Creating a new country is same with gaining independence

With the opponent lacking the definitions of several terms in the motion, I would like to start by defining them: Create/Creating, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is: to bring (something) into existence. Keep in mind that this existence does not have to be physical; I could create an imaginary friend right now. I have created him, but he is non-physical. A country is: a state which declares autonomy over a certain area or people Independence is: a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory. The condition of independence is both a de facto and a de jure decision. Gaining is defined as: to obtain or secure With these terms defined, I would like to start with one simple argument; the creation of a country can be a de jure creation, but not a de facto creation. If country x gains creates a new country in region a of country y, country x is a country. But country x has yet to gain independence/sovereignty or full autonomy over that territory, or even recognition, until some sort of struggle, whether in form of war, or in form of peaceful legislations, declares it autonomous or independent from country y. This argument is based on the word independence; it is both a de jure and de facto condition. What do we mean by de jure and de facto? De Jure is Latin for “in law” or “in name” For example, I have de jure rights to do whatever I want. De Facto means “in reality” or “in effect” Using the rights analogy, I may have the rights to do whatever I want, but de facto I can’t do whatever I want if the actions I want to take are immoral. In this way, we adopt the view of English Political Theorist, John Locke, when he states (in his Second Treatise on Government) that: Finally, they knew that no man might in reason take upon him to determine his own right, and according to his own determination proceed in maintenance thereof, in as much as every man is towards himself, and them whom he greatly affects, partial; and therefore that strifes and troubles would be endless, except they gave their common consent, all to be ordered by some, whom they should agree upon, without which consent there would be no reason that one man should take upon him to be lord or judge over another Or in simpler terms, no government is legitimate without the consent of all sides to submit to the power of the government. That includes other governments as well; if one government is not willing to consent to the fact that one country, whose creation was declared, then that country’s government is illegitimate. I may easily declare the autonomy of areas surrounding my house, but if I do not gain the consent of the people around my house, then I have no form of independence whatsoever. Extending this to a state-to-state basis, I may easily declare that my house is an independent state. In doing so, I have created a country. This country may be independent de facto, but my house is still part of the state in which de facto and de jure independence is exercised. With this said, I would like to raise two examples. Example One: Sealand Sealand is officially the world’s smallest country. Literally; it has an area of 4km2. Does it meet our independence criterion? No matter how nonsensical it is to call Sealand an independent country, it is by no means “independent” in the de jure sense. It can do things on its own, similar to how I could control things in my house, but it cannot join sanctions in the UN General Assembly nor can it condemn nations for their attacks (although it could, this condemnation would be just a caricature and would be laughed attack) on others. Independence is gained when the state gains both de jure and de facto legitimacy; creating a country might create a state that is de jure or de facto (but not both immediately) independent. Example Two: Pattani Pattani is a southern part of Thailand, whose separatist rebels have claimed to have instituted the “Sultanate of Pattani” This, perhaps, is a more effective example than Sealand. Why one may ask? It is because the Sultanate of Pattani is clearly a nation created, but it is not a nation that is independent. The Sultanate of Pattani has by no means legitimacy over the area, and over the people (who are frankly just terrified of the Sultanate). In this case, the Sultanate (or the nation that was created) has neither de jure nor de facto independence! The nation, however, was created. Therefore, I would like to conclude that: P1. All “independent” nations have de jure and de facto independence P2. Only some countries created have de jure and de facto independence C. Not all countries created have independence The resolution is therefore negated.