Territorial Sovereignty in Antarctica 1

Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Myhre
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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009059172110085
Author(s):  
Anna Jurkevics

The recent phenomenon of land grabbing—that is, the large-scale acquisition of private land rights by foreign investors—is an effect of increasing global demand for farmland, resources, and development opportunities. In 2008–2010 alone, land grabs covered approximately 56 million hectares of land, dispossessing and displacing inhabitants. This article proposes a philosophical framework for evaluating land grabbing as a practice of territorial alienation, whereby the private purchase of land can, under certain conditions, lead to a de facto alienation of territorial sovereignty. If land grabs alienate territorial sovereignty, it follows that inhabitants can claim a violation of the people’s right to “permanent sovereignty over natural resources.” However, because sovereignty is entangled in the historical and contemporary causes of land dispossession, I cast doubt on this strategy. Territorially sovereign regimes often undermine democratic land governance by obstructing participation in activities such as zoning, land use, property regulation, and environmental stewardship. These activities, which I theorize as practices of “world-building,” are key to democracy because they give occupants a say in the shape of their common home. The perplexities of sovereignty in matters of land governance suggest that establishing democratic participation in rule over land requires fracturing sovereignty.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-501
Author(s):  
Michael Blake

AbstractIn Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration, Anna Stilz argues that legitimate political authority requires the actual—rather than hypothetical—consent of the governed. I argue, however, that her analysis of that consent is inconsistent, in the weight it ascribes to the felt desire to refrain from doing politics with some particular group of people. In the context of secession and self-determination, the lack of actual consent to shared political institutions is weighty enough to render such institutions presumptively illegitimate. In the context of migration, however, a lack of actual consent to the presence of newcomers is ascribed nearly no weight, and instead is taken as evidence of irrationality or immoral preferences. I argue that this apparent contradiction must be clarified before Stilz's overall account of self-governance can be accepted.


2006 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas M. Gibler ◽  
Jamil A. Sewell

This article examines the role of NATO in aiding democratic transitions and survival in the former Soviet republics. The authors argue that the level of external threat is a determining factor in centralization, militarization, and ultimately regime type. States tend to be democratic or are likely to make the transition toward democracy when threat levels are low, while autocracies are more likely to be found in states targeted by higher levels of threat. Building on recent findings examining the link between democracies and alliance, the authors demonstrate that NATO has been an effective guarantor of territorial sovereignty and independence in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Moldova, reducing the level of threat experienced by each state, thus assuring the survival of decentralized and democratic governments. Former Soviet republics targeted by high levels of threat have reverted to or maintained centralized, autocratic forms of government.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-352
Author(s):  
Paul de Hert ◽  
Cihan Parlar ◽  
Johannes Thumfart

This contribution reflects on recent cases involving cross-border data production orders such as Yahoo Belgium, Skype Belgium and Microsoft Ireland. Cross-border data production orders are found to generally involve conflicts regarding sovereignty and enforcement jurisdiction and to frequently include voluntary cooperation of companies for which the legal framework is lacking (Introduction). The Lotus principle, which recognizes a broad extraterritorial jurisdiction to prescribe and limits extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction, is reconsidered concerning those issues (see the ‘International law pragmatism for jurisdiction to prescribe, but not for jurisdiction to enforce’ section) and the use of mutual legal assistances, which should be the rule, is discussed with four caveats (see the ‘Four caveats to territorial sovereignty and the need for MLAs: Unclarities and politics’ section). Twelve typical arguments are identified, which are employed in courtrooms when cross-border data production orders are discussed, for example, arguments regarding territorial sovereignty, the location of servers, the virtual presence of businesses via the Internet or the nationality of the data subject (see the ‘Arguments in courtrooms in favour or against informal-based cross-border investigations’ section). Subsequently, from fourth to seventh sections, those arguments are investigated regarding their context in the cases Yahoo! Belgium (2007–2015), Skype Belgium (2012–2017), Microsoft Ireland (2013–2018) and Google in re Search Warrant (2017). Finally, a first step to evaluate and test the strength of those arguments is undertaken (see the ‘Assessing the arguments: From logically weak, to unpractical to law enforcement utilitarianism (give us everything)’ section).


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Zarisnov Arafat ◽  
Muhammad Gary Gagarin Akbar

Ekstradisi secara universal hingga saat ini mengalami perubahan yang semakin baik, terutama setelah kehidupan bernegara sudah mulai tampak lebih maju sampai abad 20 ini. Hubungan dan pergaulan internasional menemukan bentuk dan substansinya yang baru dan berbeda dengan zaman sebelum Perjanjian Perdamaian Westphalia tahun 1648. Negara-negara yang berdasarkan atas prinsip kemerdekaan kedaulatan dan kedudukan sederajat mulai menata dirinya masing-masing terutama masalah domestik dengan membentuk dan mengembangkan hukum nasionalnya, yang salah satunya di bidang hukum pidana nasional. Hukum pidana nasional masing-masing negara, terutama jenis-jenis kejahatan atau tindak pidananya, disamping pula ada kesamaan dan perbedaannya. Semakin menguat batas wilayah dan kedaulatan teritorial masing-masing negara, semakin menguat pula penerapan hukum nasionalnya di dalam batas wilayah negara masing-masing. Semakin banyaknya perjanjian-perjanjian yang dibuat oleh negara-negara baik bilateral ataupun multilateral untuk mengatur suatu masalah tertentu yang sudah, sedang, dan akan dihadapi. Dalam pembuatan perjanjian tersebut mulai dilakukan pengkhususan atas substansinya, jadi tidak lagi satu perjanjian mencakup berbagai macam substansi yang berbeda-beda. Di Indonesia peraturan mengenai Ekstradisi dibuat pada tahun 1979, mengingat hingga saat ini belum terjadi perubahan di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1979 padahal PBB telah membuat suatu model pembuatan perjanjian ekstradisi pada tahun 1990, sehingga sudah selayaknya peraturan mengenai ekstradisi di Indonesia harus mengalami pembaharuan ke depan yang lebih baik. Kata Kunci: Ekstradisi, Politik Hukum, Hukum Pidana.   Abstract Extradition is universally up to now experiencing increasingly good changes, especially after the state of life has begun to appear more advanced until the 20th century. International relations and relationships find new and different forms and substance from the times before the Treaty of Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Countries that are based on the principle of freedom of sovereignty and equal position begin to organize themselves, especially domestic problems by forming and developing national laws, which one of them is in the field of national criminal law. The national criminal law of each country, especially the types of crime or criminal acts, besides there are similarities and differences. The stronger regional boundaries and territorial sovereignty of each country, the stronger the application of national laws within the borders of each country. The increasing number of agreements made by countries both bilaterally and multilaterally to regulate a particular problem that has been, is being, and will be faced. In making these agreements, specialization of the substance began to be carried out, so no more than one agreement covers a variety of different substances. In Indonesia, the Extradition regulation was made in 1979, considering that until now there had been no changes in Law Number 1 of 1979 even though the United Nations had made a model for making an extradition treaty in 1990, so that proper regulations on extradition in Indonesia must undergo reform better future.                                   Keyword: Extradition, Politics of Law, The Criminal Law.                                                                        


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Istiqamah Istiqamah

<p><strong>Abstrak – </strong>Tulisan ini membahas mengenai bentuk penyelenggaraan diplomasi pertahanan serta<strong> </strong>analisanya dalam upaya untuk memasukkan segmen Tanjung Datu sebagai <em>Outstanding Boundary</em> <em>Problem </em>Indonesia-Malaysia. Hal ini didasarkan atas status Tanjung Datu yang ambigu akibat<em> </em>perbedaan penafsiran <em>Memorandum of Understanding</em> (MOU) 1978 oleh pihak internal pemerintah Indonesia. Perundingan untuk memasukkan segmen Tanjung Datu sebagai OBP terjadi pada tahun 2001. Usaha melobi pihak Malaysia untuk memasukkan Tanjung Datu sebagai OBP dilakukan secara intensif oleh para delegasi sampai akhirnya Indonesia menerima keputusan pihak Malaysia untuk tidak lagi mempermasalahkan Tanjung Datu. Studi ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Data dikumpulkan melalui wawancara dengan enam informan yang meliputi praktisi dan pakar di bidang terkait. Data juga diperoleh dari berbagai literatur. Temuan studi ini berupa subjek diplomasi pertahanan Indonesia dalam upaya memasukkan segmen Tanjung Datu sebagai OBP Indonesia-Malaysia yaitu Pankorwilnas, Direktorat Topografi Angkatan Darat, Kementerian Pertahanan, Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan JUPEM. Sedangkan objek diplomasi pertahanan Indonesia dalam upaya memasukkan segmen Tanjung Datu sebagai OBP Indonesia-Malaysia adalah berupa tujuan Indonesia yakni sebagai implementasi kepentingan nasional dalam meraih kedaulatan teritorialnya serta hal itu termasuk dalam lingkup pertahanan.</p><p><strong>Kata Kunci : </strong>diplomasi pertahanan, teori pembentukan perbatasan darat, kedaulatan teritorial,<strong> </strong>segmen tanjung datu, <em>outstanding boundary problems</em></p><p> </p><p><strong><em>Abstract – </em></strong><em>This study discusses on implementation of Indonesia’s defense diplomacy and its analysis<strong> </strong>in effort to obtain Tanjung Datu segment as Outstanding Boundary Problem Indonesia-Malaysia. This is based on the status of Tanjung Datu as Outstanding Boundary Problem was ambiguous due the different interpretations of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 1976 and 1978 by Government of Indonesia. The negotiation to obtain Tanjung Datu segment as Outstanding Boundary Problem Indonesia-Malaysia in 2001. Indonesia attempt to lobby Malaysian to attach Tanjung Datu as OBP and its intensively conducted by Indonesian delegates until finally, Indonesia accepted Malaysia’s decision that Tanjung Datu is not part of the OBP. The research method was qualitative approach in which data collection technique was conducted through interviews with six informants including practitioners and experts in related fields. This study showed that the subjects of Indonesian defense diplomacy in efforts to obtain Tanjung Datu segment as OBP Indonesia-Malaysia are Pankorwilnas, Directorate of Army Topography, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Home Affairs and JUPEM. While the object of Indonesian defense diplomacy in the efforts to obtain Tanjung Datu segment as OBP Indonesia-Malaysia are the implementation of Indonesian national interest to achieve territorial sovereignty and it was also part of defense.</em></p><p><strong><em>Keywords: </em></strong><em>defense diplomacy, bounday making theory, territorial sovereignty, tanjung datu segment,<strong> </strong>outstanding boundary problems</em></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document