sealand, somaliland and the freedom to be?

Somaliland claims to be independent and wants recognition by the international?/global? community?/institutions-of-recognition?
Why? How come such a recognition is, as one interviewee puts it, akin to the air we breath? Can it be that such a recognition has anything to do with enabling investors to put money in? Can it be that by establishing Somaliland as a recognised – accepted – territorial body/entity that rules over its inhabitants, the sharing some of the wealth with the rulers becomes a possible profitable affair? Can it be that the independence of such a political-territorial-body is in fact – or in practice – the placing of that body among other states which are in effect beyond the law? (because they can set the law?)

A micro scale possible example is the offshore rig that is sealand –
Perhaps an interesting example regarding the value of a state, in a financially numerical sense. As the article tells us, the people of sealand – ie bates family members – are considering to offer the fact they can just invent rules as they see fit, to companies wishing to keep data under tight control. (otherwise known as “safe”..)
In this family microstate – unlike the family unit within a state which is often used to illustrate reasons for “tightening belt” – we can see how they may invent rules, regulations and laws that govern the state for the benefit of whoever gets the most out of the sealand economy. If the laws are to govern, then governing the laws is an imperative. And whichever entity occupies the spacetime beyond the law, is “legally” – or legitimately – anarchic. In the sense that it, in itself, lives outside and without any laws..

A bit like a god..?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.