For Example: The Law of Nations, Sovereign Power Over Immigration, and Asylum: It’s Not As Clear As It Seems


The purpose of this wiki is to gather information on the concept of creating micronations. Unlike many other resources, the emphasis is here on serious thinking about the matter. Whether you try to achieve actual independence by building a new nation, or it is a purely intellectual exercise, you are welcome to add your thoughts. If you have doubts about this kind of projects, that is fine. Sharpen your wit, and think about how the problems can be overcome. Where others ask “What?” or “Why?”, this page is the “How to?”. Links and Resources


Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently struck down a Trump administration policy barring asylum for those who do not enter through a legal port of entry.  Tigar’s major point is that Trump’s order conflicts with a statute that specifically says that those who entered illegally are eligible for asylum.  Despite this temporary ruling against the administration’s asylum order, a higher court will probably approve Trump’s action by invoking I.N.A. 212(f) that, according to the Supreme Court decision in the Travel Ban case, seems to give the president nearly unlimited power to ban whomever he wants from coming here no matter what the rest of the law says.  I hope I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t bet against that outcome.
Some commentators are outraged by the court order blocking president Trump’s change to asylum because they think it violates the national sovereignty of the U.S. government to determine who can enter without limitation.  Outside of the fringes, debates about national sovereignty are rare in the context of immigration policy because the Supreme Court has frequently affirmed Congress’s plenary (read unlimited) power to pass any immigration law it wants because of inherent power vested in the national sovereignty of the United States.  Despite some arguments that seek to limit that power or that it was invented almost a century after the Constitution was enacted, this inherent power is not seriously challenged and almost nobody would consider it illegitimate.
Those Supreme Court cases cited foundational scholars in the field of international law to support the majority’s opinion that Congress had plenary power over immigration.  In this context, international law refers to the customs, behaviors, and evolving rules that regulated the intercourse between governments and foreign individuals.  The two most cited international law scholars in the above Supreme Court decisions, supporting Congress’s unlimited power to restrict the movement of people across borders, are Emer de Vattel and Samuel von Pufendorf.  A recent article in the European Journal of International Law by Vincent Chetail shows just how selectively the Supreme Court cited those two scholars.
Before summarizing Chetail’s research on Vattel and Pufendorf, one must understand that they inherited and altered an international legal tradition that preceded them by centuries. 
Chetail’s paper begins with the work of Francisco de Vitoria (1480-1546), who is frequently portrayed as the founder of international law (also known as the law of nations).  He argued that the free movement of persons is a cardinal feature of international law through the right of communication, meaning that the right of humans to communicate with each other implies that they also have the right to move in order to communicate.  He used this to argue that when the Spaniards sailed to the Americas, they had no right of conquest or to occupy the Americas.  However, he went on to argue that Spaniards did “have the right to travel and dwell in those countries so long as they do no harm to the barbarians.” 
This right supposedly comes from the law of nations, which derives from natural law and is not abridged by the division of the world into nations.  Vitoria argued that the right of free movement is mandatory so long as it does not cause harm to the host society, meaning crime.  He even argued, quite radically, that nations that refuse admission to non-criminals are committing an act of war.  Vitoria applied his argument to Europeans, arguing that “[I]t would not be lawful for the French to prohibit Spaniards from traveling or even living in France, or vice versa, so long as it caused no sort of harm to themselves; therefore it is not lawful for the barbarians either.”  Vitoria argued that these principles also support universal free trade, free navigation, and birthright citizenship. 
Chetail then moves on to discuss the work of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), who endorsed Vitoria’s description of international law and refined it further by arguing that individuals have a right to leave their own country and to enter and remain in another.  In essence, Grotius argued that in order for there to be a right to emigrate, there must also be a right to immigrate.  He even argued, like Vitoria, that the right of movement can be taken by force if it is unjustly denied by the government.  Those who are criminals, would harm society, or skirt essential duties like repaying loans can be barred from immigrating or emigrating under Grotius’s theory.  He applies the same limitations on emigrating as he does on immigrating. 
Next, Chetail looks at the work of Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694).  He was the first international law scholar who argued that state sovereignty and the state’s power to choose whom to admit dominated any natural right of movement.  Pufendorf argued that individuals have the right to emigrate, but not to immigrate.  He did not elaborate on why his opinion differed from that of Grotius and Vitoria on this matter.  However, Pufendorf did write about two exceptions: shipwrecked sailors and some asylum seekers.  He wrote:

[I]t is left in the power of all states, to take such measures about the admission of strangers, as they think convenient; those being ever excepted, who are driven on the coasts by necessity, or by any cause that deserves pity and compassion. Not but that it is barbarous to treat, in the same cruel manner, those who visit us as friends, and those who assault us as enemies [emphasis added].

Those exceptions aren’t as broad as they first seem.  Although he argued that states should accept foreigners because “we see many states to have risen to a great and flourishing height, chiefly by granting license to foreigners to come and settle amongst them; whereas others have been reduced to a low condition, by refusing this method of improvement,” Pufendorf ultimately argued that those humanitarian concerns of admitting asylum-seekers should only occur when the host state decides to so do. 
Pufendorf reversed the reasoning of Grotius and Vitoria.  They argued that free movement was the general rule with some specific exceptions, but Pufendorf argued that no movement was the general rule with some specific general exceptions and total state control otherwise. 
Christian von Wolff (1679-1754) is the next philosopher of international law in the tradition of total state control over migration.  Wolff’s main contribution was to argue that the sovereign owns the nation, and he exercises this power as an individual property holder does regarding entry of people onto his land.  
Wolff does grant several exceptions to this general state power.  Foreigners have a right to enter a country if they do not harm the state.  This right of harmless use means that foreigners can travel through a nation’s territory on their way elsewhere, that asylum seekers or refugees have the right to enter and remain, and that “foreigners must be allowed to stay with us for the purpose of recovering health, … study, … [or] for the sake of commerce.”  Wolff went on to write that “permanent residence in [a nation’s] territory cannot be denied to exiles by a nation, unless special reasons stand in the way [emphasis added].”         
Those exceptions seem like strong limitations on the power of states to deny entry, but Wolff pulls a lawyer’s trick to argue that foreigners have the right to enter if those above conditions are met but also that there is no enforcement mechanism.  Thus, Wolff argues that states have total control over entry and no private actor can commit violence to enforce the right of admission.  Foreigners have a right to ask for admission under Wolff’s system and the state is morally bound to accept many of them, but the state is legally free to refuse them. 
The last international law scholar that Chetail writes about is Swiss author Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), who is also the most important, as he is cited extensively in the Supreme Court cases discussed above.  Vattel synthesized the work by the earlier scholars.  He argued that there is a qualified power of state sovereignty to control immigration with the two substantial caveats of innocent passage and necessity.  Innocent passage and necessity can only be denied using excellent reasons regarding the security of the admitting state.  He wrote:

[T]he introduction of property cannot be supposed to have deprived nations of the general right of traversing the earth for the purposes of mutual intercourse, of carrying on commerce with each other, and for other just reasons. It is only on particular occasions when the owner of a country thinks it would be prejudicial or dangerous to allow a passage through it, that he ought to refuse permission to pass. He is therefore bound to grant a passage for lawful purposes, whenever he can do it without inconvenience to himself. And he cannot lawfully annex burdensome conditions to a permission which he is obliged to grant, and which he cannot refuse if he wishes to discharge his duty, and not abuse his right of property [emphasis added].

The fact that Vattel argues for exceptions is important because the Supreme Court didn’t recognize these exceptions when it quoted him in the 1892 case Nishimura Ekiu v. United States:

It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to its self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. Vattel, lib. 2, §§ 94, 100.

Chetail doesn’t pull any punches when criticizing the judges who wrote the Nishimura Ekiu decision:

At the time of this judgment, the authority of Vattel proved to be instrumental in justifying a radical breakdown from the time-honoured tradition of free movement … the famous dictum of the US Supreme Court was based on a biased and selective reading of Vattel. In fact, the two earlier-quoted passages from the Swiss author were taken out of their context, with the overall result of providing a partial account of his views on the admission of foreigners. This misreading of Vattel has prevailed until now among US judges.

Most relevant to the ongoing chaotic situation on the Mexican border where many migrants stormed it and were repelled by tear gas, is that Vattel seems to endorse a right to illegal entry if legitimate entry is unjustly blocked by the government.  Recall that asylum-seekers, which includes those fleeing dire poverty under Vattel’s definition, fall under the necessity exception:

When a real necessity obliges you to enter into the territory of others – for instance, if you cannot otherwise escape from imminent danger, or if you have no other passage for procuring the means of subsistence, or those of satisfying some other indispensable obligation – you may force a passage when it is unjustly refused.

Vattel, one of the two intellectual heavyweights whom the Supreme Court cites to justify Congress’s plenary power over immigration, argued that the government cannot bar asylum-seekers and many other migrants from entering the United States and that those unjustly refused entry can do so illegally – a very radical position.  According to Vattel, that right is not restricted and can be enforced against the will of any sovereign so long as illegal entry is the only way to safeguard an essential interest of the foreigner.        


