The previous
posts have shown that we are different, we live in plural societies both nationally
and internationally; and, that having these differences in mind we may result
in having situations similar to either zero sum games or non-zero sum games.
When we have
different parties and these parties may want the same object, we may have a “conflict
of interest.” A conflict of interest between individuals or States can only
happen when more than one part is involved. In addition to this, each of these
parties want exactly the same object… or at least, that is what may seem at
first. Indeed, it may not be as simple as sharing an orange or cutting a cake.
Following this
line of thinking, sovereignty disputes are an example of conflicts of interest.
That is to say, we have several parties that want the same object. We have
Argentina and the United Kingdom wanting to be the sole sovereign over the
Falkland/Malvinas islands; we have Russia and Ukraine wanting to be the sole sovereign
over Crimea; we have China, India, and Pakistan wanting to be the sole
sovereign over Kashmir. There are many cases similar to these ones around the
world, but by now, you get the idea.
One of the
main differences between a simple conflict of interest over an object and a
conflict of interest based on a sovereignty claim is the fact that the
territories being claimed are populated. Thus, in most of these sovereignty
conflicts or disputes, none of the main parties or sovereign States seem to
recognise the will of the peoples who actually live in the claimed territories.
Let us leave
for now the particularities of sovereignty conflicts or disputes and explore
whether there may be a solution to conflicts of interest at the level of the
individual. If this is at all possible, we may be able to replicate the
procedure and apply the adapted methodology to sovereignty conflicts or
disputes.
We agreed that
any conflict of interest would have at least two parties. In the case of civil
societies, at least two individuals. Let us imagine a world in which we only
have two people, Good and Evil. Face with the world on their own, these two
people will have limited options:
a)
They
may become enemies
b)
They
may become neither enemies nor allies
c)
They
may become allies
Let us assume
they became enemies. If Good and Evil became enemies they would be against each
other, compete against each other, ought to defend against each other. Even more,
the surrounding environment, with all hazardous situations and dangerous
beings, would find them in solitude. Finding food and shelter would be up to
each of them and their individual provision. Finally, if they needed each other
to propagate the species, the species would be condemned to extinction.
Consider now
Good and Evil neither becoming allies nor enemies. They would not be against
each other, compete against each other, so in principle, they would not need to
think of defending themselves from the other. Yet, they the surrounding
environment, with all hazardous situations and dangerous beings, would find
them in solitude. Finding food and shelter would still be up to each of them
and their individual provision. More importantly, their species would be
condemned to extinction. It is true that, similar to some animals, Good and Evil might agree to have sexual
intercourse and separate afterwards or choose to do certain other activities
for a particular reason and over a period of time. In any case, although they
may agree to do certain things together, there will be no constraint on either of
them to fulfil any obligation in respect to the other.
Let us now
think of the case in which Good and Evil decided to become allies. The most
obvious consequences would be that Good and Evil would confront the surrounding
environment together, they would help each other in providing food and shelter,
they would protect each other against hazardous situations and dangerous
beings, they would propagate the species, and so on.
Is this last
case scenario the best option for Good and Evil in a situation in which they
are the two only individuals from their species on the planet? Is this the best
outcome for both? Certainly, this agreement does not guarantee justice and
fairness. Far from an egalitarian approach, Good and Evil may agree on a
different king of alliance. That is, there might be more than one way to
cooperate and, these ways might offer differing payoffs. For example, Good may
be better off under one method of cooperation; on the contrary, Evil may be
better off under another arrangement, even though both are better off under
either of the two than if they refused to cooperate. In an extreme scenario,
both Good and Evil may be better off by one of them being subservient.
Whether Good
and Evil have a proportionate, fair and just agreement or one in which one of
them becomes subservient of the other, the point is that in a case in which we
have two individuals in a similar environment and under the same circumstances
that challenge them, they may agree to cooperate in a way or another for both
their common good. More precisely, by giving up some individual sovereignty,
power over themselves, or autonomy, Good and Evil would have a more ample range
of possibilities to choose from.
The question is
whether we could extend this analysis and apply the methodology to sovereignty
conflicts or disputes in which sovereign States are claiming the exclusive
sovereignty over the same populated territory. How would it be possible to acknowledge
the pluralism we find in international relations and offer a solution to sovereignty
conflicts? In what way would it be feasible to create the same platform for discussion to peoples that are different and
self-centred and are discussing over limited resources? That is to say, in
cases in which there is only one populated territory (and therefore, this is a
very limited item) how may different parties agree to go into negotiations?
Jorge Emilio Núñez
29th September 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment