Crimea and colorable claims based on moral standing:
who counts?
Following our previous post, and thinking of the
moral standing as a colorable claim in relation to the Israel-Palestine difference,
who counts? Do Crimeans only count? Do Russians or Ukrainians only count?
The self-evident fact is that Crimeans live in the
territory and their lives (and that of their future generations) will be
affected more than any others by the arrangements that are adopted in the
negotiations. In other words, presence gives one a colorable claim.
Someone may claim that this may encourage
occupation. However, as long as the people have been there long enough to
establish roots, whether their occupation is rightful or wrongful, they at
least should have the right to participate in the negotiations. How much weight
their claim gets is something the parties will discuss in the negotiations. In
any case, it would be unfair to ask them to leave or not to consider their
claimed rights. Indeed, I do assume a peaceful understanding and reasonable
people that see other means rather than war, reprisals and continuous tension
that only grants one result for all: a very volatile situation.
For example, it is true that Ukraine could
acknowledge the right of the population currently living in the territory under
dispute to be self-determining but deny their right to be self-determining on Ukrainian
land (if they want to be self-determining they should go and do it somewhere
else, for example move to Russia).
It is clear, this would be a practical approach that
does not grant a just and fair outcome. Crimeans would have their right to
self-determination made conditional on being under Ukrainian sovereignty (“you
can decide your future if and only if it is within my power”). It is hard to
see how such an agreement could settle the difference peacefully and
permanently.
The
extent of the negotiations and final agreement are matters for a deeper
analysis and discussion. The previous posts about the particular TERRITORIAL
DISPUTES in relation to Kashmir, the Falkland/Malvinas islands, Gibraltar and
Israel-Palestine demonstrate how by means of the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY
a cooperation can materialize solutions for questions linked to people,
territory, government and law.
Now
that we know of the “colorable claim” and assuming all the parties (Crimea,
Russia and Ukraine) decided to go into negotiations about the sovereignty de facto and de jure over Crimea, the next posts will show how the EGALITARIAN
SHARED SOVEREIGNTY can address this particular TERRITORIAL DISPUTE by its
application to population, territory, government and law.
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: Crimea, territorial disputes and their dynamics
Tuesday 03rd March 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment