What’s holding humanity back from moving forward?

A new day, a new conflict… or so it seems. Why?

Hello there! I’m Jorge Emilio Núñez, and I’m eager to explore what’s holding humanity back from moving forward, drawing on the insights I’ve developed in my three books—Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue (2017), Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), and Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023). As I look at the world on 5th March 2025, I see a tangle of challenges—conflicts, divisions, and rigid thinking—that my work has long grappled with.

One big roadblock is our obsession with zero-sum justice—who gets what, and why isn’t it fair? In my 2017 book, I framed sovereignty disputes as distributive justice dilemmas, and that lens fits humanity’s broader stall. Take Russia and Ukraine: three years into war, Russia clings to 20% of Ukraine, while Kyiv fights for every inch—neither side bends because both see total control as their due. Or look at Israel and Palestine: Israel’s settlers push past 600,000 in the West Bank, Palestine demands 1967 borders, and both feel cheated by compromise. This isn’t just about land—it’s climate talks where rich nations hoard resources, or vaccine rollouts where poorer countries lag. We’re trapped by a mindset that fairness means winning, not sharing. I’ve suggested splitting the pie—co-governance, joint stakes—but fear of losing keeps us rigid.

Then there’s the sheer messiness of our disputes, something I dug into in 2020. Humanity’s problems—war, migration, inequality—aren’t simple; they’re layered across law, reality, and values. Russia’s against NATO not just legally (expansion’s allowed) but practically (bases near Kaliningrad) and culturally (West versus East). The South China Sea bristles with China’s 90-ship drills, defying legal rulings like 2016’s UNCLOS, because power trumps paper. Climate’s the same: science says cut emissions, but coal plants rise in Asia—facts clash with economic survival and national pride. We can’t move forward because we treat these as one-note issues—send troops, file a case—when they demand a broader view. My work nudges us to see all angles, but we cling to quick fixes that falter.

By 2023, I was thinking about how sovereignty and global connection collide, and that’s another snag. Humanity’s got too many players—states, communities, individuals—pulling in different directions. Trump’s America First in 2025—slashing Ukraine aid, pressuring NATO—shrinks U.S. leadership, while Europe scrambles (Germany’s Merz eyes autonomy). China’s rise—$240 billion trade with Russia, Taiwan drills—challenges a U.S.-led order, yet its people push for rights too. Latin America’s cartel wars (Mexico’s violence up 10%) and refugee flows (5 million from Ukraine) show local woes rippling out. I’ve imagined a pluralist way—shared power, rights for all—but we’re stuck in silos: nations hoard sovereignty, ignoring the web tying us together. Cosmopolitanism could lift us, but fear of losing control holds us back.

What else? Our tools are rusty. The UN’s veto gridlock—Russia blocks Ukraine action, U.S. shields Israel—freezes progress. Sanctions hurt (Russia’s GDP down 3%) but don’t stop wars; ICC probes (Israel’s settlers) lack teeth. Climate pacts like COP falter—2024’s talks in Baku yielded vague promises. I’ve argued these old structures can’t handle today’s complexity—too state-centric, too slow. Humanity needs new frames—think a global council for plural governance—but we’re wedded to a 1945 playbook, scared to rethink power.

Fear itself is the thread—fear of loss, change, the other. Russia fears NATO’s encirclement, so it fights. Israel fears insecurity, so it builds. The U.S. fears decline, so Trump retreats. My 2017 justice lens says we’re paralyzed by unfairness; 2020’s layers show we misread our crises; 2023’s pluralism warns we’re blind to our interdependence. We’re not moving forward because we can’t let go—nations grip sovereignty like a lifeline, people cling to old identities, and leaders dodge bold leaps. Climate’s at 1.5°C warming, wars bleed on (500,000 dead in Ukraine), inequality festers (1% hold 50% of wealth)—yet we bicker, not build.

What’s stopping us? A failure to share fairly, see deeply, and connect broadly—ideas I’ve wrestled with across my books. Humanity’s got the tools—tech, knowledge—but not the will. We need a shift: justice that bends, solutions that weave, structures that embrace all voices. Until we face that fear, we’re treading water.

Yesterday, 4th March 2025, I launched a series on my website called The Border We Share, blending real case studies—like Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, the South China Sea—with fictional lands we know: Oz’s emerald disputes, Narnia’s border wars, Tintin’s treasure hunts, Sherlock Holmes’s London intrigues. Why? To show what’s at stake if we don’t change our mindset. These stories—real and imagined—reveal the cost of clinging to old divides: conflict, loss, stagnation. I mix them to spark a rethink—unless we share borders, see their depth, and connect across them, humanity risks a future as trapped as Narnia under endless winter. Check it out; it’s my nudge to shift how we see our world. What do you think—can we break free?

NOTE:

There will be new posts every Tuesday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-entangled-worlds.html

NEXT POSTS:

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

1. [YESTERDAY 04/03/2025] Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures: A New Border Blueprint
   • Intro post; Borduria-Syldavia-Khemed meets Ukraine-Crimea.
2. [NEXT WEEK 04/03/2025] Khemed’s Oil, Crimea’s Shadow: Splitting the Stakes
   • Hergé’s oil feud; Russia-Ukraine echoes.
3. Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground
   • Holmes solves a turf war; Brexit’s Irish border.
4. Sherwood’s Green, Amazon’s Roots: Forests for All
   • Robin Hood vs. Sheriff; Brazil-Indigenous clash.
5. Atlantis Rising, Antarctic Thaw: Deep Claims, Shared Wins
   • Atlantis rivals; Antarctic resource race.
6. Narnia’s Ice, Cyprus Split: Thrones in Balance
   • Narnian kings divide; Cyprus partition.

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 05th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

 

Greenland: What’s going on and what may happen

Greetings! I’m Jorge Emilio Nunez, and with so much information (and misinformation) about this case, I’ve decided to dive into the situation surrounding Greenland as of March 5, 2025, drawing on the ideas I’ve explored in my three books—Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue (2017), Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), and Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (2023). Let’s unpack what’s happening with Greenland—an autonomous territory within Denmark—and consider possible outcomes, weaving in my frameworks subtly while keeping it fresh and conversational.

Greenland’s in the spotlight right now, and it’s no surprise why. With a population of just 56,000, mostly Inuit, this vast island holds strategic weight—think rare minerals (39 of the U.S.’s 50 critical ones), potential oil (17.5 billion barrels estimated), and its Arctic perch near the GIUK gap, vital for NATO. Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, he’s reignited his push to “control” Greenland, calling it essential for U.S. “economic security” and refusing to rule out military or economic pressure on Denmark. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen have fired back—“Greenland is for Greenlanders”—while an April 2025 election looms, with independence a hot topic. Russia’s warned against U.S. moves, citing Arctic stability, and China’s eyeing minerals too. It’s a geopolitical stew.

My 2017 lens sees this as a justice tangle—who gets Greenland’s future? Denmark’s held sway since the 18th century, but the 2009 Self-Government Act gave Greenlanders self-determination rights, a nod to their colonial past. Trump’s gambit—tariffs or force—ignores that, treating Greenland like a prize, not a people. Greenlanders want independence (64% in a 2016 poll), but fear losing Denmark’s $600 million annual grant (25% of GDP). The U.S. has Pituffik Space Base there since WWII, yet locals resist being pawns—Egede’s “we’re not Danish, not American” echoes my fairness focus. Russia and China lurk, ready to exploit any rift, but no one’s asking: what’s just for Greenlanders?

Zoom to 2020, and I’d say this mess has layers—legal, tangible, emotional. Legally, Greenland’s autonomy grows (it handles resources, courts), but Denmark keeps defense and foreign policy. Trump’s threats clash with international law—self-determination isn’t negotiable—yet Denmark’s grip isn’t ironclad either; a 2023 draft constitution awaits a referendum. On the ground, Greenland’s harsh climate and small economy (fishing, tourism) limit mining’s promise—2021’s oil ban reflects green priorities. Values churn too—Inuit identity versus Danish ties, U.S. security versus local control. Leaders’ prestige fuels it: Trump’s deal-making bravado, Egede’s independence push, Frederiksen’s balancing act. It’s not one dispute; it’s a web.

By 2023, I was thinking about plurality—states, peoples, global stakes. Greenland’s not just Denmark’s backyard; it’s an Arctic player with the U.S., Russia, China, and NATO circling. Domestically, Greenlanders debate: independence risks poverty (78% opposed if living standards drop, per 2017). Regionally, Canada and Iceland watch—Hans Island’s 2022 split shows compromise works. Globally, the U.S.-China mineral race and Russia’s Arctic buildup (new bases, 2024) frame Greenland as a chess piece. My “The Border We Share” series (launched March 3, 2025, online) ties this to fictional stakes—Oz’s borders, Narnia’s wars—showing how mindset and prestige trap us. Here, Trump’s swagger, Putin’s warnings, and Egede’s resolve rigidify lines.

What could happen? First, status quo holds: Denmark resists Trump, Greenland delays independence, U.S. keeps Pituffik, and tensions simmer—peaceful but stagnant, as old tools (UN, NATO) falter. Second, U.S. coercion wins: economic pressure (tariffs on Denmark) or a deal (free association) pulls Greenland into America’s orbit—costly, risking backlash (Russia gains, NATO splits), and clashing with my justice call. Third, Greenland goes independent: a referendum passes, Denmark agrees, but economic woes loom—China might step in (past overtures), shifting Arctic power. Fourth, a plural fix—my vision with regard to territorial disputes and sovereignty conflicts: Denmark, Greenland, and the U.S. share roles (co-sovereignty), locals govern, resources split, NATO stays. This needs a mindset shift—prestige bends, not breaks.

The outcome hinges on will. Trump’s push could fracture alliances (Europe’s wary—Scholz’s “incomprehension”), Russia might test NATO’s east, and Greenlanders could leap if mining pays off. My work says we’re stuck unless we rethink—fairness for all (2017), all angles seen (2020), all voices linked (2023). Greenland’s a test: cling to old power, or build anew? What’s your take on where this lands?

For my work on other Territorial Disputes in the Americas see my series:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/02/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_28.html

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 05th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

The Borders We Share: Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures (Post 1)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

Blog Post #1: Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures: A New Border Blueprint

Borders are alive—they hum with conflict, history and hope. Today, over 200 territorial disputes—like the Israel-Palestine difference, Russia and Ukraine, Falklands/Malvinas, Kashmir or the South China Sea—fracture our world, pitting states against states, communities against power, people against lines on a map. We’re taught it’s a zero-sum game: one claims the prize, others lick their wounds. But what if borders could be bridges, not barricades? What if sovereignty wasn’t a solo act but a shared song? I’m Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez (Dr Jorge for short), and in this series, The Borders We Share, I’m weaving decades of my work into a radical rethink of our planet’s fault lines.

My journey includes three books so far, each a stepping stone. In 2017’s Sovereignty Conflicts, I introduced egalitarian shared sovereignty—splitting authority fairly, not fighting for it, rooted in justice for all sides. Then, 2020’s Territorial Disputes grounded it in reality—case studies like Gibraltar, Israel-Palestine and Antarctica, showing sovereignty as a fluid dance of claims, not a fixed throne. By 2023’s Cosmopolitanism, I went multidimensional, blending state power with global citizenship across agents, contexts and realms. Together, they form the Núñezian Integrated Multiverses—a quantum-inspired lens where sovereignty entangles agents including individuals, communities and states like particles in a cosmic web. A tremor in Ukraine ripples to Taiwan; justice in Kashmir hums in Palestine. My fix? Balance this network—shared, equitable, alive.

To spark your imagination, I’m dipping into a treasure trove of fiction—public-domain worlds that mirror our own. First, a deep nod to Hergé, the Tintin maestro who gave us Borduria’s iron grip, Syldavia’s regal spine and Khemed’s dusty wealth. These aren’t my lands—they’re his, a shared legacy I’m honoring, not hijacking. Where Hergé spun tales of rivalry, I’m spinning solutions. But I’m not stopping there. This series will roam wider—Sherlock Holmes sniffing clues in a foggy London turf war, Robin Hood defending Sherwood’s green from greedy hands, Atlantis sinking under rival claims, Narnia’s kings clashing over frozen borders, Oz’s wizards haggling over emerald spoils, Utopia’s dreamers debating perfect lines. These icons—individuals, communities, nations—aren’t mine either; they’re humanity’s, free to reimagine. They’re my lens to light up real disputes, from Crimea’s shadow to the Amazon’s scars.

Picture Borduria and Syldavia scrapping over Khemed’s oil—a Tintin feud with South China Sea vibes. My 2017 lens says share it: equal seats, split riches, no overlords. My 2020 work digs in—real data from Falklands/Malvinas or Gibraltar shows the tangle of history, force and need. Then 2023’s multidimensionality kicks up—agents (locals, states), contexts (local, regional and international pride vs. treaties), realms (law, ethics, religion), all in flux like quantum states. Or imagine Sherlock Holmes mediating a London dock spat—think Brexit’s Irish border—solved by a council where all talk as peers. Robin Hood’s band and the Sheriff split Sherwood—echoes of Brazil’s land grabs—balanced by 2017’s fairness, 2020’s facts, 2023’s pluralistic web. Atlantis rises as nations vie for its depths—Arctic thaw, anyone?—and Narnia’s kings share a throne, like Cyprus split anew. Oz’s emerald city and Utopia’s ideals? They’re Palestine’s streets, reimagined as entangled stakes, not battlegrounds.

This is Núñezian Integrated Multiverses: 2017’s equity, 2020’s grit, 2023’s depth, fused into a quantum hum. Sovereignty isn’t one note—it’s a chord, played across dimensions. The real world proves it—2020’s cases show Gibraltar’s rock or Kashmir’s snow as nodes in a system, not lone peaks. A claim in Oz shifts Narnia; justice in Atlantis lifts Utopia. Traditional law and politics see flat lines; I see multiverses—agents (you, me, them), roles (hosts, players), contexts (local, regional, global), all superimposed until we act. My answer weaves them—shared councils, entangled rights, cosmopolitan echoes—because a win in one corner sings everywhere.

This series will bounce from Hergé’s Khemed to Holmes’ alleys, from Narnia’s ice to Oz’s shine, then back to our headlines—Ukraine’s edge, Palestine’s pain, the Arctic’s rush. Each post tests this vision: fictional fixes grounded in real stakes. Borduria’s dust meets Crimea’s mud; Robin Hood’s green hugs the Amazon’s roots; Atlantis’ waves lap the South China Sea. My work—2017, 2020, 2023—ties it tight: justice fuels sharing, data demands depth, dimensions defy the old maps.

Join me. Share this, challenge it, dive in. Borders aren’t endings—they’re threads in a tapestry. Let’s stitch them into something whole. Next up: Khemed’s oil, Sherlock’s fog, and a real-world mirror you won’t miss.

NOTE:

There will be new posts every Tuesday.

NEXT POSTS:

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

1. [TODAY 04/03/2025] Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures: A New Border Blueprint
   • Intro post; Borduria-Syldavia-Khemed meets Ukraine-Crimea.
2. [NEXT WEEK 11/03/2025] Khemed’s Oil, Crimea’s Shadow: Splitting the Stakes
   • Hergé’s oil feud; Russia-Ukraine echoes.
3. Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground
   • Holmes solves a turf war; Brexit’s Irish border.
4. Sherwood’s Green, Amazon’s Roots: Forests for All
   • Robin Hood vs. Sheriff; Brazil-Indigenous clash.
5. Atlantis Rising, Antarctic Thaw: Deep Claims, Shared Wins
   • Atlantis rivals; Antarctic resource race.
6. Narnia’s Ice, Cyprus Split: Thrones in Balance
   • Narnian kings divide; Cyprus partition.

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 04th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World. Preview: Launching Tuesday, March 4, 2025

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Preview: Launching Tuesday, March 4, 2025

Borders don’t just mark maps—they ignite wars. Over 200 territorial disputes—like Ukraine’s edge, the Falklands/Malvinas’ winds or the South China Sea’s reefs—fracture our world, locking states and people in a tug-of-war over who owns what. The old playbook says one side wins, the rest lose. But what if borders could unite us instead? I’m Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez, and on Tuesday, March 4, I’m launching The Borders We Share—a series that reimagines these fights, from fiction’s wild corners to reality’s raw edges. Full post at https://DrJorge.World

For a decade, I’ve wrestled with sovereignty—through Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Territorial Disputes (2020), and Cosmopolitanism (2023). My take? It’s not a solo prize but an entangled web—individuals, communities, states, all linked like quantum threads. A claim in Crimea ripples to Khemed, a fictional oil hotspot from Hergé’s Tintin. That’s my starting line—Hergé’s genius gave us Borduria, Syldavia, Khemed, lands I’m borrowing with respect, not remaking. They’re joined by Sherlock Holmes’ foggy streets, Robin Hood’s green woods, Narnia’s icy thrones—public-domain icons lighting up real messes.

Picture Borduria and Syldavia clashing over Khemed’s oil—think Russia eyeing Ukraine’s flank. My fix isn’t one flag—it’s shared power, equal stakes, a council where all sit as peers. That’s my Núñezian Integrated Multiverses: 2017’s fairness, 2020’s facts from Kashmir to Gibraltar, 2023’s multidimensional dance of agents and realms. Sovereignty’s not flat—it’s a multiverse, and I’ve got a way to mend it.

This Tuesday, The Borders We Share kicks off with “Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures”—Khemed meets Crimea, fiction meets truth. Every Tuesday after, I’ll weave Hergé’s dust, Sherlock’s clues, Narnia’s snow into disputes you know—Falklands, Palestine, the Arctic and Antarctica. Friday’s your preview day—today’s just the start. Join me at https://DrJorge.World on March 4 for the full drop. Borders aren’t endings—they’re beginnings. Let’s share them right.

Friday 28th February 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 26: Antarctica

 

Antarctica

Unquestionably, Antarctica is important for many reasons to many different agents including but not limited to sovereign states. For instance, scientific researchers highlight its role as part of the Earth’s climate system, as an open laboratory with actual and potential benefit to mankind and as an environment for wildlife. Several central, strong or advantaged and non-central, weak or disadvantaged states consider Antarctica as part of their geopolitical strategies. Clearly, law and politics are intertwined.

The Antarctic Treaty[1] mostly refers to scientific exploration of Antarctica and, therefore, in terms of sovereignty the legal situation is a status quo ante.Whether it is futile or not to refer to the question about sovereign rights in Antarctica in light of the Antarctic Treaty, it is still a fact there are several agents involved directly and indirectly in the area with different interests including: seven states with territorial claims¾i.e. Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom; central, strong or advantaged agents such as the Russian Federation and the United States with research facilities in the area; and many more agents like Brazil, China, India, and other Indian Ocean states.

As stated in Núñez 2020, Antarctica, as a territorial dispute, encompasses several unique issues: legally, sovereignty is frozen; there is no indigenous or permanent population living in the area; it is a demilitarized zone; there are several original claimants and even more interested post-Treaty interested parties; the territory including land, water and the exclusive economic zone; natural resources; and many others. Such a complex situation in law and fact requires a multidisciplinary vision if the different governments representing each claiming and interested agent actually give priority to the common global interest of humankind as a whole.

Territorial claims over Antarctica

There are seven states claiming territorial sovereignty over Antarctica. Linked to colonial, imperialistic practices or not, these claims precede the ATS and are by the United Kingdom (1908), New Zealand (1923), France (1924), Argentina (1890s), Australia (1933), Norway (1939) and Chile (1890s). The bases for these claims include discovery, effective occupation and geographical proximity. Arguably, when considering realpolitik, there seems to be a different standing between central and noncentral states on the issue pertaining the mutual recognition of territorial claims over Antarctica—i.e. only Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom mutually recognize the claims of the others.

Latin America and Antarctica

Eleven of the twenty Latin American states are part of at least one of the ATS legal instruments. Neighboring the South American cluster, Antarctica presents several continental agents with claims. These claims can be broadly classified into two groups: a) those based on connection grounds such as first exploration and discovery (Argentina and Chile), scientific explorations and expeditions, exploitation of natural resources and state activity; and b) those based on official documents and geographical doctrines like the uti possidetis juris principle, transfer of territory, geographic continuity and contiguity and the sector principle.

Central, strong or advantaged states and Antarctica

United States’ territorial ambition over Antarctica have been present for decades. Technically, the United States has no territorial claim to Antarctica, does not recognize the territorial claims made by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom and maintains the right to make future claims. For several reasons including geostrategic location and natural resources, the importance of an American Antarctic is unquestionable to the northern state. Therein, their position related to the sovereignty freeze can be explained when the situation is assessed multidimensionally.

Multidimensionality and Antarctica

By accepting the intricacy Antarctica presents, it is possible to argue that a unidimensional approach—e.g. only legal, only political, only focused on past or current issues—will not help attain a fair arrangement for the whole of mankind. Brevitatis causa, while unidimensional approaches seek to explore and understand a fragment of the object or subject of study in question—here, Antarctica and relevant guidelines—and the way a scholarly discipline conceives it, the author’s proposed multidimensional approach is more interested in the object or subject of study itself, its elements, features and interrelations within and without.[2]

Núñez 2020[3] suggested some basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica. Considering the ideal circumstances designed in Núñez 2017,[4] and the many dispute settlement procedures and remedies previously reviewed and assessed by the author, it is possible to explore now these basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica in more detail. Therein, Núñez 2025/26 will address these guidelines individually.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. This is the final post, at least for now, pertaining to this series. Keep tuned because a monograph is coming!

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/02/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_14.html

NEXT POST:

This is the final post, at least for now, pertaining to this series. Keep tuned because a monograph is coming!

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Friday 28th February 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

---

[1] For a complete version of the Antarctic Treaty see http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf accessed 17 February 2025. For the official Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty website see https://www.ats.aq/e/antarctictreaty.html accessed 17 February 2025.

[2] For details about dimensional understanding including uni- and multidimenstionality see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023).

[3] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6.

[4] Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 6.

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 25: Núñez’s frameworks and quantum entanglement

 

Núñez’s frameworks and quantum entanglement

An integration of Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez’s frameworks from “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue” (2017) and “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” (2023) with the concept of quantum entanglement would imply:

Núñez’s Theoretical Frameworks:

• 2017 Framework (Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty):
  • Núñez proposes that sovereignty conflicts might be resolved through a model of “egalitarian shared sovereignty,” where sovereignty is not a zero-sum game but can be shared in a way that ensures distributive justice. This model challenges traditional notions of exclusive state sovereignty, advocating for arrangements that consider fairness and equity.
• 2023 Framework (Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty):
• In this work, Núñez explores the interplay between cosmopolitanism and state sovereignty, introducing the concept of a “pluralism of pluralisms.” He argues for a “multidimensional approach” to sovereignty, where different forms of pluralisms including realms like the rational, empirical, axiological operate across various agents that play different roles in various contexts, suggesting that state sovereignty and global citizenship can coexist and even enhance each other.

