Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 23) [Post 158]


The just acquisition principle has been previously related to territorial sovereignty since it has been maintained that amongst the objects to which this principle is meant to be capable of applying are portions of the Earth’s surface, that is, areas of land. 

And that is exactly the aim of these posts: to evaluate whether there is a peaceful way of allocating sovereignty over non-sovereign areas of land or disputed territories. 

Nevertheless, the principle of just acquisition is not the answer to resolve these issues. Its main pitfall is that the information required to apply this principle is not epistemically accessible in sovereignty conflicts—e.g. how far back would the agents need to investigate so as to determine who the first inhabitants of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were? What would happen in the case of extinct civilisations? What about cultures that were in Ancient Times nomadic?

To have a better understanding of the principle of just acquisition Nozick comes into play, offering his ‘entitlement theory’. But, though his theory is a subtle revision of just acquisition theory, examination of it will demonstrate that this principle is not workable in sovereignty disputes. In Nozick’s entitlement theory just acquisition becomes the first of three principles (this section is not concerned with the other two):

“An individual A acquires at time t a full property right in an object O which has not previously been the property of any individual if and only if:
(i)            A mixes his labour with o at time t; and
(ii)       as a result of O becoming A’s private property, no one else is made any worse off than he or she would have been, O having being left unappropriated by anyone and had everyone in consequence been free to use O without appropriating it.

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974), in particular Part II, Chapter 7, Section I.

NOTE: based on Chapter 6, 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
Twitter: @London1701

31st October 2018

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 22) [Post 157]


In relation to the first issue—the agreement on the historical account—each sovereign State taking part in a sovereignty conflict is certain that it has ultimate and highest right over the disputed territory, and the use and ownership of the third territory is due to them. As a consequence, sovereignty disputes do not move from a zero-sum game. 
That is because, in order to determine the initial acquisition, the agents have to go back and resolve old historical claims only resulting in a practical matter: the competing agents are never going to agree on the ‘correct’ historical version of the events—i.e. the historical account is fundamentally controversial. 

Thus, it is common to observe in sovereignty differences that the involved agents usually support their claims through historical, legal, political, cultural or geographical arguments—even a combination of many of them. In other words, not only will be the dispute over what the facts are but also what the relative moral significance of those facts is. For example, one party will claim that whoever was the first one in the third territory is its owner and hence, its sovereign, and they were there first. But the opposite party disputes this, supporting their case with historical, legal, political, cultural and geographical evidence, and arguing either a) that they were there first, or b) that being first is not what makes acquisition just, but, e.g., being first to exploit its resources, or establish a community. Because all the parties argue they were the first to do what gave them a right to the third territory, an approach based on a historical account is futile for providing a solution to sovereignty disputes and the conflicts continue endlessly—e.g. arguments about the rightful sovereign of Jerusalem and surrounding areas have been present for generations. 

See for example Genesis 14: 18-20 in which Jerusalem (or Salem) has already enemies. Since Biblical times the region has been centre of disputes in relation to the rightful settlement of different populations. Should these agents go back to Biblical times in order to prove the current legitimate occupancy of the territory?

In addition to the historical account, even though it was assumed the representatives finally agreed on the facts, it is not easy to see an agreement on how what is due to someone be determined, which way to acquire something is just and fair, and whether a certain way of acquiring the sovereignty over the third territory can be just and fair at the same time for two different agents. For instance, they may apply the just acquisition principle. But even with the application of the just acquisition principle sovereignty disputes produce endless conflict.

NOTE: based on Chapter 6, 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
Twitter: @London1701
30th October 2018

Monday, 29 October 2018

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 21) [Post 156]


Before we continue with other TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in Africa we can already determine a pattern. Many of these disputes have to do with non-regional states that had long ago presence in the continent by means of colonialism and imperialism.

The posts this week will center on revising the theory behind the historical claim and the consequent territorial acquisition (that result nowadays in territorial disputes).

Most—if not all­—individuals—and any sovereign State—would think it obvious to apply Ulpian’s maxim Suum cuique tribuere (Digest, 1.1.10)—to give to each his due or to distribute to each one his share—in the case of any type of distribution. What can be fairer than to give everyone what is due to them? However, to give to each his due is not a task without difficulties. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that to try to do this automatically produces the most just solution, because it may be hopelessly unclear what each person (or State) is entitled to.

Faced with the idea of applying any kind of principle based on a historical entitlement will confront the representatives with two main problems. First, they would need to agree upon a historical account—i.e. what actually happened, who was the first one to discover the territory, or to have a population there, etc. Second, they would need to decide what type of act makes their claimed rights just—i.e. the first one setting foot on the territory, the first one to have a permanent settlement, etc. Thus, in relation to the second problem, they would have to choose the theoretical background to decide what is just: res nullius or res communis—i.e. the originally uninhabited territory belonged to no-one or everyone had a certain right over it. Besides, if there were conflicts in the past it would need to be decided whether they were just or not and whether the just side won.

The posts will continue this analysis tomorrow.

NOTE: based on Chapter 6, 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
Twitter: @London1701

29th October 2018

Friday, 26 October 2018

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 20) [Post 155]


Yesterday the post referred to individual territorial disputes between African and non-African parties and the case of the Glorioso Islands. Today we continue with the Spanish presence in African territory and another case.

Ceuta and Melilla
Both Morocco and Spain claim sovereignty over the five Territories of Ceuta, Melilla, Penon de Vélez de la Gomera, Penon de Alhucémas and the Chafarinas Islands in North Africa. The most important of these is Ceuta which is located at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar.

Spain claims these territories on historical grounds: right of conquest and terra nullis principles; longevity of occupation; national security and the UN territorial integrity of the state principle. Spain stresses that the majority of residents there are Spanish and wish to remain under Spanish rule. Also treaties were signed by Morocco in relation to the Sovereign Territories.

Morocco argues that the: UN principles of decolonization must be applied; Spanish occupation obstructs the economic and political independence of the kingdom; the Spanish bases threaten Moroccan national security; and the UN territorial integrity principle applies. Morocco stresses that Spanish arguments for the recovery of the British Crown Colony of Gibraltar substantiate Morocco's to the Plazas. Fundamentally, territorial disputes in the region are the legacy of the historical geopolitical organization of the area. Because of Spanish control of the Sovereign Territories, since 1986 the EC has common boundaries with an Arab state. The Territories are also within the NATO defence area because of Spanish membership of the Alliance.

Though the Plazas are an integral part of the Spanish state, they are officially referred to as "North African Territories under Spanish Supervision", "Plazas de Soberania" (Sovereign Territories) and in everyday speech "Presidios". Spain acquired the Plazas in the following ways: Ceuta was ceded by Portugal, Melilla was seized by force, Vélez was occupied with reference to the Treaty of Tordesillas, Alhucémas was ceded by the Sultan, and the Chafarinas were peacefully occupied.

Today, the political nomenclature of these regions can be understood by the status of autonomous cities. While the Mediterranean Sea separates Spain from Ceuta and Melilla, both cities are considered self-governing regions of Spain, without belonging to any other autonomous community.

Ceuta is located 15 miles from mainland Spain while Melilla is further east and geographically much closer to Moroccan cities than Spanish ones. As both of these Spanish cities neighbor and border Moroccan territory, they demonstrate a unique linguistic situation. While Ceuta and Melilla have relatively similar populations, each at slightly over 70,000, they have very distinct situations. In Ceuta, 50% of the population is of Peninsular origin, while the other half comes from a Moroccan background. Bilingualism, however, only affects those of Moroccan descent. That is to say, those living in Ceuta who are of Peninsular origin remain monolingual Spanish speakers. Education is entirely in Spanish, and Arabic does not have any official status.

Meanwhile, Melilla is composed of a population representing 60% Peninsular origin and 40% Berber origin. The Berber language was the indigenous tongue of Morocco before the Arab conquest in Northern Africa toward the end of the seventh century, in 670. In contrast to Ceuta, Spanish is in contact more with Berber than with Arabic. Trilingualism, nevertheless, is common among those Berber descendants in Melilla who establish contact between the Spanish, Arabic and Berber languages. Similar to Ceuta, the Peninsular originating population remains monolingual, education is strictly in Spanish, and Berber does not have any official status.

Being on the frontline of arrivals to Europe, Spain has faced numerous complex challenges over the last three years, which have been accentuated by the fact that the borders of the autonomous cities of Melilla and Ceuta are the only land borders of the EU on the African continent.

Spain has experienced a sharp increase in the number of migrants and refugees arriving in the country over the last three years, with 16,263 arriving in 2015; 14,094 in 2016; and 28,346 in 2017. They came from different countries, including Syria, North African countries, in particular Morocco and Algeria, as well as conflict-torn sub-Saharan countries. Migrants and refugees have reached Spain primarily by arriving by land or sea at either of the two autonomous cities of Melilla and Ceuta located in Northern Africa, or arriving by sea to mainland Spain. In the first half of 2018, the number of arrivals reached a total of 20,218.

Boundary and Territory Briefing

The Relation between Spanish and Arabic

Information Document (Migration and Refgees)


Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
26th October 2018