Are there any international laws governing the change of country of a region? Russia last week held a referendum on whether the occupied regions of Ukraine would want to join Russia. Many states and international institutions have already made clear that they will not accept the result, because it seems obvious that the outcome will be faked and people are not free in their decision. Therefore my question: What would be a legal way of achieving this? Are there any international laws on that, or does it depend mostly on the laws of the countries involved? I do know that there have been some polls about regions changing state in the past (e.g. the 1919 poll in Vorarlberg), but I don't know of a recent one and I don't know of any successful ones.
So generally, when a region of a nation tries to break away and form a new nation or join a nation, it's acceptance as a nation is generally based on the Diplomatic Recognition of other Nations. This can either be de facto or de jure, with the former acting in a manner of having some acknowledgement of a government of a territory, while a de jure recognition typically is stronger with embassies, consulates, and treaties between the two nations. For example, the United States has de jure recognition of France and vice versa, while they merely have de facto recognition with Iran (They recognize there is a government of the territorial area known as Iran, but they feel that the current government is illegitimate and refuse to engage with it in diplomatic relationships. Iran similarly knows there is a United States, but refuses to recognize it for political reasons as well.). When two nations do not have de jure recognition they will often appoint another nation &quot;Protecting Power&quot; who will act as a representative of the appointing nation in the nation they do not recognize. Currently, the Swiss Embassy in Iran has an office dedicated to U.S. affairs as it is the Protecting Power of the United States in Iran. Iran has asked Pakistan to have the same duties. And before you ask, yes, it is the geopolitical equivalent of two people in the same room not speaking to one another, but telling a third person to give the other person a message (U.S.: Switzerland tell Iran that they will give us back our citizens who are being held in their jail cells or we will drop bombs on them. Switzerland: rolls eyes Iran, the U.S. says they want their guys back or they will bomb you. Iran: Oh yeah? Tell U.S. 'Death to America!' Switzerland: eye roll They said... U.S.: Already routing the bombers!) If a region is claimed by more than one government, than it becomes disputed territory. Presently China has a lot of disputed territory with its neighbors and Maritime neighbors. Ongoing disputes include territories also claimed by India, Bhutan, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and The Philippines. Interestingly, the dispute with Taiwan is over who is the real government of China... Taiwan claims much of the other disputed territory China does... plus some territories which China has resolved disputes over. The Russia-Ukraine situation will likely leave the territory in question (The Donbas and Crimea Regions) listed as disputed. Generally, disputed territory doesn't mean nations cannot be friendly, as the United States has a number of territorial disputes with Canada, despite being very strong diplomatic allies (with the single largest land boarder between two nations in the world, disputed territory was bound to happen). Perhaps the most interesting is the now resolved dispute of the San Juan Island in Washington State. Oversimplified History has a good video about it on his YouTube channel, specifically the &quot;Pig War&quot; confrontations and does a pretty good job of highlighting just how dramatic the change to the modern border would have been.
Usually this answer would be provided by a local government land use ordinance, and not by the constitution, national law, state law or common law caselaw rules. It would vary considerably from place to place within India. You would need to review your local land use ordinances to find the answer.
No Recognition of territorial claims is the sole province of the diplomatic branches of national government, and of heads of state. In the US it is the State Department, and ultimately the President. The actions of telephone operators and people engaging in other forms of communication cannot and do not bind the decisions of the President, or of other heads of state. Besides, there may be cases in which a telephone country code or a web domain may not match the actual, undisputed legal status of a territory. Accepting a phone call does not affect a country's legal status. For decades the US did not recognize the communist regime in China. Legally, it considered that the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) was the only valid government, and the acceptance of telephone calls did not change that.
Scenario 1. It doesn’t matter what it says. If it was not legally ratified, it is not legally in force. There is no absolutely no paradox at all. It is essentially just a draft amendment and would be thrown out if any attempt was made to enforce it and challenged.
Yes. This would require the consent of Congress and the accepting U.S. state, but Puerto Rico's consent would not be constitutionally required (although it would be prudent to obtain and probably would be obtained as a matter of custom and fairness). New York States has floated the possibility of annexing Puerto Rico since it is the single most concentrated destination of Puerto Rican migration to the mainland historically and has a large and politically well organized Puerto Rican community and would favor the expansion of Democratic political party power that this annexation would entail. Contiguity is less of a concern for Puerto Rico since it is an island in any case. Florida would be another natural candidate, but its conservative/purple political makeup would probably oppose such an annexation even though geographically it would be a more natural annexing state. In a similar vein, there have been proposals to annex all of the District of Columbia except the federal mall to Maryland subject to the same formal requirements. Either annexation would be a compromise. It would give these territories full statehood status and full representation in the U.S. House but would deny Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, respective, their own two seats in the U.S. Senate which would favor Democrats more than mere annexation would.
Westphalian Sovereignty Israel has decided that this is the law in Israel and they are the only one who gets a say in this. The concept of the modern nation-state can trace its origins to the Treaty of Westphalia (possibly - there is disagreement among historians and political scientists but for our purposes we'll just let them get on with it) which ended the 30-years war. This was a complex and dynamic conflict of which one of the contentious issues was who had the right to determine the laws in a particular territory, particularly religious laws - the local prince/king/duke etc. or the Emporer. Long story short - it wasn't the Emporer. This is embodied in Article 2(1) of the UN charter: The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. That is, Israel and only Israel gets to decide what the law is in Israel. Which is to say, that what the law is in Israel is down to internal Israeli politics. Israel is a democracy so this is down to democratic politics. International law only allows involvement when the actions of a sovereign state (UN member or otherwise) infringe on the peace and stability of other sovereign states. I realise that there is a whole area of discussion here but suffice it to say that the internal operations of the UN are political rather than legal. However, laws on marriage in Israel seem unlikely to have international peace and security implications.
Any country is free to decide what actions are considered to be crimes, and what crimes are prosecuted depending on whether you perform the action in the country, outside the country, and depending on whether you are a citizen, a resident, both, or neither. They can also decide what are accepted defences in court and which are not. Any other country is free to decide under which circumstances they will ever extradite someone to that first country. Now you have to check the laws of the individual countries.
Isn’t this discrimination since nationals do not have to apply? Yes it is discrimination. But that does not make it illegal. In fact discrimination is in general legal unless it is based on some characteristic which is specifically forbidden as a basis for discrimination (e.g. race). And in general, all of the countries in the world allow and enforce discrimination based on nationality; for example non-nationals will not be able to run for Head of State (and additional restrictions may apply). The EU members allowing similar rights to the citizens of other EU countries is the exception, not the rule, and once the UK stops being bound by EU treaties it can impose its own legal system on non-nationals. And while EU treaties give lots of rights to EU member-countries citizens, they still allow for discrimination based on nationality (for example you cannot run for Prime Minister or MP of Spain as a foreign EU resident). Isn’t the UK Government breaking the law? This could go against EU treaties, but the point is that the UK will no longer need to comply with them. is the UK Government responsible for the harm and distress caused to the individual health and mental wellbeing? No, the UK Government is not responsible if you do not like its laws to the point that it affects your health. Is there any ground for challenging this scheme legality in court? Unlikely. In any case it will not be because you are frightened by it, any challenge would be in the grounds that the government actions act against some other UK law. For example, if the decision to make such a list was made by the Executive but it contradicts some law approved by the Parliament. If this list does not contradict any law, then there are no grounds for challenging it. Would there a breach of my human rights if I was not to apply for settle status and then subsequentially got deported (taken away from my children, home, business, etc.)? How about if I was refused, re-entry or access to public services (NHS for example)? If you do not apply you will not have any evidence that you were settled, and the government could legitimately believe that you are irregularly in the country and try to expel you; you probably would have an opportunity to prove that you were settled even if you were not in the list but that could be way slower, more expensive, riskier and stressful than just registering now. Get this clear: that settled person list is to help you to show that you were a UK resident before Brexit and to give you the protections that are being negotiated between the UK and the EU for expatriates. Probably you could choose not to enlist, but it would work against you.