Gibraltar: final words
A
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE, in simple terms, is a disagreement about “who owns a
territory.” Yet, a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE is not that simple.
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. Gibraltar is a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
that includes Gibraltar, Spain and the United Kingdom.
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 Gibraltar as a TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE centers the attention on why this difference is still ongoing. The
answer is as simple as complex. The combination of domestic, regional and
international elements make this dispute a stalemate.
We have an already
complex situation with Gibraltar, Spain and the United Kingdom in terms of
geostrategic location, tax evasion, fishing rights, financial situation, only
to name very few. If we add the European Union and Brexit the picture is
extremely intricate. Although in principle a stalemate may seem negative, the
status quo in Gibraltar may continue for now.
Huth explains the dynamics clearly:
“[…]
very often political leaders are not willing to take risks and undertake
diplomatic initiatives that will break a long-standing stalemate in
negotiations. Furthermore, leaders themselves are socialized into viewing the
target as an adversary and, as a result, they are not predisposed to view
concessions as a legitimate option.
Furthermore,
[…] a history of military conflict with the target can be used by the military
to justify larger budgets […]. The combined effect, then, is that the idea of
offering concessions and proposing a unilateral initiative to break the
stalemate is a policy option quite difficult to get on the policy agenda of
political leaders within the challenger. Few voices are advocating such
policies within the challenger, and the prevailing climate of opinion (both
mass and elite) is opposed to such a change in policy.”
“[…] leaders were typically constrained by
domestic political forces to be very cautious in moving toward a compromise
settlement, since popular and elite opinion, and often the military, was
opposed to such a policy. [...] In most situations the leader’s position of
domestic power and authority was better served by continuing confrontation […]”
Huth, Paul K.
2001. Standing Your Ground. Territorial Disputes and International Conflict.
The University of Michigan Press.
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 Israel-Palestine difference
Friday 29th November 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment