Kevin,
Re: Monaco & Vatican; the concept of their not "truly" independent is
an odd thing for your to write when you are supporting a position that
former colonies and commonwealth nations of the UK are independent
even though their independence, too, is qualified by commonwealth ties
and is often the result of treaties.
No nation state is "truly independent" so long as they have sovereign
neighbors impinging upon their maneuverability. It's all relative
sovereignty, and I don't think Monaco's independence is any more
removed or deficient from the absolute than is, for example,
Luxembourg's in relation to Germany. Independent as it has been, it
was swallowed once before by it's neighbor in the 1930s, which is
something you can't say France ever did to Monaco.
Re: E vs. W Germany, to E Germany, in support of it's claim to be the
sovereeign and a legitimate heir and be successor to pre-war Germany,
it regarded W Germany as a foreign state. W. German law never
considered E Germany as a foreign state. Thge widest breadth it ever
conferred on the DDR was that it was only a portion of Germany under a
different adminstration. It's sort of like the US treats Guam -
overseas but not foreign.
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Meynell <kevin@m...> wrote:
> Arif,
>
> >All dominions in british commonwealth are thought to be countries
and not
> >protectorates though their leader is the Queen.
>
> There is no question that they are different countries. This was
> established by the 1931 convention that created the 'Commonwealth of
> Nations' from the former dominions of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, South
> Africa and the Irish Free State (although Ireland never ratified the
> decision and became a republic in 1937). Whilst the UK still
retained the
> theoretical right to pass certain legislation over these countries,
these
> rights were gradually abrogated over the years. Indeed, the Canada
Act of
> 1980 and the Australia Acts of 1986 removed any remaining vestiges of
> jurisdiction by the UK Parliament over these countries (I think this
> happened much earlier for South Africa).
>
> The fact that the UK (plus overseas territories) and twenty or so other
> countries have the same head of state, is irrelevant to their status as
> independent countries. Whilst it's true that certain other legal
ties still
> exist, such as right of appeal to the Privy Council (which is group of
> advisors to the monarch who are drawn from the Commonwealth
nations), the
> decision to maintain such ties is up to each country in the same way
that
> countries choose to join the EU etc..
>
> I would agree that some countries such as Monaco and the Vatican are
not
> truly independent as their continued existence depends on a treaty with
> another country. In the case of Monaco, under the terms of a treaty
signed
> in (I believe) the 1920s, the incumbent monarch must produce a male
heir to
> the throne, otherwise the country will become part of France. In the
case
> of the Vatican, I believe that Italy is responsible for security (other
> than the Papal Guard).
>
> >We have assumed boundaries between the Germanys though they were
only a
> >zone divider.
>
> Were West and East Germany not considered to be separate countries? I
> thought this was established sometime in the early-1970s.
>
> >Do you ever hear anybody saying that the MANY border is not a state
border
> >as Massachusetts is actually a commonwealth?
>
> I'm not an expert on US constitutional issues, but I think this is
more of
> a semantic distinction rather than a legal one. The US constitution
does
> not mention commonwealths or republics, so presumably Massachusetts
(and
> Virginia for that matter) would not be part of the USA if they were not
> considered to be states.
>
> >Even Honk Kong was generally assumed to have a boundary with China
even
> >though much of it was leases
>
> I think it actually had two boundaries. An international boundary
> demarcated the sovereign territory (Hong Kong and Kowloon) that was
> originally ceded in perpetuity, and I guess an administrative boundary
> demarcated the New Territories and China proper.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin Meynell