If a jurisdiction invades another, the invading jurisdiction must:
- Grant full invader citizenship to citizens of the invaded jurisdiction upon demand, with all rights of previous citizens the invader;
- If a supermajority in the invaded jurisdiciton desires annexation to the invader, the indvaded becomes a subjurisdiciton of the invader and all citizens of the invaded become citizens of the invader, equal to previous subjurisdictions and citizens of the invader.
A high standard? Disruptive of the politics of the invader jurisdiction? Justly so, considering the invader’s disruption of lives in the invaded jurisdiction.
A particularly savvy would-be invader may decide to skip the invasion step. Regarding Iraq, the U.S. jurisdiction is neither savvy nor responsible.
Sounds Romanesque. Quite practical. We have something like it with Puerto Rico.
I suppose it is Roman-like, at least for some instances and periods. Perhaps Islam-like too, with the same proviso. It took 20 years to give Puerto Ricans citizenship, but PR is better off than other territories Spain lost in 1898.
[…] The outrage applies to the U.S. with some multiplier (also in Iraq). The least an occupier could do is to offer speedy asylum. However, I don’t think asylum is enough — invader/occupier jurisdiction citizenship, granted on demand, should be the baseline. […]
[…] of more longstanding relevance (it could include drone actions) invasion/occupation ethics also ought be a matter of international […]
[…] Apartheid, and one extreme solution would be to make the entire population of the oppressed state full citizens of the oppressor state. In his 2008 campaign for U.S. president, Toyama Koichi made a case for the United States having […]
[…] “Within jurisdictions” implies “improve yours” (in my case, the U.S.), which indeed I take as highly effective and necessary. A few past posts: Stop Killing Them, Robot Gang Memorial Day, and Invasion Ethics. […]