David Cameron 'seriously concerned' by Gibraltar events

[Hillary]

Should it not simply be up to the people who live there to decide? Frankly, I have no interest in Britain 'owning' either Gibralter or the Falklands, but the populations of both regularly vote to remain British. Why would it be right to the current population, most of whom were born there, to suddenly tell them they are foreigners in their own land?

A serious question to Stas - how far do you really want to go back. Essentially, by your rules, the only people who could possibly have a claim on owning a piece of land would be the original permanent settlers. At a guess this would be, in many cases, before the concept of "nation" even existed. So how do you go about it logistically?

[Ralin]

There's no expiry date for those who are strong enough to demand money. So there should not be an expiry date for those who were too weak either.

I'd also like to hear you elaborate on how you reconcile this with Middle Eastern countries not being able to demand reparations from the descendants of the Mongols or insert your favorite example. I mean, leaving the morality aside, how exactly do you think you can go about that logistically? Or the backwards chain of who took what from who.

I don't really buy that "the people" should be the ones to decide either. I'd vote in a heartbeat to get reparation checks from Great Britain for screwing over my Cajun ancestors; that seems more evidence that I'm greedy and opportunistic than that I should be entitled to anything.

You know, when a private person coerces another under threat of violence to cede his possessions to the aggressor, that private person is called a mugger and his possession of another one's stuff illegal. I always found it funny that this is something still not widely accepted when it comes to nation states. The end of WW2 it was supposed to herald the end of all these law of jungle style shenanigans too, remember? Pfft, nothing ever changes.

Because there isn't a world police and we haven't found a reliable way to set one up? A law that can't be enforced is a pretty shitty law.

I mean, there's one country that's kind of tried to fill the role, but last I checked you weren't a big fan of them.

[Metahive]

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation and then expect the last guy who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from... someone who received stolen goods from a thief to pay the price for that distant crime.

Do you really think the British didn't know Gibraltar was part of Spain? Do you think they didn't know when a combined british-dutch expedition took it violently from a spanish garrison in 1704?
How stupid are you?

[Metahive]

Because there isn't a world police and we haven't found a reliable way to set one up? A law that can't be enforced is a pretty shitty law.

I mean, there's one country that's kind of tried to fill the role, but last I checked you weren't a big fan of them.

The US don't try to be world police, they try to be imperialist taskmaster. They're also one of the biggest obstacles in actually getting something akin to a world police.

[Siege]

Here's an El Pais article on the matter. Broadly speaking (assuming my shaky Spanish holds up) the EU has cautioned Spain that its border checks have to be proportional and the European Commission wants to meet with Spanish representatives in September or October to talk about its grievances and hopefully mediate. But the Commission also notes that since Gibraltar is not part of the Schengen zone Spain is perfectly within its rights to carry out border checks as long as these are not unduly burdensome. The BBC reports pretty much the same, just with more emphasis on British politicians attempting (and failing miserably) to channel the spirit of the blitz.

As a further note, Schengen countries also have the option to temporarily reinstate border controls in case of "exceptional circumstances" for six months, renewable for another six: source. I'm betting none of the responsible foreign ministers took the time to clarify what those exceptional circumstances were when they knee-jerked to the horrible EU-imperiling dangers of illegal immigration, so Spain might just be able to get by on that if nothing else.

To me, this all just reeks of Spain seizing upon Gibraltar doing something stupid without having first consulted Spain (the reef business) in the hopes of distracting its citizenry from its economic woes and corruption scandals -- but even so, what they're doing appears to be perfectly legal.

[mr friendly guy]

You know, when a private person coerces another under threat of violence to cede his possessions to the aggressor, that private person is called a mugger and his possession of another one's stuff illegal. I always found it funny that this is something still not widely accepted when it comes to nation states. The end of WW2 it was supposed to herald the end of all these law of jungle style shenanigans too, remember? Pfft, nothing ever changes.

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation and then expect the last guy who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from... someone who received stolen goods from a thief to pay the price for that distant crime.

So I take it you object to art looted from Holocaust victims being returned to their families after its been sold off. For example like this case.

[Ziggy Stardust]

So I take it you object to art looted from Holocaust victims being returned to their families after its been sold off. For example like this case.

Why don't we just get it over with and clone Neanderthals so we can give northern Europe back to them?

Seriously, multiple people in this thread have posed the question of where you draw the line/time limit in these sorts of reparations, and all the other side of the argument done is screech about more cherry-picked examples of bad stuff people have done in the past.

So ... at what point do you draw the line between historical claims (and how do you even verify a claim as being "original")? How far back do we acknowledge grievances?

[Patroklos]

Do you really think the British didn't know Gibraltar was part of Spain? Do you think they didn't know when a combined british-dutch expedition took it violently from a spanish garrison in 1704?
How stupid are you?

Do you know what the War of th Spanish Succession was, and are you going to pretend there was a "good" and "bad" side givin the rationale of each?

[mr friendly guy]

Why don't we just get it over with and clone Neanderthals so we can give northern Europe back to them?

So why don't you answer the question instead of whining. Maybe because the question is a bit hard, and actually forces you to consider where you draw the line?

Seriously, multiple people in this thread have posed the question of where you draw the line/time limit in these sorts of reparations, and all the other side of the argument done is screech about more cherry-picked examples of bad stuff people have done in the past.

That is a gigantic strawman.

1. Stas actually gave an example in regards to drawing the line -> ie the same as what the strong get.
2. Since my counter question seem to go over people's heads, I listed an example not just of "bad stuff people have done in the past," but wait for it... wait for it... an example where the line is drawn. That is in the linked case, stuff which was stolen and sold off to another party and returned to the victim's descendants even though the victim and perpetrator are dead. Which you would know if you clicked on the link. But hey, if you are too god damn lazy to do so, just say it.

Once again claims of merely listing "bad stuff" that has been done in the past is a gross exaggeration.

So ... at what point do you draw the line between historical claims (and how do you even verify a claim as being "original")?

A good point to start is the same standards the West itself gets. After all we are all interested in equality and all that, and why the West no longer cares about imperialism yadda yadda. So if Germany is still paying off WWI debts, Britain didn't pay off loans to the US for WWII until 2007, then its the same standard for some other country to claim compensation from the same time period, for example (and this was a contentious issue the last few times it come up) China to seek reparations from Japan for WWII crimes.

How far back do we acknowledge grievances?

If we stretch beyond simply the same standards the West gets, perhaps (and I freely admit this might require more thought) is, if we use the criteria that their descendants are still not well off because of what happened as a starting point for debate.

[Thanas]

You know, when a private person coerces another under threat of violence to cede his possessions to the aggressor, that private person is called a mugger and his possession of another one's stuff illegal. I always found it funny that this is something still not widely accepted when it comes to nation states. The end of WW2 it was supposed to herald the end of all these law of jungle style shenanigans too, remember? Pfft, nothing ever changes.

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation and then expect the last guy who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from... someone who received stolen goods from a thief to pay the price for that distant crime.

Actually, under German law stolen property is always the property of the original owner, no matter how many good people receive it. Unless sold by auction.

[Metahive]

Do you know what the War of th Spanish Succession was, and are you going to pretend there was a "good" and "bad" side givin the rationale of each?

As if that is in any way, shape or form relevant to the issue of violent landgrabs.

[K. A. Pital]

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation and then expect the last guy who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from someone who innocently received the goods from... someone who received stolen goods from a thief to pay the price for that distant crime.

Last guy who innocently received the goods from the other guy who innocently received the goods does not seem to be a good description of how territories were and are taken by imperial powers. Also, even if the original good passed through several hands, in most legal systems which I am familiar with it will be returned to the original owner, or he will be compensated if it is found that the good can't be returned for some serious reasons (say, it was destroyed or it is necessary for the last owner to survive, or something).

I'd vote in a heartbeat to get reparation checks from Great Britain for screwing over my Cajun ancestors; that seems more evidence that I'm greedy and opportunistic than that I should be entitled to anything.

This only means the imperial power (in your case Britain) has succeded in their endeavours, whereas you think that asking for payback is depicting you in a bad light ("greedy and opportunistic").

Seriously, multiple people in this thread have posed the question of where you draw the line/time limit in these sorts of reparations

Britain sees fit to still receive reparation from a war which was 100 years ago. Perhaps I'm missing something, but how exactly 300 years are different from an arbitrary line of 100 years? What about how "civilized" European empires made China pay an enormous debt for 40 years (and it was only able to pay slightly half of the reparations) just because they crushed China militarily? In a very direct sense the Boxer Protocol was the act of stronger powers simply robbing their colonial dependent of money.