Quantum Entanglement and Sovereignty:

1. Entangled Sovereignty:
   • Like quantum particles that are entangled, sovereignty from the Núñez 2017 and 2023 perspectives can be seen as inherently linked across different dimensions and actors. In this metaphor, the sovereignty of one state or the rights of individuals within a cosmopolitan framework are not independent but are part of a broader, entangled system where changes in one part affect the whole.
   • This could mean that when one state asserts its sovereignty, it simultaneously impacts the cosmopolitan ideals of universal rights, and vice versa, pushing for solutions where sovereignty is shared or balanced in a way that respects this interconnectedness.
2. Distributive Justice in a Quantum Context:
   • Quantum entanglement suggests that the state of one particle cannot be described without considering its entangled partner. Similarly, distributive justice in sovereignty conflicts (from the 2017 framework) could be reimagined where the justice for one actor is intrinsically tied to that of others in an entangled system. The equitable distribution of sovereignty or rights would, therefore, require a holistic view, acknowledging that fairness in one context influences fairness in another.
3. Multidimensional Sovereignty and Quantum Superposition:
   • Núñez’s 2023 concept of “pluralism of pluralisms” can be likened to quantum superposition, where sovereignty exists in multiple potential states until interaction or “measurement” forces a singular outcome. This might imply that sovereignty disputes should be approached with an understanding that they can exist in multiple forms (exclusive, shared, cosmopolitan) until a resolution is needed, much like particles remain in superposition until observed.
4. Cosmopolitanism as an Entangled State:
   • The cosmopolitan vision from 2023 could be seen as an entangled state where individual rights, state sovereignty, and international law are intertwined. In this entangled state, the actions or policies of one state or entity would have immediate implications for others, promoting a global justice system where sovereignty is not just about borders but about interconnected responsibilities and rights.
5. Policy and Diplomacy in an Entangled World:
   • Diplomacy might then take on a quantum-like perspective, where the focus is not only on immediate outcomes but on how diplomatic moves resonate through this entangled network, influencing sovereignty, rights, and justice across different levels and dimensions.

This speculative integration suggests that sovereignty conflicts could benefit from a paradigm where traditional notions are expanded by understanding the complexity and interdependence akin to quantum mechanics. Brevitatis causa, solutions might not just aim to divide or assert sovereignty but to find states of balance and justice that acknowledge the entanglement of human rights, state claims, and global ethics.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/02/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_10.html

NEXT POST:

Antarctica

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Friday 14th February 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

 

Kelsen and Núñez

To compare the work of Jorge Emilio Núñez, particularly his books from 2017 and 2023, with Hans Kelsen's legal theory, we need to examine their methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and contributions to legal philosophy:

Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law

Key Features:

• Normativity and Purity: Kelsen's "Pure Theory of Law" (Reine Rechtslehre) is grounded in the idea that law should be studied as an autonomous science, free from politics, ethics, or sociology. The theory focuses on the normative aspect of law, emphasizing what "ought" to be as opposed to what "is."
• Hierarchy of Norms: Kelsen introduced the concept of a hierarchical structure of legal norms, with the "Grundnorm" (basic norm) at the apex. This norm provides legitimacy to all other norms in a legal system.
• Legal Positivism: He is a proponent of legal positivism, where law is seen as a system of norms created by human beings, separate from moral considerations.
• Dynamic Theory: Kelsen's theory includes the idea that law evolves dynamically through the application and interpretation of norms.

Jorge Emilio Núñez's Contributions

Books in Focus:

• "Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics" (2017)
  • Focus on Sovereignty: This book tackles sovereignty issues, particularly those involving territorial disputes like Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and Kashmir, through the lens of international law and politics.
  • Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty: Núñez proposes egalitarian shared sovereignty as a solution to sovereignty conflicts, which can be seen as an evolution of Kelsen's normative hierarchy by introducing practical applications in conflict resolution.
• "Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics A Theory" (2023)
• Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty: Here, Núñez delves into how cosmopolitanism can reshape our understanding of state sovereignty within international law, introducing a theory that blends legal, political, and philosophical perspectives.
• Multidimensional Analysis: His approach involves a multidimensional analysis, contrasting with Kelsen's more linear, norm-based analysis, by considering multiple facets of law, including global justice and intercultural norms.

Methodological and Theoretical Comparison:

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Unlike Kelsen’s strict separation of law from other disciplines, Núñez integrates insights from political theory, philosophy, and international relations. This broadens the scope of legal analysis to address contemporary global challenges.
• Practical Application: Núñez’s work moves from Kelsen’s theoretical purity towards practical solutions in international law, particularly in conflict resolution and state sovereignty issues. His theories on shared sovereignty and cosmopolitan justice aim at practical outcomes in international legal disputes.
• Normativity and Reality: While Kelsen focused on the normativity of law, Núñez combines this with an analysis of how legal norms interact with political realities, suggesting a more pragmatic approach to legal theory.
• Evolution of Legal Positivism: Núñez could be seen as extending legal positivism by incorporating elements of global justice and cosmopolitanism, thus addressing criticisms that Kelsen’s theory was too detached from moral and social considerations.

Why Núñez’s Works Represent a Next Step:

• Adaptation to Globalization: Núñez’s work reflects the complexities of modern international relations and the globalization of legal norms, which wasn’t as pronounced in Kelsen’s era. His theories provide a framework for understanding law in a world where sovereignty is increasingly contested by global forces.
• Addressing Contemporary Issues: His focus on sovereignty conflicts and cosmopolitanism directly engages with current global issues like territorial disputes, migration, and global governance, areas where Kelsen’s framework might seem less applicable without adaptation.
• Integration of New Paradigms: By considering cosmopolitanism, Núñez introduces a paradigm where legal norms are not just about state sovereignty but also about global citizenship and shared responsibilities.
• Practical Legal Solutions: Núñez’s methodologies aim at providing actionable solutions to legal problems, making his work a natural evolution from Kelsen’s foundational theoretical work towards a more applied legal theory.

Comparison with Other Authors

Many other legal theorists and authors, while expanding on Kelsen’s work, often do so within the confines of his methodology or with a narrower focus:

• Continued Pure Theory Focus (Lack of Innovation): Some authors delve deeper into the normative aspects without bridging as comprehensively into political science or global ethics.
• Specific Legal Areas: Others might specialize in particular areas of law (like constitutional law or criminal law) without addressing the broader shifts in international legal theory.
• Lack of Interdisciplinary Synthesis: While there are many who engage in interdisciplinary work, Núñez’s particular blend of international law, political theory, and philosophy tailored to contemporary global issues is less common.
• Incremental vs. Transformative: Many authors build incrementally on Kelsen’s work, refining or critiquing specific aspects, whereas Núñez’s approach might be seen as more transformative, aiming to realign legal theory with current global realities.

Why Others Don’t Represent the Next Step:

• Scope: Núñez’s work encompasses a broad spectrum of legal theory development, from theory to practice, which might not be as pronounced in others’ works.
• Innovation: His introduction of new concepts like shared sovereignty and the integration of cosmopolitanism into legal theory offers a fresh perspective that goes beyond mere critique or extension of Kelsen’s ideas.
• Global Relevance: Núñez’s work directly tackles the evolving nature of statehood, sovereignty, and law in a globalized world, an area where many other theorists have not made as significant a leap from Kelsen’s foundational work.

While many legal scholars have built upon Kelsen’s work, Núñez’s approach not only honors the normative purity and structure of Kelsen’s theory but also significantly expands its application and relevance to contemporary global legal issues, making his works a notable evolution in legal thinking.

Ultimately, Kelsen provided the groundwork for understanding law through a purely normative lens, Núñez’s works can be viewed as an evolution by incorporating broader interdisciplinary analyses and addressing modern global legal challenges, thus pushing the boundaries of legal theory into new territories of practice and application.

Wednesday 12th February 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world