There is an old saying, "If you don't own it, it's not yours."
What would stop the host country from allowing all the new infrastructure to be built on rented land, and then dispossessing people from something they don't own?
There is no question that a new country obtaining full ownership, meaning both dominium and imperium, is ideal. Who wouldn't want both?
Look at it this way, though. Suppose you're in negotiations with the Republic of X. Wouldn't it be much easier for X's politicians to tell their voters, "We're leasing territory to Y for 199 years," than, "We're selling territory to Y"? It's about making it an easier sell.
Granted, detractors will not be persuaded and will view it no differently from a sale. However, it is also a way of avoiding perceptions of committing an "alienation of territory" in the eyes of international law, which is generally regarded as a major taboo. Admittedly, that concept applies for the most part to the use of coercion and violence rather than a financial transaction. Even so, this approach avoids characterising the arrangement as a cession of territory.
Creating a new state without secession is a significant achievement. The goal should be to ensure as clean a conception as possible when establishing a new country.
Consider it this way: if the concern is dispossession and the risk of the grantor state later coming along and saying, "Nice country you've got there, kid. I'm going to take it," then whether you possess both dominium and imperium, or only imperium, is unlikely to stop them. An aggressor is not going to refrain from aggression simply because you hold legal title to the territory.
Big honour and pleasure writing this. Lucky to have had such awesome editorial insight. In an age where the biggest transport companies do not own many motor vehicles and the biggest hospitality companies do not own many accommodations, so too might the countries of the future not need to own any land.
There is an old saying, "If you don't own it, it's not yours."
What would stop the host country from allowing all the new infrastructure to be built on rented land, and then dispossessing people from something they don't own?
There is no question that a new country obtaining full ownership, meaning both dominium and imperium, is ideal. Who wouldn't want both?
Look at it this way, though. Suppose you're in negotiations with the Republic of X. Wouldn't it be much easier for X's politicians to tell their voters, "We're leasing territory to Y for 199 years," than, "We're selling territory to Y"? It's about making it an easier sell.
Granted, detractors will not be persuaded and will view it no differently from a sale. However, it is also a way of avoiding perceptions of committing an "alienation of territory" in the eyes of international law, which is generally regarded as a major taboo. Admittedly, that concept applies for the most part to the use of coercion and violence rather than a financial transaction. Even so, this approach avoids characterising the arrangement as a cession of territory.
Creating a new state without secession is a significant achievement. The goal should be to ensure as clean a conception as possible when establishing a new country.
Consider it this way: if the concern is dispossession and the risk of the grantor state later coming along and saying, "Nice country you've got there, kid. I'm going to take it," then whether you possess both dominium and imperium, or only imperium, is unlikely to stop them. An aggressor is not going to refrain from aggression simply because you hold legal title to the territory.
Big honour and pleasure writing this. Lucky to have had such awesome editorial insight. In an age where the biggest transport companies do not own many motor vehicles and the biggest hospitality companies do not own many accommodations, so too might the countries of the future not need to own any land.