A Thunk is a beguilingly simple-looking question about everyday things that stops you in your tracks and helps you start to look at the world in a whole new light. © Ian Gilbert
Thunk 37
If a land has no people, can you call it a 'country'?
Nullius in Verba
School e-Magazine
Dept. Website
Winchester Debates
Flipped Classroom
Film Club
Astronomy Club
Cafe Sci Dxb
Badminton Club
IGCSE E1L Revision
Professional Development
Winchester TEDx Events
Raya's Outstanding Student Blog
Kindness Anonymous
Winchester Students
Shelfari
Critical Thinking Blog
Must-watch online documentaries
77 comments:
I believe not because for a place to be called a country, it would need its own government or ruling party (or in the case of 'anarchy', the lack thereof) to apply to some people or citizens. if for some unknown reason a place was not taken over by some neighbouring country to call their own (highly unlikely considering that land is one of the most common causes of war) it would just be a barren region or uninhabited land. there is no political identity to distinguish it form any other country, it would not have people to tend to it or make any profit of it and it would almost have no value whatsoever in the grand scheme of thing.
I believe that it would not bew a country, becuase a country is symbolic of its people, yes there are some cultural, heritage and history deriving from the land itself but it is the people that give it importance. Without the people the land is meaningless and overlooked because unlike nations, it has no one willing to fight for it, to protect it, to even die for it.
Agreeing with the previous two comments, no I wouldn't call a land that has no people, a country. Like Shaday mentioned, it's the people that give it the importance. Without people thriving and inhabiting it, it's merely another part of the earths surface that is yet to be discovered and taken ownership of.
A country, by definition: is a nation with its own government occupying a particular territory. Thus explaining that a land or 'territory' has to be inhabited in order to be addressed as a country.
^What if all the people in a country, let's say Bahrain left? Would it still be a country?
Imagine Greenland before it was discovered(it now belongs to Denmark). Could it have been called a country if it had no people?
Is Scotland a country? It represents itself at the FIFA world cup but plays under Great Britain at the Olympics and is part of the UK at the United Nations.
Questions, questions... get your thinking caps on! :p
I don't think it would be called a country. Like the others said, it would require a government and a general public. Without people, who would really be representing the country?
As for Greenland, in my opinion, it couldn't have been called a country, just an uninhabited land.
I think it would be called a country regardless of people living there or not. If people live there then it's a society, if no one lives there then it's just land.
I believe it cannot be defined as a country if there are no people in the area, because the word country is defined as -1.A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
2.The people of a nation.
If there are no people there cant be a goverment or a nation.
I believe that a land doesn't necessarily have to be inhabited by people in order to call it a country. Take Mongolia for example it is a massive country with a population of 2.8 million people, in some cases there is more than 500 kilometers without any villages, roads or even people it doesn't mean that the particular area is not a part of the country.
I personally didn't think a country should be called a country without having any inhabitants; after all, what is a country but a reflection of its people... But then I thought about what we would call land when it was first discovered? Before people migrated to it. Or like Mr Roberts had said, if a country's inhabitants completely left it.
It makes little sense to me that the dictionary definition of a country says it requires it to have a government or ruling party of some kind. I do think a country needs the above mentioned for law and order and for it to function on a day to day basis, but I don't think a country thats people didn't live in cooperation should be stripped the label of a country.
There's a town in Arizona called "Nothing".. It has nothing but a gas station in it. It's population is 4. The four people run the gas station. Is Nothing still a town?
If a land has no people, can you call it a country?, thats like asking if a school has no students would it still be called a school? a hospital without patients, is that still a hospital? I just think that these are just things that compliment eachother however without its compliment good the facts dont change , its identity may not be stripped of it. Not all the places on earth were discovered at once, but once discovered people migrated to it just as sue mentioned , the places were then given names, therefore i think that a land with no inhabitants may still be called a country ...
I don't really think you could call a land without people a country when no one has discovered, inhabited or taken ownership of yet as Shenny had mentioned. The people make up the society, the government, ruling party etc. This is then what makes it a 'Country'..
As for Greenland before it was discovered, I don't know, I guess you wouldn't say it was a 'country' but rather just the biggest island :p
I believe that it should still be called a country, because a country does not only consist of its population, but also of the land itself. It may be considered a deserted country or what ever else others may choose to call it, but as it is still a part of this earth, and is recognized by the rest of the world, it should still considered a country in which any human being can infact live in.
I don't exactly know whether to agree or disagree to this. Yes, a country could be defined as a nation which must consists of a group of people and a/group of leader(s). However, there are countries that are named countries with NO population at all yet it's stilled called as a country such as the countries in Antarctica. So what does really make a country? A particular structure can still be called as it is even though it's completely empty so long as it did/does serve the society so why can't this be applied to land?
If a land has no humans I personally think. It should not be called as a country. Because every country has cultures, norms, values are the major aspects of a country that's what countries are known for and these norms, cultures are introduced by people in the respective region. Therefore i think that such places should not be called a "country" but they can certainly be named as some place
It depends on what land or area that has not been conquered or owned by other countries. As long as there is no dispute between each other, they have to come together to protect the land to keep it from being destroyed and losing all their natural resources. I wouldn't call it a "country" because there is no human life for us to survive, but I would call it a "wildlife preserve" to create awareness to the public and to save it from becoming extinct.
The dictionary defines a country as ‘a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory’ and I completely agree. What is a piece of land with no people? What is a piece of land that has not been conquered yet? What is a piece of land that hasn’t even been discovered yet? It is exactly that; a piece of land. If there’s no governing body or political identity to distinguish the country from others, it would have absolutely no value. Moreover, I also believe that the people of a nation truly make up a country; a country is symbolic of heritage, history and a culture unique to it; but where would all these things I have just mentioned be, if they were no people inhabiting it? Without any inhabitants to make the country thrive and prosper, it’s just another piece of land, floating on the earths surface, craving to be discovered and ruled upon.
The dictionary defines a ‘country’ as a nation with a government, occupying its own territory’. According to this definition, in a land without people, there would be no people who would be able to run the government and no people to follow the rules and regulations set by the government so no it wouldn’t be a country at all. Furthermore, the people are essential in contributing to the culture, tradition, heritage and nature of the country; they are what make a country unique, so without the people, it would just be a landmass without an identity or purpose (to a certain extent).
On the other hand, it could be a country because a country also has borders, as will this piece of land for it will be of a certain size and it will probably be contained between other countries, which is one of the features of a country.
Given the above comments, I'm sure i do not have to redefine what a "country" means . However i would like to clarify , that not only would a country require a government , but at least some form of human life even if it be a small settlement . The point here is that a country is made by its people . A country refers to not only the piece of land , but the human population is withholds . It is the people that distinguish one land from another. The people that define a countries ethnicity and heritage. The people that represent all that the land has to offer . A piece of land does not require us humans to MAKE it valuable nor does it yearn to be ruled in order to strive . A piece of land can prosper on its own and perhaps better without the damage we incur upon it. But its value cannot be MEASURED unless discovered by people . And it sure can not be labeled as a country until then.
You cannot call a land with no people a country because I believe that a country is characterized by the people that inhabit it and the culture they contain. A country is not just a plot of land, because then nationalism and patriotism. What makes up a country is the people that live in it, all the traditions they have come up with, the language, food, culture, architecture and its history. The reason people travel is not to experience a new plot of land. People don't spend thousands of dollars on airplane tickets just to discover a new land. They travel to experience a new country with all of its characteristics. To taste food they have never tasted, hear a language they have never heard or discover the architecture and history of the place. Patriotic and nationalistic wars would not exist if a country was just based off land, because people would not have any connection to the land. The reason these wars exist is because people fight passionately for the preservation of their culture, architecture, language and the like. All of which make a country what it really is.
Personally, when I think of a country, along with its geographic location I think more towards the edge of its culture and traditions, and what kind of people I might come across. In short, I feel like a country is defined by its inhabitants and the roots they are bounded to. Therefore I say, what is a country without its people? Without its people, a country has nothing to outline its culture, nothing to trigger its traditions, nothing to show its true beauty. Without its people, it is not a country, it is just a deserted piece of land with nothing unique about itself. Moreover, a government wouldn't exist in that land, implying that it has no political value that would also play a role in distinguishing it from other countries. Therefore, in conclusion, its pretty simple: it is essential to have a cultural background and a political one in order to make a country what it is, and without its people, this cannot be possible. A land where people interact, commute, collaborate and evolve as a civilization is a country. Otherwise, it is just a piece of the earth having no actual value as a country.
I would say that a land mass may be called a country regardless of whether or not it is inhabited. People of other nations may give it a name to distinguish it from other land masses. Case in point: Antarctica. However, i equally agree with an uninhabited land mass not qualifying as a 'country' per se. It would not have any government, economy or infrastructure seeing as there are no people to cater to. In my opinion, this argument is rather mundane as we're simply discussing the relevance of the term 'country'. I think it really doesn't matter. Country or not, a mass of land remains a mass of land. We may or may not give it a name for our own convenience. There is no strict criteria for 'qualifying' as a country. It's just a question of semiotics and does not change the country/unnamed block of land in anyway.
After looking at many definitions stating the same as to what a ' country' is, I don't believe a land unexplored by human footprints is considered a country.
It is just land, land yet to be explored. land yet to be granted the title 'country'.
In order for an area to be considered a country, that area must have a political body and for an area to have a political body, there must be people.
An interesting reply that sir posted two years earlier asks what if people are in a country but suddenly leave? Is that country still a country or is it now a piece of land?
If the country still has a political identity, then it will still be a country, regardless of it having 0 population. this governing body may as well reside in another country but if it claims control over this' piece of land', then its rightfully there's.
If it doesnt have a political identity, if the political identity decides to leave this 'country' then it should be considered a piece of land as it no longer abides to the definition of 'country' e.g if the people of denmark, and the political body of denmark, leave denmark then denmark should be considered, like antarctica, a piece of land.
However, Antarctica is a different story on the whole.
To properly put this situation into context, I would like to give a similar example - money. Money is simply a piece of paper, but to people, money is a driving force in their lives. Why can't we substitute the US Dollar with monopoly money? They're both pieces of paper at the end of the day...
Its because the people in a society are all in agreement and accept the US Dollar as a valid currency that can be used as a means of exchange, store of value and for several other functions.
Similarly, we can acknowledge a piece of land as a country simply when all the people we seek acceptance of accept this idea and agree that this piece of land is a country belonging to or ruled by a specific government for people.
Therefore, if a land has no people, but a majority still agree that it is owned by a government, then it can be considered as a country.
One must first ask- what makes a country, a country? What is the difference between "land" and a "country." When addressing this question, it should be clear that countries aren't natural entities, they are man made constructs. There were people who discovered the land, named it and subsequently made it a "country." Therefore, if someone were to tell me that a country had no people, I would dismiss it as being just land and no longer a country. A country would need a set if laws, a nationality to give the locals. A country is a community, so if you cannot communicate and share ideas, then it is no longer a home to that idea either. Moreover, what converts land into a country is architecture, which is impossible if no one lived there to do it in the first place. Therefore if there were no people in a country, it would be nothing more than land.
Country is a term in political geography. Politics is about people. I believed, before embarking on a journey through a sea of Google links, that a country is defined by two criteria:
a) what the government of that country recognizes (as legitimate).
b) what other governments recognize (as legitimate).
With that in mind, I began researching what exactly constitutes a country. Political theory agrees with me, except that I thought the most important criteria for a country to be a country is that it fits a criteria everyone agrees upon. De facto, that criteria doesn't really exist. There are multiple competing theories for what constitutes a state:
a) constitutive - a state is only recognized as a state if it is recognized as sovereign by other states.
b) declarative - if it is/has 1) a defined territory, 2) a permanent population, 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, it is a state.
c) state practice - a state is a state if it is seen as legitimate and not in breach of international law.
d) de jure and de facto - exist both in law and in reality. A state may only be recognized as de jure if it is recognized as the government of a territory in which it has no actual control.
The largest political entity on the planet is the United Nations, and since it is critical that everyone has some semblance of agreement, if not complete agreement on what a state is (which I previously said hasn't been attained), we can refer to it. After perusing info on states with limited recognition, I found that the very least to achieve even limited recognition as a state in the UN is as follows:
a) it satisfies the declarative theory of statehood
OR
b) it is recognized as a state by at least one UN member state.
The declarative theory of statehood requires a permanent population to be established in any place for it to be called a state. But I personally think that as long as a government legitimately and officially recognizes land as its own, and gives it an identity, and every other government officially recognizes and identifies it as theirs, then a place can be a country, regardless of whether it has a population or not. However, the likelihood of a country existing without a population in today's world is almost non existent. Perhaps in some dystopian future, when entire countries are dedicated to baby manufacturing factories or waste disposal (Wall-E?). But for now, home's where the heart is, and hearts lie in home countries.
I believe that a country is defined by the culture and customs of it's people, and, in believing such, I would have to conclude that a land with no people is not a country.
The convention of 'a country' is one that man has created to establish sovereignty over land and thereby build civilisations. Humans need this political convention of a country to simplify the differences between each other into simple differences in nationalities that represent different creeds, cultures and ways of thinking.
An interesting [and unfortunately morbid] thought [but bear with me] to counter this; however, is if a land that is characterised by it’s position as a country (ie. Norway) suffered from mass epidemic, where everyone either left or died, would still be called a country. Would there be a point where the international community would seek to make it a colony, so a country owned by another country as part of a larger group of countries? Or possibly the United Nations refuses to recognise it as a state anymore as it does not have any more inhabitants. Strangely, the Norwegian football team may still exist, along with it’s Alpine skiing team amongst other miscellaneous representative outfits.
I maintain that unclaimed territory [a piece of land no-one owns] is not a country unless inhabited, despite it’s possible representatives.
I've always believed that a country could only exist when its people do, because, really, what is a nation without its inhabitants? Bare and unmoving, the country would lie still and idle - no progress, no activity in the international world.
I'd have to agree with many of the comments before mine that state that a country must have a government in order to be called a country, with its own laws and regulations to serve its people.
A country is a personification of its people, and to have an empty territory is far from what we know to be a country today.
A country has no definition that has been universally agreed upon. It is for that reason that we still can't agree upon the number of countries on the planet. Do we only count members of the UN as countries? Or do we base the borders of a country based on the people that inhabit it? The Oxford Dictionary tries to define a country as 'a nation with its own a government occupying a territory'. In which case Hong Kong is a country. If we agree that it is the people that decide, welcome to the country club, Kashmir. But what if there are no people that inhabit a large area of land? Is that a country? Two prime examples come to mind: Antarctica and the Gobi Dessert. No one lives per se in Antarctica. It's a waste land. And it's NOT a country. Huge tracts of the Gobi dessert are not inhabited. Yet countries have borders that run through it, leaving not a square meter of unclaimed land. So what does it mean to be a country? To have people or to have land? Answer: to have people. People eventually decide and define countries. It's not as though signboards, barbed wires and tall thick walls existed before man came on Earth. So a piece of land void of humans is left at the mercy of other humans miles away. They decide if it's a country or not, purely for administrative purposes. It hardly matters to the non-humans who live in that land or the humans that don't, what you classify that land as, just as long as it is charted and recorded. In other words, a country can be a country without people.
The necessary elements that make up a country have been firmly established; a country is characterised by its culture, known for its food and architecture, loved and cherished by its citizens.
Now let’s consider this hypothetical situation: what if a nuclear war were to take place, the bloody invocation of World War Three? This disastrous conflict could have the potential to completely level entire cities to the ground, eradicating populations as a result of mass casualties due to intense heat, radiation poisoning and the general collateral damage of being in the presence of exploding buildings and collapsing roofs.
We would have the remnants of an entire culture on our hands; the debris of their proud buildings, travel guides of their cities still existing in the rubble. Only, no people to speak for their land.
I still firmly believe that this uninhabited land should be classified as a country, as it had once been cultivated and built upon by a group of people that called it their home. This hard work and labour should not be dismissed so casually; this hypothetical destroyed country should not lose it’s title due to another country’s aggression.
I believe it would not be a country, mainly because a country is made up of its people, its heritage and culture. However it may once have been a country that we might not know of, and it may also be a country, home to many undiscovered creatures of hidden animals. So could it still be a country? Probably not.
A country is somewhere a person would belong to, a home. Perhaps a safety net, with family and friends residing. With roads,landmarks and many other reasons for it to leave its mark on this world.
Some places that were once populated countries or cities are now abandoned yet they're still called "countries" // "cities" which brings us back to the point of 'what does it really take for a country to be born? '
71 percent of our planet is covered in water. Long ago, someone decided to split the other 29 percent into little pieces of a jigsaw. Each piece is differently shaped and different in nature: it has its own customs and traditions, its own landscapes and monuments, and its own dialect. But what makes these pieces so different to one another? People. If people did not exist, then there would be no way to differentiate between one jigsaw piece and the other. Our world would be a barren wasteland of idiosyncrasy.
Whenever I travel somewhere old or new, a few things leave an impact, one of them being the inhabitants. I’m more likely to enjoy a holiday, or want to live in a country where the people are welcoming. What’s more, it’s the people of a country that give the country its innate characteristics. Every shopping trip in California is ameliorated by the friendly and chatty sales executives that wish you goodbye with the famous American “have a good one!”
In many circumstances, one can tell where they are by the mannerisms of the people who live there. In fact, it is the nature of the society that morphs the land, not the other way around. Thus, a country is called a ‘country’ only when a population inhabits it.
A country is defined as a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
Why isn't the Pacific Ocean a country?
Or the Mediterranean Sea?
No one or no government owns it.
A country is never a natural resource. It is a man made resource.
What makes land a country, and just not another piece of wasteland?
Why do we feel so different when we cross borders?
When the oxygen levels remain the same,
When our body systems are exactly the same,
What's so intriguing about foreign countries?
The country's traditions, its foods, its religions, its landscapes. Its people.
Every country is as different as the people in it. What defines a country is also the people in it. From the traditions, to the food, to the religions, and even, to an extent, its landscapes are defined by the people in it. Everything that makes a country, that country is its people.
So it's a pretty clear indication if a land has no people, whether it is a country or not.
No people = no country.
A country is either identified as a nation with its own government occupying a certain territory or an area or region with regards to its physical features.
The first definition is completely pro-human, which means that with no government there is no country. Now a government is made up of people so basically without it, a country is non-existent. This just further strengthens human thinking that without them certain things or territories cannot function or are non-existent. Humans must learn to understand that things or in this regard, countries can exist without them. It isn't necessary for human impact on a piece of land to help it elevate to the status of a country.
The second definition identifies a country as an area with regards to its physical features. Even various cultures, religions and people associate themselves with a landmass's physical features. The culture and traditions of many tribes in Nepal still revolve around Mount Everest, a natural feature formed sixty million years age which is far older than our race of Homo Sapiens. So, if cultures and people associate themselves with nature before their own governments at times, doesn't this clearly depict nature's importance? Its important to remember that natural features can exist without our interference and neither do they associate us with their functioning. Often, if you displace a tribe away from its sacred grounds they would feel like they've lost their identity or immediately return back.
To conclude, a land can be called a country, regardless of whether there are people or no.
Land without people can be considered a country. For example, Antarctica. Land mass uninhabited by people because of extreme weather temperatures, this doesn't refute the belief and fact that Antarctica is yet still a country.
A country is: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."
Occasionally, governments that are so weak that they're practically nonexistent have territories. Does this mean that these territories aren't considered countries? An example of a nation without government intervention whatsoever is Afghanistan.
Yet, Afghanistan is a country regardless of its government intervention. So yes, land mass without people can be considered countries.
Although what is it that qualifies a country, a country? Is it solely the factor of a country having its own government?
How many countries are there currently?
We know there are 196 countries presently, but it is estimated that there could be more than 260 countries in approximation. The reason the answer to this question is not straightforward, is because, there are two contradictory theories:
The Montevideo Convention that states a country is only considered a country when there is
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government; and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
and the refuting constitutive theory of statehood that reads ,you are still a country without control over your territory and/or a permanent population. This is why we are unclear as to whether there are 196 countries or 260+
So to conclude, yes, I think land without people can be considered a country.
The surface area of what is politically defined as the country-Australia is 7.692 million km². However only a tiny 2% of this entire land is inhabited by people. Yet the entire landmass, including the large uninhabited regions, is formally classified as a country. Most would respond to this dilemma by stating that even if some land doesn't have people, it is governed by some political authority. Does such an answer truly suffice? Let's look at what we mean when we say country.
According to the legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937,it is a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography.So does a certain region have to have to be an independent sovereign state to be called a country? Not necessarily.It can be a non-sovereign/formerly sovereign political division, a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics.
Now this blurs the line for remote regions such as Antarctica. No governmental organization has full sovereignty over Antarctica, however several nations do claim political 'slices' of the land. An international treaty from 1959 even banned some ordinary 'country activities', military associated programs and nuclear testing in particular. The continent is now only occupied by about 4000-5000 people, most of which who are involved in scientific research there. Is Antarctica a country? Not really.
To conclude, if you ever had the opportunity to come across an undiscovered piece of land with no people on it. No you could not call it a country. But that's not going to stop anyone trying to establish power over it. As the 80's band Tears for Fears put it; "everybody wants to rule the world."
A country is a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. Well one may think, if there is no one living on it is it considered as a country?
A country will remain a country whether there are people living on it or not. We use these names given to distinguish between these different masses of land. If there were to be a time if there was no one living on that particular country, it would still be identified as its name and still be called a country.
Antarctica, even though it has no people living in it, we still consider it as a continent. In the end, it all depends on our definition of the term country. When we talk about a specific country we always think about the people and the traditions of that particular place. A place with no people may have some sort of history linked behind it, to why that particular mass of land should still be considered as a country.
The definition of country itself states;
A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
Therefore it is impossible to call a land without people a ‘country’.
But some for people the definition of country may deviate from the dictionary definition. Uninhabited lands might become, uninhabited ‘country’.
People are what make a land a country, and without people then the land is unmarked and cannot be called a country.
For example, the reason Bahrain is a country is due to its people, without it couldn’t be called a country. Countries require governments and political certificates to be authorized as a country.
The three recognised statements of what makes a country argues with itself because the Montevideo convention mentions the need to have a permanent population and a defined territory, while the constitutive theory of statehood mentions that it doesn’t matter about defined territory, or permanent population, but if you have acknowledgement from other countries as a country then you are a country.
These allow some people to consider some countries ‘countries’ while others don’t.
There are many differences of opinion when it comes to countries, for example Taiwan.
Taiwan considers itself a country, while China and the USA consider it as just another part of China.
Also the fact that, the Soviet Union annexed the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but the USA continued to regard them as independent countries that were 'occupied' because it didn't really get on with the USSR.
Therefore there are many different opinions on whether or not a country is, well, a country, but, in my opinion, one thing is for certain. To be a country, you definitely need people.
I think this is one of those very rare thunks that can have a straightforward answer. Although by studying the etymology of this term, we see that the presence of inhabitants is not a prerequisite, a land not having any people definitely cannot be called a country, in my opinion.
In a society increasing in political and diplomatic complexity, the lines between what can and cannot be called a country are becoming blurred. In order to make sense of this, we need to explore the semantics of this topic. Hence I shall define a few terms as below.
1) Country: A nation having its own political structure
2) Nation: Consists of a distinct population of people that are bound together by a common culture, history, and tradition who are typically concentrated within a specific geographic region.
3) State: a political unit that has sovereignty over an area of territory and the people within it.
4) Sovereignty: legitimate and ultimate authority over a polity (i.e., a political unit)
You can see the resemblance between 1 and 3. Why is this so? State is a more precise term for “country” used in political science in order to avoid ambiguity. One more point that we can make out is that all countries are also nations.
There is no single agreement as to the number of “countries” in the world, however there are a total of 206 “States”. This complexity arises because of the politics behind whether certain States have sovereignty or not. Is Israel a country? Ask both the USA and Pakistan what their answers are, and you will be able to understand what I am trying to convey. There are regions with semi-autonomous statuses that complicate matters even further. Wales is considered a separate country, within a part of the sovereign State of United Kingdom. But didn’t we see that the term “country” is equated with the term “sovereign State”? Well Wales has its own Parliament, and representation in FIFA World Cup. However, the super most entity controlling Wales is the Parliament of UK, thus Wales cannot enter into multilateral treaties.
Coming back from digression into semantics, since the accepted definition of a country includes the presence of a ruling political entity, how can there be such an entity where there are no people to rule over? The fact that there are no exceptions to this case proves that this thunk has a definitive answer, the negative one.
An interesting case to be explored is that of The North Pole, which is considered to be part of the Arctic, but is not a country; however it does (or at least did) have its group of indigenous inhabitants. Inuit (though no longer residing there now), Buryat and Chukchi are some examples of its indigenous people. The UNCLOS treaty has ensured that no countries lay stake to the geographic North Pole. The North Pole comes close to breaking the norm; however it does not have a single polity to rule over its sovereignty (the UN simply ensures that the North Pole’s sovereignty as a geographical location is not breached), hence it cannot be considered a nation.
Land can preexist human settlement, but people build a country. Land can be considered as nothing but a factor of production, but the presence of people turns land into a country with its own economy. The difference between land and people can be analogous to a chemical reaction. Land is simply a reactant that can only react with the co-reactant of humans, in order to form a larger compound, called country. The chemical reactant of humans is like an organic compound, which adds vital elements like economics, politics, and religion, to form a new complete compound.
A swathe of land cannot induce feelings like patriotism; a swathe of land cannot give birth to martyrs who would sacrifice their lives for it/her, a swathe of land cannot have a gender-based pronoun that can be attached to it; all these reasons suffice to prove how a land without people cannot be called a country, and therefore, a nation.
Countries are nothing but pieces of land divided among humans only. Virtual boundaries were created, causing numerous wars in the past and the present as well. Countries have become more about the piece of land and its resources rather than the humans occupying this land. Pride and power have become -at some point- associated with the number of lands and territories occupied by a state. For instance, the British empire covered more than 33,670,000 km^2. Making it the largest empire in history and the greatest global power. And was it all occupied by humans? That is highly unlikely. Yet I think that this power affected animals as well. Given the fact that animals were hunted down for various purposes such as food and clothing. Thus I think that an uninhabited land can be considered a country. For it will be used or occupied sooner or later.
In this conundrum of land, country and the differences in between, the line of distinction blurs and overlaps. And so in order to attempt clear judgement, let’s consider two other entities - nations and states.
The term 'country' emphasizes the physical dimensions and boundaries of a geographical area,
'Nation' emphasizes a particular community of people with shared history and culture, and
'State' a self-governing legal and political entity.
Let’s test that definition out.
90% of Canada is uninhabited but it is still the country of Canada. France is a nation; rich with culture, traditions, history and the second most spoken language in the world. South Korea is an independent state with its own government and diplomatic relations.
Therefore, our piece of land with no people could well be just a piece of land, not yet defined by humans/organizations. Or it could just as much be a country.
But with a lack of vivifying inhabitants and rich culture, it could never be a nation. And without a governing body, neither a state.
The term 'country' itself can be considered in both a meaningful way that brings about a sense of identity and culture, as well as represents a political term that we use to classify pieces of land that us humans have classified. Now what both these interpretations have in common is the presence of us humans.
Humans are required in order to name and classify a piece of land, lay down the governing laws and most importantly give inhabitants a nationality to which they can refer and relate to. And hence the crucial part of the criteria that this scenario 'a piece of land with no people' does not fulfill in order to be truly referred to as a country is the lack of inhabitants. Without being able to contain people, there will be no communities to whom this land belongs to and is a home to, no sense of culture, architecture, talent, all that make individual countries so unique. This will therefore only remain as nothing more than a piece of land.
The Earth is divided into hundreds of land masses that vary in size, shape and location called 'countries'. Although the actual number is quite disputed, there are currently 195 countries that are recognised worldwide, each with its own government, economy and culture. The scenario presented above is quite unlikely because, apart from Antarctica, there is virtually no land that isn't owned by a country.
However, if I had to give an answer, no, I do not think a piece of land can be called a country if it has no inhabitants because unless you play fast and loose with the meaning of the word, a country, by definition, must have a permanent population and a political system/government and the only way an empty piece of land can be called a country is if it is occupied or annexed by another country in which case that 'country' still has a population living in another piece of land.
The only real world example we have of an uninhabited land is Antarctica as stated earlier, it is only occupied temporarily, mostly by researchers and has no governing body to represent itself and is thus not considered a country even though it is an entire continent. What makes a country, a 'country' and what separates it from other countries, apart from name and flag, is its people, culture and heritage, and without that, a piece of land is simply just that, land.
I believe that a country is called so because it is identified along with a particular etincity . It is associated with a particular nationality as such which we identify that country for posessing this particular nationality . For example we identify Canada for having canadians and India for having indians . Hence for a country to be required to be known as a country it needs to have a population, large territory an established set of laws and legislatures passd and ratified by a legal and recognised government as well as a particular culture unique to the particular area. iF none of the above were there (in this case only land is there) then the area is just termed land .
History bears testimony to this for when Columbus dicovered america it was known as the new lands not the new country .Hence we see how one needs lands as well as people to exist in order for it to be known as country
Us wights have just distributed ownership of pieces of land; although indubitably, all these pieces of land would be unnamed terrains. So, we came up with 196 country names. Many today run by basis of democracy and others by dictatorship. It comes under political geography the term 'country'. & a country is defined as a nation occupying its own territory with its own government. Whereas, politics is substantially actions of public affairs or a government of a country; a government will naturally mean populace. Therefore by what the language states, a piece of land cannot be a country without people. However, even a piece of land is coveted by domains & not just today, this dates back centuries & evidently lead to the ineludible affrays. The urge to show off power has undoubtedly resulted in millions of deaths. Many of these domains see natural terrains as assets.
Nevertheless, let’s look at this question in another way; a country is also stated as a region with regard to its physical features. Does that mean every district be called a country, regardless to it having inhabitants? I guess not because, the Arctic, comprising of various tribes yet it’s not called a country. Not to forget, Canada, USA, Norway, Denmark & Russia want a piece of the Arctic, and have been altercating for years not for the beautiful ecosystem its comprised of, BUT for the vast energy riches it may have.
Maybe that's an exception, either way, if a mass of land has people with lore, heritage & fundamentally historical conventions, i believe that is what really gives the essence of it being a homeland and perhaps be named a country. Isn't that what being called a country is all about?
The definition of what constitutes a country has been one that has endlessly proved both tiresome and troublesome – often evoking strong reignited feelings of passion from all sorts of people. Today a debate which has stretched back for decades surrounds the state of Palestine, it is a land with people yet has not officially been recognised as a ‘country’. The same debate exists on the opposite spectrum.
A ‘country’ in its purest form is a geopolitical term used to differentiate areas of land mass from each other, the very concept of it is a human made construct used to exert power and influence over others. At our very origins we all likely involved in some place in Africa – eventually spreading ourselves throughout the globe. It is therefore fair to say that most of the modern ‘countries’ we see today had no people to claim as their own to begin with – rather welcoming travellers and immigrants alike to form a ‘country’.
Therefore to conclude, I believe that any piece of land regardless of whether or not it has indigenous people residing in it can be accurately labelled as a ‘country’ so long as it meets the other requirements that make up a country such as having a defined area.
The term “country” is not a geographical one, but is a socio-political construct. If it was a geographical construct where countries were divided by water bodies, there would be only seven different countries – Eurasia, Africa, Australia (which is also a country), South America, North America, and Antarctica i.e. the continents.
A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” Now, if there were no people, there would not be a government (or some form of ruling power like an anarchy, oligarchy, monarchy etc.) and by definition it will not be called a country.
Evidence for this is present today. Antarctica is a huge land mass, with arguably a 500 temporary residents (one can only handle these many penguins and ice, I reckon). There are many countries that have taken claim over slices of the huge landmass (very reminiscent of claiming of pizza slices among teenagers, I’m sure) but Antarctica is not a country by itself. It doesn’t have its own ruling body (unless the King Penguins count) and no permanent residents. Hence, Antarctica is NOT a country.
Hence, I conclude, that if a landmass has no people it will not be a country (at least not in the present) but it doesn’t really mean that land masses with people will necessarily be classified as a country.
If a ‘country’ was defined purely in terms of geographic boundaries, then the absence of inhabitants would certainly not make a given expanse of land any less of a ‘country’. However, in today’s world, the word increasingly bears connotations of political division – this makes the issue far less straightforward.
Put simply, for politics to exist, so must people. To draw ‘political’ boundaries would mean to define the area within which a central body of authority would have jurisdictive power over people present in that area. If we were to adjust the definition of a ‘country’ accordingly, then certain unclaimed territories -including vast amounts of landmass in Antarctica - would effectively be excluded from it. It should be noted that unoccupied land still can indeed be part of established countries, for instance, the uninhabited areas claimed by Canada and that fall under Canadian jurisdiction are essentially part of Canada.
Nevertheless, if you argue that a ‘country’ pertains to land itself while it is in fact a ‘nation’ that pertains to the people and governance of a land (‘country’ and ‘nation’ being distinct and not interchangeable) then it could be assumed that the existence of a ‘country’ is independent of whether it has human inhabitants or not.
A country can be a country without the people, it would have the borders to mark the section of the planet that belongs to the country, but that is where the comparison ends. The population of a country are vital to its recognition in the world, without these people the country wouldn't have any traditions, history, heritage, culture,nor would the country have a presence amongst the global population. It would be easily forgotten. The "country" couldn't have laws, rules, politics, legislations or a government without having its people! These are all things that help differentiate and define a country.
It is very hard to imagine a country without its people. Russia & China would be virtually the same without their populations, with nothing but the geographical location and 2.9 million square miles of land mass to tell them appart.
Personally, I would never imagine a country without its people. The logic of "home where the heart is", can apply here too, a country isn't just comprised of the land it's built on, but all the hearts to which it belongs too, all the people who were born and bred on the land make the land a country.
A country is “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” This dictionary definition explains that a country has a government in a particular territory, without the people and the government there is no country. However, there are vast lands that have been abandoned which are still a part of a country. For example the town in Arizona is called “Nothing” which only consists of a gas station, but it is still considered a town.
Personally I don’t think that a country without people should be considered a country as it lacks what comes with it such patriotism, laws, legislations or rules. A country without people is like, a school without students.
The world community decides what piece of land constitutes a country and what does not.
Devon Island is the largest uninhabited island on Earth. It is slightly smaller than Croatia and is recognized as Canadian territory. Hence it is considered part of a country despite being uninhabited.
On the other hand, there are around 66 scientific bases in Antarctica, of which about 37 are occupied year round. Yet it is not identified as a country worldwide.
Thus if a piece of land is agreed to be maintained and owned by a specific government legally then it can be called a country despite not having any inhabitants.
A country by definition is "a nation with its own government and occupying a particular territory", so it would make little sense to consider a land with no people as a country.
No people would mean no government as there is no one to govern, and a nation is a 'large aggregate of people occupying certain territory' - therefore completely decimating the argument that it could be a country.
A country is a man made concept rather than a geographical characteristic. For example, Antartica is not referred to as a country due to no local population or ruling body even though it a 'land' in some sense. Although uninhabited lands can be part of a country, they can not stand alone as a country. While these lands can be referred to by any of their geographical features, calling it a country would be highly inaccurate.
When you ask someone how many countries are there, you will be surprised to find that there is no straight answer to this. Most people say there are 192 countries, but others point out that there could be more like 260 of them. The problem arises because there isn't a universally agreed definition of 'country' and because, for political reasons, some countries find it convenient to recognize or not recognize other countries.
Most define a country as a tract of land inhabited by people of one or several nations. While the term 'country' emphasizes the physical dimensions and boundaries of a geographical area, 'nation' emphasizes a particular community of people with shared history and culture, and 'state' a self-governing legal and political entity.
However, the constitutive theory of statehood defines a state or country as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This means that so long as enough other countries recognize a region as a country, it IS a country, even if it doesn't have a permanent population.
There are many examples of uninhabited lands that are known as countries. Clipperton Island, a coral atoll south of Mexico and west of Guatemala in the Pacific, is one such region. It was claimed first by the French, then Americans, who mined it for guano. Mexico took possession in 1897, and allowed a British company to mine guano there. In 1914, the Mexican civil war caused the island's 100 or so residents to be cut off from transportation and supplies. In 1917, the last surviving islanders, three women, were rescued and evacuated. Ownership reverted to France, but after World War II it was completely abandoned and has no residents ever since, even though France still has administrative rights over it.
On the other hand, regions like Antarctica have no inhabitants and are thus not a country. Marie Byrd Land, a 620,000 square mile collection of glaciers and rock formations, lies in the western portion of the southernmost continent. Because of its remoteness, no nation has ever claimed it. With temperatures that never even get close to going above freezing; this is hardly the perfect location for launching a country.
Thus to some an uninhabited land would not make a country, while to others it may.
The definition of a country is " a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." In this scenario only one conditions is present, a territory, however the answer to the question can differ, if the question is whether the inhabited territory itself is a country, then the answer would be no, since it neither has a nation nor a government, however if the question is whether it could be part of a country, then the answer would be yes, and this is the case for many small islands, since it is owned by a particular government that governs a particular nation
There is no set definition of a country. Simply because other countries seem to be able to not recognize a country when convenient and the bandwagon effect causes there to be a group of countries, who due to politics, don't 'recognize' countries. But it is stated that a country is still a country even if other countries fail to recognize it. There are many criteria through which governments determine if a place is a country, one of the criterion that does seem eminent is a permanent population. This means that if a place has no people it cannot be a country. A country also has to have an established government in order to be a country. This is not very likely if there is not inhabitants. Geographically a country with no population isn’t a country at all.
It hard to really break this question down as a geography student. I am true to my passion. However, when I thought about it I thought about animals. We often disregard the flora and fauna in the place we live. Perhaps any place they live in is a country because technically speaking they are a population and thus inhabit the place. In that way is it a country. Do humans even have the right to decide what counts as a ‘permanent population’? We probably don’t but we have language and mental awareness that makes us superior so we might actually have this right.
A country with no population isn’t in fact a country but that answer stays flexible until a universal definition of ‘country’.
A country is defined as a nation with its own government. A nation is defined as a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory. As a result of this, one could assume that a country without people is no country. However, I disagree with this statement, as I believe that many factors may affect this idea.
Firstly, one factor that may affect if the land should be called a country, is if there were previous inhabitants. For example, if a large weapon, or multiple large weapons were to eradicate life on a small nation, the country would be barren, yet I believe that it would still be a country.
However, going back to the definition of a country, a nation with no life, has no government. And as a result of this, they would not be recognised as a country by other nations. Regardless of this, people would still remember the nation, and refer to it as a country (in my opinion)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a country is an area of land that is controlled by its own government. However, as mentioned before by others, this definition seems vague and undeveloped, even the amount of countries established in this world is undefined, which causes even more confusion. Can a land, absent of civilisation, still be referred to as a country?
There is no country without people, there are islands free from civilisation , but just because it is dangerous or impossible for humans to sustain life there, for example the Kunoshima island, which is overrun by former laboratory rabbits, but is open for tourism. In order for civilisation to continue, humans have made decisions, according to their ancestors experiences. A country is recognised by other groups of people, and an image of the area is visualised in their minds, for example India portrays the picture of Taj Mahal, whilst USA has a vivid image of the Statue of Liberty embedded in our minds, so this recognition is important. A normal, untouched land is only influenced by biological and environmental factors, but a country has the influence of economics, logic, ethics, social pressures and so many other factors. Humans know that in order to survive, they require the basic necessities of water, fertile soil as well resources, however, in order to thrive, a country requires a government, and I believe that is what distinguishes a country from an expanse of land.
A country is defined as a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. Some might also define a country as the people of a particular nation. For my answer, I will be talking about a country in terms of its people, or in terms of social characteristics.
In my opinion, if a given land does not have any people, we cannot say that it is no longer a country. If the land is owned by a group of people, or a particular government, then this area is a country that belongs to these people. The government does not necessarily have to be situated in that land; it could be in some other place, maybe in a remote area, maybe in another “branch’ of the same country (colony). It could also be possible that the people cannot reside in this certain land because of natural disasters or extreme weather conditions.
A country is not only defined according to its geographical location, it is also defined according to its people; if the people are in agreement that a certain land is their country, then it definitely deserves the title. In some cases, other countries might also label the land as a country for identification purposes.
Well, no I don’t think a land with no people can be called a country. A country is a more official term with its own government backing it. Governments require people for it to function, and so no people = no government = no country. Take Antarctica for example; if I’m not mistaken it is illegal by the UN for a country to go and set up shop there and call it theirs. Even though some countries feel entitled to call some segments of the land theirs, no certain country owns the great land of Antarctica. Moreover, extremely harsh weather makes it really hard for people to even live there, besides scientists and researchers from all around the globe. However, they aren’t even technically citizens of Antarctica, and are like tourists on visit visa, therefore Antarctica doesn’t really have people of their own, which explains why it isn’t considered a country, but is considered a continent as continents are large masses of land.
To answer this, you have to define the word "country". It is defined as "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." Based off this definition, I believe that a land with no people will obviously contain no government, and hence it cannot be officially called a country. Apart from the definition-wise answer, however, what do people associate to the word country? A country really is a summary of sorts -- a logo of sorts -- of the people that reside on the land. For instance, take the United States of America. Why did this particular country become so famous and world-wide known, while countries like Malta or Brunei are not spoken of often? It is because of the people inhabiting the patch of land. I am almost entirely sure that had the found fathers of USA settled in a country like Kyrgyzstan, it would have been the world's most popular country. It was the people in USA that made sure the whole world knew about them through several methods. Now, when someone thinks of the country, they do not think "oh yes, it's that piece of land in the west that has a government"; in stead, they visualize the Statue of Liberty, President Obama (and recently Trump), they imagine New York city, the widespread beaches of Miami and the Capitol House and many more things. Hence, really, the people living on that land make that land special: a country. So no, a land without people cannot be called a country, merely an unoccupied piece of Earth.
If a land has no people in it, could it be called a country? The real question is, who would be there to call it a country? And the answer is no one.
In all seriousness though, let’s take Antarctica as an example. It’s a huge piece of land on the south pole but has no permanent human residents, with the few researchers who go there only being able to stay for a few months a year before it gets too cold to be habitable.
Now can we really call this place a country? It has extremely limited terrestrial life and no human population. Since there are no people to set up a government or laws and the land is not owned by any state or person, it does not fill any of the criteria that constitute being a country, rather than having landmass.
So in conclusion, a land without people cannot be called a country because the people are the country. Humans give a place its unique purpose, order and sense of life.
I would not consider an area of land to be a country. A country is defined by its ruling government, and the role of a government is to protect its citizens. If there are no citizens, there is no government, and therefore there is no country. This is a rather simplified way of looking about it.
We can also understand that without any citizens there is no economic input or output (in terms of trade) from this land, there is no conflict in terms of war, there is no benefits of allying an empty piece of land. In short, an empty area of land has no effect to any other countries and therefore what is the point of distinguishing it as a country? Countries are a human construct in order to help with organisation, and to understand ties and relationships, however if a piece of land has no impact at all on the overall world, what is the purpose of giving it the title of a country?
Sometimes the word countries is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities, while other times it refers only to states. For example, the CIA World Factbook uses the word in its "Country name" field to refer to "a wide variety of dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, uninhabited islands, and other entities in addition to the traditional countries or independent states”.
The “Montevideo Convention” declares that to become a country, a region needs the following features: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and “the capacity to enter into relations with other states”.
Yet many countries that meet these criteria aren‘t members of the United Nations (commonly accepted as the final seal of a country’s statehood). Consider Taiwan – which held a seat in the General Assembly until 1971, until mainland China entered and took over its position.
So in the legal sense, it does seem necessary that in order for piece land to be a country it must have a permanent population.
As we become a more global community we learn to blur out the lines that divide us geographically.
However there is no denying that a country is predominantly identified by its culture and its inhabitants, the people of the land constitute for the country's identity and individuality.
However with the increase of globalisation and world trade we become more and more dependent on each other. This leads to increased tolerance as well as realizing that what makes us different isn't really a barrier.
In conclusion the more we grow as global citizens even shifting towards becoming cosmic citizens the importance of even recognizing a land as a country with or without inhabitants.
To be considered a legitimate country, you must follow the requirements set by the 1993 Convention on Rights and Duties of States. The convention states that: 1. You must have a permanent population, 2. You must have a defined territory, 3. You must have a functional government, and 4. You must be able to enter in relations with other states. A piece of land without any humans is not a country because it is infringing two requirements of the convention, rule number 1 and rule number 3. A government cannot be set if there are no humans and to be considered a country you need permanent residents. A great example of a large body of land without permanent humans is Antartica, we do not consider Antartica as a country because there are no permanent residents and there is no government.
Rapanda is a small country in the middle of Africa. It’s a pretty unique one, actually. They do not have a flag. No one in Rapanda ever thought it would be necessary to have one. It’s also a member state of the United Nations and has a vote. However, what is interesting is that Rapanda has never voted for or against any UN resolution. In fact, their seat in the General Assembly is empty and has always been so since Rapanda never bothered to send any delegates. Actually, Rapanda has no government. It’s more of an anarchy really. The only one in the world. And even then, present day anarchists never bothered to give Rapanda as an example of a peaceful anarchic country because, well, no one lives there. (It also doesn’t exist.)
I feel like it would be quite amazing if a “country” like Rapanda actually existed. There is no reason whatsoever to bother giving it the title of “country”. There is no reason for every piece of land on Earth to be labelled as part of a country. If no one wants it and no one lives on it, it’s probably just a useless piece of land. Nothing more. This is just my opinion in case no one has EVER lived on the land.
If let’s say, a country’s entire population gets eradicated one day, I believe it should still be called a country even though no one would live there anymore since the history and culture of its former people should not be disregarded that easily.
What is a country? “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” So in this case, country has to have ‘its own government’. A Government is “the group of people with the authority to govern a country”, so if there is no people in the country, how can there be a government? And if a government doesn’t exist, then that piece of land is not a country.
Another reason, following the requirements set by the 1993 Convention on Rights and Duties of States, if the land does not have a permanent population, then it can not be named a country.
Take Antarctica for example, it is a continent, but not a country as it doesn’t have a permanent population.
A country is a human body. The people are it’s personality. Without its personality, the country loses its title.
Like everyone else had said. a country is not legitimate unless it conforms to the 1993 Convention on Rights and Duties of States. I still think that a country is defined by the people in it, the culture created after generations of people living their particular way of life. It is the defining factor behind the patriotism or nationalism one has when representing his or her state. How can land be called a country if there are no people there to run and live there? A perfect example is Antarctica. Obviously, there is no permanent population with any sort of functional government, therefore the area of land cannot parley or hold meetings with officials from other countries.
A country is a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. Therefore without a government or people in general a land cannot be called a country. The term country was created by people and therefore would be there without them.
For example, on mars there is a land however there are no countries as it is not inhabited by people. This would therefore go for any place that does not have permanent people living there. For example, Antartica is a continent not a country as it does not have permanent residents.
A country has customs and culture and these cannot be created without people, therefore a country is only a country if people are permanent residents.
No.
Three things are required to call something a country: permanent land, inhabitants, and a system of government.
All three are needed, not just one or two.
The same way the powerpuff girls wouldn’t be the powerpuff girls if it weren’t for chemical “X”, a country wouldn’t be a country without people.
Sure, if a country’s people suddenly left, the piece of land might still retain the country’s name. But it loses its power to legitimately be called a country.
And the same way a ‘country’ is a man-made term, it can also be changed to accommodate land without people to be recognized as a country.
But for now, legitimately, a land without people cannot be called a country.
A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory”, though there is land, but there are no people on this country – no political or governning body (no government) or any indivduals following the laws, that would be recognised from this “country” – I believe that you can not call it a country as there has to be a sense of belonging as well as individuals derive their sense of identity from this – representing their culture, heritage, norms, values, history: a symbol. I would rather cosider this “land” just an area, as there are no economical, political, social or cultural features which are usually established for a country. Though you can call it a country, as the second part of the definition states that “occupying a particular territory”, this would be partially acceptable as it would be a land with borders, having its own geographical features.
The term ‘country’, though a political one, evokes in one’s mind ideas that transgress into social and geographical spheres, such as the area of the country, the various biomes, terrain, flora and fauna, the resources, the history, the ethnicities, the languages, and the cultures and traditions, all of which are neatly manifest in the strangely irrational and yet pervasive feeling of patriotism that many people feel for their almost arbitrarily defined strip of land. With these parameters, the answer to this question might as well be no.
Under the conditions established by the Montevideo Convention insofar as the recognition of a country as a country (which are, namely, a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; d) capacity to enter into relations with other states) we also find that, unless the permanent population can be 0 and a government can operate in its entirety from outside its borders (both of which are highly unlikely), the answer remains no. Although, one must wonder what such a country would be like – I imagine something like a grand-scale amusement park or resort, relying entirely on tourism and a constant rotation of administrative, disciplinary and janitorial staff to keep it functional and existing. Would this region have UN representation? What would its international relations and foreign policy look like? Where would its central “government”, as it were, reside?
Let’s leave that admittedly fat-fetched hypothetical aside, and consider – in what circumstances could the answer be yes? Suppose a country that previously had a permanent population that, by way of some disaster – both natural and natural – or disease, or divine wrath, came to be entirely eradicated. Could this newly evacuated territory still be called a country? Somewhat thankfully, we’ve yet to have a contemporary example of the same (though I do spy North Korea and the United States eyeing that ‘400 years since last civilization-level annihilation’ sign) but it’s difficult to imagine how the international community would deal with such an occurrence although, if at all it deigned to preserve the area as neutral (akin to how some regions of Antarctica are) we’d effectively have a de facto country with all the cultural prerequisites, yet with no people.
Thus far we’ve taken a look at current criteria for “countryhood” that we use in the early 21st century – what does the future hold for us? We live at the cusp of the advent of many potentially life-changing technologies – from space exploration, to nanotechnology, to genetic engineering – but the one that remains pertinent to this question is an amalgamation of robotics and artificial intelligence; what if, in the far future, automatons containing AI were to demand a country of their own, legislated and governed by themselves for their own benefit and that of no other. Insofar as people refer exclusively to human beings, you’d have a truly functioning and sovereign country without people. Of course, my preference would be that humans and AI would be able to coexist (the third possibility of becoming flesh-slaves to our steely metal overlords remaining the most unappealing) but, so long as this remains a possibility I’d conclude that yes, it is indeed possible for a country without people to exist.
(It can only be speculated how insulting the "I'm not a robot" captcha that's to be fulfilled when posting a comment would be to the future, robotic cohorts to come.)
When one thinks of the term country, one is also reminded of "land", "borders" and "people".
A country is often represented by its government, resources and people, and one of the main reasons Antarctica isn't considered a country is because it has no governing body, even though it has a population of 1000-4000 people depending on the time of the year. According to me, a land with borders becomes a country once there is some sort of organisation or coming together of some sort that makes the people residing in the land feel a sense of patriotism or belonging.
One example can be Tibet, which doesn't have a government body as such but Tibet is considered to be a country, at least according to the people who live in it. Even though, China may not acknowledge Tibet's independence and the region is called an autonomous state, most of it just comes down to semantics.
Now, if you consider this scenario/thunk in which there is a land of no people, how can it be called a country? If there is no one to represent the country, what can make it a country? This answer may seem obvious if you think about a new island that has suddenly been discovered, but in light of the current refugee crisis or chaos struck areas, what if we were left with a country with no people in it, what would that be called then?
I imagine moving away from India and settling in Dubai, only to realise that everyone did the same and no one lives in India anymore (highly unlikely, I know, but it's a thunk so why not?).In my opinion, a piece of land that has had a history of people that felt like they belong, or has had people to represent it in the past, should still be considered a country because it had a sort of identity before the population became zero. Similarly, I can still represent India and be an Indian patriot in Dubai, even though no one resides in India anymore.
A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory”, though there is land, but there are no people on this country – no political or governing body, resources or people, therefore zero economical output from such a region, making it a bare piece of land. If countries do not provide or participate in global interaction, there is no such need to recognize and signify its importance, since the title of a ‘country’, as earlier stated, is a social construct implied to simplify organizational structure. Moreover, people tend to gain their culture, heritage, norms, values, history and sense of identity from the country they come from. If there is neither economic, nor social output from such land, I don’t see why we should give such stature to it.
Post a Comment