This series introduces
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES and attempts to solve them as a matter of ideal theory.
That means we conduct a theoretical experiment to evaluate what reasonable
people would decide given some facts. When we addressed Kashmir, we centred the
attention on population (religion, ethnicity, etc.). When it was the time to
deal with the Falkland/Malvinas islands, we focused on territory (borders,
natural resources, etc.). In turn, with Gibraltar, the analysis was about
government and law.
The Israel-Palestine difference
if the first case study in this series to introduce all the elements by means
of applying the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY. So far, we have covered population
and territory. It is time to address government and law. By considering
government and law, we complete the assessment of our current understanding in
legal and political sciences of a “sovereign state.”
Post 6: Territorial disputes: State and its elements. Law
Government can be defined as a person, group of people or body that create and apply the law for the population in a given territory. Together with population and territory, it completes the necessary elements that constitute a minimal political and societal organisation. Government offers some controversial features in any TERRITORIAL DISPUTE. The following posts will review some of these features using the Israel-Palestine difference to show their implications. The focus will be only on the specificities about power share. The main reason to proceed this way is that power sharing has many different implications, and amongst other sub-elements law.
Government can be defined as a person, group of people or body that create and apply the law for the population in a given territory. Together with population and territory, it completes the necessary elements that constitute a minimal political and societal organisation. Government offers some controversial features in any TERRITORIAL DISPUTE. The following posts will review some of these features using the Israel-Palestine difference to show their implications. The focus will be only on the specificities about power share. The main reason to proceed this way is that power sharing has many different implications, and amongst other sub-elements law.
Government
and law:
The
globe offers a wide spectrum of examples in which although the form of
government differs, in all cases they are still States. There is no
controversial feature at this point. In the particular context of this TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE (Gibraltar), this sub-element does not offer controversy either.
However, other sub-elements part of any government may not be so straightforward.
If
sovereignty is not shared, then it is clear who elects representatives and
chooses them (the inhabitants if the territory is independent or the
inhabitants as part of a sovereign State). What happens when sovereignty is
shared? Then, there are two different issues: a) representatives and
administration; and b) law. It follows from this that the two most challenging practical issues raised by
shared sovereignty in relation to government seem to be:
· What sort of governmental arrangements shared
sovereignty requires;
and
· How governmental authority can be shared and yet be
workable.
In order to work
out the principles of the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY through these
authorities and institutions in Israel-Palestine, it seems reasonable to think of either granting
participation in all the institutions to every claiming party or to divide the
institutions amongst them (Israel and Palestine). In other words, the two ways in which sovereignty may be shared, in
principle, are:
· The relevant parties are all members of an
institution that possesses some form of sovereignty (for example, legislative
sovereignty). They “share in”
sovereignty by participating in its exercise. For example, they are all members
of the legislature. This form of shared
sovereignty does not divide sovereignty itself (the sovereignty of the
institution remains undivided).
· The relevant parties divide sovereignty amongst
them; i.e. they “share out” sovereignty.
They might do so by each having sovereignty over a different sphere. Alternatively,
they might have overlapping authorities or identical authorities.
Tomorrow’s
post will start the assessment of these two options and combine both (the
EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY and the elements mentioned above) to offer a
potential ideal solution.
NOTE: based on Chapter 7, Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017.
Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive
Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Jorge
Emilio Núñez
22nd
May 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment