On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Wendy Lyon wrote:
>> I think you're leaving out a crucial part of the analogy, Wendy: nobody
>> would consider this arrangement a justification for the Republic of
>> Ireland to suddenly occupy the North on the pretext that it was
>> protecting its citizens.
>
> I know quite a lot of people who would, actually.
Yes, well, you know what I mean: no one in the community of international law types would.
The citizenship your describing is acknowledged on some level by both givers and receivers to be semi-fictional. Neither side is expecting the state to put up any time soon.
If we allowed citizenship of this sort to be a valid ground for invading as a general principle, it would have exactly the same effect as legitimating all wars for the protection of minority rights -- it would give an excuse to legitimate any aggressive war. All you'd have to do is hand out citizenships first. Big countries' citizenships are almost always desirable, especially to peoples who live on their border, especially when they're handed out on a dual citizenship basis requiring no sacrifices and bestowing only privileges and no duties. So any big country that wanted to expand could hand them out and then invade.
BTW, I personally don't think this is a key point in this dispute. I think Russia has much better lines of argument to defend itself morally, legally and in terms of realpolitik. IMHO, this is just a legal nit.
Michael