If 5 Nations Lay Claim To The Same Territory…

[Hypognosis]

…then, surely, none of them should be allowed sovereignty and they should go into ownership of -every- country?

Interactive exhibit regarding the Spratly Islands, South China Sea

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107792

(which I am too tired to look at just now. This story was on the Asia Today news, 3am ish, today. Quite a scoop. Let's see if it makes it into the UK news.

[Old_Geezer]

So if 4 other countries lay claim to Britain we are no longer allowed sovereignty ? Who would enforce that ? I think the most powerful tends to get their way.

[Peter Pedant]

Disputes have been around for a long time

Over the last two centuries ( recently then ha !) it has been customary for all parties to agree to go to and be bound by arbitration.

Minkies and Ecrehos case springs to mind. [ sorry I am driven to put in these weird comments ]

International Court of Justice ( nothing to do with the ECHR ) has been around just for this.

[sandyRoe]

There was a dispute over the Aaland Islands settled by arbitration by the League of Nations. Generally the maxim, 'Might is Right', holds sway, particularly when powerful countries are involved.

[Old_Geezer]

Folk have to agree to arbitration. If some feel no need to let someone else decide what they believe is theirs, it won't happen.

[Peter Pedant]

Yeah Geezer BUT if there is an a cceptance of arbitration say in a treaty then the reluctant state has difficulty in saying "oh but not in THAT particular case" without abrogating the whole treaty.

That occurred with India in some land dispute

[Peter Pedant]

Read all about the Aaland Island dispute and its resolution
here
http://legal.un.org/ola/media/info_from_lc/POB%20Aalands%20Islands%20Exhibition%20opening.pdf

[Peter Pedant]

Oh, you dont need a League or UN to lead international arbitration.

UK and US agreed on arbitration over the Alabamie case, 1865

UK wrongly delivered a privateer ship to the Confederacy
and had to pay for the damage it did in the Civil War

[sevenOP]

These disputes about offshore territories are likely to increase as countries grow and resources become scarcer.

The International Court of Justice is as impotent as the United Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Criticisms

[Hypognosis]

I suppose the dilemma which makes the UN toothless is that, while many join the armed forces, fully prepared to die for their country, few would be willing to die on the UN's behalf. You could, potentially be shoved into any troublespot, on the other side of the world and become the meat in the sandwich because you're denying TWO armies of an objective.

The UN is just about capable of turning out a force large enough to suppress two conflicting groups of bandits (they suffered losses in Somalia, you'll recall) but they wouldn't be able to turn out a force capable of holding two seriously equipped countries apart.

Worse still, the UN draws units from multiple nations for any given PK action so some permutations of conflict could result in some of the troops in pale blue facing up against those of a former peacetime ally.

As we have all been pained to notice, the USA does not play 'peacekeeper'. They steam in, bring about regime change, then create a power vacuum when they pull out.
(Even the troops they trained up, when it came to the crunch basically ditched their tanks, armoured cars, even their uniform and then ran away because they were only in it to draw a salary - not to get killed, fighting IS).

Who saw that coming?

[Hypognosis]

@Old_Geezer

//So if 4 other countries lay claim to Britain we are no longer allowed sovereignty//

Hmm. I walked right into that one.

Care to name the other 3?

//Who would enforce that ? //

Good question. In my OP, I was implying the UN but, in the post before this one, I've basically pooh-poohed that. The UN has to co-opt miltiple nation's troops into someone else's war. Who signs up to serve with that as a possibility?

// I think the most powerful tends to get their way.//

We campaign against bullying in schools and in the workplace but, hypocritically, run the planet based on "might is right". However, if we ditch the former, to toughen up the kids and workplace softies, might we be increasing the chances of the latter?