.jpg)
The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World
Section 3—Islands and Waters (Posts 13–18)
Post #13.1: Ruritania’s Crown, Falklands/Malvinas’ Winds: Forging Lasting Peace: Solutions for the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Ruritania’s Crown
An eclectic assembly
The fire in 221B Baker Street burned steadily, its warm light pushing back the fog that draped London’s streets like a shroud. The air inside was thick with anticipation, as if the very walls of Sherlock Holmes’s study awaited the resolution of ancient disputes. I, Dr. John Watson, opened my notebook, pen poised to capture a continuation of our discourse from Post 13, where Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez unveiled his multidimensional framework and egalitarian shared sovereignty as tools to unravel the sovereignty conflicts of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the fictional Ruritania’s Crown. Tonight, Holmes, Dr. Jorge, and our eclectic assembly—Eva Perón (Evita), Martín Fierro, Margaret Thatcher, King Arthur, Prince Rudolf, and Princess Flavia—would debate three distinct options for each dispute: self-determination as an autonomous entity, exclusive sovereignty for one claiming state, and Dr. Jorge’s egalitarian shared sovereignty model. Our goal: to forge viable, permanent, and peaceful solutions.
Holmes, his pipe unlit but held thoughtfully, surveyed the room. “Dr. Jorge, your works—Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Sovereign Game (2018), and Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism (2023)—provide a robust foundation. We must now evaluate three paths for the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Ruritania’s Crown: independence as a new state, sovereignty awarded to one claimant, or your shared sovereignty model. Each must address all stakeholders—states and inhabitants—and ensure lasting peace. Let us proceed.”
Dr. Jorge, his gaze steady behind his glasses, nodded. “In Sovereign Game, I use the fictional Khemed, Syldavia, and Borduria to demonstrate how parties can share sovereignty via maximin reasoning, ensuring no party is unduly disadvantaged. The egalitarian consensus principle grants equal decision-making power, while the equilibrium proviso obliges stronger parties to uplift others. My 2023 multidimensional analysis highlights linear dimensions—state sovereignty, international law—and nonlinear ones, like islander identity or settler aspirations. For the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, we consider Argentina, Britain, and the islanders. For Ruritania’s Crown, it’s Ruritania, Strelsau, and the settlers. Let us explore each option systematically.”
Option 1: Self-Determination as an Autonomous Entity
Holmes began, “Self-determination as an independent state implies the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders form a sovereign nation, distinct from Argentina and Britain. For Ruritania’s Crown, the settlers could establish an independent state, separate from Ruritania and Strelsau. What are the merits and challenges?”
Thatcher, her voice resolute, spoke first. “The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders—3,500 strong, with a 99.8% vote for British status in 2013—have a clear identity. Independence could honor their self-determination, allowing them to govern without external claims. They have a functioning economy, bolstered by fisheries and potential oil. However, defense is a concern; they rely on British forces. A new state would need international recognition, which Argentina would contest, risking isolation. For Ruritania’s Crown, Strelsau’s settlers, rooted for centuries, could form a state, leveraging sapphire mines. But their small population and reliance on Strelsau’s technology make viability doubtful without external support.”
Evita, her eyes flashing, countered, “Independence for the Malvinas ignores Argentina’s historical claim, rooted in 1816 and Spain’s prior rights. The islands are 300 miles from Patagonia, not 8,000 from London. An independent state would be a British proxy, perpetuating our loss from 1833. Argentina would never recognize it, and Latin America, via CELAC, would back us, risking diplomatic stalemate. For Ruritania’s Crown, settler independence dismisses Ruritania’s 1327 charters. The settlers lack the means to govern alone, and Strelsau would blockade, mirroring our Malvinas tensions.”
Martín Fierro, strumming his guitar softly, offered a gaucho’s perspective. “The Malvinas folk live their way, like we do on the pampas. Independence sounds fair, but they’re few, and war in ’82 showed Argentina’s resolve. They’d need Britain’s shield, making them less free than they think. For Ruritania’s Crown, settlers might sing their own song, but without Strelsau’s tools or Ruritania’s blessing, their island’s cliffs stay silent. Independence cuts deep wounds unless all agree.”
King Arthur, his sword resting, sought balance. “Excalibur’s justice honors self-rule, but independence must not sow discord. For the Falklands/Malvinas, a new state could govern locally but needs defense guarantees from Britain and economic ties with Argentina to survive. UN mediation could secure recognition. For Ruritania’s Crown, settler independence requires Baltic arbitration and resource-sharing with Ruritania and Strelsau. Without consensus, both risk strife.”
Dr. Jorge interjected, “Multidimensionally, independence addresses the nonlinear dimension of identity—islanders and settlers—but neglects linear state claims. Argentina’s eternalist narrative and Ruritania’s historical decrees persist, fueling nonlinear tensions like national pride. The maximin rule suggests independence only works if no party—especially weaker ones like islanders or settlers—is left vulnerable. International mediation is critical.”
Option 2: Sovereignty to One Claiming State
Holmes shifted focus. “Granting sovereignty to one state—Argentina or Britain for the Falklands/Malvinas, Ruritania or Strelsau for Ruritania’s Crown—resolves claims decisively. What are the implications?”
Evita spoke passionately. “For the Malvinas, sovereignty to Argentina restores justice, reclaiming what Britain took in 1833. We’d govern with respect for islanders, offering dual citizenship and local autonomy under our flag. Fisheries and oil would benefit our nation, healing 1982’s scars. But islanders, British in heart, would resist, and Britain’s navy looms. UN resolutions (2023, 2024) urge talks, not unilateral moves. For Ruritania’s Crown, Ruritania’s rule honors our charters. We’d integrate settlers, but Strelsau’s influence and settler defiance could spark unrest.”
Thatcher, unyielding, retorted, “British sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas is settled—continuous administration since 1833, affirmed by islanders’ choice. Argentina’s claim is historical, not practical; the islands are British soil. Full sovereignty ensures stability, with islanders governing locally and Britain defending. Argentina’s objections would persist, risking sanctions or blockades. For Ruritania’s Crown, Strelsau’s claim, backed by settlers’ loyalty, is stronger. Ruritania’s charters are ancient; Strelsau could govern, but Ruritania’s pride would fuel rebellion.”
Prince Rudolf, gripping his sword, added, “Ruritania’s Crown is ours by right—1327 decrees and unbroken lineage. Full sovereignty integrates settlers under our crown, with Strelsau as a province. We’d share mining wealth, but Strelsau’s technology and settler identity resist assimilation. For the Falklands/Malvinas, Britain’s claim, backed by possession, seems stronger, but Argentina’s proximity—300 miles—complicates enforcement.”
Princess Flavia, her voice calm, cautioned, “Single-state sovereignty for Ruritania’s Crown risks Strelsau’s alienation. Settlers, tied to the island, would defy Ruritania’s rule, and Baltic neighbors might intervene. For the Falklands/Malvinas, Argentina’s rule ignores islander identity, while Britain’s perpetuates Argentina’s grievance. Either way, peace falters without inclusion.”
Watson, scribbling, paused. “Holmes, this option seems a zero-sum game—907 died in 1982, and Ruritania’s 1896 skirmish lingers. Why pursue it?”
Holmes replied, “Watson, it’s tempting for its clarity, but Dr. Jorge’s Sovereign Game warns against zero-sum outcomes. Linearly, one state wins; nonlinearly, resentment festers. Argentina or Britain, Ruritania or Strelsau, would face opposition, undermining permanence.”
Dr. Jorge nodded. “Maximin reasoning rejects this option—it disadvantages losers disproportionately. Multidimensionally, it prioritizes linear state claims but ignores nonlinear community ties, ensuring conflict. Recent X posts (2025) show Argentina citing the Chagos transfer to press Malvinas talks, suggesting single-state solutions are outdated.”
Option 3: Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty
Holmes turned to the final option. “Dr. Jorge’s egalitarian shared sovereignty proposes co-governance. How does it apply, and why might it succeed?”
Dr. Jorge elaborated, “In Sovereign Game, Khemed, Syldavia, and Borduria share sovereignty via a tripartite council, equal votes, and the equilibrium proviso, ensuring mutual uplift. For the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, a Falklands/Malvinas Peace Accord creates a council—Argentina, Britain, islanders, one vote each—managing resources, defense, and diplomacy. Islanders govern locally, Argentina gains economic and cultural stakes, and Britain oversees security. The equilibrium proviso obliges Britain to fund islander infrastructure—schools, ports—narrowing disparities. CELAC or UN mediation resolves disputes. For Ruritania’s Crown, a Baltic Crown Compact forms a council—Ruritania, Strelsau, settlers, equal votes—governing mining and security. Strelsau shares technology, and Baltic states mediate. Multidimensionally, this balances linear state claims with nonlinear identity dynamics.”
Evita, inspired, said, “This Malvinas accord lets Argentina join the table, sharing oil and fisheries. Islanders keep their way, and Britain’s role ensures stability. Argentina could fund cultural programs—our history alongside theirs—building bridges. For Ruritania’s Crown, Ruritania shares sapphires, Strelsau offers tech, and settlers govern locally. It’s peace through unity.”
Martín Fierro strummed a hopeful chord. “A council where gaucho, islander, and Briton sit equal—that’s the Malvinas’ song. For the Crown, Ruritania, Strelsau, and settlers share the cliffs’ echo. It’s the land’s truth, not one voice drowning others.”
Thatcher, pragmatic, conceded, “If islanders’ autonomy is ironclad, Britain could share fishery profits and defense duties. This accord aligns with the 2024 Chagos model—Mauritius gained sovereignty, Britain kept a base. For Ruritania’s Crown, Strelsau’s settlers need legislative power, but shared mining funds all, avoiding strife.”
King Arthur, his presence calming, said, “This mirrors Excalibur’s justice—shared burdens, shared gains. For the Falklands/Malvinas, equal votes ensure no dominance, and Britain’s aid builds trust. For Ruritania’s Crown, Baltic mediation and shared resources forge harmony. The equilibrium proviso is key.”
Rudolf and Flavia exchanged glances. “A Baltic Compact honors Ruritania’s claim while including settlers,” Rudolf said. “Equal votes and shared sapphires ensure peace,” Flavia added.
Watson raised a concern. “Holmes, these accords sound ideal, but 1982’s war and Ruritania’s skirmishes show mistrust. How do we ensure permanence?”
Holmes’s eyes gleamed. “Watson, mistrust stems from zero-sum thinking. Dr. Jorge’s non-zero-sum model, as in Sovereign Game, incentivizes cooperation. The Chagos transfer proves shared sovereignty works. X posts (2025) show Argentina pushing Malvinas talks, backed by CELAC, and UN resolutions (2023, 2024) urge dialogue. For Ruritania’s Crown, Baltic pressure could enforce a compact. The egalitarian consensus principle ensures all voices are heard, and mediation prevents deadlock.”
Dr. Jorge concluded, “Multidimensionally, shared sovereignty addresses linear state claims—Argentina’s proximity, Britain’s possession, Ruritania’s charters, Strelsau’s presence—and nonlinear dynamics like pride and identity. The maximin rule ensures fairness, and the equilibrium proviso fosters equity. In 2025, Argentina leverages Chagos for Malvinas talks, and a Baltic initiative could mirror this for Ruritania’s Crown. Borders become bridges when all—state, settler, islander—share the table.”
Shared horizons
Holmes stood, silhouetted by the fire. “Gentlemen, ladies, independence offers autonomy but risks isolation and conflict. Single-state sovereignty resolves claims but breeds resentment. Dr. Jorge’s shared sovereignty, with its councils and provisos, balances all dimensions, offering the best path to peace. Yet, implementation requires trust, mediation, and time.”
Evita reflected, “The Malvinas accord could teach our children shared histories, not rival ones. Ruritania’s Crown could blend anthems.”
Thatcher added, “With safeguards, Britain supports this for the Falklands/Malvinas. For Ruritania’s Crown, settlers gain from shared wealth.”
Martín Fierro strummed, “Equal voices make peace sing, for Malvinas and the Crown.”
Arthur concluded, “Justice demands cooperation. These accords are our Round Table.”
As the fog thickened, 221B held a fragile hope—a vision of borders not as battlegrounds, but as shared horizons.
References
- Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 7).
- Núñez, J.E. (2018). Sovereign Game: A Tale of Three Peoples (Ch. 1–5).
- Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Ch. 6).
- Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 1, 6).
- Núñez, J.E. (2025). Territorial Disputes in the Americas.
NOTE:
New posts every Tuesday.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
Post #13: Ruritania’s Crown, Falklands/Malvinas’ Winds
NEXT POSTS:
Post #14: Atlantis’ Waves, Spratly Reefs
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Thursday 12th June 2025
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment