Question

can you reword and shorten a little 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

Boundaries should be decided by the states and communities affected, using international law (UN processes, UNCLOS for maritime issues, ICJ/arbitration where needed), with impartial mediators and meaningful local input via negotiation, referenda, or other democratic means—rather than being imposed from outside. Decisions should respect territorial integrity and people’s right to self‑determination, follow uti possidetis where useful (but allow exceptions for gross injustices), protect minority rights, and consider practical factors like geography, economic ties, and security. Whether a border is “hard” or “soft” depends on context: hard borders suit acute security threats, pervasive illicit flows, or irreconcilable governance differences; soft borders (open crossings and customs/immigration cooperation) work where integration, shared identity, and trust exist. Examples: Schengen (soft), the militarized Armenia–Azerbaijan boundary during conflict, and the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland arrangements—kept soft by the Good Friday Agreement but strained by Brexit.