The Borders We Share: Taming the Sands—Six Tales of Oil, Dust, and Dignity (Section 2 Recap Post)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Section 2: Oil and Dust Disputes (Posts 7–12)
Recap Post: Taming the Sands—Six Tales of Oil, Dust, and Dignity

In a Nutshell

Six weeks ago, we plunged into Section 2 of The Borders We Share, a journey through the grit and gleam of resource wars—oil slicks staining Laputa’s dunes, emeralds glinting in Oz’s seas, dust swirling over Erewhon’s plains. From April 22 to May 27, 2025, we roamed fictional realms—Laputa, Oz, Utopia, Erewhon—pairing their feuds with real-world fractures: the South China Sea’s reefs, Saudi-Yemen’s border, the Persian Gulf’s tides, Nigeria’s Delta, Iraq’s Kurdish sands. I’m Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez—Dr. Jorge to you—and this series is my forge, melding decades of scholarship with the spark of myth to test a vision: borders as shared tapestries, sovereignty as a chorus of equals. This recap weaves Posts 7–12 into the Núñezian Integrated Multiverses, my framework born in 2017, honed through 2020 and 2023, and peering into 2025. It’s a call for partnership over plunder, lit by quantum entanglement and multidimensional justice. Let’s retrace the sands, tally the lessons, and glimpse the waves ahead.

The Journey So Far

Resources—oil, gems, dust—are the pulse of conflict, binding people to land yet tearing them apart. In Section 1, we laid foundations, pairing Khemed’s oil with Crimea’s annexation, Sherwood’s oaks with the Amazon’s roots, Narnia’s ice with Cyprus’s divide. Section 2 shifted to raw stakes: oil wells poisoning Laputa’s oases, emeralds blackening Oz’s reefs, dust cloaking Erewhon’s pride. Over six Tuesdays, we summoned legends—Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, Sinbad, Robin Hood, Dorothy Gale, Hythloday—to unravel disputes with my toolkit: Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Territorial Disputes (2020), Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023), and a glimpse of Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2025). The Núñezian Integrated Multiverses guided us, from 2017’s egalitarian shared sovereignty to 2023’s pluralistic lens, weaving fiction’s clarity with reality’s chaos. Here’s how the sands settled, post by post, forging paths from rivalry to redemption.

Post #7: Cimmeria’s Dust, South China Sea: Rivals as Partners (April 22, 2025)

We began with Laputa’s dusty shores, a sea-bound isle echoing the South China Sea’s 1.4-million-square-mile crucible. Cimmeria’s tribes, fishers of sacred reefs, clashed with Ruritania’s royal rigs, their oil drills fouling nets—a mirror to China’s nine-dash line versus ASEAN’s fleets (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia). Sherlock Holmes prowled Cimmeria’s cliffs, decoding tribal claims against noble charters. My 2017 framework split Laputa’s reefs: clans fish dawn, nobles drill dusk, a 60-40 oil share funding boats and tech. Territorial Disputes (2020, Ch. 7) grounded it—Vietnam’s $2 billion navy guards fish, China pumps oil, an ASEAN council zones seas. Cosmopolitanism (2023, Ch. 6) added depth: agents (fishers, Beijing), roles (Vietnam hosts, U.S. watches), nonlinear chaos (U.S. patrols) tamed by shared stakes. Quantum ripples linked Laputa to Spratlys—one dredger’s churn cuts nets, rippling to global trade ($3.4 trillion, UNCTAD). The lesson? Rivals thrive as partners when reefs are shared, not seized.

Post #8: Laputa’s Wells, Saudi Sands: Oil Beyond One Flag (April 29, 2025)

Laputa’s dunes flared next, oil wells gushing black rivers, nomads led by Zara battling Ruritania’s Count Viktor—echoes of Saudi-Yemen’s 1,800-km frontier, scarred by Houthi raids (150,000 dead, UNHCR). Sinbad, Jafar, King Arthur, and Robin Hood forged a council, urging coastal grazing for tribes, inland drilling for nobles. My 2017 justice zoned wells (60-40 split), Territorial Disputes (2020, Ch. 8) mapped Saudi’s 268 billion barrels versus Yemen’s diaspora (70% rural poor, World Bank), and 2023’s pluralism wove agents (tribes, Riyadh) and contexts (GCC rifts). Colonial scars—Britain’s 1913 lines—fueled strife, but a council could heal, funding tents with oil. Entanglement hummed—one spill poisons oases, rippling to global markets. Sharing wells, not burning tents, lit the path beyond one flag.

Post #9: Laputa’s Wells, Part II: The Entangled Price (May 6, 2025)

Laputa’s crisis deepened—oil spills blackened oases, nomads fled to Cimmeria (10,000 displaced), and Viktor’s rigs faltered under sabotage. Holmes, Watson, Sinbad, Jafar, Arthur, and Robin returned, facing a poisoned land mirroring Saudi-Yemen’s environmental toll. My 2017 framework held: a council to zone grazing and drilling, split oil 60-40, and curb spills. Territorial Disputes (2020) showed Yemen’s poisoned wells, 2023’s lens saw nonlinear chaos (Iran’s drones, U.S. arms). Quantum threads bound all—one leak sickens nomads, shakes Riyadh, darkens markets. The entangled price—diaspora, ruin—demanded synergy: nomads restore oases, nobles fix rigs, oil funds return. Sharing tamed the poison, proving equity outlasts greed.

Post #10: Oz’s Emeralds, Gulf Oil: Gems of the Deep (May 13, 2025)

Oz’s seas shimmered with emeralds, Munchkin divers clashing with Winkie dredgers and Quadling rovers—mirroring the Persian Gulf’s oil wars (Bahrain, Qatar, Iran, 50% global reserves, USGS). Dorothy, the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Lion, and Arthur forged a council: Munchkins dive shallows, Winkies dredge depths, Quadlings patrol tides, splitting gems 60-30-10. My 2017 framework ensured equity, Territorial Disputes (2020, Ch. 8) grounded it in Gulf spills (100,000 displaced, UNEP), and 2023’s pluralism wove agents (tribes, Doha) and nonlinear risks (U.S. 5th Fleet). An “Emerald Sea” passport, like Kashmir’s model (2017, Ch. 7), united zones. Entanglement linked Oz to Gulf—one spill ripples to $1 trillion in trade (UNCTAD). Gems shone brightest when shared, not sunk.

Post #11: Utopia’s Oil Dream, Nigeria’s Delta: Fairness Flows (May 20, 2025)

Utopia’s harbors gleamed, but oil spills blackened Amaurotian nets, pitting fishers against Anemolian rigs and Polylerite nomads—echoing Nigeria’s Niger Delta (37 billion barrels, USGS). Hythloday, Anemolia, Polyleria, Arthur, Holmes, and Watson zoned seas: Amaurotians fish, Anemolians drill, Polylerites patrol, splitting oil 60-30-10. My 2017 justice ensured voice, Territorial Disputes (2020, Ch. 8) mapped Ogoni-Ijaw strife (120,000 displaced, UNEP), and 2023’s lens tamed nonlinear chaos (militias, U.S. advisors). A “Utopian Sea” passport granted access, mirroring Kashmir (2017, Ch. 7). Entangled ripples—one spill cuts nets, shakes markets ($50 billion, IMF)—demanded synergy. Fairness flowed when oil funded schools, not militias.

Post #12: Ruritania’s Pride, Iraq’s Line: Dust Meets Dignity (May 27, 2025)

Erewhon’s plains pulsed with oil, Ruritania’s pride clashing with Cimmeria’s resolve and Erewhonian dreams—mirroring Iraq’s Kurdish struggle (Kirkuk’s oil, 2017 referendum). Holmes, Watson, Arthur, and I unearthed Arthur’s treaty, urging shared rule. My 2017 framework split oil 60-40, Territorial Disputes (2020, Ch. 8) grounded it in Sykes-Picot’s scars, and 2023’s pluralism wove agents (Kurds, Baghdad) and nonlinear risks (UN talks). Entanglement tied Erewhon to Kirkuk—one clash ripples to global stability. Dignity shone when pride bent, as recent UN deals (60-40 oil split) hint. Sharing dust forged a covenant, not a crown.

The Heart of the Multiverse

Section 2 forms a cornerstone of the Núñezian Integrated Multiverses, blending 2017’s ideal theory with 2023’s quantum complexity. Sovereignty Conflicts (2017) birthed egalitarian shared sovereignty: all speak, roles fit skills, rewards match effort, the strong lift the weak—splitting resources (oil, gems) equitably. Territorial Disputes (2020) grounded it in cases—South China Sea, Saudi-Yemen, Gulf, Nigeria, Iraq—showing sovereignty as fluid, entangled across agents (tribes, states), contexts (local, global), and time (colonial pasts). Cosmopolitanism (2023, Ch. 6) leapt multidimensional: agents (fishers, nobles), roles (hosts, meddlers), contexts (ASEAN, GCC), realms (survival, profit), shaped by nonlinear chaos (spills, raids) and quantum entanglement—one spill in Laputa tugs Oz’s reefs, Iraq’s dust. Fiction—Laputa’s wells, Oz’s seas, Erewhon’s treaty—lit reality’s mud, proving resources hum when shared. My 2025 glimpse (Kirkuk’s deal) tests it live, weaving equity into chaos.

What We’ve Learned

Zero-sum fails—Houthi raids (150,000 dead), Niger Delta spills (120,000 displaced), Kirkuk’s clashes lose more than they win. People drive disputes—Laputa’s nomads, Oz’s Munchkins, Erewhon’s tribes—entangled with states in a quantum web. History scars—1913’s Gulf lines, Sykes-Picot’s Iraq—yet sharing works (2002 GCC talks, 2009 Delta amnesty). Leaders fuel strife—Viktor’s greed, Torin’s charters—but 2023’s nonlinear lens (Iran’s drones, U.S. fleets) outsmarts ego. The multiverse connects—Laputa’s oil tugs Utopia’s seas, Iraq’s dust, a ripple where fairness lifts all. Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Territorial Disputes (2020), Cosmopolitanism (2023) stitch synergy into chaos—sharing is strategic, a balanced state in an entangled world.

The Doubts That Linger

“Sovereignty’s sacred!” skeptics cry. China grips Spratlys, Saudi guards rigs, Iraq clutches Kirkuk—pride digs in. Power rules—Houthi drones, U.S. $100 billion arms (SIPRI), Nigeria’s militias flex muscle. Time hardens—centuries in Yemen, decades in Kirkuk. Space chokes—1,800-km borders, 90,000-square-mile Gulf shelves. Outsiders—U.S., Iran, GCC—muddy trust. My 2017 vision demands faith; reality’s blade is sharp. Yet 2020’s cases counter—Gibraltar shares, ASEAN negotiates, Kirkuk’s 60-40 deal inches forward. Cosmopolitanism (2023) tames nonlinear shocks (spills, raids), proving reason can shift sands.

Why This Matters to You

These tales—Laputa’s fishers, Utopia’s nomads, Erewhon’s poets—are your world: a mother fleeing Yemen’s spills, a fisher watching Gulf rigs rise, a Kurd dreaming of Kirkuk’s oil. The Borders We Share isn’t just a blog—it’s a blueprint to reweave our entangled globe. Six posts down, Section 2’s done, but the multiverse hums. I’m Dr. Jorge, shaping this into a book. Join me at https://drjorge.world or X (https://x.com/DrJorge_World )—let’s keep weaving.

What’s Next: Section 3—Islands and Waters (Posts 13–18)

Starting June 10, 2025, Section 3 dives into Islands and Waters, exploring maritime disputes where waves and pride collide. We’ll roam Laputa’s reefs, Atlantis’ depths, Lilliput’s specks, Narnia’s tides, Blefuscu’s boats, pairing them with the Falklands/Malvinas, Spratlys, Senkaku, Aegean, Paracels. Sherlock Holmes returns, joined by new voices, to navigate these wet borders. Posts include:

• Post #13: Ruritania’s Crown, Falklands/Malvinas’ Winds (June 10, 2025)—Ruritania vs. Cimmeria over Laputa, mirroring Argentina-UK’s Falklands/Malvinas feud.
• Post #14: Atlantis’ Waves, Spratly Reefs (June 17, 2025)—Atlantis claims reefs, echoing South China Sea’s Spratlys.
• Post #15: Lilliput’s Isles, Senkaku Clash (June 24, 2025)—Lilliput fights over tiny isles, like Japan-China’s Senkaku.
• Post #16: Lilliput’s Isles, Part II (July 1, 2025)—A multidimensional fix splits the speck.
• Post #17: Narnia’s Sea, Aegean Edge (July 8, 2025)—Narnian fleets claim tides, mirroring Greece-Turkey’s Aegean.
• Post #18: Blefuscu’s Boats, Paracel Puzzle (July 15, 2025)—Blefuscu sails against Laputa’s waters, like Vietnam-China’s Paracels.
  
  Section 3 keeps the multiverse spinning, with my Núñezian lens—2017’s equity, 2020’s cases, 2023’s pluralism—proving islands and waters can unite, not divide. Your voice shapes this journey—join us as we sail.

References

• Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 6, 7).
• Núñez, J.E. (2018). Sovereign Game: A Tale of Three Peoples (Ch. 1–5).
• Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Ch. 7, 8).
• Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 1, 6).
• Núñez, J.E. (2025). Territorial Disputes in the Americas (Ch. 9).

NOTE:

New posts every Tuesday.

PREVIOUS POSTS:

Post #12: Ruritania’s Pride, Iraq’s Line: Dust Meets Dignity

NEXT POSTS:

Post #13: Ruritania’s Crown, Falklands/Malvinas’ Winds

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 3rd June 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

The Borders We Share: Ruritania’s Pride, Iraq’s Line (Post 12)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Section 2: Oil and Dust Disputes (Posts 7-12)

Post #12: Ruritania’s Pride, Iraq’s Line: Dust Meets Dignity

Ruritania’s Pride, Iraq’s Line

In a realm where the wind hums with the echoes of ancient oaths, two nations lock horns over a land as coveted as it is scarred. Erewhon, with its stark mountains piercing the sky and its plains pulsing with the promise of oil, is no mere territory—it’s a crucible where pride, dignity, and the dream of sovereignty collide. Ruritania, cloaked in the crimson and gold of a kingdom that claims lineage from mythic kings, sees Erewhon as its rightful inheritance, its nobles chanting tales of chivalry in halls aglow with candlelight. Cimmeria, vast and weathered, stakes its claim through the weight of history and the logic of proximity, scoffing at Ruritania’s polished decrees. Between them stand the Erewhonians, a fierce people whose language weaves poetry from dust, their hearts set on self-rule. This is a saga of crowns, clues, and a lost treaty, where Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, and I, Dr. Jorge, join the shadow of King Arthur to seek peace in a land on the brink.

Yet Erewhon’s tale is more than fiction—it’s a mirror held to our world’s fractured borders, where pride and power clash in disputes as old as the lines that define them. Iraq, a nation born from colonial cartography, wrestles with its own contest of wills, nowhere more poignant than in the Kurdish struggle for autonomy. Oil, honor, and history fuel a conflict that echoes Erewhon’s strife, with Baghdad’s rigid sovereignty pitted against Kurdish dreams of freedom. In this 12th chapter of The Borders We Share, we blend the romance of legend with the rigor of reality, drawing on my scholarship to explore how shared sovereignty might transform dust into dignity. Join us as we chase truths from Erewhon’s ancient stones to Iraq’s contested sands, seeking a path where pride yields to partnership.

---

Part I: The Pride of Ruritania and the Quest for Erewhon

Erewhon unfurls like a vision from a bard’s tale—jagged peaks claw at the heavens, their snow-dusted tips glowing in the dawn, while valleys cradle rivers that shimmer like molten silver. The air carries wild thyme and the sharp tang of oil, a reminder of the black gold that shapes fates here. The Erewhonians, a mosaic of tribes with a tongue that dances between grit and grace, live with a pride as unyielding as the stone beneath their feet. Their songs speak of a land unbound, yet for centuries, two powers have sought to claim it. Ruritania, its crimson banners fluttering in halls of marble and gold, sees Erewhon as a jewel in its crown, a legacy of knights and kings. Cimmeria, sprawling and raw, asserts dominion through shared history and the practicality of nearness, dismissing Ruritania’s scrolls as relics.

Into this tinderbox stepped Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, their arrival marked by the clatter of a carriage on Erewhon’s cobblestones. My letter had summoned them: “Erewhon teeters on war’s edge. A treaty of King Arthur may hold peace. Come.” Holmes’s hawk-like eyes swept the market—traders bartering silks dyed like flame, children darting through crowds with laughter bright as bells. “A land of secrets,” he murmured. Watson, gazing at the peaks, added, “And pride deeper than those rivers.” I met them at the Inn of the Saffron Veil, its walls alive with murals of Erewhon’s past. “Gentlemen,” I said, “Ruritania and Cimmeria are poised for blood. Arthur’s treaty speaks of shared rule, but it’s lost—perhaps hidden.”

Our quest began in Erewhon’s grand library, where we sifted through vellum brittle as autumn leaves, tracing Arthur’s legend. Ruritania claimed him as their founder, his sword Excalibur carving their borders; Cimmeria saw him as a unifier, his legacy a bridge. One dusk, on a ridge where the wind sang of battles, an Erewhonian elder, her silver hair braided with amber, warned: “Arthur’s pact is a flame—warming or burning, depending on who wields it.” Holmes smirked. “We’ll wield it with care.” We chased clues—a map etched on a shepherd’s staff, a ballad from a blind minstrel, a cavern where carvings danced in torchlight. Ruritania’s crimson-cloaked agents shadowed us, as did Cimmeria’s gray-clad spies. “Pride breeds desperation,” Watson growled, his revolver ready as we slipped through alleys.

A breakthrough came in a crumbling monastery, where a parchment fragment glowed in the dusk. “‘A pact of mutual honor,’” I read, my heart racing. “Incomplete, but a start.” Holmes traced the torn edge. “The rest awaits.” Our final discovery lay beneath Erewhon’s oldest castle, in a chamber sealed by a slab bearing Arthur’s crest—a crown cleaved by a sword. We pried it open, revealing a scroll. I unrolled it, the words alive: “‘Let Erewhon be shared by Ruritania, Cimmeria, and its people, each guarding the dignity of the others.’” Holmes grinned, a rare spark. “Not conquest, but concord.” Watson clapped my shoulder. “Your bridge, Jorge.”

---

Part II: Iraq’s Line in the Sand

Erewhon’s saga finds its echo in Iraq, where dust and dignity shape a struggle as old as the borders that define it. The Kurds, with their distinct language and traditions, seek autonomy within a nation forged by colonial hands. My 2020 book, The Middle East, traces this to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, where Britain and France carved Iraq from Ottoman ruins, ignoring ethnic truths to create a state where unity remains elusive. Kurds, Arabs, and others were bound by lines that sparked tension from their inception, with oil-rich Kirkuk—a Kurdish heartland claimed by Baghdad—standing as the conflict’s crucible, its black gold both a blessing and a curse.

The Kurdish push for independence peaked in 2017, when a referendum saw 92% vote for separation. Baghdad’s response was swift—federal forces retook Kirkuk, humbling the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and exposing their fragility. As of May 20, 2025, the standoff persists, though recent developments offer hope. Last month, UN-brokered talks secured a tentative oil revenue-sharing deal, with Baghdad and the KRG agreeing to split Kirkuk’s profits 60-40, pending security arrangements. Yet territorial control remains contentious, with Peshmerga and Iraqi forces in a wary dance. The Kurds’ pride, tempered by loss, burns bright, while Iraq’s line of sovereignty holds firm, rooted in fears of further fragmentation.

My 2017 book, Sovereignty Conflicts, proposes egalitarian shared sovereignty as a path forward, where Baghdad, the KRG, and local communities have equal voice, roles align with strengths, and benefits reflect contributions, with the stronger aiding the weaker to reach parity. For Kirkuk, this could mean joint oil management, with Iraq’s infrastructure and Kurdish local knowledge driving extraction, profits split to fund mutual growth, and defense shared to deter threats. My 2023 work, Multidimensional Sovereignty, calls for a holistic approach—blending historical, legal, and cultural lenses to heal wounds. Models like the Åland Islands, thriving under Finland with Swedish ties, or Andorra, co-ruled by France and Spain, show shared sovereignty’s promise. Yet Iraq’s mistrust, deepened by decades of betrayal, demands patience and bold vision, as recent talks underscore.

---

Part III: From Dust to Dignity

In Erewhon, Ruritania’s pride—its regal certainty, its tales of Excalibur and ancient kings—clashed with Cimmeria’s resolve and Erewhon’s quiet defiance. King Arthur’s treaty, unearthed through our quest, offered a radical truth: sovereignty thrives not in domination, but in partnership. Holmes’s logic, Watson’s courage, and my scholarship revealed a path where dignity trumped dust, where pride bowed to shared purpose. The scroll’s words—“each guarding the dignity of the others”—were a beacon, guiding Ruritania and Cimmeria to see Erewhon as a partner, not a prize.

Iraq stands at a similar crossroads. The Kurds’ pride, Baghdad’s unyielding line, and Kirkuk’s oil-soaked earth cry out for a new pact. Shared sovereignty could transform this strife into strength—joint governance, equitable profits, and mutual defense honoring all parties. Yet trust is the missing piece. Baghdad fears a Kurdish exit would unravel Iraq; the KRG dreads another betrayal. Erewhon’s lesson shines: truth, like Arthur’s treaty, can shift perspectives. Recent talks, though fragile, hint at progress, but only by embracing dignity over dominance can Iraq weave a future where dust becomes a foundation, not a shroud.

This journey—from Erewhon’s stones to Iraq’s sands—reminds us that borders are stories, not just lines. They speak of pride, loss, and the hope of unity. As Holmes deduced and Watson witnessed, dignity is the bridge we build together. Iraq’s next steps, like Erewhon’s, depend on leaders willing to trade the sword for the scroll, to see sovereignty not as a crown to seize, but a flame to share. The path is steep, but the stakes—peace, justice, dignity—are worth the climb.

---

Weaving the Tapestry of Tomorrow

Erewhon’s tale and Iraq’s struggle converge in a singular truth: sovereignty is strongest when shared. In our fictional quest, Ruritania’s pride, embodied in its crimson banners and tales of Arthur, met Cimmeria’s tenacity and Erewhon’s resilience. The treaty we uncovered wasn’t a trophy but a covenant, a promise that dignity could bind what pride divides. Holmes’s piercing intellect, Watson’s steadfast heart, and my scholarly zeal illuminated a path where dust became the ground for concord, not conflict. Erewhon’s people, once pawns in a great game, emerged as partners, their voices equal in a chorus of shared rule.

Iraq, too, can weave such a tapestry. The Kurds, with their unyielding spirit, and Baghdad, with its weight of history, stand poised to redefine their shared destiny. My work in Sovereignty Conflicts offers a blueprint: egalitarian shared sovereignty, where Kirkuk’s oil fuels mutual prosperity, where Peshmerga and Iraqi forces guard a common future. The recent UN deal, fragile as it is, shows the needle moving—60-40 may not be perfect, but it’s a thread in the weave. Yet, as Multidimensional Sovereignty argues, true resolution demands more than contracts; it requires a cultural shift, a willingness to see the other’s pride as a mirror, not a threat. The Åland Islands and Andorra whisper of what’s possible when trust replaces fear.

This is the challenge and the promise of our shared borders. Erewhon’s fictional peace, forged in the crucible of Arthur’s wisdom, beckons Iraq to imagine a future where dignity rises above dust. As we close this chapter, let us carry forward the lesson that sovereignty is not a zero-sum game, but a tapestry woven by many hands. Join us next Tuesday for another border’s story, and share your thoughts at https://DrJorge.World or on X https://x.com/DrJorge_World . Until then, let us weave tomorrow with courage and care.

---

Sources and Further Reading

• Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Chapters 6, 7).
• Núñez, J.E. (2018). Sovereign Game: A Tale of Three Peoples (Chapters 1–5).
• Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Chapter 8).
• Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Chapters 1, 6).

NOTE:

New posts every Tuesday.

PREVIOUS POSTS:

Post #11: Utopia’s Oil Dream, Nigeria’s Delta: Fairness Flows

NEXT POSTS:

• Section 2 Recap: Oil and Dust Disputes (Posts 7-12)

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:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 27th May 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial disputes: The Persian Gulf (Part 30) [Post 190]

 

The Persian Gulf: Partial Conclusions

The longstanding and still unresolved TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in the Persian Gulf have several dimensions. The current nomenclature in legal and political sciences used the term TERRITORIAL DISPUTE. Yet, the disputes in the Persian Gulf are a clear example of an ongoing differences that have to do with territory as well as population, government and law domestically, regionally and internationally.

This blog series TERRITORIAL DISPUTES originally aimed only to briefly introduce conceptual elements (first ten posts of the series) and thereafter present a succinct overview of relevant and current examples.

Before we covered the differences in the Persian Gulf, we had addressed Kashmir, the Malvinas/Falkland islands, Gibraltar, the Israel-Palestine case, and many others. The plan was to write and publish only ten posts (like with the rest of the case studies) for the Persian Gulf region. Thanks to the comments made by one of our readers, I decided to extend the assessment of this particular case study.

Because of the nature of this series and its platform (a blog), I have covered the basis in relation to the differences in the Persian Gulf and the application of the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY to evaluate a solution. However, there are questions that are more complex and more serious problems to address. 

I am addressing these questions with future dedicated research. To give an answer to these points deserve a more in-depth analysis that will have to include technicalities in terms of statistical information, methodology and content based on the disciplines of reference. In addition to this, I do my best to keep this blog series as accessible as possible for anybody (at least, most people) to be able to get a grasp and participate in the discussion.

Having said that, the last 29 posts have enabled us to:

• Be familiar with a brief historical chronology.
• Distinguish historical facts from religious account.
• Understand some key domestic, regional and international reasons behind this difference.
• Introduce the concept of “colourable claim” and explore three different grounds: historical entitlement, legal basis and moral standing. Its main outcome is that both Israelis and Palestinians ought to be part of any negotiation concerning the sovereignty (de jure and de facto) over the disputes territories.
• Introduce the solutions presented in recent years by the United States, United Nations and Arab League.
• Learn that all the aforementioned solutions suggest explicitly or implicitly partition and/or the interference of non-regional parties.
• Evaluate by means of an abstract experiment how the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY may solve the difference and could materialize.

With all this in mind, three main partial conclusions leave the door open for future reflection and analysis:

1. Sovereignty of the disputed territories should not be totally in the hands of only one of the claiming parties either Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, or the United Arab Emirates.
2. If existing conditions in terms of sovereignty continue, they will only perpetuate a status quo and therefore, a legal and political limbo securing only one result: a volatile area in many ways.
3. United Nations or any other party alien to the dispute (for example, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Arab League) should not interfere.

There is nothing completely unresolvable if we look together for a solution. Indeed, if we choose not to solve the difference and we do not look for ways to move forward we are not going to find it. 

It is usually the case in this kind of differences that victory for one party means the other party has to suffer. 

When we shift the focus, and understand we are all human beings and we are all fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters doing our best to let our future generations live in a better world we may have a chance. It is not only up to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, or the United Arab Emirates. It is up to all of us.

For an interactive map of TERRITORIAL DISPUTES see

Link to the complete publication

For current information about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES see CIA’s The World Factbook at:

Link to the complete publication

NOTE:  

This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics (Routledge 2020).

Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: 

Final recap.

Friday 12th February 2021
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
https://drjorge.world

Territorial disputes: The Persian Gulf (Part 29) [Post 189]

 

The Persian Gulf and controversial borders

Borders are volatile (to say the least) in the already tense Persian Gulf region. With communities presenting very different living standards and the myriad of checkpoints the situation deteriorates on an ongoing basis. Recent events are self-evident.

A general approach previously used in the region (and in many others around the world by former colonial powers imposing them to former colonies) has to do with partition solutions. 

They work under the assumption that the hostilities between opposing ethnic groups makes it impossible for them to live peacefully together in a single state (Haklai and Loizides, ed., 2015). 

There are many reasons to disagree with the partition solution. For an academic reference see for example Laitin (2004), Sambanis (2000), Sambanis and Schulhofer-Wohl (2009), and others.

The EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY may rule out extreme situations such as:

• Sovereignty of the disputed territories to be totally in the hands of only one of the claiming parties.

• Existing sovereignty should automatically continue, or that everything should remain in a status quo.

• The intervention of the United Nations or any other party alien to the dispute. Several problems immediately arise.

United Nations (UN): although UN aims to grant sovereign equality amongst the States its own system reveals a contradiction: veto power in the Security Council is only granted to certain sovereign States.

This may be translated (in the perception of at least one of claiming parties) as an unbalanced and unfair starting point to have negotiations, and with a predictable result.

Not only does the Security Council present these problems but also other UN organizations. Even the UN General Assembly, at first glance a fair environment for sovereign States to participate in, has been regarded as ineffective or irredeemably biased because of the different bargaining powers of its members.

Finally, in cases of contested sovereignty over populated territories, stateless people are not UN members.

Other parties: in terms of other parties alien to the dispute (for example, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China) history is self-evident in demonstrating their policies in the region have been far from successful, have taken little care about the local population and their needs, and have been more (only) centered on their geostrategic domestic policies rather than taking Israel and Palestine into consideration.

In brief, in order to acknowledge the controversial features the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY advises to remove the borders and any checkpoints in the disputed territories. 

As we discussed when assessing population in the context of the Israel-Palestine difference a while ago in this blog series, by applying the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY, the inhabitants of the disputed territories would be citizens of both bordering sovereign states, they would have a common passport valid in the disputed territories. 

In terms of religion, as the second pre-requisite recognizes basic non-political liberties, freedom of movement and residence would be adopted at a constitutional level. The lexically prior prerequisite of non-political liberties controls this.

NOTE:  

This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics (Routledge 2020).

Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: 

The Persian Gulf: Partial Conclusions

Thursday 11th February 2021
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
https://drjorge.world

Territorial disputes: The Persian Gulf (Part 28) [Post 188]

 

The Persian Gulf, territorial disputes and the historical entitlement

In reviewing TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in the Persian Gulf, we centered the attention yesterday on historical entitlement arguments. It is often the case Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates base their claims on historical, legal, political, cultural and geographical evidence.

The just acquisition principle has been previously related to territorial sovereignty since it has been maintained that amongst the objects to which this principle is meant to be capable of applying are portions of the Earth’s surface, that is, areas of land. 

The main problem with this idea applied to TERRITORIAL DISPUTES is that the information required to apply this principle is not epistemically accessible in sovereignty conflicts—e.g. how far back would the agents need to investigate so as to determine who the first inhabitants of the Persian Gulf were? What would happen in the case of extinct civilisations? What about cultures that were in Ancient Times nomadic?

The principle of just acquisition may work for individuals. For States, it may solve one problem, what one has to do, i.e. mix one’s labour. But leaves several other issues unresolved—e.g. a) who did it first? b) how much each does individual own? (new problem, e.g. if someone digs, can he claim that plot, the field or the whole island?), and c) who inherits the property—the inhabitants or their ‘mother community’?

Any version of just acquisition will have the same problems: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates will never agree on the relevant facts and the relevant test, and therefore all this principle would do is guarantee endless conflict. So, reasonable people would reject it if they wanted to achieve a peaceful and permanent solution.

Whether they have access to historical records or not is irrelevant since they would only result in endless discussion concerning historical entitlement that in most—if not all cases—is highly difficult to be demonstrated. Governments and their representatives are aware of this issue. 

More precisely, as we have seen in previous posts referred to the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia and China, non-regional states maintain the very convenient status quo to their interest by using the historical argument since they know it will not bring any changes to the current situation.

The advice here would be not to agree to rely on a principle that guarantees endless conflict, and therefore, to reject it as the principle to resolve these disputes. 

At the same time, by rejecting the historical entitlement argument, it leaves all (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates) with an equal footing to continue the negotiations since none of them can argue a better or more robust right over the claimed territories.

NOTE:  

This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics (Routledge 2020).

Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: 

The Persian Gulf and controversial borders

Wednesday 10th February 2021
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
https://drjorge.world