Colonialism, injustices of the past, and the hole in Nine
TL;DR: In this article, Cara Nine argues that Lea Ypi's account of the wrongness of colonialism has a hole in it: Ypi leaves open the possibility of justified sett...
Abstract: In ‘Colonialism, territory and pre-existing obligations,’ Cara Nine argues that Lea Ypi’s account of the wrongness of colonialism has a hole in it: Ypi leaves open the possibility of justified sett...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss their recently published book, Territorial Sovereignty, and how that led them to be interested in this particular project that they dealt with in the book.
Abstract: 18 November 2019CH: Thank you for agreeing to do this. The prompt for the interview was to talk about your recently published book, Territorial Sovereignty, but I thought before we got into that you could say something about your earlier work and how that led you to be interested in this particular project that you deal with in the book.
46 citations
TL;DR: The cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession as mentioned in this paper argues that a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice, and it is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism.
Abstract: I defend the cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession, according to which a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice. I argue that the theory is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism, which is independently attractive, and because, unlike other theories of secession, it allows us to give the answers we want to give in cases like secession of the rich or secession that would make things worse for minorities. I defend the view against the objections that it allows for colonialism and annexation, that it is not a distinct theory, and that it is impractical.
References
More filters
TL;DR: The history of white settlers' dealings with the aboriginal peoples of Australia, New Zealand, and North America is largely a history of injustice as mentioned in this paper. But what of past injustice? What is the practical importance now of a judgment that injustice occurred in the past?
Abstract: The history of white settlers' dealings with the aboriginal peoples of Australia, New Zealand, and North America is largely a history of injustice. People, or whole peoples, were attacked, defrauded, and expropriated; their lands were stolen and their lives were ruined. What are we to do about these injustices? We know what we should think about them: they are to be studied and condemned, remembered and lamented. But morality is a practical matter, and judgments of just' and 'unjust' like all moral judgments have implications for action. To say that a future act open to us now would be unjust is to commit ourselves to avoiding it. But what of past injustice? What is the practical importance now of a judgment that injustice occurred in the past? In the first instance the question is one of metaethics. Moral judgments are prescriptive in their illocutionary force; they purport to guide choices.1 But since the only choices we can guide are choices in front of us, judgments about the past must look beyond the particular events that are their ostensible subject matter. The best explanation
450 citations
TL;DR: The legitimate state theory as mentioned in this paper holds that a state has rights to territory if it effectively implements a system of law regulating property in that territory, its subjects have a legitimate claim to occupy the territory, and the state's system rules in the name of the people by protecting basic rights and providing for political participation.
Abstract: Nationalists hold that the state derives its territorial rights from the prior claim of a cultural nation to territory. This article develops an alternative account: the legitimate state theory. This view holds that a state has rights to territory if it meets the following four conditions: (a) it effectively implements a system of law regulating property in that territory; (b) its subjects have a legitimate claim to occupy the territory; (c) the state’s system of law “rules in the name of the people,” by protecting basic rights and providing for political participation; and (d) the state is not a usurper.
135 citations
Book•
15 Jul 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the role of international criminal law and international distributive justice in defending self-determination and self-government in the context of armed intervention and political assassinations.
Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. Democracy and Self-Determination 3. Secession 4. International Criminal Law 5. Armed Intervention and Political Assassination 6. International Distributive Justice 7. Immigration 8. Conclusion References
131 citations
90 citations
Book•
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
90 citations