A
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE, in simple terms, is a disagreement about “who owns a
territory.” Yet, a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE is not that simple. 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. Gibraltar is a
TERRITORIAL DISPUTE that includes Gibraltar, Spain and the United Kingdom. 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 Gibraltar as a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE centres the
attention on why this difference is still ongoing. The answer is as simple as
complex. The combination of domestic, regional and international elements make
this dispute a stalemate. We have an already complex situation with Gibraltar,
Spain and the United Kingdom in terms of geostrategic location, tax evasion,
fishing rights, financial situation, only to name very few. If we add the
European Union and Brexit the picture is extremely intricate. Although in
principle a stalemate may seem negative, the status quo in Gibraltar may
continue for now.
Huth explains the dynamics clearly:
“[…]
very often political leaders are not willing to take risks and undertake
diplomatic initiatives that will break a long-standing stalemate in
negotiations. Furthermore, leaders themselves are socialized into viewing the
target as an adversary and, as a result, they are not predisposed to view
concessions as a legitimate option. Furthermore, […] a history of military
conflict with the target can be used by the military to justify larger budgets
[…]. The combined effect, then, is that the idea of offering concessions and
proposing a unilateral initiative to break the stalemate is a policy option
quite difficult to get on the policy agenda of political leaders within the
challenger. Few voices are advocating such policies within the challenger, and
the prevailing climate of opinion (both mass and elite) is opposed to such a
change in policy.”
“[…] 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 […]”
Huth, Paul K. 2001. Standing Your
Ground. Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. The University of
Michigan Press.
There is always 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).
Next post will introduce
another TERRITORIAL DISPUTE. In the meantime, links to some informative sites
and the previous posts about the Falkland/Malvinas islands below.
For an interactive map of
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES see
For current information
about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES see CIA’s The World Factbook at:
Previous posts of the TERRITORIAL DISPUTE series (only about the Gibraltar below):
20th
April 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment