Territorial disputes and a multidimensional view
Territorial disputes are a clear example of the zero-sum game played by the claimed and claiming agents, who feed their differences rather than recognizing their affinities. Current global events such as COVID-19 clearly show the necessity for a coherent, cohesive and comprehensive response to crises. World leaders and organizations are failing to address global issues in an efficient manner. In a similar vein, legal, political and international relations scholars assert dead-end arguments; futile hermeneutical, technical, conceptual and theoretical discussions; and seem oblivious to the urgency that crises present. Current and ongoing crises as well as the exacerbation of pre-existing conditions require urgency. The impact on legal and socio-political inequalities; economic ramifications of crises and the prospect for recovery depending on places and social characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, age, skill-levels, local government-support, etc.; and the effects on the environment require immediate attention.
The legal, political and international relations disciplines offer various potential remedies, procedures and organizations to deal with crises and solve these problems. Although these remedies, procedures and organizations are useful in certain situations, it is indisputable that they are ineffective at peacefully and permanently handling crises. If and when current models fail or consistently fall short of addressing global changes and crises, a requisite paradigm shift should be implemented. COVID-19 is one of several indicators that prove mankind as a whole needs to reframe crises, reassess situations and discard the frames of past paradigms. The outcomes of current fragmented and unidimensional analyses and responses to crises (as a result of the science of reference and its methodology and the agent in question, such as individuals, communities and states) cannot but have a limited significance in theory and practice.
This monograph entitled Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2023/24) introduces a multidimensional analysis that assesses the phenomena of pluralism of pluralisms. A pluralism of pluralism means the acknowledgment of a variety of agents (individuals, communities and states) that may play different roles in their interrelations (host, participant, attendees and viewers), and hence, the recognition of the plurality of subjects at play. Furthermore, these agents and players may act within several contexts (local, regional and international) and their interrelations simultaneously exist in three realms (rational, empirical and axiological). To add to this intricacy, the many views (law, politics, philosophy and non-scientific theories) about agents, players, contexts and realms contain both a horizontal and vertical dimension that should take into account the two variables of time and space.
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands
In its predecessor, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2020), the author used this multidimensional view to assess and explain several territorial disputes, including Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Arguably, the most notable ongoing territorial dispute in the Americas that include a former colonial power is over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. This dispute started as early as 1833, since the British settled. The territory at issue between Argentina and the United Kingdom include the islands and their dependencies, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. The United Kingdom and Argentina have had continuous presence and/or claimed exclusive sovereign rights over the islands since 1833, both bilaterally and internationally with a climax in 1982 in a war between the two.
Argentina’s official position is that it has sovereignty over the islands based on historical entitlement and on the fact the United Kingdom is in direct violation of the principle of territorial integrity. The United Kingdom maintains that the Falkland/Malvinas Islands are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom and, consequently, are an Associated Territory of the European Union. Meanwhile, the Falkland/Malvinas Islands official position is to acknowledge the right to self-determination and the aim to retain its links with the United Kingdom as a British Overseas Territory, self-governing, except for defense and foreign affairs. Sovereignty for the islanders, therefore, is not up for discussion.
According to the 2012 census the islands had 2841 inhabitants. Most of them (59%) considered themselves “Falkland Islanders” and 29% identified themselves as British. In March 2013, the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders voted in a referendum whether they wanted to remain as British Overseas Territory. The number of ballot papers issued was 1,522 while the votes cast at the referendum were 1,518. With a 92% turnout, there were 1,513 (99.8%) “Yes” votes and three (0.2%) “No” votes.
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands territorial dispute includes a combination of domestic, regional and international contexts creating a stalemate. On the surface, the dispute seems to be centered on very clearly defined issues such as the historical claim, the principle of territorial integrity, economic value of exploring and exploiting the territory’s natural resources, and the geostrategic location of the islands and their dependencies and, potentially, part of Antarctica.
Although a stalemate may seem negative and governments are assumed to seek peaceful and permanent dispute settlement, the status quo in the Falklands/Malvinas serves other purpose and, therefore, guarantees an endless legal and political limbo. Huth explains the dynamics in a simple yet illuminating manner:
“[…] 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.”[1]
“[…] 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 […]”[2]
In tune with this, for the internal context, it is important to observe how Britons and Argentineans refer to each other when they discuss the Falkland/Malvinas Islands issue. On both sides, the views are extremely biased and polarized with “positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.” The international context plays a role in terms of prestige because great powers would opt to go to war to preserve their status even if the practical results seem trivial. Unsurprisingly, politicians and governments in Argentina and the United Kingdom have not reached a settlement to the dispute since the internal, regional and international payoffs are higher by simply keeping the status quo. The direct influence over the domestic political status of the ruling power of the Falkland/Malvinas 1982 war at the time and currently the ongoing territorial dispute over the islands is unquestionable.
While the Falklands/Malvinas are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom and, consequently, are an Associated Territory of the European Union, Argentina seems to leave the regional context outside of the dispute, unless it can help garner support from other continental actors. In that respect, it is open to question whether Argentina’s bargaining position could be strengthened by shifting the national-cause stance for a more regional approach: instead of “the Malvinas/Falklands are Argentine,” “the Malvinas/Falklands are American (or Latin American).”
In Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2020), the author includes in the analysis relevant references and several case studies such as the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, Kashmir, Crimea, Northern Ireland, the Mexico–United States border, Cyprus, the Israel-Palestine difference, Guantanamo bay, the Caribbean, Amazonia, indigenous rights and territorial claims over Antarctica.
A new paradigm
The forthcoming monograph Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2023/24) sketches a reconceived way of an approach to understanding the relationship between individuals, communities and states. Indeed, in order to coordinate separate and sovereign legal systems, additional and continued research is a task that deserves further exploration. The chapters attempt to take the first steps in creating that path.
Territorial disputes at large are an example of crises in which both sovereignty and cosmopolitanism play a defining role. As a whole, the monograph shows the complexity present in issues that include different agents in order to make evident a crucial point, often ignored or neglected: The apparent tension between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism may be more thoroughly and adequately considered, and arguably resolved, if the scholarly exploration embraces a multidimensional approach. Undoubtedly, it may be the case that a particular agent, their role, a context, a realm or a mode of existence is more significant than the other pluralities or their subgroups with regard to a singular case that compromises sovereignty and cosmopolitanism. Nevertheless, it is in the multidimensional understanding as multi-agent, multi-contextual, multi-realm and multi-existence nature of these issues that a more robust account of their intricacies can be achieved. Therefore, by having a more robust account of their intricacies, it may be possible to reimagine in theory, and hopefully, in practice, a way of dealing with them peacefully and permanently.
The complexity sovereignty and cosmopolitanism presents is challenging. By accepting the fact that states will not forfeit their sovereignty and that individuals should have a minimum set of guarantees protected by law regardless of their individual circumstances, this monograph argues for positive law cosmopolitanism. States could retain their sovereignty and at the same time individuals would enjoy a minimum set of legal guarantees recognized beyond jurisdictional differences.
[1] Paul K. Huth, Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 171-172.
[2] Ibid, 178-179.
ORDERS
VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK
VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK
Friday 29th September 2023
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment