Territorial Sovereignty

Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

This book offers a qualified defense of a territorial states system. It argues that three core values—occupancy, basic justice, and collective self-determination—are served by an international system made up of self-governing, spatially defined political units. The defense is qualified because the book does not actually justify all of the sovereignty rights states currently claim and that are recognized in international law. Instead, the book proposes important changes to states’ sovereign prerogatives, particularly with respect to internal autonomy for political minorities, immigration, and natural resources. Part I of the book argues for a right of occupancy, holding that a legitimate function of the international system is to specify and protect people’s preinstitutional claims to specific geographical places. Part II turns to the question of how a state might acquire legitimate jurisdiction over a population of occupants. It argues that the state will have a right to rule a population and its territory if it satisfies conditions of basic justice and facilitates its people’s collective self-determination. Finally, Parts III and IV of this book argue that the exclusionary sovereignty rights to control over borders and natural resources that can plausibly be justified on the basis of the three core values are more limited than has traditionally been thought.

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

This chapter introduces the two main questions with which this book is concerned. First, is there any compelling moral justification for organizing our world as a territorial states system or is this mode of organization just a firmly rooted historical contingency? Second, how might a state demonstrate a right to control a population and geographical area within that system, especially in the face of challenges from foreign powers or separatist groups who dispute its title? The chapter introduces the three core values that ground the account of territorial sovereignty, occupancy, basic justice, and collective self-determination, and it distinguishes the book’s position from alternative views.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-185
Author(s):  
Anca Dinicu

Abstract The State, as the fundamental unit of the international system, appeals to ultimate power and authority in order to control its own domestic affairs and claims equality as a legal basis regarding its relation with other legal political units. But the existence of the sovereign state in the current international context, where the multiple interdependencies generate divergence and cooperation in the same, is subject to permanent challenges. And the issue is not easy approachable in theory, nor in practice. Like other concepts, as security or democracy, the concept of sovereignty needs to be updated according to the new rules revealed by the process of globalization, rules that are defined not by the equal states, but by the powerful ones.


Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert

The issue of sovereignty over natural resources has been a key element in the development of international law, notably leading to the emergence of the principle of States’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, concomitant to this focus on States’ sovereignty, international human rights law proclaims the right of peoples to self-determination over their natural resources. This has led to a complex and ambivalent relationship between the principle of States’ sovereignty over natural resources and peoples’ rights to natural resources. This chapter analyses this conflicting relationship and examines the emergence of the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources and evaluates its potential role in contemporary advocacy. It notably explores how indigenous peoples have called for the revival of their right to sovereignty over natural resources, and how the global peasants’ movement has pushed for the recognition of the concept of food sovereignty.


1977 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford R. Silverburg

The end of the Second World War seemed to signal to many observers the onset of a new era of international relations and international law. The appearance of former colonial entities as independent and sovereign political units led both diplomats and academicians to divine a new world order for international relations. At the same time the consequent significant increase in the number of political actors in the international system changed not only its complexion but also its manner of interaction. It appears that there are still further developments in the offing whose full significance cannot as yet be fully documented. One aspect, however, which we can examine is the increasing importance of the transnational actor in international forums. Our intention in this paper is to examine several features of this development in international relations, law and organization as evidenced by the continually increasing participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the chambers of the United Nations.


Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Welsh

This chapter argues for and adopts a constructivist perspective on international law as closely interrelated with international politics and as having regulative, constitutive, and permissive effects. It begins by illustrating how rules that have the status of law are not simply functional solutions to dilemmas of cooperation among states, but also expressions of prevailing conceptions of legitimate action and key resources for practices of justification and legitimation. The chapter then examines law’s role in effecting change—both in the practices and patterns of relations among the key units of the international system (sovereign states) through the law prohibiting the use of force, and in the number of those units over time through the law relating to state recognition. The chapter shows that while international law has made significant contributions to peaceful change—particularly through the gradual delegitimization of wars of conquest and territorial aggrandizement—its understanding of self-determination and its stance toward civil conflict have also helped to preserve a system of states that assumes both the political and territorial legitimacy of sovereign units. In short, international law can also be a force for peaceful, and not so peaceful, continuity.


Author(s):  
Schroeder Ursula

This chapter examines the shift of security concepts away from the traditional focus on war and the State in a Westphalian international system, discussing the evolution of current security concepts in their historical and theoretical context. It shows how State-based security concepts have slowly made way for broader understandings of security over the past decades. Security is no longer seen exclusively as a matter of the State; violent conflicts are more often than not intra-State or internationalized in nature and collective security arrangements have not always been effective in crisis situations. The chapter then argues that the successive broadening and deepening of security concepts has led to issues of coherence (and lack thereof) and concept stretching in the research field, while leaving crucial dynamics of contemporary security governance underexplored. It highlights several challenges posed by the ongoing and rapid transformation of global security dynamics and discusses their implications for international law.


Author(s):  
Megan Blomfield

This chapter further explores and defends the conception of natural resource justice composed of the principle of collective self-determination and the (lexically prior) basic needs principle. It explains the lexical ordering of the principles and the nature and scope of the resource claims they legitimize. It then discusses how the two principles will work in tandem to support a system of limited territorial jurisdiction over natural resources, and several forms such limits can be predicted to take. A brief explanation of how this account might be integrated into a broader theory of justice concerning other morally significant goods is provided. In response to the objection that this conception of justice is really a form of sufficientarianism, the view is portrayed as a theory of relational egalitarianism for natural resources. A response is also given to the objection that the theory is problematically ideal in the sense that it lacks feasibility.


2019 ◽  
pp. 249-258
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

This book has offered a qualified defense of a territorial states system. This chapter summarizes the book’s argument and suggests we have a common responsibility to work to create multilateral institutions that would better specify, allocate, and enforce duties to protect the fundamental territorial interests of the earth’s inhabitants. Following Kant, the chapter argues for institutionalizing these cosmopolitan duties through multilateral cooperation and horizontal sanctioning, rather than by instituting a world government with executive powers. There is every reason to work toward climate justice, more extensive refugee rights, and other cosmopolitan reforms via “self-binding” arrangements that will reflect, rather than violate, collective self-determination. Such a strategy may allow for the establishment of multilateral institutions that can limit state sovereignty by enforceable duties to secure fundamental territorial interests.


2019 ◽  
pp. 187-216
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

This chapter continues to investigate whether the three core values defended in this book (occupancy, basic justice, and collective self-determination) can justify states’ exclusionary claims to border control. This chapter focuses on what we might call opportunity migrants, those who are not suffering from persecution, persistent violations of their basic human rights (including subsistence rights), environmental devastation, or cultural or political oppression. Can states exclude migrants whose fundamental territorial interests are not at stake? What about travelers, students, economic migrants, and so on? The chapter argues that a state may exclude immigrants of this sort only where it can offer a plausible case that their entry would cause harm.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-541
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz

AbstractThis essay replies to three critics of my book Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration. First, in response to Kit Wellman, I defend the claim that states sometimes have a right against external interference even when their decisions depart from the requirements of social justice. This “right to do wrong” is grounded in respect for a legitimate procedure of collective self-determination, in which the state's members have an important interest. Second, I reply to Michael Blake's concern that there is an inconsistency in my treatment of people's actual wills in politics. I clarify that my view places weight on the actual wills only of “cooperators” (a technical term), and that cooperators’ actual wills matter because they have claims against alien rule. There is no inconsistency in treating political annexation differently from immigration since immigrants rarely threaten to impose alien rule on cooperators. Finally, I address Adom Getachew's concerns about the imperial dimensions of the states system, arguing that my book contains resources for theorizing remedial claims to land in settler colonial societies and other reparative duties of global justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document