Natural resources and the Persian Gulf
Last
week, we introduced the way in which natural resources may be distributed, and
the fact that there are other elements for consideration (for example,
exploration and exploitation). How can this work here?
In
the case of the Persian Gulf, the many parties (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,
Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) could be co-owners of the
natural resources located in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic
zone.
Undoubtedly,
there are several differences amongst Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Therein, some of these differences
show how the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY could work.
The
first difference is given by the fact the inhabitants possess the total of
natural resources at stake (100%). By applying the egalitarian shared
sovereignty, each party receives the rights to the same ideal portion (an equal
percentage of the ownership of natural resources, minus original ownership of
the inhabitants of the islands in question). It would be either over simplistic
or naïve to imagine Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates be able to explore and exploit to the same level their
shares of natural resources (second difference). However, each of them
individually have some elements that put them in a better position in relation
to the rest, for example local work force, geographical proximity (third
difference).
With
all these differences in mind, the party most developed technically and
economically could explore and exploit natural resources (as they are in the
best position to do it), and both the inhabitants adjacent to areas rich in
natural resources could offer the work force for the joint venture and grant
privileges in terms of location to companies that take the exploration and exploitation.
Thus, less advantaged parties in terms of means for exploration and
exploitation could also offer the most advantaged party certain exclusive
rights in the sea-zone that overlaps with their jurisdictions.
Continuous
assistance from, for example, Saudi Arabia or Iran, to other parties might
become a permanent feature (it may lead to domination or an unbalanced
relationship). To avoid this, in the
example, Saudi Arabia or Iran, respectively, would have to help the others in
developing their means of exploration and exploitation to relatively the same
level they have.
At
the beginning of the agreement Saudi Arabia or Iran would be contributing more
towards the exploration and exploitation and hence have a larger return.
However, these uneven distributions of burdens and benefits amongst the parties
would only be in the short term. Natural resources and all that they imply in
terms of rights and obligations are part of a wider agreement that has a
target: the Persian Gulf.
Finally,
the way in which each party redistributes the benefits of this shared model
within each population is entirely a matter of national or local distribution
and hence may have various forms. That is to say, the egalitarian shared
sovereignty gives the basic structure of the solution; the details are subject
to actual rather than hypothetical negotiation. As an example, the resultant
revenues of some or all the joint activities could be destined to a
distribution fund benefiting all the inhabitants.
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
10th December 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment