scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

A Political Theory of Territory

29 Apr 2015-
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a theory of territory based on individual Moral Rights of Residency, Collective Moral rights of Occupancy and a People's Rights of Self-determination.
Abstract: Acknowledgements 1. Why do we need a Political Theory of Territory? 2. What is Territory? conceptual analysis and justificatory burdens. 3. Foundations of a Theory of Territory: Individual Moral Rights of Residency, Collective Moral Rights of Occupancy and a People's Rights of Self-determination. 4. Non-Statist Theories of Territory 5. Functionalist/Statist Theories of Territory 6. Heartlands, Contested Areas Secession, and Boundaries 7. Corrective Justice and the Wrongful Taking of Land, Territory and Property 8. Territorial Rights and Natural Resources 9. Territorial Rights and Rights to control Borders/Immigration 10. The Right to Territorial Integrity and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force. 11. Conclusion. Bibliography Index
Citations
More filters
BookDOI
01 Jun 2017
TL;DR: In this article, the Ethics of Unarmed Conflict illuminates this neglected aspect of international conflict, including cyber-warfare and economic sanctions, media warfare, and propaganda, as well as non-violent resistance as it plays out in civil disobedience, boycotts, and lawfare.
Abstract: Just war theory focuses primarily on bodily harm, such as killing, maiming, and torture, while other harms are often largely overlooked. At the same time, contemporary international conflicts increasingly involve the use of unarmed tactics, employing 'softer' alternatives or supplements to kinetic power that have not been sufficiently addressed by the ethics of war or international law. Soft war tactics include cyber-warfare and economic sanctions, media warfare, and propaganda, as well as non-violent resistance as it plays out in civil disobedience, boycotts, and 'lawfare.' While the just war tradition has much to say about 'hard' war - bullets, bombs, and bayonets - it is virtually silent on the subject of 'soft' war. Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict illuminates this neglected aspect of international conflict.

34 citations

Book
20 Feb 2020
TL;DR: In this article, Gillian Brock offers answers and tools that assist us in evaluating current migration policy and in helping to determine which policies may be permissible and which are normatively indefensible.
Abstract: By executive order, the US adopted an immigration policy that looks remarkably similar to a Muslim ban, and threatened to deport long-settled residents, such as the so-called Dreamers. Our defunct refugee system has not dealt adequately with increased refugee flows, forcing desperate people to undertake increasingly risky measures in efforts to reach safe havens. Meanwhile increased migration flows over recent years appear to have contributed to a rise in right-wing populism, apparently driving phenomena such as Brexit and Trumpism. In this original and insightful book Gillian Brock offers answers and tools that assist us in evaluating current migration policy and in helping to determine which policies may be permissible and which are normatively indefensible. She offers a comprehensive framework for responding to the many challenges which have recently emerged, and for delivering justice for people on the move along with those affected by migration.

29 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the nexus between independence referendums, nationalism and political power in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and the 2017 independence referendum, using the case study of the KRI.
Abstract: Using the case study of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and the 2017 independence referendum, this article examines the nexus between independence referendums, nationalism and political power. I...

23 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors offer an appraisal of the moral weight of the initial claims to Antarctica, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the Treaty of Antarctica.
Abstract: By virtue of the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, the territorial claims to Antarctica of seven of the original signatories were held in abeyance or “frozen” Considered by many as an exemplar of international law, the Antarctic Treaty System has come to be increasingly questioned, however, in a very much changed global scenario that presents new challenges to the governance of the White Continent In this context, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the moral weight of those initial claims, which stand (despite being frozen) as a cornerstone of the treaty The aim of this article is to offer an appraisal of such claims, which may be divided into two main kinds: those grounded on some relevant link to the territory, and those grounded on official documents and geographical doctrines After pointing to the limitations and challenges that they face, I conclude with some remarks about how this assessment ought to serve as a starting point to rethink the territorial status of Antarctica

22 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper argued that the social costs associated with freedom of immigration are also associated with occupational choice, speech and reproduction, and that a state's interest in reducing these costs gives it prima facie justification to restrict not only immigration but also other core liberal freedoms.
Abstract: This paper argues for a dilemma: you can accept liberalism or immigration restrictions, but not both. More specifically, the standard arguments for restricting freedom of movement apply equally to textbook liberal freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, occupation and reproductive choice. We begin with a sketch of liberalism’s core principles and an argument for why freedom of movement is plausibly on a par with other liberal freedoms. Next we argue that, if a state’s right to self-determination grounds a prima facie right to restrict immigration, then it also grounds a prima facie right to restrict freedom of speech, religion, sexual choice and more. We then suggest that the social costs associated with freedom of immigration are also costs associated with occupational choice, speech and reproduction. Thus, a state’s interest in reducing these costs gives it prima facie justification to restrict not only immigration but also other core liberal freedoms. Moreover, we rebut the objection that, even if the standard arguments for a prima facie right to restrict immigration also support a prima facie right to restrict liberal freedoms generally, there are differences that render immigration restrictions – but not restrictions on speech, religion, etc. – justified all things considered. In closing, we suggest that the theoretical price of supporting immigration restrictions – viz., compromising a commitment to liberal principles – is too steep to pay.

17 citations