
The plot against the Principality of Sealand - microwavecamera
https://narratively.com/the-plot-against-the-principality-of-sealand/
======
dheera
Sealand is a freaking oil rig. Countries don't become accepted as countries by
declaring themselves as such. They become countries by having a sizeable
military to protect their claims OR the threat of other established nations'
sizeable militaries protecting their claims as allies.

It's part of the reason I hate the concept of countries but unfortunately
that's the status quo.

If Sealand did something that the world hated enough, the US military would
probably take them out in a heartbeat. They are just not doing enough for
people to actually care that much.

~~~
rosser
Two things:

1\. Sealand is built on an old defense platform, not an oil rig.

2\. Countries become accepted as countries _exactly_ by declaring themselves
as such, and then having that declaration _recognized by other countries_.
Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want
your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary, in order to become
one.

~~~
stcredzero
_Being able to protect your claim is nice, to be sure — especially if you want
your country to last — but it is absolutely not necessary._

Sovereignty is _defined_ as the ability to exert one's will on a given
territory.

~~~
ummwhat
You're actually both right.

In international relations there's two competing notions of nationhood. One
notion is being recognized as such by other countries. The other notion is
having land, a permanent population, and a monopoly on violence. Let's call
these de jure nationhood and de facto nationhood.

Both notions have their faults (full disclosure, I am partial to the latter).
De jure nationhood has absurdities like the order of Malta. De jure nationhood
is also terribly misaligned with facts on the ground in cases like
transnistria and Palestine. De facto nationhood comes with the bitter pill
that anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which
leads to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.

~~~
0815test
> anyone who can organize enough violence is instantly legitimate, which leads
> to recognizing some rather unsavory groups.

I'm not sure that this is the case. Perhaps instead of "monopoly on violence",
we should rather talk about a "property right on violence" \- the key is not
so much organizing enough of it, but keeping it in check from others. Note
that just "organizing enough violence" doesn't tell us much of anything about
this while OTOH, not defending one's claim from opportunistic outsiders _is_
meaningful evidence that one probably wouldn't be providing effective security
even if some sort of conflict were to flare up entirely on its own.

~~~
ummwhat
The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or
even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence
legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence)

~~~
0815test
> that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get
> permission from the monopoly holder.

Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" \-
if these groups _are_ successfully regulating the use of violence within their
territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It
just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started
mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable
territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not _that_ clear why
the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to
acknowledging this dynamic.

------
9nGQluzmnq3M
I'm somewhat astonished that the article doesn't even mention HavenCo, the
world's first (and likely last) attempt at a sovereign data haven, based in
Sealand:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HavenCo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HavenCo)

