Thursday, 19 November 2020

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 24) [Post 159]

 


Territorial disputes in Africa: the just acquisition principle inadequacy 


To establish if any object O has not previously been the property of any individual is one of the main issues in Nozick’s model—and that is also the main issue in sovereignty disputes. Although theoretically attractive and practically difficult to demonstrate, in the specific case of sovereignty dilemmas the enigma to be unravelled is precisely to determine which of the involved agents was the first one chronologically—historically—to have something to do with the third territory.

Furthermore, even if that was somehow demonstrated, there will also be disputes about the justice of conflicts that result in the seizure of territories by force.

Nozick’s model introduces many other issues. Indeed, while Nozick relies on Locke's labour theory of property, his approach raises various questions. For instance, what are the borderlines here? Individuals labour on parts of objects—similarly, the claiming parties only ‘labour’ on parts of the third territory, so why does that give them the right to the whole object? 

In addition to this, why does mixing one’s labour with property cause to own the property rather than lose the labour? Is there some threshold that must be met in order to own the property?—e.g. if an individual pours a glass of wine in the ocean does he own the ocean or has he wasted my wine? In tune with this, why would anyone be entitled to more than only the added value his labour has created? And even if the labour theory of property may give an individual ownership of property he has created, why should it give him ownership, for example, of natural resources? Natural resources are not brought into existence by labour, although labour may be necessary before they can be used.

As a result of this, the idea of determining who mixed their labour with the territory first and to a sufficient extent to acquire ownership is always going to be controversial, even if all parties accepted that this was the right test. And even if this works, as pointed out before, there is the issue of whether later seizures of the property from indigenous peoples by force were just.



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:

Territorial disputes in Africa: final words 

Thursday 19th November 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Wednesday, 18 November 2020

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 23) [Post 158]


Territorial disputes in Africa: the just acquisition of the territory


The just acquisition principle has been previously related to territorial sovereignty since it has been maintained that amongst the objects to which this principle is meant to be capable of applying are portions of the Earth’s surface, that is, areas of land. 

And that is exactly the aim of these posts: to evaluate whether there is a peaceful way of allocating sovereignty over non-sovereign areas of land or disputed territories. 

Nevertheless, the principle of just acquisition is not the answer to resolve these issues. Its main pitfall is that the information required to apply this principle is not epistemically accessible in sovereignty conflicts—e.g. how far back would the agents need to investigate so as to determine who the first inhabitants of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were? What would happen in the case of extinct civilisations? What about cultures that were in Ancient Times nomadic?

To have a better understanding of the principle of just acquisition Nozick comes into play, offering his ‘entitlement theory’. But, though his theory is a subtle revision of just acquisition theory, examination of it will demonstrate that this principle is not workable in sovereignty disputes. In Nozick’s entitlement theory just acquisition becomes the first of three principles (this section is not concerned with the other two):

“An individual A acquires at time t a full property right in an object O which has not previously been the property of any individual if and only if:
(i)            A mixes his labour with o at time t; and
(ii)       as a result of O becoming A’s private property, no one else is made any worse off than he or she would have been, O having being left unappropriated by anyone and had everyone in consequence been free to use O without appropriating it.”

Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974), in particular Part II, Chapter 7, Section I.


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:

Territorial disputes in Africa: the just acquisition principle inadequacy 

Wednesday 18th November 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World


 

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 22) [Post 157]

 


Territorial disputes in Africa: agreement on the historical account


In relation to the first issue—the agreement on the historical account—each sovereign State taking part in a sovereignty conflict is certain that it has ultimate and highest right over the disputed territory, and the use and ownership of the third territory is due to them. As a consequence, sovereignty disputes do not move from a zero-sum game. 
That is because, in order to determine the initial acquisition, the agents have to go back and resolve old historical claims only resulting in a practical matter: the competing agents are never going to agree on the ‘correct’ historical version of the events—i.e. the historical account is fundamentally controversial. 

Thus, it is common to observe in sovereignty differences that the involved agents usually support their claims through historical, legal, political, cultural or geographical arguments—even a combination of many of them. In other words, not only will be the dispute over what the facts are but also what the relative moral significance of those facts is. 
For example, one party will claim that whoever was the first one in the third territory is its owner and hence, its sovereign, and they were there first. 
But the opposite party disputes this, supporting their case with historical, legal, political, cultural and geographical evidence, and arguing either a) that they were there first, or b) that being first is not what makes acquisition just, but, e.g., being first to exploit its resources, or establish a community. 
Because all the parties argue they were the first to do what gave them a right to the third territory, an approach based on a historical account is futile for providing a solution to sovereignty disputes and the conflicts continue endlessly—e.g. arguments about the rightful sovereign of Jerusalem and surrounding areas have been present for generations. 

See for example Genesis 14: 18-20 in which Jerusalem (or Salem) has already enemies. Since Biblical times the region has been centre of disputes in relation to the rightful settlement of different populations. Should these agents go back to Biblical times in order to prove the current legitimate occupancy of the territory?

In addition to the historical account, even though it was assumed the representatives finally agreed on the facts, it is not easy to see an agreement on how what is due to someone be determined, which way to acquire something is just and fair, and whether a certain way of acquiring the sovereignty over the third territory can be just and fair at the same time for two different agents. For instance, they may apply the just acquisition principle. But even with the application of the just acquisition principle sovereignty disputes produce endless conflict.


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:

Territorial disputes in Africa: the just acquisition of the territory

Tuesday 17th November 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Monday, 16 November 2020

Territorial disputes: Africa (Part 21) [Post 156]

 


Territorial disputes in Africa: the historical claim


Before we continue with other TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in Africa we can already determine a pattern. Many of these disputes have to do with non-regional states that had long ago presence in the continent by means of colonialism and imperialism.

The posts this week will center on revising the theory behind the historical claim and the consequent territorial acquisition (that result nowadays in territorial disputes).

Most—if not all­—individuals—and any sovereign State—would think it obvious to apply Ulpian’s maxim Suum cuique tribuere (Digest, 1.1.10)—to give to each his due or to distribute to each one his share—in the case of any type of distribution. 
What can be fairer than to give everyone what is due to them? However, to give to each his due is not a task without difficulties. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that to try to do this automatically produces the most just solution, because it may be hopelessly unclear what each person (or State) is entitled to.

Faced with the idea of applying any kind of principle based on a historical entitlement will confront the representatives with two main problems. 
First, they would need to agree upon a historical account—i.e. what actually happened, who was the first one to discover the territory, or to have a population there, etc. 
Second, they would need to decide what type of act makes their claimed rights just—i.e. the first one setting foot on the territory, the first one to have a permanent settlement, etc. Thus, in relation to the second problem, they would have to choose the theoretical background to decide what is just: res nullius or res communis—i.e. the originally uninhabited territory belonged to no-one or everyone had a certain right over it. Besides, if there were conflicts in the past it would need to be decided whether they were just or not and whether the just side won.

The posts will continue this analysis tomorrow.


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:

Territorial disputes in Africa: agreement on the historical account

Monday 16th November 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Friday, 6 November 2020

Entrevista [video] a cargo de Fiorella Iberico Marotta para la Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola (Perú)

 Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty

International Law and Politics

By 

Jorge E. Núñez 




Entrevista a cargo de Fiorella Iberico Marotta para la Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola (Perú) respecto a mi más reciente obra "Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics" (Routledge 2020)


Thursday, 5 November 2020

Book presentation [video]: "Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty" Manchester, UK

Book presentation (video): "Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty" (Taylor and Francis, Routledge, 2020) 


By

Jorge E. Núñez




Book presentation: "Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty

International Law and Politics" (Taylor and Francis, Routledge, 2020)

By Jorge E. Núñez

Presentation via ZOOM for the Department Strategy, Enterprise and Sustainability, MMU, United Kingdom
My presentation starts at 1h 33' 30"
Wednesday 3rd November 2020



Book Description

Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, this book opens new ground for research on territorial disputes. Many sovereignty conflicts remain unresolved around the world. Current solutions in law, political science and international relations generally prove problematic to at least one of the agents part of these differences. Arguing that disputes are complex, multi-layered and multi-faceted, this book brings together a global, inter-disciplinary view of territorial disputes. The book reviews the key conceptual elements central to legal and political sciences with regards to territorial disputes: state, sovereignty and self-determination. Looking at some of the current long-standing disputes worldwide, it compares and contrasts the many issues at stake and the potential remedies currently available in order to assess why some territorial disputes remain unresolved. Finally, it offers a set of guidelines for dispute settlement and conflict resolution that current remedies fail to provide.

Available in hardcopy and online:

ROUTLEDGE:

https://www.routledge.com/Territorial-Disputes-and-State-Sovereignty-International-Law-and-Politics/Nunez/p/book/9780367201388

AMAZON:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Territorial-Disputes-State-Sovereignty-International/dp/0367201380/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1591608613&sr=8-5


Thursday 05th November 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Friday, 30 October 2020

"The Orphan Protectorates" by Dr Karim Medjad [video]

 


Juris North Monthly Discussion


"The Orphan Protectorates"

by Dr Karim Medjad. 

Professor of International Law 

Former Senior Legal Expert in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo

Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers – Lirsa, Paris, France. 

Wednesday 28th October 2020


Friday 30th October 2020
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World