Khemed,
Syldavia and Borduria are having negotiations about the sovereignty over
Khemed. Having accepted the rule of maximin they are going to share
sovereignty. The representatives of each population (Khemed, Syldavia and
Borduria) are reviewing a series of possible options in order to make a
decision about how to share the sovereignty over Khemed. The first option all
the representatives revised and rejected was historical entitlement. The second
option the representatives considered had to do with what kind of choice, if
any, might be best for one of the parties that is originally in a comparatively
bad situation (Khemed) and if so, if that would justify leave the other two
with smaller shares. They rejected this option. The previous two posts introduced
another possibility, the third option: what if they shared the sovereignty over
Khemed in different portions? The representatives rejected this choice too.
They will now examine in detail a fourth possible option: whether the shares of
sovereignty should be equally divided amongst Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria.
In order to
divide the sovereignty over Khemed in equal shares the representatives would
not take into account the situation of each of the represented parties. If they
did that, they would result in granting unequal shares either to benefit only
one of the parties or to somehow differentiate them all and bring about
different levels of benefits (both options already rejected). From there, by applying strictly equality each
party would receive exactly an equal share of sovereignty. In principle, it
sounds just, fair, and even plausible the representatives may accept such
arrangement. Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria would have all equal rights and obligations
in relation to Khemed. Regardless of their internal situation, they would have
equal standing. Or not?...
Let us think
of some of the considerations the representatives could have in the case they
decided to choose equality. BY comparing and contrasting arguments the
representatives will be able to see if the chosen option will secure a peaceful
and permanent understanding amongst the parties once the question about the
sovereignty is settled. This choice will undoubtedly open the arguments to
questions related to how we can secure equal shares of, for example, objects or
activities that cannot be divided. Similarly, how the representatives may
define what “equal” means? And finally, how unequal parties may be treated
equally? Consider in detail:
First of all,
what does “equal” mean? Secondly, and more specifically, what does “equal” mean
in this context? When dealing with figures, numbers, and anything that can
potentially be divided it seems equality may be achieved. To cut a cake in two
halves, to divide a litre of milk into two bottles of half a litre, and so on.
Indeed, equality in principle looks very simple. But to achieve equality is not
that simple in all cases. Let us divide the analysis here into two related issues:
the object to be divided and the subjects amongst whom the object is divided.
The object to
be divided is the sovereignty over a populated territory and all that this
implies. Amongst other things, sovereignty in the case of Khemed means the
exploitation and exploration of the rare metal they all need. But in addition
to this, the representatives would have to think of many other related points:
territorial extension, size of the population, climate, law, human rights, ethnicity,
religion, defence, and a myriad of other things. There will be some objects that
could easily be divided equally. For example, a third of the rare metal
obtained for each party. It is clear and it seems easy to divide equally when
the object to be divided can actually be “cut” or “sliced” or “divided.” For
instance, to cut a pie in two or three equal slices should not represent any
problem. Similarly, to divide the result of exploiting natural resources in
Khemed might sound east. But how may the representatives divide in equal parts
the human rights over the people in Khemed? Or how would they divide in equal
parts the obligation to explore and exploit the rare metal in Khemed? It is a
question that will bring controversy.
The subjects amongst
whom the sovereignty over Khemed will be divided are different in many senses.
Let us think of a simple example to show this point. Let us assume we have to
divide a cake between two people, one being five years old and the other one,
50 years old. If we think of the object (a cake) it seems easy to find an
answer: 50 % of the cake for each subject. But if we think of these two people,
an adult will have more calories needs than a five years old and the fact that
unhealthy carbs in that quantity may affect the child’s wellbeing seem to make
a 50-50 division far from equal. Indeed, it is when we shift the focus from
object to be divided to subjects amongst whom the object is to be divided the
way in which we may define equality is not that clear, even in the case we may
have an object that in principle can be divided equally. The same is true in
the case of Khemed. How are the representatives going to guarantee an equal
share of sovereignty over Khemed when Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria are so
differenet? For example, to gran each party equal right to the exploitation and
exploration of natural resources in Khemed would only benefit Syldavia (Khemed
and Borduria do not have the means to do it). Similarly, to divide the
obligation to defend Khemed amongst Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria results in
the same problem.
In principle,
equality seemed to be a reasonable option and an easy choice to apply to this
case. What would have been easier than to give an equal share of sovereignty to
each? But so far it seems highly unlikely that the representatives of Khemed,
Syldavia and Borduria accept the division of equal shares of sovereignty over
Khemed. The next post will consider in more detail this option. Whether Khemed,
Syldavia and Borduria should share the sovereignty over Khemed equally.
Jorge Emilio
Núñez
06th November
2017
No comments:
Post a Comment