Well, we might as well get the following idea out of the way: There are people who will argue that the only laws they will obey are the laws that was put down by their God - probably because only God has control over them in the afterlife. In other words, any laws created by anyone other than a supreme being like God are invalid, and no man can enforce a man-made law. Although this is a belief, I think all of us here will agree that we do have to live by laws created by ordinary human beings. So the following is the assumption that we do follow laws.Prince of Moles wrote:While I am sympathetic to this line of argument, I also don't buy it completely. We ought to consider the possibility that the law itself might be wrong.
Borders were developed through the centuries via various warring periods and colonization activities. And the borders were finalized via various treaties between the two territories. For example, the existing border as we know it separating the United States and Canada was settled via the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and is currently maintained by the Internationl Boundary Commission. Texas gained its independance from Mexico in 1836, and created the Republic of Texas. Texas was later added to the United States union in 1845 by agreement with the Republic. And the United States/Mexico border was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, and has been maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission since 1889. So that's how we established the borders that separate the United States from everyone else.
There are hundreds of arguments today claiming that simply capturing land does not make the capture a valid claim. Some of them off the top of my head:
- The Palastinians claim that Isreal illegallly stole land from them in the 1967 war, now called the Gaza Strip.
- The feud between Japan and Korea over a collection of islands that sits between the two countries.
- The feud between Japan and Russia over the Kuril Islands
- The feud between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands.
Although it isn't etched into law, it is an "understanding" on Planet Earth that colonization and treaties do hold up in any international court system if they were ever challenged. And that is why none of the claims I mentioned have been overturned by an international law body.
Now that I've established the legality of the borders, the next question is: Do the owners of these territories have the right by international law to maintain the borders as they see fit? Again, history demonstrates that it is an internationally-agreed upon understanding that you can simply stick a KEEP OUT sign on your property and protect it using whatever means you have. So once again, can you make a law out of this? My answer is that, once again, it is an understanding that not only are borders legal, but protecting the borders is also legal. Some activists claim that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights give people the freedom to enter any territory. However, the catch is that the person must be running from persecution, such as your religion or your race.
Therefore, the argument that the legality of protecting borders being invalid is basically bullshit in my opinion. If millions of people can get together and invalidate a law, billions of people can get together and validate law as well, with border control being one of them.