Ongoing European influence in the Americas
Despite the colonial times are long gone, there are still a few remaining cases of European direct and indirect influence in territorial disputes pertaining America. Arguably, the Falklands/Malvinas Islands dispute[1] between Argentina and the United Kingdom is the most noticeable example of the enduring European colonial legacy in the continent. There are, however, other cases of ongoing European presence in the region such as the Hans Island dispute (Canada and Denmark) and the Marouini (or Maroni) River track dispute (Suriname and French Guiana).
Furthermore, the settled territorial dispute over the archipelago of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina provides examples of several issues in the domestic, regional and international contexts that includes the tension between a local ethnic and racial minority (Raizal community) and the Colombian state’s interests. Similar in that respect to the Falklands/Malvinas case, the San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina situation involves the presence of a population implanted by a former colonial power.
More precisely, these disputes include a combination of domestic, regional and international agents and contexts fostering the stalemate. For instance, domestically, although a stalemate may seem negative and governments are assumed to seek peaceful and permanent dispute settlements, the status quo serves other purposes to local politics because it guarantees an endless legal and political limbo that benefits leader’s position.
Núñez 2020 included some partial conclusions that indicated that any population in a disputed territory, whether implanted for “right-peopling” reasons or indigenous, may pose a different interest to the ones represented by the claimant sovereign states.[2] Regionally, the competing interest of neighbor states and communities encompass several elements and features such as natural resources, borders, bordering minorities, migration, defense and security. Finally, 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 seemed trivial; and because of the geostrategic location of the disputed territories.
The following blog series posts will introduce these cases to demonstrate that, on the surface, the differences seem to center on very clearly current defined claims and issues at stake between specific claiming agents. However, these territorial disputes include a myriad of actual and potential elements such as the historical and legal claims, “right-peopling” the territory with settlers, the principle of territorial integrity, the economic value of natural resources and their exploration and exploitation, the geostrategic location and, in some cases, their importance as a link to claims in Antarctica. It is in the intricate combination of these and other elements where the stalemate finds its bases.
NOTE:
This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
PREVIOUS POST:
NEXT POST:
Falkland/Malvinas Islands (Argentina and the United Kingdom)
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Monday 09th December 2024
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
[1] See Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6; Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 7.
[2] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment