In relation to the first issue—the
agreement on the historical account—each sovereign State taking part in a
sovereignty conflict is certain that it has ultimate and highest right over the
disputed territory, and the use and ownership of the third territory is due to
them. As a consequence, sovereignty disputes do not move from a zero-sum game.
That is because, in order to determine the initial acquisition, the agents have
to go back and resolve old historical claims only resulting in a practical
matter: the competing agents are never going to agree on the ‘correct’
historical version of the events—i.e. the historical account is fundamentally
controversial.
Thus, it is common to observe in sovereignty differences that
the involved agents usually support their claims through historical, legal,
political, cultural or geographical arguments—even a combination of many of
them. In other words, not only will be the dispute over what the facts are but
also what the relative moral significance of those facts is. For example, one
party will claim that whoever was the first one in the third territory is its
owner and hence, its sovereign, and they were there first. But the opposite
party disputes this, supporting their case with historical, legal, political,
cultural and geographical evidence, and arguing either a) that they were there
first, or b) that being first is not what makes acquisition just, but, e.g.,
being first to exploit its resources, or establish a community. Because all the
parties argue they were the first to do what gave them a right to the third
territory, an approach based on a historical account is futile for providing a
solution to sovereignty disputes and the conflicts continue endlessly—e.g.
arguments about the rightful sovereign of Jerusalem and surrounding areas have
been present for generations.
See
for example Genesis 14: 18-20 in which Jerusalem (or Salem) has already
enemies. Since Biblical times the region has been centre of disputes in
relation to the rightful settlement of different populations. Should these agents go back to Biblical
times in order to prove the current legitimate occupancy of the territory?
In addition to the historical account,
even though it was assumed the representatives finally agreed on the facts, it
is not easy to see an agreement on how what is due to someone be determined,
which way to acquire something is just and fair, and whether a certain way of
acquiring the sovereignty over the third territory can be just and fair at the
same time for two different agents. For instance, they may apply the just
acquisition principle. But even with the application of the just acquisition
principle sovereignty disputes produce endless conflict.
NOTE: based on Chapter 6, 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
30th October 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment