Consider a group
of people living on a peninsula named Crimea. The majority of Crimean people
are Orthodox Christian but there is a large majority of Muslims (there are some
other minor religions represented as well). Although the territory is small in
size, it is highly rich in natural resources. However, it is assumed here they
do not possess the means for its exploration and exploitation and hence depend
on third parties to do it. They do not have any means to defend the peninsula.
At the centre of the Black Sea, Crimea faces directly Russia, Ukraine, Turkey,
Georgia, Rumania, and Bulgaria. Finally, the sovereignty of the peninsula is
currently claimed by the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Ukraine is a
medium size sovereign State with a medium size population, mainly Orthodox
Christian. This country is situated linked to Crimea by land and it is also
rich in natural resources. Ukrainians have their own means of defence.
Russia one of
the largest sovereign States in the world in terms of territorial size, but not
densely populated (although the population is larger in relation to those of
Crimea and Ukraine). Russians are mainly Orthodox Christian with other several
religious minorities. The territory is rich in natural resources. The Crimean
people have very limited means to defend their territory. Geographically, they
are located in the continent adjacent to Russia and Ukraine, so mainland Russia
and Ukraine share with Crimea part of the continental shelf.
Crimea is
strategically important for both Russia and Ukraine because of its location on
the Black Sea, and hence the most advantaged in that respect (difference in
Crimea’s advantage). However, it is the least advantaged in terms of
territorial and population size, and defence. Crimea is key in Ukraine’s plans
for energy independence and gas diversification strategy. The peninsula is
important for Russia in many aspects such as natural resources and geopolitical
location (for example, as a base for Russian navy).
Russia is the
most advantaged in terms of wealth and defence (differences in Russia’s
favour), the least advantaged in terms of geopolitical location, and in
particular less advantaged than Ukraine in relation to their geographical
proximity to Crimea.
Ukraine is the
most advantaged in terms of geographical proximity to Crimea (difference in
Ukraine’s favour), but less advantaged than Russia in terms of wealth and
defence.
Before reviewing
how the egalitarian shared sovereignty may work in this situation, let us see
briefly how the principle of equality and the difference principle result when
applied sensu stricto in this case.
If we applied
equality strictly, they would all receive equal benefits and contribute equally
towards the burdens. How would Ukraine fulfil its duty to defend Crimea? How
would Crimean people defend themselves? The same could be said about natural
resources because although Crimea, Russia, and Ukraine would receive the same
share in terms of ownership, Crimean people would not have the means to exploit
them. Several other implications could be drawn but we have already made a
point. It is both unreasonable and unfair to expect three parties with
different comparative situations in many different areas to contribute in an
equal manner or to receive an equal return.
Nevertheless, to
apply the difference principle in the same form may have similar consequences.
Let us assume that overall Ukraine is the least advantaged in terms of natural
resources, so they will receive a larger share. Crimea is less advantaged than
Russia and Ukraine in terms of defence, so Russia will provide the means to
defend the third territory. But Ukriane is less advantaged than Russia in terms
of wealth, the natural resources in its territory are not part of the agreement
so they are not under discussion, and they do not have means to defend the
third territory to the same extent Russia does. Would they have to receive a
larger share of the benefits resultant from the exploitation of natural
resources in Crimea with means provided by Russia? Indeed, this seems
unacceptable.
Jorge
Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701 21st June 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment