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.
Common roots to territorial disputes in the Americas
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 those in the Americas.
All major territorial differences in the Americas have their roots in the colonial period. Colonialism resulted in artificial borders in America. Formerly cohesive communities were divided or decimated. It is a fact some of these communities had relations that were far from peaceful before colonial times. Yet, it is also true that some areas have been in constant struggle since then. Territorial disputes (inter-states and within the newly formed states) have translated into poverty, humanitarian crisis, arms trafficking, guerrilla activity, and many more negative outcomes.
The Europeans fixed American boundaries based on European political considerations, and usually without regard to tribal and ethnological factors. As a result of the European partition, several American boundaries grouped together different ethnic groups in a single state, divided ethnic or national groups, or created a state with physical characteristics that hindered social, political or economic stability.
There are three clear periods that distinguish how the territory in the Americas was divided before the European intervention: sociologically, between the European dominance of the continent and American states independence; politically, only centered on European interests; and after each individual state in the Americas achieved different forms of self-government.
Pre-Columbian times
The population in the New World was between 54 and 112 million in Pre-Columbian times. However, by the time of colonization, fewer than 10 million indigenous people survived.
The populations were either part of great empires¾i.e. Aztecs, Mayas and Incas¾or formed disseminated tribes. In all cases, the geographical distribution had to do with a religious component tied to basic needs such as the provision of food, safe surroundings, and access to water. Some populations achieved a highly advanced development in terms of language, beliefs, sciences, social fairness, economy, and politics.
In terms of borders, there were already territorial disputes mainly in cases of expansion. Some of the populations were more prone to territorial conquest than others.
Post-Columbian but pre-independence times
With little regard to the original occupants of the land, the European colonial times marked a change in the socio-political dynamics across the Americas. Although English, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish conquests have their own peculiarities in the way they dealt with local populations, all cases resulted in a profound change. The former Aztec, Mayan and Incan Empires were dismantled and many tribes simply became extinct.
In terms of territorial definition, European rulers created borders using European understanding of concepts such as sovereignty and state. See, for example, the Papal bulls of Alexander VI Inter caetera, Inter caetera II, Eximiae devotionis and Dudum siquidem. Inter caetera grants the Spanish monarchs sovereignty erga omnes over the territories to the west in the Americas while Inter caetera explicitly includes Portuguese sovereignty and a line of demarcation. Unsurprisingly, none of these documents mention the indigenous population.
Post-independence times
The states formed after colonial times applied the principle of uti possidetis juris by which they assumed to have sovereignty over their formerly-colonial areas. Nevertheless, these previously “settled” borders proved to be unclear or non-existent and generated competing claims that resulted in territorial disputes.
At this stage, the Monroe, Calvo and Drago doctrines were central to preventing the formerly colonial powers from interfering with the newly formed states in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine appeared in the 19th century when European states intended to recover their colonies in the Americas. The President of the United States proclaimed in one of his speeches (December 2, 1823) what later would be considered basic principles of public international public: a) no colonization, b) non-intervention of European states in the affairs of America, and c) reciprocal non-intervention in European affairs. The Calvo and Drago doctrines are similar in that they prohibit the intervention of a sovereign state if the purpose of that intervention is solely to oblige that the target state to fulfil its international financial obligations. They are also referred to European intervention in American countries and their internal affairs (specifically, Venezuela and its international public debt in 1901).
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: The Falklands/Malvinas Islands, the Mexico–United States border, Guantanamo bay, the Caribbean, Amazonia, indigenous rights and territorial claims over Antarctica.
A new paradigm
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.
ORDERS
VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK
VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK
Friday 15th September 2023
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
