• Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sovereignty isn’t some colonial European concept

    The sovereignty you are referring to is.

    My understanding of sovereignty isn’t based on a legal system it is based on power, the power to effectively govern within ones declared borders and maintain those borders against foreign powers.

    You are describing sovereignty under the international legal system which was developed by European colonial powers.

    Sovereignty was never ceded because it was LOST through conflict.

    Again, incorrect. Under the international law that you repeatedly reference, sovereignty cannot be claimed through conquest without a formal treaty process (which there has not been in Australia). Your claim that sovereignty was ceded through conflict is not just false, it’s illegal.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The International “law” you’re pointing out is a non-binding agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Note the non-binding part.

      It also didn’t exist when these events took place and retroactively applying laws tends to be a non-starter.

      Sovereignty as a concept has existed far longer than Colonial powers as I pointed out which you haven’t rebutted in the slightest.

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The International “law” you’re pointing out is a non-binding agreement to which Australia is a signatory. Note the non-binding part.

        The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not an “international law”. I also alluded to the fact that it was non-binding by stating that Australia was committed to it “in principle”. This is not the gotcha you thought it was, try again.

        It also didn’t exist when these events took place and retroactively applying laws tends to be a non-starter.

        Terra nullius and international law did exist during the period of Australia’s colonisation. Are you really this ignorant of history?

        Sovereignty as a concept has existed far longer than Colonial powers as I pointed out which you haven’t rebutted in the slightest.

        I don’t need to rebut it. You clearly described sovereignty under international law in your very first comment. Every attempt you have made to define Australia’s sovereignty has been under those terms. Are you suggesting there is more than one form of sovereignty? Didn’t you start off by claiming the complete opposite? You’ve backed yourself into a corner where the only option left is to admit that I am correct. Congratulations on completely playing yourself.