In
order to better understand territorial disputes, we started the analysis by
broadly introducing two key concepts: STATE and SOVEREIGNTY.
Although
population, territory, government and law are the essential components in order
to have a State, there are other elements (or sub-elements): currency, market,
defense, language, religion, etc.
We
started with POPULATION in our last post. It is now time to cover TERRITORY.
b) territory: an area
possessed by the population (in land, water or space. More recently, it may be
argued territory includes cyber-space).
As
explained before in the case of population, we could have a normative approach
by saying the territory of any country is established by law through national
and international norms (Constitutions, bi and multilateral treatises,
conventions, etc.).
We
shall go further by observing what other implications may lead us to. Although
at first glance territory seems an easy concept to define and characterize, it
includes many sub-elements. As an example, and only to name a few:
Natural
resources:
Natural
resources are any material in raw condition present in the territory, organic
or mineral, that is not initially a product of any kind of human activity. Some
States are rich in natural resources, others are not: no particular amount of
natural resources defines a State. But, the distribution of natural resources
is usually one of the main problems when dealing with territorial disputes even
though the involved sovereign States may already be wealthy ones; it is a
feature that always presents controversy.
Defense:
By
national defense or security we mean the protection of each and every interest
a State has (its possessions, territory, population, etc.). It can have
different ways such as military, economic, diplomatic, politic, etc.
Does
a State require having an army and navy to be considered as such? Does it need
economic power?
The
international scenario offers a wide scope of very diverse realities, from
large States with formidable military power (United States) and almost none
(Argentina) to small ones with a well-equipped and trained army and navy
(United Kingdom) and non-existent ones (Andorra or Vatican City).
Although
it may seem desirable for a State to have its own means of defence (particularly
military) reality shows it is not a necessary requisite. There are several
cases in which the army and navy are not big, well equipped or trained enough
in order to defend its territory or population but they are still respected as
States. Even more, as we have mentioned, there are others that in fact have
none military defence means. For the latter is common that their defence is the
responsibility of another country or that they are part of an international
organization that secures this aspect (i.e.: OTAN).
We
shall discuss the economic and diplomatic angles when dealing with the
government.
Extension:
From
Vatican City or Montenegro to Australia or Russia, the worldwide context has an
ample spectrum of States in terms of their territory size. Its extension is not
either a requisite that could be considered necessary so to be in presence of a
State.
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State
Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous
published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the
author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and
Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT
POST: State and its elements, government
Thursday 19th September 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment