Today’s post is about natural resources and the South China
Sea. It is one of the most controversial elements in any TERRITORIAL DISPUTES.
It is usually the case the real reasons behind these TERRITORIAL DISPUTES is
different (domestically, for example, level of popularity of ruling party,
corruption, unemployment, security, etc.; regionally and internationally,
geostrategic location, bargaining power, debt, etc.). However, natural
resources are used to justify ongoing disputes (or to create new ones).
What are natural resources and who owns them? What do
we do with the natural resources in the South China Sea? What happens in the
zone in which jurisdictions and interests overlap? In the case of the islands,
any decision over this point has particular importance since it could affect
the inhabitants of those islands that are populated. Let us remember there are
several claiming parties and different realities in terms of law, politics,
economy, religion, etc.: China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei,
Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia
Natural resources are any material in raw condition
present in the territory, organic or mineral, that is not initially a product
of any kind of human activity. Some States are rich in natural resources,
others are not: no particular amount of natural resources defines a State. But,
the distribution of natural resources is usually one of the main problems when
dealing with sovereignty disputes even though the involved sovereign States may
already be wealthy ones; it is a feature that always presents controversy.
There are two key connected issues with natural
resources. First and more evident, who owns them. But, even if we had an answer
to that China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Thailand,
Indonesia, Cambodia agreed to distribute natural resources, other highly
controversial issues remain. This is not only a matter of distribution because
the resources have to be explored, exploited, or piped, and someone has to do
the work, and someone, whether a private individual or the State, has to own
the means for their exploration and exploitation.
The EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY may rule out
extreme situations, that ownership, public or private, should be totally in the
hands of the territory where the mines, etc., are situated, without regard to
the needs of the two sovereign States, or that it should be totally in the
hands of the sovereign States. It would also rule out the idea that existing
ownership should automatically continue, or that everything should be left to
the market. In brief, in order to to acknowledge the controversial features
that natural resources present and still apply the egalitarian shared
sovereignty solution and hence distribute them, the following points have to be
addressed: a) just distribution as the aimed outcome; b) the ownership system
of natural resources; c) the exploitation system; d) the gains and losses of
the involved agents; e) the needs and capabilities of all parties.
The differences in relation to natural resources imply
several different aspects (for example, means for the exploration and
exploitation, geographical location, relevant knowledge, etc.). It is for that
reason that the shares will be represented as bundles of rights and
obligations, benefits and burdens. However, in terms of property rights, all
the parties will have the co-ownership of the natural resources (minus the ones
originally owned by the inhabitants of the islands), and this will involve both
rights and obligations.
A combination of elements may fit in the aim of the
egalitarian shared sovereignty if and only if the combined elements or
resources that an agent may exploit could not be exploited to the same
efficient extent in any other way (for example, joint ventures).
Two points must be made clear: because the model aims
to safeguard the interests of all the parties, the different combinations of
natural resources in the bundle is in terms of their exploration and
exploitation—not their ownership or the distribution of consequent benefits;
and as this requirement is defined by bundles, each bundle may be constituted
of diverse elements that taken together offer the same outcome: an efficient
exploitation. Therefore, this implies a solution by means of an efficient model
with safeguards for all the participants.
The egalitarian shared sovereignty has a twofold
application in terms of natural resources. First, the most efficient
combination of exploration and exploitation of natural resources bearing in
mind the differences amongst the parties. Second, any party better off in
relation to a given difference will make sure the other parties are able to
exploit their respective share of natural resources to the same extent—when
possible—or compensate the inequality.
Consequently, even if variations appeared in the
future in terms of either natural resources—e.g. drought, scarcity, lack of
trading value—or the level of development or wealth of any of the agents, their
ownership rights would still be the same for all of them as well as their rights
and obligations in terms of exploitation and the way benefits were allocated.
Next time how all this could work with the South China
Sea and all the claiming parties.
NOTE: based on Chapter 7, Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and
International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter:
@London1701 27th September 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment