The legal status of Texas is the standing of Texas as a political entity. The legal status of Texas relative to the United States of America has been the subject of debate. Texas is considered to be a state under the sovereignty of the United States of America. United States sovereignty over Texas has been disputed most recently by a movement launched by Richard McLaren. Adherents of that movement claim that American sovereignty is illegal. In disputes over the legal status of Texas, a key issue has been the tension between its de facto and de jure international standing. The boundaries of Texas have also been questioned, since the current state is not the same as the former Republic of Texas.
Contents |
The dispute dates back to events in the 19th century. In 1845, the Republic of Texas was admitted to the Union via a Joint Resolution of Congress which some scholars believe is not legal under international law.[1][2] On February 23, 1861, citizens of the state voted overwhelmingly not to be part of the United States.[3] During the American Civil War, Texas was invaded by Union troops many times including the final major clash of the war which was the Battle of Palmito Ranch. Republic of Texas supporters feel that Texas remains an independent nation and that American actions in the American Civil War has resulted in an illegal military occupation of Texas.
This article deals primarily with theoretical arguments regarding Texas' de jure status under certain interpretations of international law. The debate is considered by some to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including 162 military personnel in Hawaii in 1893 does not easily compare to the invasions of the Union Army in Texas from 1861–1865.
In January 2004, Timothy Paul Kootenay, in jail in Aspen, Colorado, claimed that the state of Colorado had no jurisdiction to extradite him to California on a probation warrant, on the grounds that he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He claimed that the sliver of land which contains Aspen was a part of the original Republic of Texas and, as such, he was not a citizen of the United States. His claim was rejected by the courts.[4]
The Handbook of the ICJ states that "Only States may be parties to cases before the Court" and the Court will only decide disputes which are "submitted to it by States." In 1995, a petition was filed with the ICJ by Richard L. McLaren asking that the Republic of Texas be declared to still exist. The clerk at the ICJ refused to file the case and wrote back, "I have to inform you, however, that the function of the International Court of Justice is confined to the settling, in accordance with international law, of legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to the rendering of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies. It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals, or other entities, or provide them with legal advice, or assist them in their relations with the authorities in any country. As a result, no action will be taken on your letter."[5]
Regarding these types of petitions, the ICJ handbook states:
Hardly a day passes without the Registry receiving written or oral applications from private persons. However heart-rending, however well-founded, such applications may be, the ICJ is unable to entertain them and a standard reply is always sent: 'Under Article 34 of the Statute, only States may be parties in cases before the Court.'[6]