Kashmir and the egalitarian shared sovereignty
Although
the previous posts introduced mainly problems that have to do with Kashmir as
a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE, it is possible to draw some partial conclusions in order
to work out how to address them.
- To agree about the historical chronology is relevant but not conclusive to solve conflict.
- To distinguish historical facts from religious account.
- To understand there are domestic, regional and international reasons for conflict.
- To assess territorial conflicts as a multi-level phenomena with different dimensions.
- To identify some common elements in theory all these territorial conflicts have.
- To evaluate by means of an abstract experiment how to solve the difference.
The
current situation between India and Pakistan in relation to Kashmir seem to
offer little room for a peaceful and permanent understanding about the
difference (let alone a solution). However, this does not mean that we cannot
think of a solution to this territorial dispute. That is, what would reasonable
people do if they had a difference?
Theoretical
frameworks provide the hermeneutical means to generalize behavior in a clear,
cohesive, and concise manner. They also enable subsequent studies to sharpen
the focus and identify more clearly variables that in principle may appear to
be particular to a certain dispute. With all this in mind, it is time to solve, at least
in theory, Kashmir. The last four posts introduced very briefly the background
situation of this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE.
The
previous posts show that the sub-elements that constitute the population of a
State are not, in principle, controversial per
se. However, all these can in fact be controversial if one party, or more,
may wish to impose language, religion or cultural domination—the case of
Kashmir. So, it is not that there is no controversy, but that: a) this form of
imposition is not necessary; b) a just approach must resist and exclude it.
Several
solutions have been proposed in order to untangle the dispute in Kashmir.
However, in all cases at least one of the parties is left outside the picture.
To grant the sovereignty to Pakistan would be opposed by some minorities—Hindus
and Buddhists. The opposite solution, sovereignty handed over to India would
have the opposition of most of the Muslim population. Then, neither of these
two solutions is welcomed by the Jammu and Kashmir or by Azad Kashmir
inhabitants. But, even though independence is what the majority of the
inhabitants of both Kashmirs want, it is threatened by both India and Pakistan
because it would imply losing claimed territories, consequent rights over them
and could result in a possible improvement of their peers’ situation.
Indeed,
the inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir and Azad Kashmir seem opposed to joint
sovereignty. However, the model proposed here introduces features that make it
a more attractive option also for them. That is because, if Kashmir, India and Pakistan
decided to share their sovereignty over the territory under dispute, by
applying the egalitarian shared sovereignty, none of the involved parties would
interfere with the internal affairs of any of the other parties—first
pre-requisite—, and they all would respect the basic non-political liberties of
the three populations—Kashmir, India and Pakistan—by fulfilling the second
pre-requisite. Thus, they would conduct their mutual relations according to the
principles recognised by the law of peoples—the third pre-requisite.
The
allocation of sovereignty will be given by:
a) equal right to participate
(egalitarian consensus principle); b) the nature and degree of participation
depends on efficiency of accomplishing the particular objective/area/activity
at issue (principle of efficiency); c) each party receives a benefit (in terms
of rights and opportunities) that depends on what that party cooperates with
(input-to-output ratio principle); and d) provided the party with greater
ability and therefore greater initial participation rights has the obligation
to bring the other two parties towards equilibrium (equilibrium proviso). I
call this way of dealing with sovereignty conflicts or disputes the EGALITARIAN
SHARED SOVEREIGNTY.
Many
questions are to be expected. Amongst them: How is that translated into
Kashmir’s reality and its population? The answer has two parts: a) the
qualitative differences amongst the parties; b) the real concerns of the
inhabitants of Kashmir.
The
next posts on this blog series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES will cover these
questions.
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: Kashmir, the egalitarian shared sovereignty and what Kashmiris are
concerned about?
Friday 04th October 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment