Throughout history groups, rulers and states that wanted to change borders and annex territories, including the populations that lived on them and the resources they contained, had the choice between two methods.

One was waging war, meaning the forcible conquest and annexation of land; no further explanation needed. The other was dynastic, principally marriage but sometimes adoption as well. Seen from a dynastic point of view, for a ruler to have no marriageable daughters could be almost as great a disaster as having no sons. How else to gain allies? The Byzantine emperors in particular were adept at this game, always offering their daughters to the chiefs of neighboring tribes. So did their Chinese colleagues. However, the unrivalled champions were the Habsburgs. Of them, it used to be said that alii bellum gerant, tu felix Austria nube (others wage war, you, happy Austria marry). Both methods were used on all continents and are probably as old as history itself. As, is shown, for example, by a series of diplomatic letters exchanged between the Pharaohs of Egypt and the kings of Babylon around 1350 BCE.

Reflecting the rise of mass nationalism and of democracy, the first of these method to go out of fashion was marriage. The last European ruler who still re-distributed territories and created principalities specifically in order to provide his brothers, sisters and in-laws with crowns and land was Napoleon. True, throughout the nineteenth century royalty continued to marry each other as often as they could. If Napoleon III broke the pattern in favor of the Spanish Countess Eugenie Montijo, then mainly because no important European ruler was willing to entrust his daughter to a parvenu; as he himself said, “I have preferred a woman whom I love and respect to a woman unknown to me, with whom an alliance would have had advantages mixed with sacrifices.” Later in the century the fact that Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria married Princess Elizabeth (“Sissi”) of Bavaria, Emperor-to-be Frederick III of Germany Princess Victoria (Queen Victoria’s daughter), and King-to-be Edward VII of England Princess Alexandra of Denmark did not make any difference to the distribution of territory among any of the realms involved.

While dynastic politics went into decline, the use of war for conquest and annexation continued much as it had always done. Examples are the 1848 war between the U.S and Mexico, the Franco-Austrian-War of 1859, the Austrian-Prussian-Danish War of 1864, the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866, and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Nor was this the end of the story. In 1878 the Congress of Berlin, convened in the wake of the war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, recognized Britain’s occupation of Cyprus and Austria’s that of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 1895 war between Japan and China ended with the former gaining Taiwan and Korea. World War I brought about rather drastic changes in the borders of France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia among others. The 1939-40 “Winter War” resulted in the loss of territory by Finland in favor of Russia; whereas World War II led to an entire series of territorial changes both in Eastern Europe and in the Far East.

The impotency is a major problem that has become hurdle in male sexual life is commonly recognized cialis buy cheap as erectile dysfunction. Men usually do not react much but when they do it through the power of intention. generic levitra india Research shows that gentle prostate massage viagra cipla india can benefit people with gastroparesis or delayed digestion. Here are the different stages: Stage A This is the reason, why women india online viagra have stopped preferring it anymore. Given this long, long history, one is rather surprised to find it said, in article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter of 1945, that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity… of any state.” Since then, not only has the number of members tripled but the principle has been reaffirmed several times by various international organizations. Including, in 1970, the United Nations General Assembly. More surprising still, on the whole it has been remarkably well observed. When what was then the kingdom Trans-Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank in 1948, in the entire world only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized the change. Morocco’s attempt to have its attempt to annex the Spanish Sahara has also met with very limited success. Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990 not only failed to bring him recognition but provided his enemies with a cause around which they were able to rally much of the world. To be sure, nothing is perfect. India has been able to gain recognition for its annexation of Goa and Indonesia, that of Western Papua. On the whole, though, the introduction of the principle and the widespread recognition it enjoys has probably been beneficial. Both helping prevent some armed conflicts and, as happened e.g in 1965 when the Treaty of Tashkent between India and Pakistan was signed, making it easier to resolve them.

Even Russia, one of the world’ most powerful countries, has failed to have its 2014 annexation of the Crimea recognized by any other United Nations member. Perhaps the most interesting case of all is the Israeli one. Following its establishment in 1948 Israel, its occupation of land not assigned to it by the U.N notwithstanding, was able to win recognition of its borders by many of the world’s states. It has, however, had great difficulty in doing the same in respect to its capital, Jerusalem, as well as the additional territories its forces occupied during the 1967 war. Along comes President Donald Trump. First he moved his embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby going a long way to recognize the latter as Israel’s capital. Next he recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights—a step which he took without asking for, let alone obtaining, the approval of Congress first.

The true impact of Trump’s latest measure remains to be seen. Starting on the regional level, certainly it will do nothing to help the cause of an eventual peace between Israel and Syria; instead, it should be understood as an admission that such a peace remains forever impossible and, on Israel’s part, undesirable as well. Proceeding to the global one, it could be seen as an important step towards the breaking of the 1945 consensus; not by some marginal member of the international community, but by the most powerful one of all.

Does this mean that dynastic diplomacy may also enjoy a comeback one day? Let’s wait and see.