Dr Jorge's blog

Wednesday 18th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

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

[2] For unidimensional and multidimensional approaches see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023), Chapter 6.

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

Monday, 16 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 9: San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina (Colombia and Nicaragua)

San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina (Colombia and Nicaragua)

Like other cases in the Americas, the territorial dispute over the archipelago of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina is rooted in colonialism.[1] The archipelago was discovered by Europeans in the sixteenth century, colonized by Spain, and later occupied by English Puritans from Bermuda. Slaves arrived in 1633 from other Caribbean islands. Breaking up with Spain, Colombia and Nicaragua became independent states. At that time the archipelago—which then included the Islas Mangles (Cum Islands)— and the Mosquito Coast were part of the Spanish Viceroyalty of Santa Fe (or Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada).

In 2001, Nicaragua presented its sovereignty claims at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In 2007, the ICJ recognized Colombian sovereignty. In 2012, the ICJ ruled that the Esguerra-Bárcenas Treary did not include a maritime delimitation—i.e. there was agreed maritime boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua. Moreover, because Colombia is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), by application of customary international law, the ICJ used a novel and controversial interpretation—i.e. a mixture of weighted base points, geodetic lines, parallels of latitude and enclaving—and confirmed Colombian sovereignty and granted Nicaragua control over part of the western coastline of the archipelago.

The San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina territorial dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua includes the Raizal people. They are a local ethnic and racial minority. With an origin in European colonial past that encompassed slavery, migration and different cultures, the Raizal people have their own culture, including their own language—i.e. creole, and overall identity that makes them define themselves as different from the people in Colombia’s mainland.

While the legal and political status of indigenous peoples is in question in terms of territorial disputes, the Americas also include populations that were at one time settlers. These implanted populations encompass those who relocated either willingly such as the Falkland/Malvinas islanders or were forced like former African slaves in the archipelago of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina—i.e. Raizal community.

Differences between islanders and Colombia’s mainland comprise religious discrepancies between Anglophone/Protestant and Hispanic/Catholic views. In fact, they are sociologically linked with the English and Creole-speaking community on the Nicaraguan coast. Controversially, there seems to be a dominant national vision overriding the local Raizal community by means of imposition by the Colombian state coupled with private sector interests.

More currently, with the Black Lives matter movement, Raizal’s claims for self-determination seem to be taking a more visibility domestically, regionally and internationally. Therein, national level organizations such as Proceso de Comunidades Negras (Black Communities’ Process, PCN) defend the right to political-organizational autonomy of the Raizal people.

NOTE:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_13.html

Neo-colonialism and colonial mindset

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

Monday 20th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_11.html

[1] See Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020.

Friday, 13 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 8: The Falklands/Malvinas and the different accounts

The Falklands/Malvinas and the different accounts

The Falkland/Malvinas Islands represent a traditional territorial dispute in which several international agents claim sovereign rights for different reasons over the same piece of land. Argentineans, the Falkland/Malvinas islanders and Britons have an ongoing argument.[1] The solution seems to require a mutually exclusive relation amongst them because it is assumed that the sovereignty over the third territory can be granted to only one of them. Indeed, sovereignty is often regarded as an absolute concept (that is to say, exclusive, and not shareable).

The Falklands/Malvinas are a clear example of a zero-sum game, with many negative outcomes of different sorts (e.g. inefficient exploitation of natural resources, tension in international relations, and threat to local and international peace). Thus, while these conflicts are in principle confined to specific areas and start with negative consequences primarily for the local population, they tend quickly to expand to the regional and—even—the international level (e.g. effects on international price of oil, war). There are many issues at stake domestically and internationally.

Although this sovereignty conflict has been and is object of study of many sciences—law, political science, international relations, only to name a few—these sciences do not share their developments and both different approaches and different languages were applied. Indeed, although multi and inter-disciplinary studies are promoted in speeches everywhere, it is more a nominal aim rather than an actual reality.

I realized that the answer was very simple. Some problems are never solved because most look for more problems, problems within a problem, or just simply give up or are so self-centered they think that problem will not affect them and hence, why would they even think about it. Ergo, the answer came to me: some problems like the territorial dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas are never solved because people (or their representatives) do not look for a solution.

Regardless of the fact that, in principle, a stalemate may seem negative and governments are assumed to seek for a peaceful and permanent dispute settlement, the status quo in the Falklands/Malvinas serves other purpose and, therefore, guarantees only and endless legal and political limbo. Huth explains the dynamics in a simple yet illuminating manner:

“[…] leaders were typically constrained by domestic political forces to be very cautious in moving toward a compromise settlement, since popular and elite opinion, and often the military, was opposed to such a policy. […] In most situations the leader’s position of domestic power and authority was better served by continuing confrontation […]”[2]

In tune with this, for the internal context, it is important to observe how Britons and Argentineans refer to each other when they discuss the Falkland/Malvinas Islands issue. In both cases, the views are extremely biased and polarized with positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.

In turn, the international context plays a role in terms of prestige because great powers would opt to go to war to preserve this status even if the effects seem trivial. Unsurprisingly, politicians and governments in Argentina and the United Kingdom have not reached a settlement to the dispute since the internal, regional and international payoffs are higher by simply keeping the status quo. The direct influence over the domestic political status of the ruling power of the Falkland/Malvinas 1982 war at the time and currently the ongoing territorial dispute over the islands is unquestionable.

NOTE:

San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina (Colombia and Nicaragua)

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:

Friday 13th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

Link to Falklands: referendum, dates and question

[1] This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020.

[2] Paul K. Huth, Standing Your Ground. Territorial Disputes and International Conflict, The University of Michigan Press, 2001, 178-179.

Wednesday, 11 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 7: Falkland/Malvinas Islands

Falkland/Malvinas Islands (Argentina and the United Kingdom)

The Falkland/Malvinas Islands territorial dispute has all the elements for the type of conflict this series discusses, namely two sovereign States (Argentina and the United Kingdom) and a non-sovereign third territory (Falkland/Malvinas Islands).[1] Indeed, it has features that are often the main cause of controversy in sovereignty conflicts. A very brief historical account will put this into context.

There is doubt about who first sighted the islands and about the first landing (Ferdinand Magellan and/or Amerigo Vespucci or the English sea captain John Davis) in the 1500s. British and Spanish settlements appear afterwards. Argentina declared its independence from Spain (1816) and then claimed rights over the islands as they were part of the region previously under Spanish dominion (1829).

The United Kingdom and Argentina have had continuous presence and/or claimed exclusive sovereign rights over the islands since then, both bilaterally and internationally with a climax in 1982 with a war between the two.

According to the 2012 census the islands had 2841 inhabitants. Most of them (59%) considered themselves “Falkland Islanders” and a large percentage identified themselves as British (29%). Bilateral relations have been re-established after the war.

The sovereignty dispute over the islands continues nowadays. Commerce and trade between the islands and Argentina have been an issue. Because of the lack of negotiations, Argentina has threatened an economic blockade, an idea supported by other Latin-American States with visible immediate negative results for the islanders. In March 2013, the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders voted in a referendum whether they wanted (or not) to remain as British Overseas Territory. By a large majority (99.8%) they made clear their wishes to remain British.

What do Falklands/Malvinas islanders want?

In March 2013, the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders voted in a referendum whether they wanted (or not) to remain as British Overseas Territory. By a large majority (99.8%) they made clear their wishes to remain British.

The number of ballot papers issued was 1,522

The number of votes cast at the referendum was 1,518

The total number of rejected ballot papers was 1

The total number of votes validly cast at the referendum was 1,517

The percentage of turnout at the referendum was 92%

The number of “Yes” votes cast was 1,513 (99.8%)

The number of “No” votes cast was 3 (0.2%)

There was only one question with an explanatory preamble that read:

“The current political status of the Falkland Islands is that they are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. The Islands are internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom being responsible for matters including defence and foreign affairs. Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination, which they can exercise at any time. Given that Argentina is calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this referendum is being undertaken to consult the people regarding their views on the political status of the Falkland Islands. Should the majority of votes cast be against the current status, the Falkland Islands Government will undertake necessary consultation and preparatory work in order to conduct a further referendum on alternative options.

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

YES or NO”

For more information about this referendum, dates, the question and the relative leaflet see o

Falklands: referendum, dates and question

Lisa Watson, editor of the ‘Penguin News’, gave an interview a week after the referendum in the Falklands. Amongst many issues, she talked about self-determination.

Interview and information available on this blog:

Self-determination and the Falklands: interview to Lisa Watson

Link to self-determination and the Falklands: interview to Lisa Watson

To finish today’s post, I am leaving a link to a post I published on this blog back in 2013 at the time of the referendum. I had the opportunity to have one of the Falkland’s islanders writing for us. Post available on this blog:

A day in the Falklands

Link to “A day in the Falklands”

To reiterate part of what I wrote at the time “[…] to have so many people arguing about others without even including them is just… bizarre. In any case in which someone’s life is going to be affected by another’s decision, that someone should at least BE HEARD. Why? Simply because they count, they have moral standing. Their life is the one that is going to be affected by any decision – and that of their children. […]”

NOTE:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_9.html

The Falklands/Malvinas and the different accounts

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:

Wednesday 11th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_6.html

[1] This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020).

Monday, 9 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 6: Ongoing European influence

Ongoing European influence in the Americas

Despite the colonial times are long gone, there are still a few remaining cases of European direct and indirect influence in territorial disputes pertaining America. Arguably, the Falklands/Malvinas Islands dispute[1] between Argentina and the United Kingdom is the most noticeable example of the enduring European colonial legacy in the continent. There are, however, other cases of ongoing European presence in the region such as the Hans Island dispute (Canada and Denmark) and the Marouini (or Maroni) River track dispute (Suriname and French Guiana).

Furthermore, the settled territorial dispute over the archipelago of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina provides examples of several issues in the domestic, regional and international contexts that includes the tension between a local ethnic and racial minority (Raizal community) and the Colombian state’s interests. Similar in that respect to the Falklands/Malvinas case, the San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina situation involves the presence of a population implanted by a former colonial power.

More precisely, these disputes include a combination of domestic, regional and international agents and contexts fostering the stalemate. For instance, domestically, although a stalemate may seem negative and governments are assumed to seek peaceful and permanent dispute settlements, the status quo serves other purposes to local politics because it guarantees an endless legal and political limbo that benefits leader’s position.

Núñez 2020 included some partial conclusions that indicated that any population in a disputed territory, whether implanted for “right-peopling” reasons or indigenous, may pose a different interest to the ones represented by the claimant sovereign states.[2] Regionally, the competing interest of neighbor states and communities encompass several elements and features such as natural resources, borders, bordering minorities, migration, defense and security. Finally, the international context plays a role in terms of prestige because great powers would opt to go to war to preserve their status even if the practical results seemed trivial; and because of the geostrategic location of the disputed territories.

The following blog series posts will introduce these cases to demonstrate that, on the surface, the differences seem to center on very clearly current defined claims and issues at stake between specific claiming agents. However, these territorial disputes include a myriad of actual and potential elements such as the historical and legal claims, “right-peopling” the territory with settlers, the principle of territorial integrity, the economic value of natural resources and their exploration and exploitation, the geostrategic location and, in some cases, their importance as a link to claims in Antarctica. It is in the intricate combination of these and other elements where the stalemate finds its bases.

NOTE:

Falkland/Malvinas Islands (Argentina and the United Kingdom)

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:

Monday 09th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_4.html

[1] See Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6; Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 7.

[2] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 9.

Friday, 6 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 5: Common roots

Common roots to the territorial disputes in the Americas

There are common roots to territorial disputes in the Americas.[1] In order to more clearly present, explain and assess them, this monograph distinguishes three historical periods: pre-Columbian times; post-Columbian but pre-independence times; and post-independence times.

Pre-Columbian times

The population in the Americas is calculated to had been between 54 and 112 million in Pre-Columbian times. These peoples were organized in empires such as those of the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas as well as in smaller tribes and nomadic groups.

Regardless of their differences, in all cases, the geographical location was influenced by religious components and basic needs such as the provision of water, food and shelter. There is clear evidence some of these populations were highly advanced. Territorial disputes were mainly because of the expansion of empires.

Post-Columbian but pre-independence times

With European conquest, the native population was dramatically reduced—i.e. fewer than 10 million indigenous people survived. The former Aztec, Mayan and Incan empires were dismantled and many tribes simply became extinct. Similar to cases in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, European colonization had little regard to the original occupants of the land, and caused profound socio-political changes across the Americas.

Moreover, European colonizers brought their legal and political understanding of territorial sovereignty such as through the Papal bulls of Alexander VI Inter caetera, Inter caetera II (Eximiae devotionis), Inter caetera III and Dudum siquidem.

For example, the Inter caetera bullsgranted the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs sovereignty erga omnes over territories in the Americas, established a line of demarcation and, unsurprisingly, indigenous population were not acknowledged. The 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal would cement these bases.

Post-independence times

The states formed after colonial times applied the principle of uti possidetis juris by which they assumed to have sovereignty over their formerly-colonial areas—i.e. they claimed de jure sovereignty over territories in which they already had de facto presence. The “settled” borders in such a way proved to be unclear or non-existent and generated competing claims that resulted in territorial disputes.

Former colonial powers interfered directly and indirectly in the Americas. As a response to these interferences, the newly formed states brought the Monroe, Calvo and Drago doctrines. The Monroe Doctrine can be summarized into the following basic principles of public international public: a) no colonization; b) non-intervention of European states in the affairs of America; and c) reciprocal non-intervention in European affairs. The Calvo and Drago doctrines prohibit the intervention of a sovereign state if the purpose of that intervention is solely to oblige that the target state to fulfil its international financial obligations—e.g. Venezuela and its international public debt in 1901 that later resulted in the naval blockade by Great Britain, Germany and Italy.

Although claims to territory by indigenous people continue to be systematically discarded in this period, based on two reasons: the natives were not legally “persons” or they were considered inferior, Latin American states are currently reviewing the way in which they interact with these populations.

NOTE:

Ongoing European influence in the Americas

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:

Friday 06th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2024/12/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog.html

[1] For more details see Jorge E. Núñez, “Territorial Disputes,” in Liliana Obregón Tarazona and others (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law and the Americas (Oxford University Press, 2024/25) available at https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/45649/chapter-abstract/443994687?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Wednesday, 4 December 2024

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 4: Types of disputes

Types of disputes

Evidently, each territorial dispute has its own characteristics. However, all territorial disputes encompass a challenger, a challenged agent, different kinds of claims, issues at stake and contexts.[1]

The claims include legal and non-legal reasons such as effective control, historical account, culture, territorial integrity, economic relevance, elitist and/or ideological elements and features.

In turn, the issues at stake comprise characteristics like strategic and economic value of the territory, ties to bordering minorities and political unification.

Finally, the domestic, regional and international contexts are intertwined to different degrees. For instance, the prior loss of territory or a prior unresolved dispute in the domestic context may foster regional and international alliances.

Taking the different categories of claims, the different issues at stake and the possible contexts at play, a typology of territorial disputes includes:

Border disputes

These disputes happen when two or more sovereign states share common borders. Frequent in the Americas at the time of the Colonial empires, the lack of actual demarcation or a clear principle to stipulate a boundary brought differences in the post-independence period between newly formed states. In addition to a normative lacuna or the legal imprecision, factual circumstances related to territory and population challenged (and in some cases, still do) the effective control of legally established borders.

Resource disputes

Related to territory, both in land and sea, the actual or perceived presence of natural resources contributes to fuel differences. Energy resources in the form of hydrocarbons and hydroelectricity and food and water resources (e.g. fisheries, subterranean water) bring examples of elements and features that are linked with the economic and strategic value of the disputes territory.

Ideological disputes

The Americas include disputes that stem and/or are maintained by arguments based on purely ideological premises. Broadly, and by application of political theory, the continent could be divided into those agents—e.g. individuals, communities and states—that follow liberalism and those that support Marxism (or variants of these two).[2]

Influence disputes

This kind of differences are related to the maintenance and projection of domestic power and prestige at regional and international level. Indeed, as an agent, states have domestic, regional and international agendas. Some states like the United States include in their agendas the extension of their power and prestige beyond their legally defined borders. This influence may be direct and indirect and include the use of hard and soft power.

Migratory disputes

Often because of domestic conflict or financial crisis, refugees and exiles have characterized the American landscape. Moreover, cultural, ethnic, religious, sociological or linguistic homogeneity between populations living close by (e.g. natives and former slavery) may contribute to the origin and development of territorial disputes.

Leaders’ prestige disputes

While influence disputes are those related to the projection of states’ domestic power, these types of disputes are fueled by the interests of other agents such as individuals or groups—e.g. political parties. Internal political prestige can be a strong reason to start a territorial dispute and keep it unresolved.[3]

NOTE:

Common roots to the territorial disputes in the Americas

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:

Wednesday 04th December 2024

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

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