would say that it would also be acceptable that a government elected with full democratic guarantees and a program of claiming secession clearly expressed would be valid.

Now, all the whattabout:

- Catalonia held a referendum that did not have any guarantee so it was not accepted by any country in EU, nor US, nor pretty much anyone. It was very clear that it did not have the basics. Apart, is well known that of the four regions of Catalonia, two (including the capital Bacelona!) are not in favour of secession.

- The referendum on independence of Scotland, agreed with the UK government, resulted on a no. It did have all guarantees.

- Referendums in the old USSR were probably not required by the existing law (the USSR law did allow secession as far as I know). If you want to argue that they were illegal you would need something more that just saying so and if you are trying to make them like a "west" doing you would also need some evidence. No wonder you are using a source in Russian Grin