Ave, Sandum Citizens!
In the time of the existence of our country, our territory has often changed and claims have morphed upon our maps. Several times now, the Sandum territory has been increasingly growing and growing and our concept of sovereign territory has become open to new ideas. It is for this reason, for ever-changing land claims, that we most redefine and expand our perception of land.
For Native Americans in North America, land was not to be owned: it was to be cared for as a living being and should be lived upon with a rather Roman principle — do ut des, or “I give so that you may give”. This principle shaped the concept of land ownership vastly. As the land was no longer an inanimate object that could be claimed, it was an animate object that should be respected and also lived upon without charge of claiming it. Of course, in international law today, this is not the case, but it becomes a guiding principle for our perception of the land upon which we live as a nation.
As the Central People’s Government of Sandus, the State must come to understand how our claims of land are now before we attempt to redefine them. At various times and at various governments, we have increased and decreased, shaped and reshaped, the claims of Sandus. At several times, the claim existed as only the territory of le Palaso d’Etato; at other times, it was the area immediately surrounding le Palaso; now, as it has been only a few times before, it is a swath of land. Our borders, like many other principles in Sandus, have changed over time so that now we must further define what our claims mean to us and also how they operate in international law.
Two concepts arise to define and clarify Sandus’s sovereign territory. The first is a wholly micronational concept and originates from the Austenasian concept of gradient spheres of influence. This, for many reasons, is important to Sandus, as we are without an absolutely or authoritatively sovereign land: the best of this is the territory claimed solely around le Palaso d’Etato. As our State’s borders have grown, they have become increasingly larger and far-fetched. In line with the Austenasian concept of gradient spheres of influence, Sandus has partial sovereignty up to the shores of the Patuxent and Patapsco rivers — shores which could be considered our least possible area under our influence. Therefore, the State of Sandus shall set forth maps and claims of these sorts of “gradient” claims.
Another concept arises, one which already stands in international law. This is the concept of condominia, where there is a territory over which two sovereign entities exercise legitimate authority over. This is precisely the case in Sandus, without distinction of whether both entities recognise each other — a point which is unimportant once one considers the right of self-determination and that our existence is real no matter if a larger authority does not recognise us or our Nation-State. For this, another graphic is useful: one which shows Sandum sovereignty being de facto encompassed by the sovereignty of the United States, which also possess its own sovereignty. This complete overlap is due to the disparity between micronational and macronational sovereignty and it is in this disparity that recognition is important. However, for practical purposes, one could consider Sandus a condominium from the perspective of our Sandum Nation-State.
In sum, Sandus is a gradient sovereign condominium, which means that our borders gradually expand in sovereign authority and extend beyond our completely sovereign land which is — in practicality — managed by legitimate authority and power by two sovereign entities.