The annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel, and the annexation of Crimea by Russia are examples of recent territorial annexations that have been rejected by the international community. Under what circumstances has the international community historically accepted or rejected territorial annexations, and what were the reasons?

Have the reasons remained consistent throughout history, or have they evolved after, say, the Peace of Westphalia and other international territorial agreements? How has "rejection" been handled (i.e. Iraq was invaded by the West but Israel and Russia were not), and has that been consistent? What generally has to happen for an annexation to be accepted? Has annexation against the will of the people living in the disputed territory ever been historically accepted, and what percentage of the population accepting the annexation is generally regarded as being enough? How can such will even be expressed or measured?

closed as off-topic by Samuel Russell, Tea Drinker, Pieter Geerkens, Mark C. Wallace, Tyler Durden May 16 '15 at 20:11

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions on social sciences other than History are off-topic here, unless they also involve history in some fashion. While ethics, archaeology, etc. are all connected to history, each field has their own experts who are better equipped to answer such questions." – Samuel Russell, Tea Drinker, Mark C. Wallace
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    I think this belongs to politics.stackexchange. That said, a few thoughts: The rejection is based in the principle of not accepting change of frontiers through war/military force. The difference of response is based in just realpolitik (Israel is backed by the US, tackling a nuclear power is always dangerous, Iraq did not had any support and had captured an oil exporter country, which if allowed would gave it too much leverage). – SJuan76 May 16 '15 at 11:33
  • 1
    @SJuan76: I actually do intend to ask a similar question on Politics.SE, but first I want to understand the historical aspect of annexation. – dotancohen May 16 '15 at 11:42
  • 1
    Specific examples have, in the past, generated bad questions; it is difficult to tell when an example question has been answered. I would suggest that you focus on the criteria which cause a specific international community to accept territorial annexations. – Mark C. Wallace May 16 '15 at 14:21
  • 2
    @Bregalad That assertion would come as a great surprise to the participants of the Congress of Vienna (which adjudicated territorial annexations) or the Treaty of Westphalia, or the history of China and Korea, or MesoAmerica, or the kindgom of Meroe or the Assyrian Empire, or the Romans, or.... – Mark C. Wallace May 16 '15 at 21:35
  • 4
    I like this question, I want to answer. – Anixx May 17 '15 at 10:39