Many of the TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in the Persian
Gulf have to do with non-regional states that had long ago presence in the
continent by means of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism or neo-imperialism.
In relation to the agreement on the
historical account each sovereign state taking part in a sovereignty conflict
is certain that it has ultimate and highest right over the disputed territory,
and the use and ownership of the third territory is due to them. As a
consequence, sovereignty disputes do not move from a zero-sum game.
That is because, in order to determine
the initial acquisition, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates have to go back and resolve old
historical claims only resulting in a practical matter: the competing agents
are never going to agree on the ‘correct’ historical version of the events—i.e.
the historical account is fundamentally controversial.
It is common to observe in sovereignty
differences that the involved agents usually support their claims through
historical, legal, political, cultural or geographical arguments—even a
combination of many of them. In other words, not only will be the dispute over
what the facts are but also what the relative moral significance of those facts
is.
For example, one party will claim that
whoever was the first one in the third territory is its owner and hence, its
sovereign, and they were there first. But the opposite party disputes this,
supporting their case with historical, legal, political, cultural and
geographical evidence, and arguing either a) that they were there first, or b)
that being first is not what makes acquisition just, but, e.g., being first to
exploit its resources, or establish a community. Because all the parties argue
they were the first to do what gave them a right to the third territory, an
approach based on a historical account is futile for providing a solution to
sovereignty disputes and the conflicts continue endlessly—e.g. arguments about
the rightful sovereign of Jerusalem and surrounding areas have been present for
generations.
See for example Genesis 14:
18-20 in which Jerusalem (or Salem) has already enemies. Since Biblical times
the region has been centre of disputes in relation to the rightful settlement
of different populations. Should
these agents go back to Biblical times in order to prove the current legitimate
occupancy of the territory?
Faced with the idea of applying any
kind of principle based on a historical entitlement will confront the
representatives with two main problems.
First, they would need to agree upon a
historical account—i.e. what actually happened, who was the first one to
discover the territory, or to have a population there, etc.
Second, they would need to decide what
type of act makes their claimed rights just—i.e. the first one setting foot on
the territory, the first one to have a permanent settlement, etc. Besides, if
there were conflicts in the past it would need to be decided whether they were just
or not and whether the just side won.
The posts will continue this analysis
tomorrow.
NOTE: based on Chapter 6, Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017.
Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive
Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Jorge Emilio Núñez
11th
December 2018
