Liberal Nationalism and Territorial Rights

Abstract

 This essay sets out from the strain of liberal political thought which, in recent years, has come to the defence of nationalism, and raises some preliminary thoughts concerning its appropriate application to the very concrete issue of national territorial rights. It asks what type of justifications could be morally acceptable to "liberal nationalism" for the acquisition and holding of territory. To this end, the paper takes a brief look at five central arguments for territorial entitlement which have become predominant in political debates. These are: so called "historical rights" to territory; demands for territorial restitution; efficiency arguments; claims of entitlement to territories settled by co-nationals; and lastly, territorial demands based on claims of equal entitlement to the earth's natural resources. These popular arguments point towards several potential criteria for the arbitration of territorial conflicts. The paper attempts to outline the morally relevant guidelines for thinking about territorial issues that flow from, or are at least consistent with, applying liberal values to the national phenomenon. It places the territorial aspect of nationalism at the head of the liberal nationalist agenda and offers an initial common ground for discussion (including disagreement) among liberals, and for the mediation of claims between nations.

When affected interests demand joint self-determination: learning from rivers

“…And without territorial rights over resources, the members of the state could not command the development and use of the land and resources within which they live. The consequence of this is that the members would also lose relevant control over the way that they conduct many other aspects of their lives (Kolers 2002, 35; Meisels 2003).…”

“…For theoretical arguments, seeMoore (1997),Meisels (2003),Buchanan (2004),Miller (2007),Kolers (2009),Nine (2012).54 To see a defense of this position, seeGoodin (2007) andGould (2006).55Kolers (2002) andGould (2006) defend similar positions.Symposium 'Theories of Territory beyond Westphalia' 161…”

“… 53 For theoretical arguments, see Moore (1997), Meisels (2003), Buchanan (2004), Miller (2007), Kolers (2009), Nine (2012). …”

Place-related attachments and global distributive justice

“…The principal appeal, I think, is to the idea that people have a right to a place: as Hobbes and Walzer suggested, we are physical beings; we occupy space; and within that place we develop projects and relationships and pursue a general way of life to which we are typically attached. Some of these attachments are to the place (Meisels 2003a(Meisels , 2003bMiller 2007, 217), but some are to our projects and to the people who share the space with us, to our family and friends and the community which forms the background context in which we live our lives. This can be seen by considering the wrong of forcible expulsion.…”

Immigration, Global Poverty and the Right to Stay

“…People also tend to have an emotional attachment to their home state's territory: they often feel a sense of belonging to it which they do not feel in the case of other states. This sense of belonging is reflected and reinforced in the national cultures to which many belong: in the myths, songs and artworks these cultures generate (Meisels, 2003, pp. 35–7; Miller, 2007, pp.…”