Do you know what the War of th Spanish Succession was, and are you going to pretend there was a "good" and "bad" side givin the rationale of each?

Nobody is pretending there is a "good side" and a "bad side" in World War I, but the loser's side was paying reparations for like a hundred years. So what exactly is your point?

All your ire at Spain here seems to be a bit misplaced. First, Spain is not going to attack and take the land back. Second, it seems that citizens of a foreign British territory did something that impacted Spanish seamen, and did this without consulting with Spain. Finally, it seems that people are so xenophobic and nationalistic that they immediately compare Spain to Argentine (yes - that's right, the people Britain last killed in their very own little war, I guess that generates an enormous amount of pride) or worse yet, to the DPRK (a sort of an international bogeyman, a very easy hate target - hey, look, they're just like these crazy North Koreans, who are barely human at all with their Great Leader and all that!)

I've seen much more complicated threads on this board and I am really amazed that this incident just generated a kneejerk "they are like petulant Argentinorks!!!" reaction.

[Irbis]

Spain has been compared to North Korea in how it's behaving, but I see many similarities with the way Argentina has been acting like a spoiled child re. the Falklands.

Gee, UK can make Spain's behaviour instantly illegal by joining the Schengen zone. Of course, they don't, because obviously EU is full of terrorists that wait to infiltrate poor UK, unlike Pakistan and other friendly nations UK allows constant immigration from

Maybe, just maybe UK should apologize for ethnically cleansing last colonies she clings to, pay the descendants of the British settlers there restitution for their property, plus costs of relocating to UK for anyone who wants to, and hand the stolen land back to its rightful owners?

Oh, wait, that only happens when the owners are big scary dictatures stomping on human rights, like China, never when they are allied democracies like Spain or Cyprus, I forgot that. Ironically, according to British calculations Falkland War cost eight times more than buying every single of its 300 families a Chateau in UK or France plus transport, but I guess dick waving and Echelon stations are more important than decency. Or nearly a thousand dead, I guess.

if we're talking about expiry dates and treaties, Gibralter was ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

any reason this is not still valid?

Perhaps because it was given by Spanish monarch, not by democratically elected government, after Spain was partitioned without its consent, and loss of Gibraltar was blatant land grab by its supposed ally?

Said land grab also included Spanish island of Minorca, sadly it was too big to be quickly ethnically cleansed and Spain was able to wrestle it back. If that was accepted, surely UK can hand back the rest of the spoils.

When a private person mugs someone, we go after them and their fence. We don't wait until the goods have percolated through ten degrees of separation

Which is exactly what happens in this case, as UK claims to have continuous government since before they grabbed Gibraltar by force. Same person, just a bit later in time.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I don't think much about Spanish "claims" on land they haven't controlled for several hundreds of years, just as I think Poland would not think much of German revanchionists suddenly claiming land up to Memel.

I do agree with you on the UK stance towards the EU, which is simply silly and smacks of wanting to reap the benefits without putting the work in.

[Irbis]

Does the state of Vietnam exist in any legitimate fashion? Do the Greeks still claim Istanbul is Constantinople? Would the Egyptian people want to recover the lost territories in Sudan? Is it Alsace-Lorraine or Elsass-Lothringen, and is it historically French or German?

All the territories you mentioned are disputed pieces of property on land border of two countries. How it is even remotely comparable to pockets of territory thousands of kilometres away from UK existing only because local people were kicked out and flags are propped by guns of Royal Navy?

Incidentally, look at the case of Portugal Goa. After 454 years of colonial rule, surely India was in the wrong for kicking the occupants of its soil back to Europe, at least according to all pro-UK people in this thread, as surely twice as long posession as that of Gibraltar one made Portugal's claim twice as strong?

Well, except for the fact Portugal wasn't as through in ethnic cleansing and colonist importing as UK, too bad for them, isn't it?

To be honest, I don't think much about Spanish "claims" on land they haven't controlled for several hundreds of years, just as I think Poland would not think much of German revanchionists suddenly claiming land up to Memel.

Psst! Memel is two countries away from Poland, thank you very much!

As above, it's different story when it's disputed land between two countries on the same landmass, but when it's pocket on continent twelve thousand kilometres away the case is clear, I think.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I don't think much about Spanish "claims" on land they haven't controlled for several hundreds of years, just as I think Poland would not think much of German revanchionists suddenly claiming land up to Memel.

Psst! Memel is two countries away from Poland, thank you very much!

I know, and there is a good chunk of (currently:P) polish territory on the way there.

As above, it's different story when it's disputed land between two countries on the same landmass, but when it's pocket on continent twelve thousand kilometres away the case is clear, I think.

Is it really? I am not so sure of that. I mean, yeah, ethnic cleansing is bad and all, but after 400 years I am not sure you can find reliable claimants to that land.

[mr friendly guy]

Well, except for the fact Portugal wasn't as through in ethnic cleansing and colonist importing as UK, too bad for them, isn't it?

Indeed, this issue was raised in a previous thread. These rules of it becomes mine after a long time encourages ethnic cleansing. We know in some conflicts its all too easy to start ethnic cleansing. Do we need another reason to encourage participants in conflicts to go down this route?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Britain sees fit to still receive reparation from a war which was 100 years ago. Perhaps I'm missing something, but how exactly 300 years are different from an arbitrary line of 100 years? What about how "civilized" European empires made China pay an enormous debt for 40 years (and it was only able to pay slightly half of the reparations) just because they crushed China militarily? In a very direct sense the Boxer Protocol was the act of stronger powers simply robbing their colonial dependent of money.

I'm confused. You seem to be under the impression I am somehow defending the actions of the European powers or something. My point was merely that listing different examples of reparations being paid or not paid is fruitless if we aren't establishing some sort of standard, or set of rules, by which we can evaluate these historical claims.

As I said hyperbolically in my last post, why not clone the Neanderthals and give Europe back to them? By which to say, at what point do we make a "cut-off" for these historical claims? The further you go back, the less connection those historical people had with the present geo-political situation. It isn't practical to try and restore every and all claims to land.

Note I am not trying to say that the descendants of slaves, Native Americans, Falkland Islanders, or [insert group X] don't DESERVE reparations, the point I am arguing against (as mr. friendly guy so spectacularly misunderstood) is simply the broad statement you made that there are NO dates of expiration on claims of territory.

[Tsyroc]

Anyone know anything more detailed about the reasoning behind the concrete blocks to make an artificial reef?

I'm not up on international fishing issues but I've run across complaints about Spanish fishermen fishing in areas they shouldn't, over fishing, and/or using a type of net that is supposed to be illegal. It's likely that most of this stuff I've run across has been from sources that may have been biased towards the UK's view on things but I'm not sure.

Even if all that stuff is true it seems odd that Gibralter would unilaterally interfere with Spanish fishing operations.

[K. A. Pital]

My point was merely that listing different examples of reparations being paid or not paid is fruitless if we aren't establishing some sort of standard, or set of rules, by which we can evaluate these historical claims.

My point, however, is that each case of injustice is unique, and it should be.

Why Portuguese Goa, which has been conquered for centuries, was taken back by India? Some a lot more recent inclusions have been defended with the force of arms. There's no universal standard here, and attempting to set a rule (e.g. there should be people to instigate a rebellion against the colonizer - that is a very good rule, except that it can force the hand of the colonizer to expel or even exterminate the original inhabitants, alternatively some arbitrary rule-date like "100 years bp" is bound to encourage nations to hold posessions over 100 years to make them "inalienable", then use force of arms to keep them with full approval of the so-called "international community")...

My idea is not to set a date of expiration (essentially absolve someone for their crimes), but instead to admit that each case of dispute has its own dates, and the matter of expiration is not for us to decide but for the parties concerned.

I might as well say that yes, if there is no other side for a dispute (see genocide), it is largely impractical and impossible to compensate directly with what was taken. That is concerning your neanderthal example. However, most real-life disputes - among which Gibraltar is one - are going on between living people and almost certainly relate to very real events, be they 100, 200 or 300 or even 500 years away. Complete extermination except for a deep time scale is very hard to pull off - thankfully - so there is someone who can ask for compensation. And who are we to deny it?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Anyone know anything more detailed about the reasoning behind the concrete blocks to make an artificial reef?

According to The Times I read on the train today, the reef was placed to stop Spanish over-fishing and allow fish stocks to recover.

[mr friendly guy]

Note I am not trying to say that the descendants of slaves, Native Americans, Falkland Islanders, or [insert group X] don't DESERVE reparations, the point I am arguing against (as mr. friendly guy so spectacularly misunderstood) is simply the broad statement you made that there are NO dates of expiration on claims of territory.

Which is then very strange that you would use my example of properties stolen from Holocaust victims being return to their families after both perpetrator and victim are dead, since

a) its within the time frame of your own examples which you don't deny they deserve reparations and
b) its to counter the argument proposed by Grumman and also Alyeska that the line is drawn after the original victims and perpetrators are not the ones being compensated / punished by your action to pay reparation, but rather their descendants who are compensated / punished.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I'd also like to hear you elaborate on how you reconcile this with Middle Eastern countries not being able to demand reparations from the descendants of the Mongols or insert your favorite example. I mean, leaving the morality aside, how exactly do you think you can go about that logistically? Or the backwards chain of who took what from who.

People seem to have trouble understanding the real reason for reparations on a level outside of immediate post-war issues. Mongolia wouldn't owe anyone anything because, despite all the damage the Mongolian invasions did to most of Eurasia centuries ago, Mongolia the country has not profited off of it. Yes, some places still suffer from the damage done, but there's nothing to give, even if stuff may deserve to be given.

However, an example of the United States vs native Americans or Mexico or other places conquered by force and held today, the US and its population are very obviously benefiting to this day from those conquests, the people they were conquered from are still worse off for it, and the US is quite obviously rich enough that something could in fact be reasonably done. Similar things could be said of places the US has caused damage to through imperialistic invasions, coups, and economic attack.

It goes similarly to the idea of racial reparations in the US, which people also have issues with. The idea isn't to "punish" the slaveholders and thus people generations removed are off the hook or people who weren't themselves slaves don't deserve anything. The massive wealth disparity between the white and black populations in the US is in large part due to the centuries of wealth stolen from black Americans through enslavement and later unfair employment practices and destruction of wealth by racial rioting. White Americans are disproportionately well-off, somewhat in income and very much so in wealth, because of the legacy of this racial exploitation, and so reparations and things like that to help level the playing field are reasonable.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, under German law stolen property is always the property of the original owner, no matter how many good people receive it. Unless sold by auction.

But are they, for example, charged with possession of stolen goods? Are they vulnerable to a civil suit in which the original owner sues them for economic damages caused by having been deprived of the stolen goods?

"Reparations" as we know them fall somewhere in between those cases. They often involve more than just asking the taker to pay back the victim for the original value of the captured land. They may involve returning that land, which means forcibly relocating the people who live there. They may involve transferring possession of improvements built on the land, build at the expense of the descendants of the original people who took the land, descendants who themselves are now dead and buried and have passed the improvements on to yet another generation.

For example, if Britain returns Gibraltar to Spain, does Spain get to take over all the naval basing facilities Britain built there, free of charge? Is Spain not responsible for the expenses of any current Gibraltarians who want to move to other British possessions rather than become Spanish citizens? Maybe so- but I don't think we should make those decisions on a kneejerk basis.

I'm not saying reparations are bad, they very often are a good and necessary thing. But they can't be treated simplistically, unless you want to make a routine practice of everyone endlessly bludgeoning everyone over things that happened hundreds of years ago. Do enough of that and you'll get a somewhat more civilized version of the endless century-long international feuds you get in places like the Balkans. Cases where neither side is willing to admit they did anything wrong, because the cost of admitting it is disastrous.

For instance, the US government literally can not afford to declare that all US land is stolen from the natives, hand that land over to the current living natives, and relocate the US population somewhere else. Constitutional restrictions mean the US can't seize that much private property without compensation, and the set of all land in America is a pretty expensive mass of property to compensate people for. There isn't enough money in the treasury, and never will be, to support anything like that, and the resulting dislocation of the US tax base would make it effectively impossible to administer the transfer.

You'd have to rewrite the US legal code to invalidate the existing title deeds. Which would, of course, be in keeping with the ruling that this land belongs to the natives, but would certainly be a major shift in the basis of American law. The US government, as presently organized and under present law, couldn't do it. It does not have absolute power to command all its citizens to pack up and move somewhere else.

This is not to say it would be morally wrong to hand all the land back to the natives. But the US government as currently construed can't do it, has neither the jurisdiction nor the resources to do so. Any more than the UN in 2005 had the resources and jurisdiction to, say, invade Burma to put an ends to its human rights abuses. Even if that would be the right thing to do, nobody has the standing or the means.



Now, transferring Gibraltar wouldn't be impossible for Britain by any means. They could do it. Arguably they should; it would certainly be a very gracious gesture.

But if we start adhering to that precedent that land conquered as far back as the War of the Spanish Succession is not a legitimate possession, there are entire European countries whose present borders are arguably illegitimate. And that would raise questions no present country is equipped to deal with, and which would force governments into endless headbanging matches, like the present one over Gibraltar but on a large enough scale that it could sabotage any serious attempt at international cooperation.

Which is, come to think of it, pretty much the way European politics worked before 1945- unending rounds of territorial squabbles, with nobody ever giving up their claim to anything except under extreme duress, and sometimes deciding to renew the claim even then if they got the chance.

Nobody is pretending there is a "good side" and a "bad side" in World War I, but the loser's side was paying reparations for like a hundred years. So what exactly is your point?

All your ire at Spain here seems to be a bit misplaced. First, Spain is not going to attack and take the land back. Second, it seems that citizens of a foreign British territory did something that impacted Spanish seamen, and did this without consulting with Spain.

Personally I think Spain is doing nothing wrong, except perhaps for violating European conventions on what kind of border searches/customs/whatever they're allowed to engage in.

Finally, it seems that people are so xenophobic and nationalistic that they immediately compare Spain to Argentine (yes - that's right, the people Britain last killed in their very own little war, I guess that generates an enormous amount of pride)...

Bear in mind that the Argentines did in fact stage an amphibious invasion of a territory which had no wish to become part of Argentina, fully intending to hoist the Argentine flag whether the local residents liked it or not, on the grounds of a rather confused "we planted a flag on this uninhabited rock first!" dispute.

That sort of conduct could get downright unpopular, and dare I say imperialistic, if it became the norm around the world. That's the conclusion of my remarks to Thanas: that this kind of thing was the norm in pre-1945 Europe, and in other places, and it led to a great deal of war and imperialism, not to peace and mutual respect or understanding. Endlessly renewing one's claims to very small pieces of territory is a good way to ensure that bad will and distrust persist between nations.

Does the state of Vietnam exist in any legitimate fashion? Do the Greeks still claim Istanbul is Constantinople? Would the Egyptian people want to recover the lost territories in Sudan? Is it Alsace-Lorraine or Elsass-Lothringen, and is it historically French or German?

All the territories you mentioned are disputed pieces of property on land border of two countries. How it is even remotely comparable to pockets of territory thousands of kilometres away from UK existing only because local people were kicked out and flags are propped by guns of Royal Navy?

Do the people now living there get a vote?

Well, except for the fact Portugal wasn't as through in ethnic cleansing and colonist importing as UK, too bad for them, isn't it?

Indeed, this issue was raised in a previous thread. These rules of it becomes mine after a long time encourages ethnic cleansing. We know in some conflicts its all too easy to start ethnic cleansing. Do we need another reason to encourage participants in conflicts to go down this route?

Are there any examples of a government explicitly deciding to kill or drive away the people in an area, to make sure that three or four generations down the road their descendants won't try to sue in the ICC?

I mean, the entire idea that "Britain should give back Gibraltar" is to be taken seriously is a product of modern respect for the ideal of international law. Back in the 1700s Spain tried to get Gibraltar back repeatedly, but they knew quite well no one would listen to diplomatic claims- so they marched armies and tried to retake it by force. And I have not a word of criticism for Spain deciding to do it, it was a perfectly reasonable thing for Spain to do under the circumstances.

Under today's circumstances, it is actually credible that an old imperial state will hand over some minor possession purely because another country asks for it loudly enough, and points to a century-old territorial claim. But by the same token, nowadays very few governments are actually willing to engage in ethnic cleansing, to kill or force away the natives of a region. It makes for bad press.

And most of the people willing to do that in a conquered land... probably aren't too worried about how a hundred years down the line, the descendants of today's natives might ask them to give the land back. If they're brutal enough to force out the existing inhabitants now, they're probably brutal enough to laugh off any attempt to get the land back later.

[Thanas]

Actually, under German law stolen property is always the property of the original owner, no matter how many good people receive it. Unless sold by auction.

But are they, for example, charged with possession of stolen goods? Are they vulnerable to a civil suit in which the original owner sues them for economic damages caused by having been deprived of the stolen goods?

If they acted in bad faith, sure.