Kashmir, final words
A TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE, in simple terms, is a disagreement about “who owns a territory.” In
international relations, this means in principle there is a disagreement
between at least two parties in relation to whom the sovereign is over a piece
of land.
Kashmir is a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE that included India, Pakistan and
Kashmir. The previous posts introduced a brief historical chronology, mentioned
some key domestic and international reasons behind this case, included
references to other regional and international agents that have played (and in
some cases, still do) a central role, and explored an ideal solution called
EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY.
This
last post about Kashmir as a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE centers the attention on the
prominence of this case globally. There are many current TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in
the world (more than 100). Kashmir ranks amongst the most prominent for several
reasons.
The
Carter Center presents:
“Daniel Dzurek has attempted to develop a
methodology for assessing the “prominence” of territorial disputes, or their
perceived significance.[…] Dzurek divided the relative prominence of border
disputes as resulting from their intensifying factors, magnitude, and nature:
Intensifying factors: ethnic conflict,
recent violence, historic animosity, weakness of claimant governments (to
control developments along the border, or take unpopular initiatives) and
third-party involvement;
Magnitude: size of area in question,
number of inhabitants, natural resources, access to trade or invasion routes,
and number of casualties (those killed);
Nature: land or maritime, number of
claimants, legal framework, status of negotiation/arbitration, and “type.” […]”
“Approaches to Solving Territorial Conflicts.
Sources, Situations, and Suggestions.” May 2010. The Carter Center.
Dzurek, Daniel
J. 1999-2000. “What Makes Some Boundary Disputes Important?,” IBRU Boundary
and Security Bulletin, 83-95; the author has updated and expanded this work
in the 2005 article “What Makes Territory Important: Tangible and Intangible
Dimensions,” GeoJournal, 64: 263-274.
Taking these variables into account
Kashmir (as a territorial dispute) ranks in the top 10 in terms of intensity
and in terms of magnitude. The results in terms of the humanitarian crisis
speak for themselves.
As a partial conclusion to an ongoing
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE it is important to stress the use of force should (and
could) be avoided in any event. Whether India or Pakistan have shown a more
aggressive agenda including a variety of means, this is an empirical question
easily answered by future research.
We all have the option to center the
attention on war and revenge. Hence, more deaths. There is another option: to
think about how to solve this dispute. This series TERRITORIAL DISPUTES intends
to offer a platform for discussion.
With all this in mind, I introduced the
overall idea I call EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY. I develop this approach in
full in Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. “Sovereignty Conflicts and
International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue.” London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Briefly, all parties share
sovereignty in equal ideal terms. To get to that, these parties go into
negotiations themselves (not UN or any other party alien to the conflict).
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: The Falkland/Malvinas Islands
Friday 11th October 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment