Crimea and the egalitarian shared sovereignty: cooperation between Russia and Ukraine
The
dispute over Crimea presents a conflict of interests. I mean by that the
following:
“[t]here is an
identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for
all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There
is conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the
greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order
to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share […].”
John Rawls, A
Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
Russians and
Ukrainians have both common and conflicting interests. Although each claiming
party is formed by many different individuals with different interests, each of
these claiming parties has as a collective group a common interest for the
purpose of this series: EXCLUSIVE sovereignty over the disputed territory (Crimea).
Thus, this same element (the disputed territory) is the center of this
particular conflict of interest.
If
things were different, we would see Crimeans, Russians and Ukrainians living in
peace on their land. It is a fact the region is volatile because of the
dispute. We do not need to assume or demonstrate this. It is self-evident. I am
going to assume both Russia and Ukraine finally want to achieve a PEACEFUL and
PERMANENT solution to dispute over Crimea. I am going to assume Russia does not
recognize sovereignty (de jure and de facto) over Crimea. I am too going to
assume Ukraine does not recognize sovereignty (de jure and de facto)
over Crimea either. I include these assumptions intentionally in order to avoid
tangential criticism.
With this picture in mind, we would need to
determine:
- Who can take part in the negotiations?
- What do we do with PEOPLE living in Crimea?
- Which party has sovereignty over the disputed TERRITORY?
- What kind of arrangements do we need in terms of GOVERNMENT and LAW for the disputed territories?
It
is crucial to answer question 1 first, before we move into the actual
negotiations (questions 2, 3, and 4). That is because this dispute has local,
regional and international issues at stake. As a direct consequence, people may
think of Crimeans, Russians and Ukrainians being the only parties concerned
about (and interested in) a solution.
This
is over-simplistic (and over-optimistic, even naïve). There are many powers
alien to the dispute with a variety of interests. Moreover, they are more
interested in keeping the dispute on a status
quo (ongoing) basis than achieving a solution because this situation offers
them a better return, a higher payoff (for example, arm trafficking, terrorism,
prestige).
The
next post will assess these questions having in mind the concept of “colorable
claim” previously introduced with this series. After we answer question 1, the
attention will shift to population, territory, government and law (questions 2,
3, and 4). I am going to assume Russia and Ukraine conducted negotiations and
decided to settle the difference by means of the Egalitarian Shared
Sovereignty.
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty.
International Law and Politics (Routledge 2020).
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 and the egalitarian shared sovereignty: Preliminary requirements
for a fair distribution
Thursday 05th March 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment