Likewise, while starting a country is plausibly a moral good, enabling that is not the purpose of maritime treaties. Countries refuse to recognize other terrestrial countries all the time, even if they have clear borders and obviously-powerful governments internally (e.g. PRC and ROC each refusing to recognize the other, most of the middle east not recognizing Israel). Putting your country on a boat doesn't somehow increase your legitimacy before the international community.
Neither is preventing it. So why is it a 'loophole'. (leaving aside the issue that it would be very hard to justify the legitimacy of such a law)
Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
> Says who? this is an arbitrary interpretation.
> Further, there is obviously no law about how and where to create a new country, as the UN by definition will defend the status quo as a union of sovereign nations. Most countries emerged violently and illegally in their beginning, and got recognized later (including the US).
> The mojave is in the middle of what the world recognizes as a sovereign state, it would be a much more difficult starter and impossible to find allies.
I think what amalcom is getting at, is that maritime law does not offer any protection to aspiring nation states. It is in place solely to allow free travel. That same free travel would allow another sovereign who happens upon your budding nation state to take it with impunity (unless the state is prepared for armed conflict with another, more established (and probably more populated and wealthy) state).
It might be two guys with guns, or it might be a huge bureaucracy that runs on the rule of law or anywhere in between.
But it's always there.
You forgot to mention that in that case it's just one guy with the only gun
As soon as one person's actions can affect another person a system arises for resolving their inevitable conflicts and facilitating cooperation if required. What do you call that system? Many would call that "government." That does seem appropriate if the definition of government is:
> the political system by which a country or a community is administered and regulated.
Of course, "government" as manifested in multi-million person nations is significantly evolved from it's abstract underpinnings both etymologically and philosophically. Same is true of the notions of political, community, administered, and regulated. But all that evolution (both its pros and cons) falls out logically from the foundational relationship of two beings with agency trying to figure out how and if to restrain that agency when it conflicts with the other's.
EDIT: I see from a sibling you're referring to "Anarchism." That doesn't free anyone for the reality of government it just changes where the restraining lines get drawn. In practice, the lines predictably get drawn in favor of the powerful just as they do in more mainstream systems of government.