A TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE, in simple terms, is a disagreement about “who owns a territory.” In
international relations, this means in principle there is a disagreement
between at least two parties in relation to whom the sovereign is over a piece
of land. Kashmir is a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE that included India, Pakistan and
Kashmir. The previous posts introduced a brief historical chronology, mentioned
some key domestic and international reasons behind this case, included
references to other regional and international agents that have played (and in
some cases, still do) a central role, and explored an ideal solution called
EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY.
This
last post about Kashmir as a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE centres the attention on the
prominence of this case globally. There are many current TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in
the world (more than 100). Kashmir ranks amongst the most prominent for several
reasons.
The
Carter Center presents:
“Daniel Dzurek has
attempted to develop a methodology for assessing the “prominence” of
territorial disputes, or their perceived significance.[…] Dzurek divided the
relative prominence of border disputes as resulting from their intensifying
factors, magnitude, and nature:
- Intensifying factors: ethnic conflict, recent violence, historic animosity, weakness of claimant governments (to control developments along the border, or take unpopular initiatives) and third-party involvement;
-
Magnitude: size of area in
question, number of inhabitants, natural resources, access to trade or invasion
routes, and number of casualties (those killed);
- Nature: land or maritime, number of claimants, legal framework, status of negotiation/arbitration, and “type.” […]”
“Approaches
to Solving Territorial Conflicts. Sources, Situations, and Suggestions.” May 2010.
The Carter Center. Atlanta. Available at
Dzurek, Daniel J. 1999-2000. “What
Makes Some Boundary Disputes Important?,” IBRU Boundary and Security
Bulletin, 83-95; the author has updated and expanded this work in the 2005
article “What Makes Territory Important: Tangible and Intangible Dimensions,” GeoJournal,
64: 263-274.
Taking these variables into
account Kashmir (as a territorial dispute) ranks in the top 10 in terms of
intensity and in terms of magnitude. The results in terms of the humanitarian
crisis speak for themselves.
As a partial conclusion to
an ongoing TERRITORIAL DISPUTE it is important to stress the use of force
should (and could) be avoided in any event. Whether India or Pakistan have
shown a more aggressive agenda including a variety of means, this is an
empirical question easily answered by doing research. I cannot argue about this
point since these are facts. We all have the option to centre the attention on
war and revenge. Hence, more deaths. There is another option: to think about how
to solve this dispute. This series TERRITORIAL DISPUTES intends to offer a
platform for discussion.
With all this in mind, I
introduced the overall idea I call EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY. I develop
this approach in full in Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. “Sovereignty
Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue.”
London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Briefly, all parties
share sovereignty in equal ideal terms. To get to that, these parties go into
negotiations themselves (not UN or any other party alien to the conflict).
The next post will introduce
another TERRITORIAL DISPUTE. In the meantime, links to some informative sites
and the previous posts about Kashmir below.
Interactive map of disputed territores by METROCOSM (link)
For current information
about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES see CIA’s The World Factbook at:
CIA’s The World Factbook
No comments:
Post a Comment