ATINER 11th Annual Conference on Law, 14-17 July 2014, Athens, Greece

Sovereignty Conflicts as a Distributive Justice Issue

Dr Jorge Emilio Nunez

Abstract Most—if not all—conflicts in international relations have—to an extent—something to do with sovereignty. On the theoretical side, we learn at University that either considered as a strong concept or one that has lost relevance, it is still discussed. On the practical side, the prerogatives a State has over its people and territory appear to be the highest. Within these ideal and real backgrounds, there are various sovereignty disputes around the world that struggle between legal and political limbo, status quo and continuous tension with various negative consequences for all the involved parties (e.g. violation of human rights, war, arms trafficking, only to name a few). It is increasingly clear that the available remedies have been less than successful, and a peaceful and definitive solution is needed. This article proposes a fair and just way of dealing with certain sovereignty conflicts. The paper considers how distributive justice theories can be in tune with the concept of sovereignty and explores the possibility of a solution for sovereignty conflicts. I argue that the solution can be based on Rawlsian principles.

ATINER Law 2014

Conference Program

Scottish referendum: how clear is the question?

It is time to have a look at the Scottish referendum. So, assuming the main concern of the parties was the sovereignty over the territory, in our case the sovereignty over Scotland and all that it means in terms of territory−e.g. natural resources−, people, government, and law; what options should be considered for referendum?

The referendum in September will only have one question. In what is important here it will read:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?” and voters will choose yes or no.

For more details about the actual referendum, dates, and question see:

Scottish referendum: dates and question

There are two points (at least) to be made:

Firstly, the referendum’s “value”. It is indeed important we are going to have a referendum as expression of democratic values and basic liberties. And it is also a way to start breaking the status quo Scotland has had for so long.

Secondly, the importance of the actual question. Because of the way is written and current international and local scenario, there could be but one answer. So, we all can foresee its result. That does not mean that the actual referendum is of no value. As stated before, it is a crucial moment−as it was the Falkland’s referendum in 2013. And it also ratifies the fact that Scotts can make use of their right to self-determination at any time and propose any other referendum and solution.

Why does the question have problems? The answer is simple, because although it may seem as if it offered a choice, it does not in reality. If the Scotts answered NO, they would still be considered as British Territory and hence would know what to expect−to continue living the way they live with the government and the law they know and all that this implies. However, if they answered YES, the consequence is but one: uncertainty. And who is going to choose uncertainty over something already known? Human beings are by nature conservative and between an uncertain situation and one that they already know; most go for what is within their knowledge, their experience (I am not saying that is wrong; I am only stating a fact).

Let’s compare the situation with a different and current example. Let’s suppose that the U.S. government proposes a referendum in relation to the private use of weapons. And they use the following question: Do you want the law for the private ownership and use of weapons to be amended? YES/NO? The question is very simple, yet tricky because either in favour or not of private ownership and use of weapons, if we opted for YES, the government may actually prohibit any private use and ownership of weapons. But they can perfectly do the opposite and actually permit any individual to own and use any weapon under any circumstances. And both these interpretations may be against what we really wanted. What is the problem? The way in which the question is written and the possible choices.

In this case as it happened with the Falkland’s referendum, it is not clear what the “alternative options” are. Therefore, there is a degree of uncertainty. In any case in which we have several options and some of them with uncertain result, how many of us are going to go for an uncertain future? Thus, even more skeptical if we have to think of the ones that may be affected by our decisions−e.g. our children.

The next post: we will discuss a possible way of addressing the indeterminacy and offer a clearer question. The intention is to actually let the referendum fulfill its objective, that is, be a democratic tool for self-determination rather than a tool for validation of predetermined and foreseeable decisions.

Referéndum en la Patagonia

El gobierno de Argentina ha reclamado durante más de un siglo la soberanía sobre las Islas Malvinas. Eso no es nuevo. Sin embargo, lo que resulta novedoso es la forma, el enfoque tomado en los últimos años. En lugar de utilizar la teoría jurídica y política para sus argumentos en apoyo de las reclamaciones, se ha producido un cambio hacia un discurso más populista. Este cambio no ha pasado desapercibido y como podría haberse esperado, se abre el juego a otras preguntas.

Mientras tanto, el Reino Unido ha reconocido en varias oportunidades el derecho a la autodeterminación de los ciudadanos británicos en todo el mundo. Últimas ejemplos son el referéndum Malvinas de 2013 y el de Escocia en 2014− aún por suceder.

Conectando los puntos: si el gobierno británico, muchas veces definido como "potencia colonial" por su par argentino, ha aceptado varias veces los deseos de los ciudadanos británicos en todo el mundo a la autodeterminación mediante un referéndum; ¿por qué la Argentina no sigue el ejemplo con su población? Es un hecho que el último referéndum en la Patagonia fue en 1902. También es un hecho que la idea de una Patagonia independiente ha estado en la región durante décadas.

Así que, si el gobierno argentino reclama las Islas Malvinas sobre la base de los valores democráticos, ¿no sería justo esperar que ese mismo gobierno, para demostrar un ejemplo democrático real, permita que la gente de la Patagonia decida su futuro estatus político?

Un poco de antecedentes teóricos:

De hecho, existen dos conceptos interrelacionados: a) el concepto de autodeterminación; y b) el concepto de referéndum.

Para el concepto de autodeterminación tenemos que revisar lo que el Derecho Internacional Público (DIP) dice al respecto. El hablar sobre el significado y las razones detrás de los discursos y documentos políticos puede ser entretenido, pero no ofrece ninguna herramienta útil real o legal para entender el problema. Así que nos centraremos ahora en algunos de los documentos que son hoy en día parte de DIP, y que tanto los gobiernos de Argentina y el Reino Unido a menudo mencionan. Para ilustrar el punto:

Capítulo 1, artículo 1, parte 2 de la Carta de la ONU establece entre sus propósitos: "El desarrollo de relaciones amistosas entre las naciones, basadas en el respeto al principio de igualdad de derechos y autodeterminación de los pueblos, y tomar otras medidas adecuadas para fortalecer la paz universal "

Resolución de la Asamblea General de la ONU 1514 Artículo 2: "Todos los pueblos tienen el derecho de autodeterminación; en virtud de este derecho establecen libremente su condición política y persiguen libremente su desarrollo económico, social y cultural "

Resolución de la Asamblea General de la ONU 2649 Artículo 1: "Afirma la legitimidad de la lucha de los pueblos bajo dominación colonial y extranjera reconocidos como titulares del derecho a la autodeterminación de restaurar para sí mismos ese derecho por todos los medios a su disposición"

Asamblea General de la ONU la resolución 2625 Artículo: "El principio de la igualdad de derechos y la autodeterminación de los pueblos"

y otros.

Aquí podemos ver de inmediato el origen de la disparidad en la interpretación y la clave para utilizar el mismo concepto de autodeterminación en diferentes formas dependiendo del interés que apoyamos. Debido a la vaguedad y ambigüedad del lenguaje normas legales tendrán necesariamente una textura abierta. Y debido a la textura abierta del lenguaje, habrá distintas interpretaciones respecto a cada norma legal. En términos más simples, toda palabra (y también sucede en la ley) puede tener diferentes significados; por ejemplo, una norma que prohíbe "vehículos" en el centro de la ciudad fácilmente se entiende para los coches; pero, ¿qué pasa con las bicicletas?

La autodeterminación como concepto jurídico tiene los mismos problemas. El término en sí mismo y sus componentes no están claramente definidos (¿qué significan "pueblo", "nación" y "derecho"?). Este fenómeno se "traduce" en los argumentos procedentes del Reino Unido para validar su política en cuanto a Malvinas. Pero también es "traducida" en contra-argumentos procedentes del gobierno argentino para mostrar exactamente lo contrario.

Como podemos ver, el principal problema está dado por el término en sí mismo y su falta de una definición precisa. Sin embargo, eso no es exclusivo de la autodeterminación. Para aquellos que están en las ciencias políticas y jurídicas, un concepto ambiguo, no está claramente definido, es algo casi de esperar por defecto. Así que vamos a tratar de traer algo de luz en lo que parece ser un problema oscuro.

De una manera sencilla y esquemática, podríamos ver que:

1) La autodeterminación es reconocida mundialmente como imperativo incluido en muchos de los documentos de Derecho Internacional Público.

2) En términos generales, esto significa que la “gente”, las personas "pueden decidir su destino" político.

3) Por “gente” se entiende habitantes.

4) Cualquier grupo de personas-habitantes-pueden hacer valer su derecho a la autodeterminación.

5) En consecuencia, el resto de la sociedad internacional sólo puede reconocer sus deseos.

Un referéndum es uno de los medios para expresar estos deseos. Es decir, un referéndum es un voto general por parte del electorado en una sola cuestión política. Si se aplica a la autodeterminación, por lo general significa que los habitantes decidirán si constituyen una organización política independiente o permanecen con el estatus político que actualmente tienen-por ejemplo, una provincia, un territorio de ultramar, etc.

Referendum in Patagonia

Argentina’s government has claimed for more than a century sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is not new. However, what results novel is the form, approach taken in recent years. Rather than using legal and political theory for their arguments to support the claims, there has been a shift to a more populist speech. This changed has not been unnoticed and as it could have been expected, opens the game to further questions.

In the meantime, the United Kingdom has acknowledged in several opportunities the right to self-determination to British citizens around the globe. Latest examples are the 2013 Falklands referendum and the 2014 Scottish referendum−yet to happen.

Connecting the dots: if the British government, many times defined as “colonial power” by its Argentine peer, has accepted several times the wishes of citizens around the world to self-determination by means of a referendum; why Argentina does not follow suit with its population? It is a fact the latest referendum in Patagonia was in 1902. It is also a fact that the idea of an independent Patagonia has been in the region for decades.

So, if the Argentine government were claiming the Falkland Islands based on democratic values, would not it be fair to expect that same government to actually show a democratic example by letting people in Patagonia decide their political future status?

A bit of theoretical background:

There are indeed two intertwined concepts: a) the concept of self-determination; and b) the concept of referendum.

For the concept of self-determination we have to review what International Public Law (IPL) says about it. To discuss the meaning and reasons behind political speeches and documents may be entertaining but does not offer any real or legal useful tool to understand the issue. So we will focus now on some of the documents that are nowadays part of IPL and that both the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom so often mention. To illustrate the point:

Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN Charter states amongst its purposes: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”

UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 Article 2: “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”

UN General Assembly Resolution 2649 Article 1: “Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognised as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal”

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 Article e: “The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”

and others.

And here we can immediately see the origin of the disparity in interpretation and the key to use the same concept of self-determination in different forms depending on the interest we support. Because of the vagueness and ambiguity of language legal norms will necessarily have an open texture. And because of the open texture of language, there will be a core of settledness and a penumbra of unsettledness in every legal rule. In simpler terms, any word (and it also happens in law) can have different meanings; for example, a norm banning “vehicles” from city centres would easily be understood for cars; what about bicycles?

Self-determination as a legal concept has the same problems. The term itself and its components are not clearly defined (what do “people”, “nation”, and “right” mean?). And that is “translated” in arguments coming from the United Kingdom used to validate their policy in regards Falklands. But it is also “translated” in counterarguments coming from the Argentinean government to show exactly the opposite.

As we can see, the main problem is given by the term itself and its lack of a precise definition. However, that is not exclusive of self-determination. For those who are into political and legal sciences, an ambiguous, not clearly defined concept, is something almost to be expected by default. So let us try and bring some light into what appears to be a dark problem.

In a simple and schematic way, we could see that:

1) Self-determination is globally recognised as imperative even included in many International Public Law documents.

2) Broadly speaking, it means that people “can decide their destiny”.

3) By people it is meant inhabitants.

4) Any group of people−inhabitants−can assert their right to self-determination.

5) In consequence, the rest of the international society can only acknowledge their wishes.

A referendum is one of the means to express these wishes. That is to say, a referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question. If applied to self-determination, it usually means that the inhabitants will decide whether to be an independent political organization or remain with the political status they currently have−e.g. a province, an overseas territory, etc.