Khemed,
Syldavia and Borduria are having negotiations about the sovereignty over Khemed.
Having accepted the rule of maximin they are going to share sovereignty. So far
we know WHO will be part of the negotiations: Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria;
WHY they are part of the negotiations: because each of them has a colourable
claim; and WHAT they are going to do with the allocation of sovereignty: they
are going to share sovereignty by application of maximin. It is time now to
discuss HOW these shares will be decided. To do this, the representatives of
each population (Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria) are reviewing a series of
possible options in order to make a decision about how to share the sovereignty
over Khemed.
The first idea
all the representatives revised and rejected was historical entitlement. That
is to say, what would be fairer that grant the sovereignty (or the largest
share of sovereignty) to the party whom was in that land first? What would be
fairer than to give to someone what is due to him? However simple at first, the
representatives have realised this approach will not settle the question and
will only bring controversy.
It is time now
to deal with the second option. Now the representatives in our story will
consider what kind of choice, if any, might be best for one of the parties that
is originally in a comparatively bad situation (Khemed) and if so, if that
would justify leave the other two with smaller shares. That is because Khemed
is not a fully independent and sovereign State. Syldavia and Borduria are. Any
of the representatives may put forward a claim by which the population with
more necessities or more vulnerable in any form should be protected by the
other two that are comparatively in a better situation.
At first
glance, the adapted principle would secure the situation of the inhabitants in
Khemed. With a small population and a small territory, even though they have
the rare metal all parties want, Khemedians are not able to explore and exploit
the precious natural resource. Their main source of income is the exportation
of basic products obtained from fishing and farming. They do not have any means
to defend the island. Finally, the sovereignty of the island has been
continuously claimed by the two sovereign States in our story, Syldavia and
Borduria. Because Syldavia and Borduria have never been interested in Khemed
and their land they have always maintained peaceful bilateral relations. As we
know, this has recently changed. Hence, this negotiation is taking place. By
implication, Syldavia and Borduria would have to fulfil certain obligations
towards Khemed. In that way the wellbeing of the people in Khemed would be
protected. Their interests would be paramount to all three parties.
The
representatives would find this approach might have to face a series of
problems. First, the representatives know they are acting on behalf of Khemed,
Syldavia or Borduria. But, they do not know exactly whom they actually
represent. Then, if this was the chosen
option they may favour any other party but theirs. That is to say, they may be
from Syldavia or Borduria but this kind of decision only favours Khemed.
Secondly,
there is no particular reason to give one population priority over another.
More specifically, the application of this approach does not guarantee a just
solution for this sovereignty conflict since it can be the case that the most
vulnerable party is one of the claiming sovereign States (Syldavia or Borduria)
and not the population of Khemed.
Finally, the
application of this second approach solely in favour of Khemed denies that the
rights of the other two parties (Syldavia and Borduria) are of equal
importance. The representatives would have to assume that for whatever reason
Khemed has a particular kind of priority. More importantly, once the
negotiations were over the representatives would have to justify this
assumption to the entire population in Syldavia and Borduria.
For all of the
above reasons it is highly unlikely the representatives of the three peoples
would agree and favour only one of the parties, in this case Khemed.
In summary,
the representatives of Khemed, Syldavia and Borduria agreed that the third
territory does not belong to its inhabitants (no matter why) and that they will
not argue from their supposed historical rights over it. They do not know which
group they represent and therefore do not know which set of historical
arguments will favour their people or another party. So, they recognise that
making the resolution of this kind of dispute centred on history will only
guarantee endless controversy. In consequence, they accept that each of them
has a right to some sovereignty over the third territory. In addition to this,
none of the representatives can obtain any special advantage for whoever they
represent or can put them in a particular disadvantageous situation. Consequently,
the agreement should offer such a solution that not only is in the best
interest of just one of the parties but somehow includes those of all the
claimants. Therefore, they have realised that to share sovereignty is the best
option for all of them (by application of the rule of maximin). That is because
of the nature of the parties and the fact that each has a colourable claim,
which give them some legitimate interest in the sovereignty over Khemed. Then,
and as they now need to work out the details of how to share sovereignty, they
will explore the possibilities of applying these principles into the
negotiations.
The next posts
will compare and contrast two potential solutions to this conflict from
opposite standpoints: whether the shares of sovereignty should be different or
whether the shares of sovereignty should be equal. The former will bring about
questions about what kind of difference would be taken into account to define
the extent of each share of sovereignty. The latter will undoubtedly open the
arguments to questions related to how we can secure equal shares of, for
example, objects or activities that cannot be divided.
Jorge Emilio
Núñez
27th October
2017
No comments:
Post a Comment