'country' does not necessarily mean nation-state .... you can have a nation-state without a country, look at the Vatican, just a bunch of buildings and recognition as a state, but no country
Country can mean many things but the most common meaning in the type of phrase you used is nation-state, and the 2nd most common would be a nation without the state (perhaps like the "first nations", if they really think of themselves that way, or like the Palestinians today, or possibly the Kurds). I would say the Vatican is technically a country. I would call any nation state a country, although the Vatican is an unusual one, it could also be called a "city-state".
you can have a nation of people, self-regarded as such, and with a country to live in, yet with no state
Yes I mentioned that posibility, and just now I have given examples, but my point was that I don't think the Palestinians fell in to that category pre-48. Even though they probably do now. The difference from the lacondon, being that they want a state.
The last sentence there is wrong, imho -those two sentences from the declaration make good sense to me, appear well and carefully written, because it is a good idea to widen the area of freedom from 'state' to that of 'country', as with country you get intra-state freedom as well ... e.g. you as a US national would have the right to move from the country around you now to say the wine country of California, or the alpine country of Colorado ...
I don't think it does refer to a specific area of land. If it does the declaration isn't followed in many areas. If I was born in what is now some top secret military location I wouldn't have the legal right to travel back to my birth.
Tim |
