Veluwse Israel Vrijstaat

Report on failed states by the 'AIV'

The following is a report made by the advisory body on international matters, the AIV, as to failed or fallen states. A full report can be read (albeit in Dutch) at:


1.3 An Institutional (formal) and a functional (material) approach.

International Law acknowledges the ‘criteria’ to determine statehood, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 mirrors all the basic benchmarks:

A)     Having territory

B)     Having its own governing body to exercise authority within its realm

C)     Having its own fixed ‘befolking’ (population)

D)     Is fully independent

E)      Acknowledges the borders of other states and being able to engage in international treaties

These basic benchmarks which ensure effective rule and state duties are then added thereto with other standards, such as political and moral aspects as proof of independence:

3 ‘The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States’. So says article I of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of Statessigned op 26th of December 1933. See also: J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford, OUP, 1979. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2003, p. 71, specifying a third aspect: ‘The existence of effective government, with centralized administrative and legislative organs, is the best evidence of a stable political community.’
4 See D.J. Harris, Cases and materials on international law, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 5th ed., 1998, pp. 102 en 111, P.H. Kooijmans, Internationaal publiekrecht in vogelvlucht, 9e edition, Deventer, Kluwer 2002, p. 27 and M.N. Shaw, International Law, Grotius Cambridge 1997, pp. 145 en 146. When the White government in 1965 declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence)  but was not granted so-called, due to claims this was a racist declaration. However, that was a red herring. Rhodesia was not racist to start with, and never was, it simply had a Victorian colonial approach to rule. Furthermore, Rhodesia had no need to declare UDI. The UK knew it was folly as did the them Prime Minister, Ian Smith. When the UK was made aware that it was to have a vote on the League of Nations equal to any other nation without an empire, it was not impressed. The only way for her to gain a greater say on the international body was to give full independence to her 5 ‘White Colonies’. This she did believing that they would vote with her on all matters. Those 5 lands are: Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Rhodesia.

The whole claim of wanting independence from Britain by any of these nations after 1917 (when this independence was given) is nothing more than politicking. Australia from that time on was and is called the Commonwealth of Australia. Its main Bank is called the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Commonwealth is the English word for a French word, ‘Republic’. When Oliver Cromwell had King Charles I beheaded, he proclaimed England to be a republic, of a Commonwealth and England was called, The Commonwealth or the Commonwealth of England, from1649-1660. Therefore, one needs to draw into doubt the works of these experts who seem to set the benchmarks for what is statehood, or try to explain these benchmarks by historical case examples, when in truth they miss the truth. Gaining statehood is not simply having it. Australia and all those 5 so-called white colonies had this for many, many, years, yet always playing the game of being a sort of half status colony. Statehood on the international stage is more politicking than it is law. Usually it’s the golden rule that wins out... he who has the gold makes the rules.

This politicking is also clear in the rules set which allow new states from the former Soviet Union to join the EU. So the ‘system’ adds other criteria, such as: the new state needs to be democratically ruled and needs to respect the rights of minorities (despite most EU nations using democracy as magic wand word to sprinkle star dust on their own centralized clique rule of tolerating everything, that say can be tolerated, but woe to those who have other ideas on what is to be tolerated). Recognition of a state is more a case being given the thumbs up or down by the zeitgeist of those who hold the gold.

This is more in line with what ‘they’ declare.

Another point is that internal strife within a state does not change the fact of the existence of the state, such as what was witnessed in Somalia with long running anarchy. A states institutions need to be a constant factor of the state.

However, if the governing body needs to keep the control of the state in hand by means of violence, the Security Council (UN) will call all other states of its membership to look over the status of statehood. Case in point, the Council did not recognize the independence of the Turkish Northern Cyprus in 1983. Transkei in South Africa was also not given recognition as a black homeland, see Harris, pages 102, 110, 111. See also Bull. EG 12-1991, pages. 120 en 121.
See, P.H. Kooijmans, Internationaal publiekrecht in vogelvlucht, 9th edition, Deventer, 2002, pages 24-27.
See, Kooijmans,  p. 21; I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2003, p. 80 and D.J. Harris, Cases and materials on international law, Londen, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, p. 82.

Another approach is not so much about traits but rather about ‘tasks’ or duties of state. This is the material functional approach such as the state’s ability to meet the needs of its burgesses or citizens.

These then are the so-called modern standards, whereby the state needs to give security to its burgesses and public order, and these need to be found also in its public services and infrastructure such as; health care, schooling and so on. Of course there are many ways to see how far these services need to go in order to be deemed as being, fitting or lacking. Longstanding states are better at offering such services, yet more and more, albeit not always binding, standards are being added to the long list of expectations. The state needs to live up to these benchmarks and respect human rights, the state needs to be a law abiding state with righteousness where one is expected find, ‘Good governance’. It is also expected that the state has a broader approach to making the wider world a better place for security beyond its borders, also for a cleaner world. Of course these higher aims should not be used as a means to whitewash a control element over other states under the guise of being a good caring neighbour.