Except no country or international institution would agree with your criteria for a nation-state since that definition also gives legitimacy and sovereignty to lovely people like ISIS when they administered a huge chunk of Iraq or any number of autonomous or semi-autonomous breakaway regions that the international community consistently refuses to acknowledge as sovereign states.

[–] randint@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah! Whether other countries let you have a seat in the UN or not is not relevant to sovereignty.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah! As long as you don't read the Montevideo Convention or ask any international legal scholars, your conception of international law is totally correct!

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That has nothing to do with being a state, it's about south American former colonies gaining recognition from European powers.

"They agreed among themselves to criteria that made it easier for other dependent states with limited sovereignty to gain international recognition. "

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.

It has nothing to do with being a state, except for being a restatement and codification of the internationally recognized state practice and opinio juris about what constitutes a state.

Maybe actually read the whole Wikipedia article you're quoting from instead of just skimming the first few paragraphs.