I'd say stability is a big piece. If the ROC moved into some of these territories there would be war and even if they won there would be people left over within those territories who would be willing to fight to change it back. If the change of territory doesn't lead to more war, or even reduces the chance of future war then I'd be more ok with it.
The people who live there, their conditions and what the competing countries have been proven to provide. Like, there could be a situation where it might piss off nationalists but a change in ownership could improve quality of life for the people there. Obviously the popular opinion bit is important to. Consent to governance is important.
See by that logic, the most brutally colonized places like the Americas and Australia have legitimate claims to the lands they occupy and don't have to give concessions to the natives. I know you're not trying to say that, but it's the conclusion of that argument.
Fun fact: Northern Ireland was purposely gerrymandered in such a way to have a Protestant British majority without being a tiny unviable microstate. The North is also referred to as the 6 counties, but there are 9 counties in the province of Ulster: 6 in Northern Ireland, 3 in the Republic. The borders were drawn by the British so that in the event of, say, a referendum on the reunification of Ireland, the British colonisers would outnumber the native Irish
More broadly, what's the leftist position on what gives a group a legitimate claim to territory?
I'd say stability is a big piece. If the ROC moved into some of these territories there would be war and even if they won there would be people left over within those territories who would be willing to fight to change it back. If the change of territory doesn't lead to more war, or even reduces the chance of future war then I'd be more ok with it.
The people who live there, their conditions and what the competing countries have been proven to provide. Like, there could be a situation where it might piss off nationalists but a change in ownership could improve quality of life for the people there. Obviously the popular opinion bit is important to. Consent to governance is important.
deleted by creator
I think that's a good place to start, but what about colonized/invaded/displaced groups?
deleted by creator
See by that logic, the most brutally colonized places like the Americas and Australia have legitimate claims to the lands they occupy and don't have to give concessions to the natives. I know you're not trying to say that, but it's the conclusion of that argument.
Fun fact: Northern Ireland was purposely gerrymandered in such a way to have a Protestant British majority without being a tiny unviable microstate. The North is also referred to as the 6 counties, but there are 9 counties in the province of Ulster: 6 in Northern Ireland, 3 in the Republic. The borders were drawn by the British so that in the event of, say, a referendum on the reunification of Ireland, the British colonisers would outnumber the native Irish
deleted by creator
Oh ok sorry, I misunderstood you
deleted by creator