Global Justice and Territory

Against ‘permanent sovereignty’ over natural resources

“…42 But even if we accept Nine's functionalist account, this is not the only qualification we should make. Recall that the functionalist account is grounded on a state's ability to meet citizens' basic needs (or as Stilz puts it, basic rights).…”

Beyond the national resource privilege: towards an International Court of the Environment

“…5 The only group of philosophers which has repeatedly questioned the resource privilege are cosmopolitan liberal egalitarians like Charles Beitz (1979), Brian Barry (1982) and Paula Casal (2011) who argue that since all human beings are morally equal and the distribution of natural resources from a moral point of view arbitrary all people should have an equal claim to an equal share of the world's natural resources. 7 Apart from these two groups, within current normative political theory only the literature on territorial rights deals with the issue of control over natural resources (Meisels 2005;Nine 2008Nine , 2012Kolers 2009Kolers , 2012Miller 2012;Moore 2012). 7 Apart from these two groups, within current normative political theory only the literature on territorial rights deals with the issue of control over natural resources (Meisels 2005;Nine 2008Nine , 2012Kolers 2009Kolers , 2012Miller 2012;Moore 2012).…”

“…While within this literature heated controversy exists over the normative justification of claims to territory (Moore 2001;Kolers 2009;Miller 2012;Nine 2012), such as whether claims should be attachment-based, improvement-based, or occupancy-based, it seems doubtful that any of these arguments (i.e. While within this literature heated controversy exists over the normative justification of claims to territory (Moore 2001;Kolers 2009;Miller 2012;Nine 2012), such as whether claims should be attachment-based, improvement-based, or occupancy-based, it seems doubtful that any of these arguments (i.e.…”

“…attachment-based, improvementbased, and occupancy-based) can deliver a satisfactory justification for states' permanent sovereignty over resources (Armstrong forthcoming;Simmons n.d). The reason in turn why we should care about states' self-determination and sovereignty is that only self-determining and sovereign states can establish justice, safeguard people's relevant interests, bring security and stability, and provide for the basic needs of their members (Stilz 2009;Nine 2012). The reason in turn why we should care about states' self-determination and sovereignty is that only self-determining and sovereign states can establish justice, safeguard people's relevant interests, bring security and stability, and provide for the basic needs of their members (Stilz 2009;Nine 2012).…”

“…11 In section II, I will focus on what I take to be the most promising argument for the national resource privilege, namely the so-called functionalist theory that states can only be properly self-determining and/or sovereign if they control their territory and the natural resources found within it (Moore 1998;Stilz 2009;Nine 2010). 12 Interestingly enough, the functionalist accounts by Stilz (2009), Nine (2012 and Ypi (forthcoming) suggest that states can only legitimately claim sovereign authority over territory and resources if they promote justice, which means that the right to sovereignty seems to be conditional in a distinctly ethical-moral sense, as the state's legitimate claim to control over resources depends on the state's performance as a justice or common good generating institution. 12 Interestingly enough, the functionalist accounts by Stilz (2009), Nine (2012 and Ypi (forthcoming) suggest that states can only legitimately claim sovereign authority over territory and resources if they promote justice, which means that the right to sovereignty seems to be conditional in a distinctly ethical-moral sense, as the state's legitimate claim to control over resources depends on the state's performance as a justice or common good generating institution.…”