Under the framework of international law and modern international relations, the long-term rule of a colony by an occupying power does not automatically confer legitimacy on its territorial sovereignty. The following is the analysis of the key points： ### 1. **The core status of the right of peoples to self-determination** -In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the international community generally recognizes that all peoples have the right to self-determination, that is, the people of colonized or occupied areas have the right to freely determine their political status, including independence, autonomy or merger with another country. -**The length of time is not a decisive factor**. Even if the occupation lasts for decades or even hundreds of years, as long as the local people do not explicitly agree to be incorporated into the occupying power, international law still tends to support their right to self-determination. For example, in the question of Western Sahara, despite Morocco's long-term control of the area, the United Nations still requires a referendum to resolve its final status. ### 2. **Limitations of the principle of timeliness** -The “timeliness” in traditional international law (the acquisition of territory through long-term effective control) is rarely recognized in modern practice, especially when it comes to colonization and decolonization issues. In a number of judgments of the International Court of Justice (such as the 2002 “Ligidan Island and Sipadan Island Sovereignty Case”), it has been emphasized that timeliness must not violate the right to self-determination and other principles of international law. ### 3. **United Nations decolonization process** -Since the 1960s, the United Nations has promoted colonial independence through the Decolonization Committee, and more than 80 regions have achieved independence. This process shows that the international community is more concerned about the will of the people than the length of occupation. For example, East Timor gained independence through a referendum (2002) after 24 years of Indonesian occupation. ### 4. **Diversity of actual cases** -**Legal means of autonomy or integration**: Certain regions are merged with the occupying power through referendums or agreements (such as the French overseas provinces), but only if the local residents freely express their will. For example, New Caledonia has held several independence referendums since 2018. Although it has not passed, its right to choose is internationally recognized. -**Controversial cases**: For example, Israel's long-term occupation of Palestinian territory, the international community generally believes that it does not constitute sovereign legitimacy, highlighting the separation of “time” and “legitimacy”. ### 5. **Effects of forced assimilation and illegal occupation** -If occupation is accompanied by forced migration, cultural assimilation, or deprivation of political rights (such as the historical apartheid of South Africa), the international community is more likely to refuse to recognize its sovereignty claims. For example, Namibia finally became independent in 1990 after a long period of control by South Africa. ### Conclusion The core of the legitimacy of the question of colonial ownership lies in the right of local residents to self-determination, not the length of occupation. Under the framework of international law, any territorial change must be based on free and fair expression of will. Although there may be powerful influence in realpolitik, legal principles are still based on the people's independent choice as the ultimate basis.