The case of Khemed between Borduria and Syldavia
The following paragraphs are an extract of Chapter 7, “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” by Dr Jorge E. Núñez (Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2023).
[…] This section introduces a thought experiment in the form of a fictional territorial dispute. The objective is to demonstrate how the dimensional approaches operate in relation to the many pluralisms that characterize sovereignty and cosmopolitanism. It is accurate to say this methodology may be limited when the scenario forces the scholar to think of exceptional cases.[1] Therefore, bearing in mind this potential pitfall, the following hypothetical situation will include the most relevant features with regard to the most controversial and long-standing territorial disputes such as the Israel-Palestine difference, Kashmir, Crimea and the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. These features are: 1) intensifying factors—e.g. ethnic conflict, recent violence, historic animosity, inability of claiming governments to control developments along the border, or taking unpopular initiatives and third-party involvement; 2) magnitude—e.g. size of area in question, number of inhabitants, natural resources, access to trade or invasion routes and number of casualties; and 3) nature—e.g. land or water, number of claiming parties, legal framework, status of the negotiation and type.[2]
In order to avoid any possible involuntary omission or changes from the original case scenario, the following paragraphs reproduce in full the relevant description of the fictional territorial dispute between Borduria and Syldavia over Khemed’s sovereignty:
Imagine a group of people living on an island named Khemed. The majority of Khemedians are Muslims and there are some other minor religions represented as well. Although the territory is small in size, it is highly rich in a very rare metal only found there. However, they do not possess the means for its exploration and exploitation. Therefore, their main source of income is the exportation of basic products obtained from fishing and farming. They do not have any means to defend the island. Finally, the sovereignty of the island has been continuously claimed by two sovereign states, Syldavia and Borduria.
Syldavia is a medium size sovereign state with a large population, mainly Muslims. This country is situated in another continent and although not having natural resources, it is immensely wealthy mainly because of its financial services. Syldavians have one of the most developed means of defense in the world.
On the contrary, Borduria is one of the largest sovereign states in the world in terms of territorial size, but not densely populated. Bordurians are mainly Hindus and their economy is based on agriculture. It is a non-wealthy country with heavy international debt, high rates of unemployment and inflation and governmental corruption. They do not have any means to defend their territory. Geographically, they are located in the continent adjacent to Khemed, so mainland Borduria shares with Khemedians part of the continental shelf.[3]
In order to present a case more closely related to the intensifying factors characteristic of the most well-known current and ongoing territorial disputes, this time the description will introduce further details. For instance, the territory of Khemed is mentioned in both religious traditions, that of Borduria and that of Syldavia. More precisely, both religious accounts describe Khemed as one of their most Holy places. Historically, however, it has been impossible to find factual evidence that can unequivocally demonstrate who the first Khemedian settlers were or where they came from. Rather, there is factual evidence of disputes on the island for centuries, dating back to times before Borduria and Syldavia were sovereign states themselves. Until recently, Khemed was under Borduria’s de facto sovereignty and followed their legal system. Not long ago, the newly elected Syldavian government decided to take Khemed by force and currently Syldavia is the de facto sovereign. While Borduria’s national constitution expressly guarantees several individual freedoms including sexual preferences, Syldavia’s national superior legal norm does not. Consequently, Syldavia’s legal system allows for the death penalty in cases of same-sex sexual activities. This has resulted in several demonstrations in Khemed for the protection of LGBT+ individuals as well as anti-demonstrations generating recent civil violence.
In terms of contexts, internationally, Borduria and Syldavia are League of Peoples’ members—i.e. League of Peoples is the only existing global legal and political organization that includes most sovereign states as members; and regionally, Borduria is a member of an embryo organization that centers solely on the free movements of goods, while Syldavia is member of the most legally, politically and militarily advanced organization that includes the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services. Three of the wealthiest and most developed states in the world, Nuevo Rico (liberal democracy), Saboulistan (liberal autocracy) and Poldovia (Marxist democracy) have presence in Khemed’s exclusive economic zone directly or indirectly—i.e. by means of private companies—and explore and exploit natural resources without permission.
There have been several attempts to negotiate an agreement between Borduria and Syldavia resulting in several potential solutions including partition, leaseback with guarantees, autonomy under the sovereignty of one of the claiming parties with financial compensation to the other and self-governing under shared sovereignty between Borduria and Syldavia. In all cases, the proposed solutions were rejected by one or both claiming parties. Furthermore, in all cases, the negotiations did not include any Khemedian representative because Borduria has systematically opposed their legal and political personhood as a separate party.
Having sketched the fictional territorial dispute between Borduria and Syldavia over Khemed’s sovereignty, the next sections will assess different elements and features in light of the unidimensional, multidimensional, linear and nonlinear approaches. It is important to stress that whether the outcomes differ or not does not mean that one approach may be more relevant, important or accurate but more or less comprehensive. […]
[1] For the author’s response to the tension between ideal and non-ideal theory see chapter 1 and, in more detail, Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 1. Tamar Szabo Gendler, Thought Experiment: On the Powers and Limits of Imaginary Cases (New York: Routledge, 2013).
[2] See Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020), chapter 4. For further details refer to Daniel J. Dzurek, “What Makes Some Boundary Disputes Important?” IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 7:4 (Winter 1999-2000): 83-95; and Daniel J. Dzurek, “What Makes Territory Important: Tangible and Intangible Dimensions,” GeoJournal, 64 (2005): 263-274.
[3] For more details about this fictional territorial dispute, the author’s analysis and its application to the cases of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, Kashmir and Gibraltar, see Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017), Chapters 6 and 7.
Book’s description
This book assesses the relationship between cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Often considered to be incompatible, it is argued here that the two concepts are in many ways interrelated and to some extent rely on one another. By introducing a novel theory, the work presents a detailed philosophical analysis to illustrate how these notions might theoretically and practically work together. This theoretical inquiry is balanced with detailed empirical discussion highlighting how the concepts are related in practice and to expose the weaknesses of stricter interpretations of sovereignty which present it as exclusionary. Finally, the book looks at territorial disputes to explore how sovereignty and cosmopolitanism can successfully operate together to deal with global issues. The work will be of interest to academics and researchers in the areas of Legal Philosophy, Legal Theory and Jurisprudence, Public International Law, International Relations and Political Science.
Further details: https://drjorge.world
ORDERS
Friday 12th April 2024
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
https://drjorge.world
