What does “recognized authority” mean?
Also apologies if I’m misreading your statement, but you seem to be saying that having disputed territory/borders renders you no longer a country. Surely that can’t be the case. For example, various island nations (e.g. Philippines, Japan, Brunei) have disputes with China (and each other) over whether certain islands are part of their territory. Yet these 4 entities are countries.
What does sovereignty mean in this context?
To be fair, it’s hard to discern proper economic policy from ghost barks and growls.
I’ve been seeing this sort of thing in a few threads now since the federation and im a bit confused by it. Showing that China is doing similar things to the US doesn’t seem like a strong argument if the thing the US is doing (in this case indefinite detention without trial in a horrible prison) is bad. Is the idea that post-federation there’s users who don’t view the US as doing bad things?
Was China not a country prior to 1971, because Taiwan had the Chinese seat in the UN (it meets the international observers standard(?)) and the entirety of China was “disputed”?
As for recognized authority, isn’t it the case that for certain areas of Israel (e.g. certain areas within the 1948 UN partition plan, or 1967 borders) it meets the test you laid out? I.e. people living there agree that the Israeli government is the one that they identify with and international observers agree to recognize the Israeli government’s control over those areas? In that case, Israel would be a country with some disputed borders (I.e. everywhere outside that area with recognized authority).