The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World
Preview: Launching Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Borders don’t just mark maps—they ignite wars. Over 200 territorial disputes—like Ukraine’s edge, the Falklands/Malvinas’ winds or the South China Sea’s reefs—fracture our world, locking states and people in a tug-of-war over who owns what. The old playbook says one side wins, the rest lose. But what if borders could unite us instead? I’m Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez, and on Tuesday, March 4, I’m launching The Borders We Share—a series that reimagines these fights, from fiction’s wild corners to reality’s raw edges. Full post at https://DrJorge.World
For a decade, I’ve wrestled with sovereignty—through Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Territorial Disputes (2020), and Cosmopolitanism (2023). My take? It’s not a solo prize but an entangled web—individuals, communities, states, all linked like quantum threads. A claim in Crimea ripples to Khemed, a fictional oil hotspot from Hergé’s Tintin. That’s my starting line—Hergé’s genius gave us Borduria, Syldavia, Khemed, lands I’m borrowing with respect, not remaking. They’re joined by Sherlock Holmes’ foggy streets, Robin Hood’s green woods, Narnia’s icy thrones—public-domain icons lighting up real messes.
Picture Borduria and Syldavia clashing over Khemed’s oil—think Russia eyeing Ukraine’s flank. My fix isn’t one flag—it’s shared power, equal stakes, a council where all sit as peers. That’s my Núñezian Integrated Multiverses: 2017’s fairness, 2020’s facts from Kashmir to Gibraltar, 2023’s multidimensional dance of agents and realms. Sovereignty’s not flat—it’s a multiverse, and I’ve got a way to mend it.
This Tuesday, The Borders We Share kicks off with “Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures”—Khemed meets Crimea, fiction meets truth. Every Tuesday after, I’ll weave Hergé’s dust, Sherlock’s clues, Narnia’s snow into disputes you know—Falklands, Palestine, the Arctic and Antarctica. Friday’s your preview day—today’s just the start. Join me at https://DrJorge.World on March 4 for the full drop. Borders aren’t endings—they’re beginnings. Let’s share them right.
Unquestionably, Antarctica is important for many reasons to many different agents including but not limited to sovereign states. For instance, scientific researchers highlight its role as part of the Earth’s climate system, as an open laboratory with actual and potential benefit to mankind and as an environment for wildlife. Several central, strong or advantaged and non-central, weak or disadvantaged states consider Antarctica as part of their geopolitical strategies. Clearly, law and politics are intertwined.
The Antarctic Treaty[1] mostly refers to scientific exploration of Antarctica and, therefore, in terms of sovereignty the legal situation is a status quo ante.Whether it is futile or not to refer to the question about sovereign rights in Antarctica in light of the Antarctic Treaty, it is still a fact there are several agents involved directly and indirectly in the area with different interests including: seven states with territorial claims¾i.e. Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom; central, strong or advantaged agents such as the Russian Federation and the United States with research facilities in the area; and many more agents like Brazil, China, India, and other Indian Ocean states.
As stated in Núñez 2020, Antarctica, as a territorial dispute, encompasses several unique issues: legally, sovereignty is frozen; there is no indigenous or permanent population living in the area; it is a demilitarized zone; there are several original claimants and even more interested post-Treaty interested parties; the territory including land, water and the exclusive economic zone; natural resources; and many others. Such a complex situation in law and fact requires a multidisciplinary vision if the different governments representing each claiming and interested agent actually give priority to the common global interest of humankind as a whole.
Territorial claims over Antarctica
There are seven states claiming territorial sovereignty over Antarctica. Linked to colonial, imperialistic practices or not, these claims precede the ATS and are by the United Kingdom (1908), New Zealand (1923), France (1924), Argentina (1890s), Australia (1933), Norway (1939) and Chile (1890s). The bases for these claims include discovery, effective occupation and geographical proximity. Arguably, when considering realpolitik, there seems to be a different standing between central and noncentral states on the issue pertaining the mutual recognition of territorial claims over Antarctica—i.e. only Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom mutually recognize the claims of the others.
Latin America and Antarctica
Eleven of the twenty Latin American states are part of at least one of the ATS legal instruments. Neighboring the South American cluster, Antarctica presents several continental agents with claims. These claims can be broadly classified into two groups: a) those based on connection grounds such as first exploration and discovery (Argentina and Chile), scientific explorations and expeditions, exploitation of natural resources and state activity; and b) those based on official documents and geographical doctrines like the uti possidetis juris principle, transfer of territory, geographic continuity and contiguity and the sector principle.
Central, strong or advantaged states and Antarctica
United States’ territorial ambition over Antarctica have been present for decades. Technically, the United States has no territorial claim to Antarctica, does not recognize the territorial claims made by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom and maintains the right to make future claims. For several reasons including geostrategic location and natural resources, the importance of an American Antarctic is unquestionable to the northern state. Therein, their position related to the sovereignty freeze can be explained when the situation is assessed multidimensionally.
Multidimensionality and Antarctica
By accepting the intricacy Antarctica presents, it is possible to argue that a unidimensional approach—e.g. only legal, only political, only focused on past or current issues—will not help attain a fair arrangement for the whole of mankind. Brevitatis causa, while unidimensional approaches seek to explore and understand a fragment of the object or subject of study in question—here, Antarctica and relevant guidelines—and the way a scholarly discipline conceives it, the author’s proposed multidimensional approach is more interested in the object or subject of study itself, its elements, features and interrelations within and without.[2]
Núñez 2020[3] suggested some basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica. Considering the ideal circumstances designed in Núñez 2017,[4] and the many dispute settlement procedures and remedies previously reviewed and assessed by the author, it is possible to explore now these basic guidelines for a permanent and peaceful understanding in Antarctica in more detail. Therein, Núñez 2025/26 will address these guidelines individually.
NOTE:
This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. This is the final post, at least for now, pertaining to this series. Keep tuned because a monograph is coming!
[2] For details about dimensional understanding including uni- and multidimenstionality see Jorge E. Núñez, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty, International Law and Politics: A Theory (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023).
[3] Jorge E. Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020), Chapter 6.
[4] Jorge E. Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), Chapter 6.
An integration of Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez’s frameworks from “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue” (2017) and “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory” (2023) with the concept of quantum entanglement would imply:
Núñez’s Theoretical Frameworks:
2017 Framework (Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty):
Núñez proposes that sovereignty conflicts might be resolved through a model of “egalitarian shared sovereignty,” where sovereignty is not a zero-sum game but can be shared in a way that ensures distributive justice. This model challenges traditional notions of exclusive state sovereignty, advocating for arrangements that consider fairness and equity.
2023 Framework (Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty):
In this work, Núñez explores the interplay between cosmopolitanism and state sovereignty, introducing the concept of a “pluralism of pluralisms.” He argues for a “multidimensional approach” to sovereignty, where different forms of pluralisms including realms like the rational, empirical, axiological operate across various agents that play different roles in various contexts, suggesting that state sovereignty and global citizenship can coexist and even enhance each other.
Quantum Entanglement and Sovereignty:
Entangled Sovereignty:
Like quantum particles that are entangled, sovereignty from the Núñez 2017 and 2023 perspectives can be seen as inherently linked across different dimensions and actors. In this metaphor, the sovereignty of one state or the rights of individuals within a cosmopolitan framework are not independent but are part of a broader, entangled system where changes in one part affect the whole.
This could mean that when one state asserts its sovereignty, it simultaneously impacts the cosmopolitan ideals of universal rights, and vice versa, pushing for solutions where sovereignty is shared or balanced in a way that respects this interconnectedness.
Distributive Justice in a Quantum Context:
Quantum entanglement suggests that the state of one particle cannot be described without considering its entangled partner. Similarly, distributive justice in sovereignty conflicts (from the 2017 framework) could be reimagined where the justice for one actor is intrinsically tied to that of others in an entangled system. The equitable distribution of sovereignty or rights would, therefore, require a holistic view, acknowledging that fairness in one context influences fairness in another.
Multidimensional Sovereignty and Quantum Superposition:
Núñez’s 2023 concept of “pluralism of pluralisms” can be likened to quantum superposition, where sovereignty exists in multiple potential states until interaction or “measurement” forces a singular outcome. This might imply that sovereignty disputes should be approached with an understanding that they can exist in multiple forms (exclusive, shared, cosmopolitan) until a resolution is needed, much like particles remain in superposition until observed.
Cosmopolitanism as an Entangled State:
The cosmopolitan vision from 2023 could be seen as an entangled state where individual rights, state sovereignty, and international law are intertwined. In this entangled state, the actions or policies of one state or entity would have immediate implications for others, promoting a global justice system where sovereignty is not just about borders but about interconnected responsibilities and rights.
Policy and Diplomacy in an Entangled World:
Diplomacy might then take on a quantum-like perspective, where the focus is not only on immediate outcomes but on how diplomatic moves resonate through this entangled network, influencing sovereignty, rights, and justice across different levels and dimensions.
This speculative integration suggests that sovereignty conflicts could benefit from a paradigm where traditional notions are expanded by understanding the complexity and interdependence akin to quantum mechanics. Brevitatis causa, solutions might not just aim to divide or assert sovereignty but to find states of balance and justice that acknowledge the entanglement of human rights, state claims, and global ethics.
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 Friday.
To compare the work of Jorge Emilio Núñez, particularly his books from 2017 and 2023, with Hans Kelsen's legal theory, we need to examine their methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and contributions to legal philosophy:
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law
Key Features:
Normativity and Purity: Kelsen's "Pure Theory of Law" (Reine Rechtslehre) is grounded in the idea that law should be studied as an autonomous science, free from politics, ethics, or sociology. The theory focuses on the normative aspect of law, emphasizing what "ought" to be as opposed to what "is."
Hierarchy of Norms: Kelsen introduced the concept of a hierarchical structure of legal norms, with the "Grundnorm" (basic norm) at the apex. This norm provides legitimacy to all other norms in a legal system.
Legal Positivism: He is a proponent of legal positivism, where law is seen as a system of norms created by human beings, separate from moral considerations.
Dynamic Theory: Kelsen's theory includes the idea that law evolves dynamically through the application and interpretation of norms.
Jorge Emilio Núñez's Contributions
Books in Focus:
"Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics" (2017)
Focus on Sovereignty: This book tackles sovereignty issues, particularly those involving territorial disputes like Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and Kashmir, through the lens of international law and politics.
Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty: Núñez proposes egalitarian shared sovereignty as a solution to sovereignty conflicts, which can be seen as an evolution of Kelsen's normative hierarchy by introducing practical applications in conflict resolution.
"Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics A Theory" (2023)
Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty: Here, Núñez delves into how cosmopolitanism can reshape our understanding of state sovereignty within international law, introducing a theory that blends legal, political, and philosophical perspectives.
Multidimensional Analysis: His approach involves a multidimensional analysis, contrasting with Kelsen's more linear, norm-based analysis, by considering multiple facets of law, including global justice and intercultural norms.
Methodological and Theoretical Comparison:
Interdisciplinary Approach: Unlike Kelsen’s strict separation of law from other disciplines, Núñez integrates insights from political theory, philosophy, and international relations. This broadens the scope of legal analysis to address contemporary global challenges.
Practical Application: Núñez’s work moves from Kelsen’s theoretical purity towards practical solutions in international law, particularly in conflict resolution and state sovereignty issues. His theories on shared sovereignty and cosmopolitan justice aim at practical outcomes in international legal disputes.
Normativity and Reality: While Kelsen focused on the normativity of law, Núñez combines this with an analysis of how legal norms interact with political realities, suggesting a more pragmatic approach to legal theory.
Evolution of Legal Positivism: Núñez could be seen as extending legal positivism by incorporating elements of global justice and cosmopolitanism, thus addressing criticisms that Kelsen’s theory was too detached from moral and social considerations.
Why Núñez’s Works Represent a Next Step:
Adaptation to Globalization: Núñez’s work reflects the complexities of modern international relations and the globalization of legal norms, which wasn’t as pronounced in Kelsen’s era. His theories provide a framework for understanding law in a world where sovereignty is increasingly contested by global forces.
Addressing Contemporary Issues: His focus on sovereignty conflicts and cosmopolitanism directly engages with current global issues like territorial disputes, migration, and global governance, areas where Kelsen’s framework might seem less applicable without adaptation.
Integration of New Paradigms: By considering cosmopolitanism, Núñez introduces a paradigm where legal norms are not just about state sovereignty but also about global citizenship and shared responsibilities.
Practical Legal Solutions: Núñez’s methodologies aim at providing actionable solutions to legal problems, making his work a natural evolution from Kelsen’s foundational theoretical work towards a more applied legal theory.
Comparison with Other Authors
Many other legal theorists and authors, while expanding on Kelsen’s work, often do so within the confines of his methodology or with a narrower focus:
Continued Pure Theory Focus (Lack of Innovation): Some authors delve deeper into the normative aspects without bridging as comprehensively into political science or global ethics.
Specific Legal Areas: Others might specialize in particular areas of law (like constitutional law or criminal law) without addressing the broader shifts in international legal theory.
Lack of Interdisciplinary Synthesis: While there are many who engage in interdisciplinary work, Núñez’s particular blend of international law, political theory, and philosophy tailored to contemporary global issues is less common.
Incremental vs. Transformative: Many authors build incrementally on Kelsen’s work, refining or critiquing specific aspects, whereas Núñez’s approach might be seen as more transformative, aiming to realign legal theory with current global realities.
Why Others Don’t Represent the Next Step:
Scope: Núñez’s work encompasses a broad spectrum of legal theory development, from theory to practice, which might not be as pronounced in others’ works.
Innovation: His introduction of new concepts like shared sovereignty and the integration of cosmopolitanism into legal theory offers a fresh perspective that goes beyond mere critique or extension of Kelsen’s ideas.
Global Relevance: Núñez’s work directly tackles the evolving nature of statehood, sovereignty, and law in a globalized world, an area where many other theorists have not made as significant a leap from Kelsen’s foundational work.
While many legal scholars have built upon Kelsen’s work, Núñez’s approach not only honors the normative purity and structure of Kelsen’s theory but also significantly expands its application and relevance to contemporary global legal issues, making his works a notable evolution in legal thinking.
Ultimately, Kelsen provided the groundwork for understanding law through a purely normative lens, Núñez’s works can be viewed as an evolution by incorporating broader interdisciplinary analyses and addressing modern global legal challenges, thus pushing the boundaries of legal theory into new territories of practice and application.
Territorial disputes and Núñez’s frameworks: the Falklands/Malvinas case
The sections below include brief analyses integrating Dr. Jorge Emilio Nunez’s theoretical frameworks from 2017 and 2023 with a focus on how game theory might work within this scenario:
Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty (Nunez 2017):
Framework for Peace:
Shared Sovereignty: Argentina and the UK, as hosts in Nunez’s terminology, would engage in negotiations to establish a shared governance model. This model would involve both nations having a role in certain aspects of governance, like international relations, defense, or resource management, while local governance would be more directly influenced by the islanders.
Falkland Islanders’ Role: As participants or attendees, depending on their involvement, the islanders would have their say in how shared sovereignty is structured. Their participation could be crucial in shaping local policies, cultural preservation, and daily governance, ensuring that any peace agreement reflects their will and protects their rights.
Justice and Equity: The focus would be on achieving an equitable outcome where historical claims are acknowledged but not at the expense of the islanders’ right to self-determination. This would involve both countries agreeing to a form of sovereignty that doesn’t claim absolute control but allows for a just distribution of power.
Cosmopolitanism and Multilevel Agent Interaction (Nunez 2023):
Diverse Agents and Roles:
Argentina and UK as Hosts: They host the dispute but must navigate their roles to accommodate not just their own interests but also those of the islanders and the international community.
Falkland Islanders as Participants or Attendees: Their participation level would dictate their influence on negotiations. As participants, they’d have a direct role in discussions; as attendees, they might influence through public opinion, referendums, or advisory roles.
International Community: Other states, international organizations, or NGOs would act as viewers or attendees, providing support, mediation, or serving as platforms for dialogue.
Application of Game Theory in Nunez’s Framework:
Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Equilibrium: In Nunez’s shared sovereignty model, the traditional game of who gets full control could shift towards a symmetric equilibrium where both Argentina and the UK agree on mutual benefits from shared governance. However, the asymmetry comes from the different stakes each has – Argentina with a historical claim, the UK with current governance, and the islanders with their livelihood and identity. An asymmetric Nash equilibrium might be where each party’s strategy considers the others’ unique interests, leading to a negotiated outcome.
Chicken Game: If both nations play “Hawk” in the traditional sense, seeking full sovereignty, conflict persists. Nunez’s approach would have both consider being “Doves,” where the game becomes about cooperation rather than conquest, with the islanders influencing which nation might back down or adapt their strategy towards shared governance.
Bargaining Game: Here, Nunez’s frameworks suggest a game where the duration of negotiation is influenced by how much each party values peace, economic cooperation, and international standing. The islanders’ voice could extend or shorten this game by affecting public opinion in Argentina and the UK, pushing for a resolution that acknowledges their rights.
Repeated Games: The ongoing relationship between Argentina, the UK, and the islanders could be seen as a series of interactions where past behavior informs future strategy. Nunez’s cosmopolitan approach encourages strategies where cooperation in one area (like environmental protection) strengthens trust for broader sovereignty agreements.
Signaling and Escalation: Nunez’s theories would emphasize signaling intentions towards shared governance rather than traditional signaling of military or political strength. Escalation would be managed not through military means but through diplomatic channels, with signals of openness to share sovereignty potentially de-escalating tensions.
Peacebuilding Strategies with Game Theory:
Mediation with Game Theory: Mediators would use game theory to understand each player’s best response strategies, encouraging moves towards shared sovereignty by highlighting mutual benefits and the costs of continued conflict.
Legal and Institutional Frameworks: Game theory can predict how different legal structures might be accepted or resisted, helping to craft agreements that align with Nunez’s distributive justice and cosmopolitanism.
Incentives for Cooperation: By framing peace as a non-zero-sum game, where all can gain from economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, and a stable South Atlantic, game theory can guide the negotiation process to find points of mutual interest.
Conclusion:
By applying Nunez’s frameworks, the Falklands/Malvinas dispute could move towards a resolution where sovereignty is seen as something that can be shared justly among hosts (Argentina and UK), with significant input from participants or attendees (Falkland Islanders).
Game theory, one of the novel elements included in Nunez’s frameworks, would not just predict conflict but could be used to design strategies for cooperation, emphasizing the roles, preferences, and potential for mutual gain among all parties involved. This approach would require a shift in traditional thinking about sovereignty, focusing on long-term peace and justice rather than immediate territorial control.
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 and Friday.
Other game theory models and territorial disputes: the Falklands/Malvinas scenario
Several other game theory models can be applied to the Falklands/Malvinas scenario, each offering different insights into the strategic interactions between Argentina, the UK, and the Falkland Islanders:
Chicken Game (Hawk-Dove Game):
Description: This model is about two players deciding whether to be aggressive (Hawk) or cooperative (Dove). The best outcome for each player is when they act aggressively while the other cooperates, but mutual aggression leads to severe consequences.
Application: In the Falklands/Malvinas case, Argentina and the UK could each choose between an aggressive military stance or a more conciliatory diplomatic approach. The equilibrium where both act like Hawks leads to conflict, while a mixed strategy might result in one side backing down, preventing war but potentially leading to concessions.
Escalation Game:
Description: This model looks at how conflicts escalate from small disputes to larger conflicts, often with each side increasing its commitment based on the other’s actions.
Application: The conflict could be seen as a series of escalatory moves where initial small actions (like establishing a military presence or asserting sovereignty) lead to larger commitments (full-scale invasion, naval blockades). Understanding the points of no return or de-escalation could highlight where peace initiatives might be injected.
Bargaining Game (or War of Attrition):
Description: Players decide how long they’re willing to continue in a conflict or negotiation, with the outcome depending on who gives up first.
Application: This could reflect the prolonged negotiations after the conflict where both countries might have been willing to endure economic sanctions, international criticism, or domestic pressure until one side’s resolve or resources waned, potentially leading to a peace agreement.
Repeated Games:
Description: Models where players interact multiple times, allowing for strategies like tit-for-tat or cooperation based on past behaviors.
Application: Post-conflict relations between Argentina and the UK can be seen through this lens, where both nations have to consider long-term relationships, trade, and diplomacy. Each interaction can inform the next, promoting cooperation if both see mutual benefits in peace.
Signaling Games:
Description: Here, one player sends a signal (like military buildup or diplomatic overtures) to influence the other’s perception of their resolve or intentions.
Application: Before and during the conflict, both Argentina and the UK engaged in signaling through military movements, public statements, and diplomatic channels. Analyzing these signals could show how misinterpretations or miscommunications led to war, or how clear signals might have prevented conflict.
Zero-Sum vs. Non-Zero-Sum Games:
Description: Zero-sum suggests one’s gains are another’s losses, while non-zero-sum allows for mutual gains or losses.
Application: Initially, the conflict might have been perceived as zero-sum (one country gains territory, the other loses it). However, post-conflict strategies might lean towards non-zero-sum, where peace, cooperation, and economic ties could benefit both nations, reshaping the game into one where mutual benefits are possible.
Multi-Level Games:
Description: Robert Putnam’s model where international negotiations are influenced by domestic politics.
Application: For both Argentina and the UK, domestic political pressures, public opinion, and the need to maintain or gain political power played significant roles in their international strategies. This model would highlight how internal political dynamics shaped external actions.
Each of these models can provide a different lens through which to view the motivations, strategies, and outcomes of the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, capturing various aspects from escalation, signaling, and bargaining to the influence of domestic politics on international relations. Obviously, real-world scenarios often combine elements from multiple game theory models, reflecting the complexity of human decision-making processes.
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 and Friday.
.%20Antarctica.jpg)
.%20Antarctica.jpg)
.%20Antarctica.jpg)
.%20Nunez%20and%20quantum%20entanglement.jpg)
.%20Nunez%20and%20quantum%20entanglement.jpg)
.%20Territorial%20disputes%20and%20Nunez.jpg)
.%20Territorial%20disputes%20and%20Nunez.jpg)
.%20Territorial%20disputes%20and%20Nunez.jpg)
.%20Territorial%20disputes%20and%20Nunez.jpg)
.%20Game%20theory%20models%20and%20territorial%20disputes.jpg)
.%20Game%20theory%20models%20and%20territorial%20disputes.jpg)
.%20Game%20theory%20models%20and%20territorial%20disputes.jpg)
.%20Game%20theory%20models%20and%20territorial%20disputes.jpg)