Methods Of Independence

Unclaimed Land

In theory, any land unclaimed so far can be claimed for ownership, and could make a solid base for arguing independance. In practice, there is very little unclaimed land good for settling or


Desolate Lands

Since no country seems eager to offer own land, or allow other viable land to be used for upstart micronations, perhaps other land could be taken for such use, deemed unusable. This would


Atoll Islands

Atolls are a specific type of islands, usually very flat, with a lagoon and reef-building corals. The lagoon/submerged parts is typically much larger than the dry land; there are also



Random notes, and islands that may be yet included:


a large round atoll without real land, formally belonging to France.


Baker Island


A small uninhabited atoll, currently claimed by the US. It has an area of 405 acre (164 ha), there is some more submerged land around. It is


Auckland Islands,

they have remained uninhabited. Potential: A large land area, at least part of which may be up for grabs, or even negotiable with the government officially claiming it. The catch is of course the


Creating a real micronation

The options range from tried to largely hypothetical: Islands see also the Island mapping effort Living on tropical islands Artificial Sea Structures Unclaimed land Desolate lands Underground


Mouton Island an agrarian lifestyle. Serious gardening at the family level. Large scale livestock is probably out of the question. Not enough cleared land to put in hay for the winter months. But smaller scale animal husbandry should work. Goats, rabbits, etc. (Quoted from.) Marks: Uninhabited Water


Methods Of Independence

for the Spratly Islands. For an actual example of someone trying it, see the Forvik Island Establish an embassy – according to international diplomatic tradition, the land on which the embassy


Research Station

path somewhere, in any location suitable for micronational efforts (abandoned or disputed land, unsettled island, etc.). The group behind it may choose any fitting topic of research and/or anyhttp://anewland.wikidot.com/research-stationpage 1 of 212next »

Methods Of Independence

Artificial Sea Structures
is a start to claim to be outside of any given land’s laws. FoldUnfold Table of Contents Lifestyle considerations Risks Economy Availability Legal status Examples Lifestyle considerations

and innovation with diverse social, political, and legal systems. It goes quite into some detail! The Federated Commonwealth or FedCom, a secessionist micronation claiming land in Western Africa. The Liberty

Islands are possibly the most favored location to place your micronation. Naturally separated from land, they offer a great psychological bonus to any who want to be apart. foldunfold Table

Legitimacy Of Micronations
for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide

Strategies of Success and Failure
a government to stop an upstart micronation, and what can it gain/avoid losing (conflict, taxes, people, land, the EEZ, etc)? Of course, not everything can be easily recalculated, and governments

again? How reliable are they, and in what ways will they rely on outsiders? How much of further infrastructure is necessary to achieve basic/moderate/advanced access? Land-based – when attached

Methods Of Independence
To start a colony may be hard. As many have found out, to actually defend the idea, once others find out, is harder. What are the challenges on the way to a new micronation, or at least an independent existence? What are the ways?


  • Allodial Title – gain property held (at least in theory) without further encumbrances or taxes
  • Being ignored – a fine way towards freedom when there are so few other options; the authorities likely to challenge the fledgling state don’t bother to do so. If this persists for long enough, a case may be made the settlers are the real, de facto owners, which is a start.
  • Exploiting the rules – several micronations were created in places where international agreements or laws were unclear or in conflict… those glitches tend to be corrected over time. See also the Northwest Angle. Just don’t pick a place where conflict is for a good reason, like for the Spratly Islands. For an actual example of someone trying it, see the Forvik Island
  • Establish an embassy – according to international diplomatic tradition, the land on which the embassy sits and the buildings on it are considered to be your nation’s sovereign territory (source). This still requires some recognition, which may be also gained by…
  • Buying it – simply amass a sufficient amount of cash, and politicians are much more likely to cooperate. But it will cost some. (Note: corrupt dictators and politicians in general may be an easier target, but make any arrangements a bit uncertain.)
  • Keep ’em busy – derail detrimental efforts of others by bureaucracy and other evil means; this may entail providing massive evidence of a claim, and let them try to sort it out in a few decades. The “work the system” option.
  • Limited term contract – to persuade any country to give up a part of its lands would be… hard. A limited time period is more imaginable.
  • Limited freedom contract – in exchange for, say, a certain fee, plus maybe a few general agreements, the people are left to do as they please. The main challenge is to keep the contract in effect and withstand all pressures to expand it. Word is several tropical states like Indonesia may offer up to a 99-year lease on their land with a fairly extensive sovereignty (link needed).
  • Start legal – become a settlement officially under the control of some state, create the infrastructure and basic industries, amass the funds, install the defenses… and declare independence. May not be as easy once one entangles himself into the global networks.
  • Hidden – as in the book/movie The Beach, where a small community has hidden itself away from the civilization. This would be a hard one to pull for a long period of time.
  • Social project – as in the Freetown Christiania, where a group of idealists gained a semi-legal status and a measure of official acceptance. The emphasis seems to be on a distinct culture and lifestyle. It may be possible to try it elsewhere.
  • Penal colony – in India, there are now prisons, where the prisoners are basically left for themselves, free to pursue their crafts and earn a living, merely not allowed to escape. There are also many movie examples (though mostly not pleasant). Still, it might be in theory possible to create a colony housing prisoners of a certain country, in exchange for non-intervention.
  • Buffer zone – where there is conflict between two without end, a third party could claim control of a sensitive area – with the agreement of both. Required would be a great reputation, mastery of diplomacy, and it still may not work. But it is a theoretical option.
  • Join the Commonwealth of Nations – the basic, today a bit looser precondition is to be a former British colony. There are other conditions, but easier to fulfill than the conditions for the UN, and it would offer much prestige and actual international recognition. Note also that it does not exercise or claim to have any sort of power over its members. See also a research society for that topic.
  • Take over – there are quite a few internationally accepted small states out there. A group of enthusiasts could move into one, and essentially take it over, dictating or at least strongly influencing its politics.
  • Ask for it – simply, ask for a piece of land for exactly this purpose. Pitch it as a great PR stunt, a social experiment/political model or something. It is of course extremely hard to convince modern governments to give up their land, so additional motivation is necessary. It could be care for desolate lands, claiming new or disputed territory for the ‘sponsoring’ country, or simply provoking their enemies (let’s say a country allows ‘American fugitives’ the escape from that evil imperialism, etc, etc, etc).
  • Settle into a country with low standards, and slowly work your way through a civil war up to declaring independence. Very risky, and taking possibly decades, but some may try it.
  • An alternative route some people choose is to be a ‘perpetual traveller‘, that arranges his or her paperwork in such a way that all governments consider him a tourist, paying little to no taxes, and living mostly unhindered. As an individual strategy, this is way outside of the topic of this website, but provides inspiration, and even possible investment/supporters. There could be entire groups living this life. They may also have valuable information on registration, citizenship, and other interesting questions. Note also a website from an expert on disappearing.
  • Research station – access is limited to many exotic places. But if one were to, say, form into an alternative ecological movement, then one could probably easily move into such a place, researching while creating a viable settlement. Especially for those with strict ecological preferences, the challenge to keep up the nature-oriented face may be easy.
  • Foundation – some states don’t tax foundations/non-profit organizations, and may be more lax in their treatment, if some noble purpose is proven (may go with the previous option, and provide a springboard to many others).
  • Get a valley – recent history shows that remote rocky, close to an international border areas can be held by a handful of people. Usually they benefit from clear water (from which you can draw electricity) and you can grow goats or even sheep for food. A simpler way could be to buy some land in a remote area no one is interested in. There are numerous little valleys, even in the Alps or the Pyrenees, which are not suitable for ski resorts and are used only for pasture.(Source.)
  • Incorporate: having all the rights of a corporation, it could raise the funds by selling stock or supplying other services to its ‘citizens’ and others. With enough money, it could realize the dream of an own island or other area as an amusement park or exotic holiday resort. The company might profit from being registered in some exotic location.(source)
  • Dependent nation status – enjoyed by Sovereign Indian Nations in the US, with important marks of sovereignty… though it could be extremely hard to achieve this status nowadays. Good luck.
  • WSLEs, or Weakly State-Like Entities, introduced here, are parastate entities intended to be temporary, not out for a direct military confrontation. They still intend to have their sovereignty.
  • Fight – yes, wait for your challenge, and win the battle(s). While straightforward, there are obvious problems with this approach. On the other hand, it may be necessary with other options, too. See also Right of Conquest.


What are the necessary criteria to be internationally recognized as a country? (See source.)

  • a defined territory
  • a permanent population
  • a government
  • government must be capable of interacting with other states (standards are somewhat unclear on this, but it is necessary by all accounts)
  • declare independence – is reported to have certain benefits, even if not recognized by anyone
  • get recognized – possibly the hardest of them all, most countries won’t recognize a small wannabee nation, unless there is something in it for them
  • join the club – should you actually want to join the United Nations. The application is trivial, but the General Assembly must determine by a two-thirds majority that you are a “peace-loving state” that can carry out the duties of the U.N. Charter. This requires serious work in the previous step.
To live free, you don’t need all these things. Real independence may be far from the declared one. Choose what goals you will aim for.

3. Form a Government and Draft a Constitution

The first principle is that government is created by and gets its power from the people. This idea is called popular sovereignty.  The Declaration of Independence had stated this idea clearly when it said:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”     

     “We the People” are the first words of the Constitution and are written larger than any thing else. The writers wanted to emphasize that the ability to set up and start a new government came from the people of the United States.  
Definition of Self-government, Self-government is a system in which the citizens of a country (or smaller political unit, such as a state) rule themselves and control their own affairs. Self-governments are free from external government control or outside political authority. Republican governments and democracy in the United States are based on principles of self-government. Roots of Self-government in Colonial America.
Between 1619 and 1776, American colonists had representative colonial governments for making laws. In 1619, the House of Burgesses in Jamestown, Virginia, was established as the first representative assembly. In 1620, the Pilgrims in Massachusetts signed the Mayflower Compact, agreeing to form a government and submit to the will of the majority. This form of direct democracy meant that laws would be subject to the citizens for their approval and consent. These, along with other colonial assemblies, laid the foundation for future self-government in America.
Here’s where the problem comes in. Even though there were elected assemblies in the colonies, no English colony was fully democratic or completely self-governing. Following the French and Indian War between Great Britain and France for control of North America, which lasted from 1754 to 1763, Great Britain ended the policy of salutary neglect. This policy had allowed the colonies to govern themselves without much interference. Changes in British policy prompted resistance by the colonists and ultimately led to the American Revolution.
Belief in Self-government Leads to an Independent United States. The American colonists’ belief in self-government was influenced by the writings of political activist and theorist Thomas Paine. In his fifty-page pamphlet ‘Common Sense,’ published in 1776, Paine made the argument for political independence from Britain and a representative self-government and helped draft a constitution for the colonies. Paine felt the monarch had no place in government and that the people themselves were the legitimate authority for government. Thomas Jefferson was also influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, who wrote the book Two Treatises of Civil Government, published in 1689. According to Locke, the main purpose of government should be to protect the people’s natural rights.

Belief in Self-government Leads to an Independent United States. The American colonists’ belief in self-government was influenced by the writings of political activist and theorist Thomas Paine. In his fifty-page pamphlet ‘Common Sense,’ published in 1776, Paine made the argument for political independence from Britain and a representative self-government and helped draft a constitution for the colonies. Paine felt the monarch had no place in government and that the people themselves were the legitimate authority for government. Thomas Jefferson was also influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, who wrote the book Two Treatises of Civil Government, published in 1689. According to Locke, the main purpose of government should be to protect the people’s natural rights.



The term theocracy signifies belief in governance by divine guidance, a form of regime in which religion or faith plays the dominant role. It denotes thus a political unit governed by a deity or by officials thought to be divinely guided. The word theocracy originates from the Greek theokratia. The components of the word are theos, “god,” and kratein, “to rule,” hence “rule by god” or “government by god.”KLM New York-Geneva – 12 KLM Flights a Day – No booking feeNo booking fee. 12 flights a day. Book now on KLM.com & save on your flightklm.com/New-York/Geneva | Sponsored▼

The concept of theocracy was first coined by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 CE–c. 100 CE). Attempting to explain to Gentile readers the organization and political system of the Jewish commonwealth of his time, Josephus contrasted theocracy with other forms of government, such as monarchy, oligarchy, and republics: “Our legislator [Moses] had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a theocracy [ theokratia ], by ascribing the authority and power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all good things” (Josephus 1737).Report Advertisement

Few concepts have changed more radically over time than the concept of theocracy. According to its oldest meaning, as used by Josephus, the implication is not that ministers assumed political power. However, according to the more modern definition in the The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principlestheocracy is “a system of government by sacerdotal order, claiming divine commission” (The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, vol. 2, 1939, p. 2166), a state in which priests exercise political power, or, more precisely, a state ruled by ministers. In this entry, both meanings will be used.Geneva Vacation Rental – You + RentByOwner™ = VacationComplete The Equation @ RentByOwner.com™. Book Geneva Rentals Today! Trusted By Millions. Large Selection & Great Rates. Fast & Easy To Book. View Now.rentbyowner.com/Geneva | Sponsored▼

Theocratic forms of government have existed throughout history. Theocracies were known among ancient people, as in Egypt and Tibet, where kings represented and even incarnated the deity. (In pharaonic Egypt, the king was considered a divine or semidivine figure who ruled largely through priests.) This was the case also with early American civilizations, such as the Mayas, Toltecs, Aztecs, and Natchez.

In Islam, the community established by the prophet Muhammad (c. 570–632) in Medina (622–632) was a theocracy in which Muhammad served as both temporal and spiritual leader. The communities established by Muhammad’s father-in-law and successor, Abu Bakr (c. 573–634), the first caliph, were also based on theocratic government. The largest and best-known theocracies in history were the Umayyad caliphate (the first Islamic dynasty, 661–750) and the early Abbasid caliphate (the second major Muslim dynasty, 750–1258), in which state and religion were closely intertwined; the Byzantine Empire (fourth–fifteenth centuries), in which the emperor was the head of the church; and the Papal States (Stati Pontificii) during the Middle Ages, in which the pope was the ruler in a civil as well as a spiritual sense.Report Advertisement

In Christianity during the early modern period in Europe, the republic of Florence under the rule (1494–1497) of Girolamo Savonarola (1452–1498) became a theocracy in which God was the sole sovereign and the Gospel constituted the law. After the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, there were many attempts to establish theocracy. The most famous is the theocratic regime that John Calvin(1509–1564) established in Geneva when he was at the height of his power (1555–1564); Geneva’s civil life was based upon total obedience to God, whose moral order is declared in the scriptures. According to Calvin, a well-ordered Christian community results from a synthesis of rule, cooperation, and order emanating from the divine laws of God; such a community is unified, organized, and structured upon the idea of advancing the glory of God in the world. The same view is evidenced in the theocratic government that Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) established in Zurich from 1525 to 1531. In Zurich, the city council was the lawful government of a Christian state (both church and canton) and administrated the divine commands from the Bible. For interpretation of these commands the council sought and acted on the advice of Christian ministers.

With the Puritan migration to New England during the 1630s, theocratic governments were established in what became Massachusetts and Connecticut. For the New England Puritans, theocracy was considered the best form of government in a Christian commonwealth because only this type of government acknowledged Christ as a sole ruler over the people. Spiritually saving grace was the prerequisite for admission to freemanship or citizenship in the Puritan theocracy. The Puritans’ goal was not to invest ministers with political power, but rather to appoint civil magistrates who would govern according to God’s word and will. Only “visible saints,” or those who were able to prove the power of saving grace in their hearts, were allowed to vote, while “the ungodly,” or profane people, were excluded from political power. In England too, during the Puritan Revolution (1640– 1660), especially after the execution of King Charles I in 1649, many zealous Puritans strove to establish a theocratic government by introducing a “Sanhedrin of saints,” or a dictatorship of the godly.

In the contemporary world, the regime that Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini (1900–1989) established in Iran in 1979 is considered a theocracy because political power and authority is held in the hands of the imams or religious leaders. The purpose of such a fundamentalist regime is to organize society exclusively under Islamic religious law, the shari’a. The Taliban state in Afghanistan (1996–2001) was similar. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, various fundamentalist Muslim groups are striving to establish theocratic forms of government in AlgeriaPakistan, Egypt, SudanTurkey, and other Islamic countries. There are also various fundamentalist Christian groups in the United StatesCanada, and Australia who advocate aspects of theocratic government. In Israel, too, several ultra-Orthodox factions advocate restoring the theocracy of ancient times.

Theocracy Government by religious leaders in accordance with divine law. Theocracies were common in non-literate societies and existed in ancient Egypt and the Orient.


THEOCRACY , literally the “rule of God,” but generally applied to mean a state ruled by religious law. In the first century c.e. Josephus created the term “theocracy” to describe the people of Israel’s polity. “Some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however… gave to his constitution the form of what – if a forced expression be permitted – may be termed a ‘theocracy,’ placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God” (Apion, 2:165). That description is entirely accurate, if taken literally. The Torah repeatedly refers to God as the immediate ruler of the Jewish people and gives only passing attention to human self-rule in the form of a monarchy (Deut. 17:14–20). The Book of Joshua and particularly the Book of Judges depict a pure theocracy.

The period of such direct divine rule was, however, limited. Divine sanction was given to the new monarchy, although the latter was said to imply a rejection of God’s direct king-ship (i Sam. 8:7). From that time on, what is in effect Jewish theocracy is understood to be one of various forms of indirect divine rule, which generally acted through the official religious institutions. Thus, in the Second Temple era there were times when the high priesthood united political and religious power, as in the Hasmonean rulers. In such priestly rule, theocracy was transformed into heirocracy, a priestly rule. It may be contrasted with the nomocracy, in this instance rule by sacred law, of the post-Temple period. Josephus seems to have recognized this when he wrote, describing Torah law, “be content with this, having the laws for your masters and governing all your actions by them; for God sufficeth for your ruler” (Ant., 4:223).

In the talmudic period and the Middle Ages the polity of the Jewish community, though built on religious law, was not strictly speaking a theocracy since it was not ruled exclusively by the rabbis. In fact, there was continual tension between the rabbis and the lay leadership.

Contemporary Israel

The question of the character of the Jewish polity, largely theoretical for nearly two millennia, became a matter of practical concern with the establishment of the State of Israel. Secularists and most non-Orthodox theoreticians have maintained that religious institutions in Israel should refrain from exercising a direct role in the government. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox thinkers have been willing to accept the essentially non-religious structure of the Jewish state, provided that Orthodoxy has certain political rights and power. A tiny minority, insisting upon a rigorous interpretation of God as sole ruler, rejects the present State of Israel as blasphemous and insists that a Jewish state can be established only with the coming of the king-messiah.


A form of political government in which the deity directly rules the people. Since men are corporeal and need visible signs of God’s rule, direct divine governance always has a human representative, usually a priesthood or a divinely chosen king. But theocracy as such is not necessarily opposed to popular rule nor to any other form of government, since the practical political arrangements can usually be presented as manifestations of a divine choice or a divine ratification of a human choice.

The word theocracy was first used by Josephus to describe government under Moses: “Our legislator…ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a theocracy, by ascribing the authority and power to God” (C. Ap. 2.16.165). Hebrews believed their government was by divine rule, whether under the original tribal form, the kingly form, or the high priesthood after the Exile until the Maccabees. The actual rulers or ruler, however, were held responsible directly to God; their deeds could not be arbitrary. They could, and at times did, deviate from the divine task as the examples of Saul and David show. The prophets witnessed such lapses in the name of an angry God and sought to correct them.

Theocracy as the rule of a priestly caste is often unsuccessful because of its vulnerability to military power, its lack of popular support, or its often implicit denial of a true human political task. The major historic examples of theocratic rule are ancient israel, tibet, some Buddhist regimes of Japan and China, islam, the Geneva of John calvin, Puritan New England, the papal states, and Mormon Salt Lake City. Most of these quasi-priestly regimes have been quite small and short-lived. Usually, they have not been successful political entities in the eyes of their own and surrounding peoples.

Theocracy, however, has broader implications. All tribal and ancient peoples, including the Greeks and the Romans, believed that their cities and nations were under the protection of and dedicated to the gods. Both Peter and Paul in their letters held that civil authority was from God (1 Pt 2.13–14; Rom 13.1–7; Ti 3.1). Christian tradition, however, has always recognized that the things that were Caesar’s were legitimately his and could not be taken from him (Mt 22.21–22). The distinction between the spiritual and the temporal received its classic form in the two-power theory of Pope gelasius i. A problem arose immediately, however. Who is to judge in the areas of conflict between the spiritual and the temporal? This became the major political issue of the Middle Ages. The temporal power and spiritual authority as combined in popes like gregory vii, innocent iii, and boniface viii were so great that many writers have called these regimes properly theocratic. Nevertheless, Christian political theory must preserve the autonomy of the temporal order. These popes were no exception to this rule, however far they may have gone in aggrandizing the legitimate rights of the temporal as against the spiritual in areas of conflict.

The further evolution of this problem came with James I of England and the so-called divine right of kings. This theory combined the spiritual and the temporal powers in one person, the temporal ruler. The king’s rule comes directly from God, not from the people. Democratic theorists attacked this theocratic view, especially as stated in Robert Filmer’s Patriarchia, by maintaining that God’s authority came to the rulers because the people needed this authority and designated the rulers they chose. The subsequent history of theocratic ideas must be sought out in the history of absolutism and in the secu larization of all human orders. Here, the absolute rule of social class, race, or nation comes to be the substitute for God’s direct rule. This again serves to emphasize the practical importance of recognizing the limited autonomy of the public order.


THEOCRACY means “rule by God” and refers to a type of government in which God or gods are thought to have sovereignty, or to any state so governed. The concept has been widely applied to such varied cases as pharaonic Egypt, ancient Israel, medieval Christendom, Calvinism, Islam, and Tibetan Buddhism.

The word was first coined in the Greek language (theokratia ) by the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius around 100 ce. Josephus noted that while the nations of the world were variously governed by monarchies, oligarchies, and democracies, the polity of the Jews was theocracy. This, he thought, went back to Moses, who was not attracted by the model of these other polities and therefore “designated his government a theocracy—as someone might say, forcing an expression—thus attributing the rule and dominion to God” (Against Apion 2.165).

From Josephus’s coinage the term found its way into modern languages, though most early uses were references to the government of ancient Israel, and thus faithful to the original context. The poet John Donne, in a sermon of 1622, stated that the Jews had been under a theocracy, and the Anglican bishop William Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated (1737–1741), engaged in a long discussion of Israelite theocracy.

Impetus for wider use of the word came from G. W. F. Hegel’s Philosophy of History, where the term was employed to describe that early phase of ancient oriental civilization in which there was no distinction between religion and the state. In the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the term became what Karl Mannheim called a Kampfbegriff, by which “enlightened” contempt for “priest-ridden” societies could be expressed. It was with something of this force that it was used by W. E. H. Lecky in his History of Rationalism (1865) and by Brooks Adams in The Emancipation of Massachusett s (1887).

Theocracy has not become a rigorously defined concept in either social science or the history of religions, although the term is frequently used in historical writing. This is probably because it does not name a governmental system or structure, parallel to monarchy or democracy, but designates a certain kind of placement of the ultimate source of state authority, regardless of the form of government. In biblical studies, where the notion of theocracy has had its longest currency, it has probably also been used with the greatest consistency and fruitfulness.

This article deals with the various meanings that the term theocracy may be usefully given, with examples relevant to each meaning: hierocracy, or rule by religious functionaries; royal theocracy, or rule by a sacred king; general theocracy, or rule in a more general sense by a divine will or law; and eschatological theocracy, or future rule by the divine.


Theocracy has often been used as a term to describe societies where the clergy or priests rule, but this is not the exact denotation of the word, and another word, hierocracy, is available for such situations. Some have called this “pure” theocracy. Among such theocracies, a distinction can be made between those in which the religious functionaries who exercise rule are priestly in character and those in which they are more prophetic-charismatic.

Theocracies of this type have not been very numerous. Several of the stages in the history of ancient Israel exemplify it: the early period, beginning with the Sinai covenant and continuing with the leadership of Moses and Aaron; the religious confederation of the tribal amphictyony; and the charismatic (though occasional) leadership of the Judges down to the time of Samuel. Thus, Israel had strongly theocratic elements, in the sense of rule by religious functionaries. Centuries later, after the return from exile in the late sixth century bce, a theocracy emerged with the priestly leadership of the generations after Ezra. The priestly theocratic pattern became so important among the Jews at this time that the later Hasmoneans legitimated their rule by claiming the high priesthood. This was the case until the end of the rule of Alexander Yannai over the small Jewish state in 67 bce.

This kind of theocracy has been rare in Christianity, which grew up as a clandestine religion at odds with a hostile state. Nonetheless, a kind of theocracy in the sense of priestly rule appeared in the Papal Statesof central Italy and lasted for over a millennium (756–1870). However, this situation was not usually thought of as a prototype of the ideal but, rather more pragmatically, as a way of securing the independence of church authority, centered in Rome, from interference and control by secular powers. Another Christian example of pure theocracy can be found in the early years of the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons, in the United States, where the prophetic leaders (first Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young) exercised religious and temporal authority in the life of the community, both in earlier settlements and then in Salt Lake City.

The early years of Islam, under the prophet Muḥammad and his first successors, the caliphs, were also theocratic in the sense that there was rule by the religious leadership, though it was not a priestly but a prophetic-charismatic leadership. It is, however, difficult to say at exactly what point the caliphate ceased to be a primarily religious institution.

Tibetan Buddhism has often been cited as an example of priestly theocracy. After the thirteenth century, Tibet was ruled by various elements of the Buddhist priesthood; in the seventeenth century, the Dge lugs pa sect gained the temporal rule of the land and governed through the Dalai and Panchen lamas, as successive incarnations of Avalokiteśvara and Amitābha Buddha, respectively, until the Chinese Communist invasion destroyed this pattern in 1959. The Dalai Lama was the principal ruler from his capital at Lhasa, and administration was exercised by him (or by a regent ruling in his name when a new Dalai Lama was being sought) through a cabinet composed partly of monks.

Many short-lived communal and revolutionary movements inspired by religion have functioned as pure theocracies. Examples of this include the Taiping Rebellion in China in 1858; the seizure of Khartoum in the Sudan by a claimant to the role of the Mahdi in 1885; and the People’s Temple of Jim Jones, which was established in Guyana in 1977, only to end in mass suicide.

Royal Theocracy

Rule by a king thought to possess divine status or power, or to be entrusted by God with authority over the earth, is a second kind of theocracy. Such sacred kingship has many ramifications beyond what can be considered in relation to the concept of theocracy. Traditional Japan was ruled by such a royal theocracy, the emperors being regarded as descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu. Some societies of the ancient world were theocratic in this sense: the ancient Mesopotamian kings were regarded as chosen servants and regents of the gods, and the Egyptian pharaohs were thought to be directly descended from the sun god, who had created the earth and had at first ruled it personally, later ruling it through them. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia, as well as among other ancient peoples, kings also fulfilled many important roles in ritual, thus acting as intermediaries between men and the gods. Analogies have frequently been drawn between ancient Near Eastern sacred monarchy and Israelite kingship, but such inferences should be drawn with caution, especially since Israel’s monarchy had been established within the time of Israel’s historical memory and had been opposed by a school of thought that felt that Yahveh alone should be recognized as king (1 Sm. 8:6–22, Hos. 8:4, 13:10–11). However, Israelite monarchy borrowed some of the theocratic features of its Near Eastern predecessors, especially elements of court ritual. Still, Israel under the monarchy was a royal theocracy, for the kings were considered to be the anointed and chosen servants of Yahveh and the earthly representatives of Yahveh’s theocratic authority.

Monarchy as the fulfillment of a sacred role of divine regency also appeared in Christianity. The most obvious examples have been in Eastern Christianity, both Byzantine and Russian, in which the imperial office was regarded as God-given, and the emperor regarded as God’s representative on earth in all temporal matters, as well as in the external affairs of the church. In Byzantium, the distinction between the religious and the secular was not as sharply drawn as it usually was in the West, and the Byzantine emperor had certain liturgical prerogatives that were closed to the layperson. Such sacred kingship also appeared in Western Christianity among the early Germanic kings who ruled after the dissolution of the Roman empire, and especially in the rule of Charlemagne. It reappeared with some of the Holy Roman emperors who sought to counter the claims of papal theocracy after the eleventh-century Gregorian reform, and at the courts of Henry VIII and Louis XIV.

General Theocracy

A third type of theocracy, by far the most common, is that more general type wherein ultimate authority is considered to be vested in a divine law or revelation, mediated through a variety of structures or polities. In a sense, both priestly and royal theocracies may be of this sort: for example, in Israelite monarchy the Law stood as an authority beyond that of the king at the time of the Josianic reform; Byzantine emperors in spite of their choice by God were subordinate to the principles of revealed truth; and even the Egyptian god-kings were supposed to rule according to the eternal principles of maat, or justice. Theocracy in this third sense has been quite common as a conception in such universalizing religions as Christianity and Islam, where there has often been a thrust toward bringing the whole human sphere under the aegis of the divine will; but it has also appeared in some ancient and tribal societies where the laws and customs of the people are understood to be revealed by the gods, as in some of the ancient Greek city-states.

Historical conditions have made this type of theocracy less common in Christianity than might otherwise have been the case; in earliest Christianity, theocracy was ruled out by the sharp dichotomy between the church and a hostile world that prevailed in Christian thinking, and in modern times, secularization has rendered otiose any program for the rule of Christian norms over all of society. Furthermore, some kinds of Christian thinking about society—for example, the two-kingdom theory of Lutheranism; Christian Aristotelianism, which grants to the state a basis in its own right; and the modern acceptance of the separation of church and state—have weakened the theocratic impulse.

In Christianity, the two most commonly cited examples of this kind of theocracy have been medieval Roman Catholicism and some of the Calvinist societies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Earlier medieval thought looked upon the spiritual and the temporal as two coordinate powers under God, with their own separate structures of rule. After the Gregorian reform of the eleventh century, however, papal theorists sought to divest the temporal overlord of his sacred character and promoted the view that the church, through the pope, was sovereign in all temporal affairs, even if this sovereignty were not exercised directly but through secular rulers whom the church had the authority to direct, judge, or remove.
This papal theocracy reached its height in the early thirteenth-century pontificate of Innocent III, who made good his claim to have the authority to dispose earthly powers when he disciplined various European monarchs, including King John of England. Defenders of papal theocracy, however, made even more far-reaching claims in the next century, asserting that the popes, as vicars of Christ on earth, exercised all the prerogatives of Christ’s heavenly kingship, which was both royal and priestly, and were, theoretically, not only the possessors of all earthly political sovereignty but the ultimate owners of all property. Late medieval developments, including the papal captivity and schism, the rise of conciliarism, and nationalism, led to the decline of effective papal theo-cracy.
Theocracy has often been attributed to the government of certain Reformed or Calvinist states, whether Zurich under Huldrych Zwingli, Geneva under John Calvin, England under Oliver Cromwell, or Puritan Massachusetts. In none of these cases was there a hierocratic theocracy, since in most of them the clergy were less likely to hold public office than they had been previously—for example, Cromwellian England abolished church courts and the House of Lords with its bishops, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony forbade the clergy to serve as magistrates. Even in Geneva, the clergy had only an advisory role in checking and balancing the civil government. But all of these societies had an ideal, well expressed by the Strasbourg theologian Martin Bucer in his De regno Christi, of a holy community on earth in which the sovereignty was God’s and in which the actual law should reflect the divine will and the government seek to promote the divine glory. In the Puritan examples of Cromwellian England in the 1650s and
Massachusetts Bay in the first generations of its settlement, there was both a hearkening after Old Testament theocratic patterns and a sense of the importance of government entrusted to truly regenerate persons—or the saints—in an effort to create a holy commonwealth. In fact, however, rule was exercised in both cases more through a godly laity than through the clergy, and in both Cromwellian England and Puritan Massachusetts the state had considerable power in church affairs.
It is also in this general sense of theocracy that Islam ought to be considered theocratic. Islam grew up as a religious community that was its own state, and thus from the beginning there was no distinction of church and state; rather, there was a unitary society under God’s revealed rule and law. Islam was much less a church than a theocratic state, but as a theocracy, it was laical and egalitarian, with traditions neither of sacred kings nor of a powerful priesthood. The basis of this divine rule is to be found in sharīʿah, or law, which provides for a pattern of life uniting all the aspects of human existence—political, social, religious, domestic—into a grand whole under divine rule. Such rule has been variously exercised in Islamic history, but the ʿulamaʾ as well as the caliphs and, in Shiism, the imams have been important in its application. Many modern Islamic revival movements, reacting against Western aggression and internal decline, have tended toward the repristination of the theocratic elements in Islam; this was true of the Wāhhābīyah in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and has been true of many contemporary movements.

Eschatological Theocracy

A fourth kind of theocracy is eschatological, centering on visions of an ideal future in which God will rule. Restoration eschatology and messianic ideas in ancient Israel were of this type. In Christianity, such eschatological theocracy appeared in the beliefs of the medieval followers of Joachim of Fiore, who anticipated the emergence of a third age in which all would be perfect, and in the beliefs of the sectarians of seventeenth-century England, such as the Seekers, Quakers, or Fifth Monarchists, who dreamed of a coming millennial age when Christ would rule. Such modern offshoots of Christianity as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon present recent examples of groups anticipating an earthly reign of Christ. Islamic eschatology centering on the figure of the Mahdi has occasionally begotten similar hopes.


4. Acquire Citizens By Issuing Passports

passport is a document, issued by a national government, which certifies, for the purpose of international travel, the identity and nationality of its holder. Common elements of identity are name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, but these may vary depending on the passport’s country of origin.
In micronationalism, passports are mainly ceremonial, as airlines and macronational customs authorities will not accept them. However, when visiting another micronation, micronationalists may have their passport stamped, as a symbol of diplomacy.

a) Legitimacy Of Micronations,

Courtesy of the Kocuz Parliament.

What makes a country a country? Is it the fact that countries have millions of citizens? Is it due to countries being in the United Nations? Most people do not think about this issue, which is a key part of micronationalism. Micronations, as described by Microwiki, the micronation encyclopedia, are “small unrecognized nations which are often eccentric in nature” (Main Page). Micronations are self-declared independent states that wish to become countries. Micronations are generally groups of people who declare themselves countries. There are hundreds of micronations that currently exist as simulations of real world states or legitimate new nation projects that have declared independence from their associated macronation, or what micronationalists consider conventional countries. There are micronations with many types of governments and diverse cultures, as well as holidays and customs, which are created by their members. No micronation has been accepted into the United Nations, but they have obtained de facto recognition through negotiations and visits with ambassadors from some countries. Because of legal loopholes, legislation and international treaties, micronations should be considered sovereign nations and recognized as such.

First, there are many legal loopholes that allow for micronations to exist in the world. One of the most utilized loopholes is the Treason Act of 1495 which states that “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” (Preamble) This is generally interpreted by scholars as any person acting as the de facto sovereign in a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations will be considered the monarch and it is thus illegal to deny their reign. One notable micronation, known as the Principality of Hutt River, declared independence under this provision in the Australian legal code. The self-proclaimed prince stated he would become a new nation loyal to England. The police came to his farm-nation as they claimed to be independent and did not pay taxes. After the farmer went to court with the Australian government, the court ruled it was illegal for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide by their laws Another piece of legislations that is used by United States citizens declaring their homes as self-governing is the Declaration of Independence, which was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776 which affirms “That whenever any Form (sic) of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This proves that the United States was founded on the idea that the people have a right to declare independence and to rule themselves through a government by the people if the government does become authoritarian or undemocratic in nature. Many micronationalists believe that most micronations are not in touch with the people and thus are not compelled to take their best wishes into account.

Secondly, international agreements and treaties confirm that micronations have a right to sovereignty. The Atlantic Charter reads: “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” This was signed by the US, the UK and many other nations in 1941. In a similar notion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966, states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…” Self determination is the right of people to rule over themselves and create their own state. These treaties clearly state that people have the right, under international law, to create their own nation and rule over it freely.

Finally, the most well-known and widely used piece of information for micronationalists is the Montevideo Convention. For the western hemisphere, the treaty outlines the duties and of a state in the international community. In the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, article one proclaims,

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Micronations do obtain governments, and most if not all have full constitutions. A defined territory generally consists of the houses of its members. A permanent population is comprised of the micronation’s citizens, and it has the capacity to enter relations with other states if they are asked.

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”, stated in article three, proves that even without recognition, micronations can operate as international entities. Article five goes on to state, “The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever,” meaning that countries have no right to impede the workings of micronations. This is explained more in article eight with the clause “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” Even without recognition, this applies to any state that fits the criteria affirmed in the treaty.

On the contrary, many people do not believe micronations are true countries because they cannot exhibit sovereignty over their land. According to Joseph Duncan, President of the People’s Republic of Tiana, “Well [if a person said I could not exhibit sovereignty], I’d say – ‘you’re under arrest according to section 5, subsection 6, article 2c of the criminal code of the People’s Republic of Tiana. You have the right to remain silent.’” By this statement, he is affirming the fact that micronations can enforce their own laws within their land. The definition of sovereignty, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “Supreme power especially an over body politic,” meaning that micronations can exert sovereignty if they can create their own laws and enforce them. This shows that micronations are sovereign states because they can be free from external influence through having their own government that creates policies and laws. Others will say that states must be a member of the United Nations to be a country, but nowhere in legal documents, unlike the declarative method to statehood, does it state that that is required of them. If this theory is correct, then no countries would have existed until after World War II and if a state needs consent to declare independence, then the United States is still a part of England.

Are micronations legitimate countries? Evidence shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the terms of the montevideo [sic] convention.” says Duncan. Since many micronations meet all the criteria necessary to become a state according to the international community, they should be given the sovereignty they deserve. All legal documents say that they are equal to current states, so they should be given the rights they are entitled to have.

Legitimacy Of Micronations Courtesy of the Kocuz Parliament.


The economic growth of a country is the increase in the market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over time. Six Factors That Affect Economic Growth Natural Resources, Physical Capital or Infrastructure, Population or Labor, Human Capital, Technology, Law Natural Resources, Physical Capital or Infrastructure, Population or Labor, Human Capital, Technology, Law.

a) Economy

One of the biggest challenges for a micronation (besides surviving the interventions of other countries) is to become relatively self-sufficient, and productive enough to support a decent standard of living, which, among other things, will make the recruiting of new citizens easier. Difficult as it is, a different legal environment and working conditions may give rise to more competitive companies and products. Just note the warning of an unknown Internet goer: industry won’t go where there’s no people… and people won’t go, where there is no industry – you need capital to sustain one or the other while the other catches up.

FoldTable of ContentsSelf-sufficiencyThe first packageWhat is money needed for?EnergySourcesFoodCommunicationInfrastructureTransportationTourismLight industriesServicesResearchSea-specific industries

b) Self-sufficiency

In general, it is not necessary to be self-sufficient in the modern world with so many trade opportunities (besides it is impossible for a small settlement for all but the most basic technologies). However, a fledgling micronation is likely to be in a remote location, with little to export, so covering the basic survival needs is useful. There are other practical considerations (to minimize transports to outside to reduce costs, the possibility of a blockade, initial export goods, …).


What is needed when the first settlers arrive? Not all locations will be completely bare, and the needed items will of course vary, but let’s try to create a solid checklist (and note that resources besides money will be needed for getting and transporting them):

  • The settlers themselves, the men and women meeting the challenge
  • Basic food and water; hard subsidies for a longer time period (with all the ingredients for decent cookery – condiments, spices and whatnot)
  • Easily available means to purify water (there are chemical and mechanical ways)
  • Basic tools and equipment fitting the environment (here comes your axe/machete for a tropical island, but also useful books, paper, pencils, etc.)
  • Any other general tools for construction and other needs; and materials for various needed crafts
  • First aid kit, with medicine and other materials against the most likely diseases and issues
  • Sources of light
  • Means of communication
  • Construction materials to create shelter and other structures (ranging from tents to a ton of bricks) and the most basic infrastructure
  • If viable, bring along the live animals, seeds, plants, etc. to start producing food
  • Oil and/or other fuel to power important machinery, generators or lighting
  • Sources of energy, from solar panels through classical generators to batteries
  • Means of defense
  • Entertainment utilities and some basic luxuries to ease up the hard life (books, musical instruments, art supplies, …)

d) What is money needed for?

At the minimum (according to this source):

  • to purchase the location/create the initial claim
  • to purchase the initial infrastructure
  • to relocate the prospective populace
  • a SMALL amount of cash flow to cover the reoccurring needs of material items not manufacture-able in the colony
  • a SMALL amount of cash flow to keep the global powers that be satiated while the fledgling nation grows and specializes its defenses.

e) Energy

Without electricity, life reverts to the technologies of 18th-19th century. Forget advanced communication, solid lighting, and basically any advanced machinery. There exist replacements running on oil or diesel, but the fuels are not for free, and have to be transported from elsewhere.

f) Sources

Since any single source can fail, it is advisable to possess several sources of energy. The ‘renewable’ sources tend to be unstable in output.

  • Wind power is great if you have the right wind conditions.
  • Solar power is still not quite up the task (but may be in the near future).
  • Classical power generators run on fuel any time you want, but may break down in the wrong moment (and note the cost problem).
  • If available, water power can be a cheap and reliable source.

In other locales could be biogas useful, for instance by converting biomatter/remains into it, see a practical example (quoting):

  • Burns cleaner.
  • Internal combustion engines converted to use gaseous fuel last longer (in some cases it triples the normal lifespan of an engine).
  • Uses up all manner of organic waste, (dead animals, poop, clippings, peelings, anything organic, etc). In temperate climes, organic waste is not usually a problem. But in the tropics it is a HUGE problem. That stuff can’t be left to sit around. Breeds sickness. There is nowhere to throw it away. It’s green and frequently wet, so it won’t burn. And it must be dealt with.
  • The byproduct of the bio digesters is a broken down watery slurry that is by FAR the best growing medium available. You can mix a cup of this stuff with 10 cups of plain beach sand and grow killer tomatoes.

Combining several sources, with some sort of power storage/batteries, and a backup generator should make a stable enough power supply. Actual industries will probably require more than that.

g) Food

No settlement can survive without a solid supply of drinkable water. Enough said.

Food can be imported, and to some degree stored (further requirement: storage areas).

According to some sources, it is possible to feed up to one thousand people per acre; note that it is highly advanced greenhouse growing of food with well-trained personnel and all the technology to back it up. Initial yields on a lonely island will be much lower. (How much is likely?)

Particularly on islands is fishing a viable source of food; but note various international treaties, and local customs one can get in conflict with. Also note the space requirements for various kinds of animals – poultry can be raised on very small space if you are up to it, livestock… less so.

A few examples (quoted):

  • Smaller scale animal husbandry is almost unlimited, once you really think about it.
    • Chickens, game fowl (too many species to list), turkeys, rabbits (love those 50lb Bavarian breeds), rodents, (yeah so what its related to a rat, it tastes good),
    • Goats (I know they’ve got freaky eyes. But they taste good, can clear a weed patch in a week, produce healthy milk, and are ROBUST)
    • Pigs (the staple meat source the world over)
    • Dogs (yes they taste good too).
  • Raising fish:
    • Tilapia (on my island we raise this fish in galvanized cattle feeders. They mature fast, eat anything, resistant to disease)
    • Bangus (philippine milk fish, similar to a cat, but tastes better)
    • Perch / Sunfish (small but they breed like nobody’s business and will actually clean a pond for other fish)
    • Crabs / shrimps / mudbugs. (Essential in fish pond farming. How do you keep your pens clean?)

The possibilities are endless, as long as you are able to drop some of the preprogrammed notions of what is good to eat and what is not.

h) Communication

Unless it is supposed to be an extremely isolationistic colony, to speak with the outside world is highly desirable. Points to consider:

  • Cellphone coverage – more and more available across the world, sometimes it has to be satellite phones.
  • Landlines – not as much
  • Internet connectivity, and how fast is the connection
  • TV and other media
  • Amateur radio
  • postal connection – also for the transport/ordering of lesser, non-critical parts; maybe make a deal with UPS/FEDEX to deliver to the place, if there is sufficient volume. Otherwise, a P.O.box or a trusted person in the closest civilized location could serve for storing of any mail and packages.

In addition arise the questions:

  • How reliable are the lines of communication?
  • Is it possible to easily disconnect or disrupt them? What happens if some break down?


Comfortable living means that the necessities are easy to come by. If there is no infrastructure to start with, it may take years, if not decades to construct everything.

  • Sanitation/waste management – simple on the first day on a tropic island, it is necessary the second day or third. Waste can be buried at first, eventually it needs to be dealt with. Bringing in water is similarly important.
  • Roads – if there is nothing else, you need to travel around. Roads and other means of transport are always needed.
  • Electricity – …
  • Local communication – … (wire, wireless, …)
  • Emergency and health services, emergency/temporary housing/shelters, defensive installations
  • Protected areas or general environmental protections
  • Environmental monitoring (volcanic, oceanic activities?)

Lastly, some sort of commons/gathering area for the whole settlement, with buildings and equipment as necessary, may fulfill one or more of the following functions:

  • Public Administration (if required)
  • Market place
  • Education facilities
  • Court/Political gathering place
  • Health services
  • ‘Diplomatic’ administration, dealing with visitors and/or foreign issues (possibly even immigration services)
  • Entertainment and other means of having fun and keeping the community intact
  • The basic outlet for public announcements (from official business up to marriages and the like)

j) Transportation

What are the means of getting there, and back again? How reliable are they, and in what ways will they rely on outsiders? How much of further infrastructure is necessary to achieve basic/moderate/advanced access?

  • Land-based – when attached to a greater landmass; or close enough for a bridge to be built (a ferry may serve for the same). Vehicles require roads or varying quality.
  • Naval – ships need a dock for comfortable transfer of people and goods, and don’t think those huge commercial ships will land without solid commercial-grade docking facilities.
  • Air-bound – how about a helicopter, or a small airplane? If so, a landing pad, or a runway is necessary (also have a hangar, or at least some means of protection for the aircraft).
  • The others – hovercrafts or other non-standard vehicles may be required, depending on the specific locale.

(Also consider the means of moving around locally.)

k) Tourism

Tourists are a good source of revenue, that should enjoy the authenticity of a micronation, especially in the more attractive locales. Most of the ‘new state’ projects count with tourism to bolster the local economy.

When attempting to attract tourists, it is important to appear as a safe destination. Care should be taken to appear serious (but a strongly ironic approach may also be successful). How many actually come, is a difficult question. There are always adventurous sorts, eager to try out something new, even if the conditions are primitive. To attract large numbers of tourists, you need:

  • comfort/luxury products that are hard to produce in one developing place
  • the logistics of getting the consumers to the product – an island in international waters may be simply too far out to be a viable destination
  • most probably, you will have to link into the global banking system (which may not be desirable)

l) Light industries

With some basics in place, it is possible to start producing more than food, light manufacturing jobs for needed items (construction materials, etc.) and possibly export.

m) Services

In the world of networking are many jobs outsourced. Citizens of a new country with a good Internet connection and a steady power supply may offer their services anywhere, from simple online work, through programming, up to hosting servers and mirroring websites.

There are many other options, but be careful of what exactly is offered. Spreading pornography or spamming can create a negative image, for example. Similar issues arise with filesharing.

n) Research

Once there is a stable base of support, scientific research may be easier to start than heavy industry. A less regulated society can allow for research not considered or allowed in other countries.

Note: care should be taken with research considered illegal or immoral in other countries. The repercussions can be serious, especially with respect to illegal drugs.

o) Sea-specific industries

Industries specific for islands and other locations on/at/under the sea (list taken from here, needs more sources):

Sub-sea mining (no-one is doing it right now due to EPA regulations)

  • Would allow collection of metals from manganese nodules (nickel, iron, lead)
  • Offsets import costs of metals for construction.
  • Diamonds are also prevelent in sub-sea mining off the coast of Africa. Though their production was bought and shut down by debeers.

Hydrate harvesting (Methane Hydrates, largest natural gas reserve on earth)

  • Harvesting methane hydrates would allow us to tap into one of the largest natural gas supplies on earth. A sub-sea production facility to turn in from gas phase into methanol would be optimal. No one is doing this yet, so it’s a possibility to get a jump start on this.

6. Brand Your Micronation Flag

Legitimacy Of Micronations shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the termshttp://anewland.wikidot.com/legitimacy-of-micronations

What is the Importance of Flags and Banners?

Vexillum is a Latin word for flag or banner. In ancient times, the first flags were either made from metal or from wooden poles that were carved, and were called vexilloids. In later times, a flag or banner was needed that could be carried and displayed to attract attention to the person or group that the particular flag represented. For that purpose, different types of fabrics were used that could be attached to wooden poles.
Flags and banners have been used for thousands of years and mean different things to different people. Even so, the main reason that flags and banners are displayed is that they represent entities, including a particular country, state, business, leader, community or organization. They are visual symbols used for identification. In addition to identification, individual flags are a symbol of pride and respect for the ideals that the particular flag stands for. For example, the United States flag is a symbol of liberty, strength and unity and is a source of pride and inspiration for American citizens.
Vexillum is a Latin word for flag or banner. In ancient times, the first flags were either made from metal or from wooden poles that were carved, and were called vexilloids. In later times, a flag or banner was needed that could be carried and displayed to attract attention to the person or group that the particular flag represented. For that purpose, different types of fabrics were used that could be attached to wooden poles.
In ancient history, banners were used to symbolize kings and others of high rank. The banners were carried so that citizens could identify their ruler and his entourage and give him the respect that was demanded during the times. In later times, flags and banners were designed and used by other leaders in the kingdoms
During the American Civil War, regiments were recruited from individual states. Each regiment generally carried its state flag into battle. The soldiers took pride in the flag and always treated it with reverence. It was a symbol used to reinforce morale, and, most importantly, to distinguish their regiment from others during battles. Flags also helped soldiers recognize allies and enemies on the field. The battle flag was given honor and respect because it represented an ideal that the soldier’s believed in. For example, their history, the sacrifices the people made for their state or country, and for the qualities that their state or country and its people stood for. That fact is still true today.
Today, every country is represented by flags made of fabric that can be raised on poles and flown to remind everyone of the history and values of the country. The same is true of states and governmental entities, and most organizations, groups, businesses and communities.

a) City On The Cheap

This should be more properly called Village on the Cheap, but there is no limit to the basic question:

How would a settlement for a decent number of people look like, if it was built out of the very cheap, and often simple technologies, that still offer a lifestyle comparable to today’s standards?

Many of these concepts were designed for refugee camps, and as temporary shelters, but they have the potential to serve for permanent living, with all the comforts (some assembly may be required). Due to cost and other reasons are decentralized structures preferred.
This is a work in progress. One more advanced study is the Hexayurt Country. Additionally, Open Source Ecology are developing machines to provide for a modern civilisation on a village level.

b) Requirements and Assumptions

What do we assume for this concept to work? We will make the job relatively easy for us, but we can eventually drill down to the details, and see how other environments impact the ‘City’. So what does the city have:
Flags are used by countries for a few reasons beyond just having something fly in the air. A country will spend many hours and a lot of money on their flag design because a Flag is a country’s way of portraying itself to the rest of the world.

Flags can be portraits of a country’s historical past, like the American Flag. The American flag still has 13 red and white stripes, signifying the original 13 colonies. Some flags of the world follow this historical pattern, as well. Many countries have their flags split into quadrants that contain parts of other counties’ flags, particularly if the now-independent country was once a colony. For instance, the Australian flag has its own design, but a corner is reserved for the British flag.
  • first off, sufficient space; that should be easy
  • there is abundant fresh water – not the same as drinking water
  • a climate where composting toilets work, which excludes the subarctic and other cold places
  • small amount of firewood to augment the solar cookers

c) Things left out for now:

  • medical services
  • education
  • transportation inside of the ‘city’
  • initial import of materials and resources
  • larger organizational structures (states)
Hospitals and schools depend a lot on available budget. A start to solving these topics is train people to deal with the common cases at a neighborhood level to take the load off. The rest is out of scope here, or to be covered later.

d) Household On The Cheap

The basic unit of living, one household can be quite self-sufficient.
In terms of cost:
  • A hexayurt-type house itself is $300 – $1200 per unit. It could be available under $500 in materials suitable for 20+ years of use in non-hurricane climates, and more like $1000 in hurricane-resistant materials.
  • per house it’s $200 for the solar cooker, the stove, the solar panels, the lights, the batteries and the housing for the shitbucket toilet infrastructure unit. Probably less, but $200 is safe.
This cuts the start up costs for essential services a long, long way. Means your initial population can give it a go for, say, $2,000 of survival infrastructure per household, plus a bit more for whatever tools they need to earn a living.
Assuming 4 people living in a household, and 100 people (small village), makes $50,000. 1000 people makes it $500,000. Not that much for something semi-permanent.
(this should be moved to a separate part calculating ALL the costs)

Building types

e) Energy

  • devices powered by simple sources like AA batteries or hand crank; also solar and wind power
  • all day solar charger
  • lighting with efficient light sources
  • backing up by more conventional means as generators? (more likely a last resort)

f) Water

  • transported in by trucks
  • solar water pasteurization and/or other means (have shiny silver huts arranged as people see fit, with *small* – $100 or even smaller – solar panels on the roof, water delivered in five gallon buckets by pickup truck)
  • in modern households can the demand climb up to 200 liters per day; more conservative estimates speak in figures of 5 liters of drinkable (or distilled) water per day; and 20+ liters of otherwise useful water (both numbers can be pushed down even more, depending on the equipment and willingness of the inhabitants)

g) Food/Cooking

  • solar cookers and various efficient stove designs
  • storage of food – dry storage should be guaranteed by the housing itself; what about refrigerating?
    • the Solar Funnel Cooker is an effective cooking device, with some potential to work as a fridge at night
    • if a more permanent effect is required, a ‘zeer pot‘ can be employed.
    • failing that, there are refrigerators with sufficiently low consumption, if the energy is supplied (could be shared between several households).

h) Waste

  • several efficient waste disposal systems
  • human waste could be hauled off by similar means as water is transported in, to be composted at the edge of town
  • see this extensive report (with a summary here) for more on cheap sanitation

i) Groups/Clusters of Households

Certain key pieces of equipment are productive enough to supply several households at once, or too expensive/energy consuming for one. The size of such a ‘cluster’ will depends on the resources that need sharing. (While it is out of scope here, this also means potential for conflict.)
  • fast chargers powered by a large solar panel
  • transport of water
  • will every house need their toilet? What about other amenities (bathrooms, showers, etc)?
  • Houses don’t need to compost their waste individually – shared bin for dealing with human waste, with individual toilets?

j) Village On The Cheap

A complete settlement, with all the services on the lowest level possible.

  • waste disposal?
  • road maintenance?
  • communal center/marketplace/cultural center/announcements/… – and any other ‘public’ needs and outlets

k) Unsorted thoughts:

  • list the various ways of affordable living, what they are good for, what they require (costs, materials, time), where to use them, etc. – started
  • list the other means of survival
  • some thoughts on the transportation needed – of people and stuff
  • while the whole concept is simplistic, there are still places to drill the costs down, and go for the absolutely barest minimum needed for survival – all should be noted

7. Be Ready to Defend Your Country

Strategies of Success and Failure

a) Factors of Success

Why do some projects fail quickly, and some persist for a while? What are the factors that provoke action from others, or prevent it? (It is presumed a neighboring government is the most likely challenger.)

  • The size of the challenge – small groups are more likely to escape notice, and a fast, violent reaction than a large group. For another example, the Amish are a pacifist people avoiding much of modern technology, hence they are not viewed as a threat. In yet another example, the activities of a millionaire have attracted a swift response.
  • The deviation factor – how different attempts the community to be; what laws does it try to escape, and how much of a contrast does it pose (intentionally or not) to the outside? If one attempted micronation were to, say, legalize hard drugs, or even start to spread them around, this could have very swift repercussions from most civilized states nearby. In general, the stronger the deviation, the more dramatic response can be expected.
  • International pressures – were one to start a tax haven, for example, not only the close neighbors would react. Success could move even the biggest, most powerful countries.
  • Public visibility – what is the perception in the public and/or in the mass media? Policy can be influenced by the news, for good or for ill (and sometimes contrary to the seemingly obvious – examples of dissent that attract sympathy may be squashed or quietly dispatched; what is advertised as a bad example may be left as a warning).
  • Precedents/legal challenges – existing examples of similar developments may help the cause; a challenge in the court is a way of cooperation with the existing system, and may thus delay more drastic actions.
  • Cost/profit analysis of suppression – what will it cost a government to stop an upstart micronation, and what can it gain/avoid losing (conflict, taxes, people, land, the EEZ, etc)? Of course, not everything can be easily recalculated, and governments are notorious in not following the most efficient paths.

What didn’t work…

…the examples are spread all over.

What to do

This is the hardest advice of all, and will differ from case to case.

b) Check out the neighbors

The first item on the menu.

  • Who are the powers and authorities in the area – which means also potential challengers?
  • How are they likely to react on a new micronation, and how can (negative) reactions be prevented, or at least alleviated?
  • Contacts should be made long before settling – use the Internet as an easy way to befriend locals, and learn of things that are not in books and websites. There can be other means – radio amateurs for example.
  • Who is likely to challenge newcomers, and on what grounds? Are there any existing or potential claims? Often could be a compromise possible (some places are visited in regular intervals, there may be equipment that needs to be kept in shape, etc).
  • Are there ways to prevent a conflict completely? Are there agreements to enter that would calm the other side, or other ways of gaining goodwill and respect (charity, aid in emergency cases, etc)?
At any rate, it is useful to have contacts on the outside, people that can be contacted or talk on your behalf. The options of dealing with a new wannabee-state shouldn’t be limited to ‘invade or ignore’.

c) Stay around

If at all possible, maintain a permanent presence. Besides having people there, this includes creating permanent structures, and performing other activities to homestead the place. That will be probably not enough to be recognized, but it is hard to argue that a group is the legitimate owner, if there is no sign of their presence.

At the same time, document the presence well, so you can say at anytime “we have been living here for X years”, and prove it.

d) Stay down or stand up

Meaning, you can either be quiet in the (initial) phases, right up to settling with many folks, delivering the basic materials, and building the first structures, farms, etc., possibly until years pass away, and there is a viable colony; or declare your intention to all potentially interested sides, and do it with all fanfare and exposure.
A group can choose anything of the spectrum between utter secrecy, and complete openness; the important thing is to choose a way, and plan and behave according to it.
On another level, the group can choose to appear silly (which includes groups of artists, that wish to embrace an alternative lifestyle). Activists intent on establishing a purely ecological existence belong to the same breed (but ‘activists’ are not always perceived as harmless). Simply, appear to be harmless, and therefore less worthy of a state intervention.
Also, one should expect the microstate will eventually come to public attention, or even wide publicity in the mass media. If you actually start one, be prepared for the day, and have a press release ready.

e) Have the right timing

To actually declare independence (if it is not done in advance), a good moment should be chosen. Some examples:

  • global financial collapse
  • Perhaps a raging global war? A local war might just do (although if the country itself is in a civil war, you and the people of your micronation could end up dead).
  • a global energy crisis
  • a global ecological crisis (real or imagined)

Not to be gloomy or anything, but when The Powers That Be are preoccupied with managing all of their other holdings, they may POSSIBLY allow others the privilege of self rule, or simply not bother proving their claim. (source)


f) Legal questions

The important thing to know about international law, and all the various agreements, is, that rules are good, when they are on your side, and a fledgling nation can expect they will used against it. If possible, employ them for your cause, but don’t be too much distracted by them. In the long view, rules can and do change. And on the large, international scale, there is no real ‘law of the land’. Even the most influential entities cannot forcenations to act against the will of their governments, barring actual war (but of course there are uncountable ways to pressure and influence them to cooperation).

International laws have their precedents, exceptions and unclear points… one should use them to argument for own cause. Others will argue with that very legalese against the existence of a micronation. A serious project will need a lawyer versed in these things.


What happens online does not always translate into acting in the real world… but frankly, much of the formative stages happen online now, and the Internet is often the only place to recruit new members. For many reasons, it IS important to appear professionally in the virtual world.

  • Prove your existence – not only that, but also that a given group is active. This shouldn’t be only visible by posts in your website’s forum, or timestamps on some pages. Appear officially, make declarations, have a blog or other sign of life at least. Document the culture, history, activities, and intentions of your group. If it’s hard to find out whether your community is alive, then it’s probably dead.
  • Have a website – while we speak of it. Have a permanent address to the world outside, with a recognizable domain name if possible. Also, have some sort of identifiable personality – if little or nothing on your website says who exactly is running this show, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
  • Maintain continuity – the web changes every day, and there is much to try out. But too wild changes or too large administrative interventions can break a community apart. Also, keep it up and running. Nothing dissuades more than a website that is permanently down.
  • The website should not be your micronation. If it’s only online, it probably won’t last.
  • Prove your seriousness – once you start raising funds, or even talking about raising funds, you better show that you are not a scam! Let an other, prominent, third party verify your claims, and keep an eye on the money. Register as a nonprofit somewhere, to offer legal recourse to potential complaints. Do anything necessary to document your transparency and honesty; a single rumor is able to wreck an online community.
  • Learn to spell correctly most of the time, and do it. Seriously. Please.
  • A few micronations actually claim to have their own Top-level domain via an alternative DNS root (example). Another little way to show seriousness of intent.
  • Find allies – there is a large micronationalist community, much of it varying in seriousness. However, there are groups and organizations, that can be joined, information exchanged with, and even diplomatic ties to be built. Choose your own level of engagement in this arena.
  • Cater to your group – most likely, you will be a small group. Most likely, not all of them will be equally eager to give up their existing life and enter something very uncertain. Accept both facts, and live with them. While advertising the project is important, never forget to keep your userbase happy and active.

Topics:International Economics, Development & ImmigrationTags:immigration,law of nations,international law,asylum,Chetail,Vattel,Pufendorf,Grotius,Wolff

Published by: Eaugrads

Evangelical Alumni Foundation seeks to fulfill "The Great Commandment and The Great Commission" to GOD's great economy. Each of us has great purpose as Sons of God. We are many in one body. Together, we are firmly planted by streams of water to bear fruits in all seasons. We shall not lack no good thing. Deuteronomy 1:11 God's Spiritual Billionaire's! Brief about our founder of Eaugrads: "JESUS"... "His pursuit of us is Relentless, His desire to Fight on our behalf is never ending; Despite the day to day distractions, designed to stop us from reaching our destinies, we can be sure of this... what God starts; He Finishes." Amen! Ministered By Tanya Harris, LLD

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s