Veluwse Israel Vrijstaat

What is needed to meet the rules to set up a free state?


 

According to a report made by the University of Groningen and a number encyclopaedias, the rules needed to meet the criteria for having a free state are:

A to have a territory

B to have a governing body

C to have a fixed ‘befolking’ (population)

D to be fully independent

E to acknowledge the borders of other states (however, this point is not always the case as pointed out below)

It also helps to have a law system, a culture, heraldry, and passports.

With statehood comes other more enjoyable issues such as; registration plates for vehicles, national ‘folk’ song, and postal stamps, means of exchange and so forth.

Sovereign state

(Translated from the Wikipedia site in Dutch)

A Sovereign state is a state with a clearly marked territory which carries out internal as well as external matters of a Sovereignty. Furthermore a Sovereign state has a fixed ‘befolking’ (population), a governing authority, is independent from other states or lands and has the means to hold international relations with other Sovereign states. On the whole the meaning of a Sovereign state is one that is not dependent upon another state or power.

 

The Dutch translation tends to look at the issue from a Dutch perspective; I will now quote a broader international outlook from the English language version of Wikipedia...

The first states came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state". States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.  The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.

In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished:

·        Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capitalinternational law.

·        State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.

 

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state. Recognition can be either express or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It doesn't necessarily signify a desire to establish or keep diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal. L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czech states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign.

 

Constitutive theory[

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them....

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognize a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognize another state if it is to their advantage.

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

...International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

 

And most importantly for mini free states.... (ed)

 

Declarative theory

By contrast, the "declarative" theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.

A Micro or Ministate

A microstate or ministate is a sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area, but usually both. Some examples includeLiechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Nauru, Singapore and Vatican City.

The smallest fully sovereign microstate is Vatican City, with 839 citizens as of July 2013 and an area of only 0.44 km².

Microstates are distinct from micronations, which are not recognized as sovereign states. Special territories without full sovereignty, such as the British Crown Dependencies, The Chinese Special Administrative Regions and overseas territories of Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, are also not deemed microstates.

Other Microstates

A small number of microstates are founded on historical anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law. These types of microstates are usually located on small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded on tourism and philatelic and numismatic sales, and are tolerated or ignored by the nations from which they claim to have seceded.

 

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the quality of having an independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make laws that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal meaning can be given. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

For hundreds of years, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always linked to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own burgesses or citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.

The concept of sovereignty has been discussed throughout history, from the time before recorded history through to the present day. It has changed in its meaning, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty holds four aspects consisting of territory, ‘befolking’/ population, authority and recognition. According to Stephen D. Krasner

, the term could also be understood in four different ways:

 

·        domestic sovereignty – actual control over a state exercised by an authority organized within this state,

·        interdependence sovereignty – actual control of movement across state's borders, assuming the borders exist,

·        international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign states,

·        Westphalian sovereignty – lack of other authority over state than the domestic authority (examples of such other authorities could be a non-domestic church, a non-domestic political organization, or any other external agent).

Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this need not be the case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the same time being sovereign in another of these aspects. According to Immanuel Wallerstein

, another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that it is a claim that must be recognised by others if it is to have any meaning: "Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy [...that] requires reciprocal recognition. Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in which two potentially conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of power, exchange such recognitions as their least costly strategy."

 

Sovereignty and independence

State sovereignty is sometimes seen synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot. A state can gain de facto independence long after acquiring sovereignty, such as in the case of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam

Modern internal sovereignty

Within the modern governmental system you usually find internal sovereignty in states that have public sovereignty and rarely find it within a state controlled by an internal sovereign. A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. From 1790 to 1859 it was argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Monarch in Parliament". This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the USA, Canada, Australia and India where government is split into different levels.

 

The following comes from the internet site:

http://eigenstaat.blogspot.nl/2012/03/welke-stappen-moet-je-volgen-om-een.html

 

Setting up one’s own state. (This is a handy blog which takes you through the steps to set up a ministate).

What are the steps to take when setting up one’s own state?

Everyone can set up a microstate. Of course one needs to follow a number of steps first.

This does not mean that other states will recognize one’s state but they will not stop you from doing so. We have set out a set of steps to take, in order of rank, which one would do well to follow.

Step 1.

Of course the first thing to do is to find the most fitting spot or plot as that is its territory. Most microstates make use of their own home and or a block of land that no one is too fussed about. On the whole, microstates or founded upon land that is already claimed as being part of an existing state simply because nearly all land on earth is claimed by some country or another. Some case have seen  micro-nationalists make their own land as was the case of a millionaire who dumped sand on a reef in the Pacific south of Fiji and thereupon founded the Minerva Republic.

 

Step 2.

 

One needs a Declaration of Independence and then to have this submitted to the UN and/or to the government of the land from which one is to secede. This allows all parties to know what the borders are. A rather aggressive reaction can be forthcoming from said nation particularly if one claims land that is already lived upon. On the other hand, a microstate can still function without full independence such as in the case of Taiwan.

 

Step 3.

 

Set up a governing body, a government with laws, ground-law (constitution) and set out the hopes and ideals for the reasons for the undertaking.

A more novel approach was done in the case of the Republic of Kazantip where the laws are that there are no laws as such. It began its life as a surfing carnival in Southern Ukraine. The feasts there last for 5 weeks on end and anyone can stay after pay the ‘staying fee’ for which one gets a visa which allows entry to the festivities.   

 

Step 4.

 

This step is a very weighty one because a state is not a state without having its own burgess, or citizens. The governing body sets the bounds of who can and cannot live in their state. Some microstates have their own websites to seek out potential burgesses. Burgesses are often the economy of any state, think of the old line, ‘butcher, baker, candlestick maker’. Levying of taxes is of course not the way to go, yet if the state gives services which states aim to do on the whole, then a user-pay system is the fairest way to go, in olden times this was called a free-will-offering, a tax paid because one believed in the common good of the land.

 

Step 5.

 

This is the last step. The state needs symbols, its own heraldic emblems and logos. This of course includes having a state flag, needed as a means of identification by other states but also for the burgesses of the microstate as part of a national identity. Then of course it helps to have one’s own currency and postal stamps, and medals as reward for good burgess-ship. Having one’s own culture, which may include a local tongue or dialect can all be part of the ‘package’. (Based on the writings of Kubilay Atalay).