Question

an you reword and shorten this plz

Boundaries should ideally be created by the states and communities directly affected, working within an international legal framework (UN processes, UNCLOS for maritime questions, and ICJ or arbitration where appropriate) and supported by impartial mediators, with local populations given a meaningful voice through negotiation, referenda, or other democratic procedures so borders are not simply imposed from outside. They should be guided by respect for territorial integrity, peoples’ right to self‑determination, uti possidetis juris (the decolonization principle that preserves existing administrative boundaries to prevent chaos) while recognizing that uti possidetis should not be an absolute shield where gross injustices exist, protection of minority rights, and practical considerations such as geography, economic ties, and security. Whether to adopt “hard” or “soft” borders depends on context: hard borders are appropriate where acute security threats, pervasive illicit flows, or irreconcilable governance differences exist, whereas soft borders with open crossings and customs/immigration cooperation are preferable where economic integration, shared identity, and trust make cooperation desirable. Real-world examples include the Schengen Area’s soft-border regime that facilitates trade and travel, the previously militarized Armenia–Azerbaijan boundary during active conflict, and the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland arrangement—where the Good Friday Agreement helped preserve soft borders to sustain peace but where Brexit-related changes have shown how political shifts can reintroduce border friction.

Answer 1

Borders should be set by the affected states and communities within international law (UN processes, UNCLOS for maritime issues, and ICJ/arbitration when needed), with impartial mediators and meaningful local input (negotiation, referenda or other democratic means). They should respect territorial integrity, self‑determination, minority rights, and generally follow uti possidetis—but not when it would perpetuate gross injustice—and account for geography, economic ties and security. Hard borders suit severe security threats or widespread illicit flows; soft, cooperative borders suit integrated, trusting neighbors (e.g., Schengen vs. the militarized Armenia–Azerbaijan line and the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland arrangements, which Brexit has complicated).