site
stats

Legal

As time changes so does the landscape, the territorial question is always the main source of dispute. Pentortoise’s sovereignty is not based on any kind of separatism. It does not claim any land, which belongs to other rightful entity, therefore there is no intrinsic conflict in the Pentortoise’s concept of sovereignty.

As time changes so does the landscape, the territorial question is always the main source of dispute. Pentortoise’s sovereignty is not based on any kind of separatism. It does not claim any land, which belongs to other rightful entity, therefore there is no intrinsic conflict in the Pentortoise’s concept of sovereignty.

Why is UN recognition not required?
Why Pentortoise considers itself sovereign?
All Lands West of the Original 13 Colonies?
Are there any similar cases, precedents in international law?
Conclusion

Why is UN recognition not required?


Recognition by United Nations Organization or by other states is important for every sovereign country, but it is not a necessary prerequisite for its existence. The Article 3 of Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (which is considered as major part of customary international law), states:

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.” [1]

Why Pentortoise considers itself sovereign?


According to the above-mentioned Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, to have sovereignty, a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and it must have the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations (Article 1).

Pentortoise meets four out of four of these criteria. It has permanent citizens, who may receive passports and may register any legal act with the Kingdom of Pentortoise’s authority. Pentortoise has government and may engage into relations with other entities. Pentortoise hold interest in all lands west of the Original Thirteen states created by English Royal Proclamation of 1763 (click to view image). Lands included inside the original de jure thirteen colonies are subject to to terms of perpetual peace and friendship with the Onkwehonwe, although this relationship is misunderstood This makes the Montevideo Convention’s requirements questionable, and strengthens the position of such states and their right of sovereignty.

The fast development of global communication and especially Internet leads to considerable changes in the present understanding of sovereignty. The today’s international lawyers specifically emphasize this tendency, doubting the Montevideo Convention’s set of criteria. In his paper “The Acquisition of Sovereignty by Quasi-States” professor Noel Cox points out:

“Yet, this [Montevideo Convention’s] definition is increasingly meaningless. The notions of sovereignty and statehood are not easily defined or explained…. With the growth in both the (horizontal) extent and (vertical) reach of international agreements, treaties, conventions and codes, national independence is becoming less relevant. This tendency is becoming more noticeable in the modern commercial environment, and especially the internet”.[2]

Additionally and most importantly Pentortoise recognizes the Two Row Wampum, King Benjamin II as a fraternal member of the Onkwehonwe, Pentortoise is inherently enshrined with entitlements and rights not well understood, however we understand the Two Row Wampum is a restrictive covenant between the Roman Papal legate/British Sovereign and the Onkwehonwe:

The Haudenosaunee countered the papal bulls with the Two Row Wampum conditionally accepting the bulls stating through the two row wampum “You say that you are our Father and I am your Son We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers. This wampum belt confirms our words. ‘. Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other’s vessel.” This forming a perpetual reservation of sovereignty and interest on the Americas. [3]

Pentortoise has sent an open letter to the Papal office to address this relationship (click to view letter)

 All Lands West of the Original 13 Colonies?


As time changes so does the landscape, the territorial question is always the main source of dispute. Pentortoise’s sovereignty is not based on any kind of separatism. It does not claim any land, which belongs to other rightful entity, therefore there is no intrinsic conflict in the Pentortoise’s concept of sovereignty.

However we face encroachments and terrorism beyond the original lands granted to the Original guests by their Kings Proclamation, this has lead to the unlawful usurpation of our governments and lands, therefore we are spending much of our resources fighting this encroachment, until The British sovereign provides proofs of any claims west of the original thirteen states we lay claim to all lands west thereof.

 Are there any similar cases, precedents in international law?


Yes. many cases have been tried in canada seeking jurisdiction over treaty interpretations and therefore rewrite the original intentions between the original parties of the Two Row Wampum, and The Silver Covenant Agreement, canada is subject to the Two Row Wampum Law, but also being a third party to the Two Row Wampum, which grants use of land and socio-political restrictions, does not have jurisdiction or the will to make any determinations about the treaties, this is solidified by the commissioning of the Silver Covenant agreement between the Onkwehonwe and the British Sovereign.

The Two Row wampum is recognized as law and restrictive covenant that reserved Onkwehonwe sovereignty, interest and law on Great Turtle Island. [3]

Conclusion


The political existence of Pentortoise is completely legal. Though political existence of Pentortoise does not depend on recognition of other states, it welcomes all the efforts towards building peaceful relations with all the world’s states and international organizations. Pentortoise encourages other states to treat the documents issued by Pentortoise, including passports, as regular genuine documents.

[1] See http://www.cosmopolitikos.com/Documents/Montevideo%20(1933).pdf
[2] Noel Cox, Auckland University of Technology, “The Acquisition of Sovereignty by Quasi-States: The case of the Order of Malta”, first published (2002) 6(1&2) Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies, 26-47
[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex