This paper examines the relationship between territory, boundaries, and self-determination, focus... more This paper examines the relationship between territory, boundaries, and self-determination, focusing especially on the relationship between functional justifications for state territory and state borders, and that of self-determination. It argues that a successful justificatory argument for territorial right appeal to the idea of ‘self-determination’, and responds to the usual criticism of this norm, while also accepting some role for functional justifications. It argues that functional explanations for state territory are valid, and that a state has to achieve the goods that justify it (so is functional in that sense) but that this argument is compatible with many different territorial configurations. It also argues that an appeal to ‘self-determination’ is a much more plausible argument (along with functionalism as a necessary but not sufficient condition), and argues that the ‘self ’ ought to be defined in a way that is non-ethnic and non-statist and shows how such a definition c...
This article is interested in the general question of what justifies territorial rights over unoc... more This article is interested in the general question of what justifies territorial rights over unoccupied places, including places that are not occupied but are situated within the territorial borders of a state. This question arises because one of the most common defenses of rights over territory makes use of the idea of occupancy and has difficulty explaining such rights in places that are not occupied. It explores this question through an examination of the claims and arguments in the Canadian Arctic, which provides an historically specific test case for the merits and plausibility of the various arguments appealed to. It argues that territorial rights in unoccupied places, including the Canadian Arctic, are justified on different grounds than in occupied parts of the territory, and that the justification also affects the kinds of rights—particularly over resources—that such states can claim.
This chapter explores and defends the territorial rights of states in an argument that is rooted ... more This chapter explores and defends the territorial rights of states in an argument that is rooted in the value of collective self-determination. It offers a critique of rival values to explain territorial rights, and then explores the implications of that argument for defensive rights over territory. The justification in terms of self-determination is compatible with Michael Walzer’s argument that self-determination is a central principle of the international order in Just and Unjust Wars. The argument provided, in terms of territorial rights, is distinct from the one that Walzer offered, however, perhaps because his argument was focused centrally on war.
The three major normative theories of secession are just-cause theories, choice theories, and nat... more The three major normative theories of secession are just-cause theories, choice theories, and national self-determination theories. Just-cause and choice theories are problematic because they view secession in terms of the application of liberal theories of justice or a liberal principle of autonomy, without regard for the dynamics of nationalist mobilitization and national politics. National self-determination theories can be supported by a collective autonomy argument. This is related to a particular view of the relationship between collective self-government and territory.
ABSTRACT The paper argues for ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’, understood as a way to reconcile universa... more ABSTRACT The paper argues for ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’, understood as a way to reconcile universal duties of justice with particularist commitments and attachments. It considers various attempts at such a reconciliation, and argues that they are inadequate.
This paper focuses on land as a domain in which legitimate expectations can give rise to entitlem... more This paper focuses on land as a domain in which legitimate expectations can give rise to entitlements. The central argument is that people are connected to other people and to projects, which are symbolically and materially rooted in particular places. This gives rise to an interest – an interest that is sufficiently weighty that it imposes obligations on other people – to protect stability of place. There are two ways in which legitimate expectations structure argument about land. It justifies liberty rights to remain in a place, and not be removed or expelled from it, independently of the coercion that often accompanies forcible expulsion, and argue for rights of return as a second-order right when this right has been violated. I also argue that passage of time in a changed context can affect people’s legitimate expectations, and so their entitlements.
One of the most important and divisive issues facing heterogeneous or culturally diverse states—a... more One of the most important and divisive issues facing heterogeneous or culturally diverse states—and most states are culturally diverse—is the relation between these different cultures and the state.This question was raised initially in contemporary liberal political philosophy in terms of the fruitful debate between liberals and communitarians. Sandel, for example, criticized Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and, by extension, all liberal theories for falsely abstracting from conceptions of the good, abstracting from culturallyspecific conceptions, and grounding his liberal principles in terms of an abstract Kantian individualism. Liberal theorists countered by complaining that communitarians falsely conceived of a single homogeneous community. Although Rawls’s revised defense of liberal justice in his 1993 book Political Liberalism does not refer directly to the liberal-communitarian debate, nevertheless, his new grounding of liberal political principles, as principles which would be ac...
First, let me say that it is a pleasure to be asked to comment on the work of Walker Connor, who ... more First, let me say that it is a pleasure to be asked to comment on the work of Walker Connor, who is a huge figure in the study of nationalism, and has been tremendously influential for me both personally and in my own work. Let me say something personal, first. In the spring of 2005, Walker Connor came to my home university, Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, as a Fulbright Fellow. This was our first Fulbright Fellow and we were thrilled to have an international star in nationalism join us. He was witty, humorous, smart, and very, very kind. He was also – I was struck by this – very generous with his time, with students, and with junior scholars. He talked at length to our graduate students who were working on nationalism. He told me that he enjoyed students very much, and that in his opinion the American liberal arts colleges were excellent places to work because one could see the impact of one's ideas and challenges on students.
This paper examines the relationship between territory, boundaries, and self-determination, focus... more This paper examines the relationship between territory, boundaries, and self-determination, focusing especially on the relationship between functional justifications for state territory and state borders, and that of self-determination. It argues that a successful justificatory argument for territorial right appeal to the idea of ‘self-determination’, and responds to the usual criticism of this norm, while also accepting some role for functional justifications. It argues that functional explanations for state territory are valid, and that a state has to achieve the goods that justify it (so is functional in that sense) but that this argument is compatible with many different territorial configurations. It also argues that an appeal to ‘self-determination’ is a much more plausible argument (along with functionalism as a necessary but not sufficient condition), and argues that the ‘self ’ ought to be defined in a way that is non-ethnic and non-statist and shows how such a definition c...
This article is interested in the general question of what justifies territorial rights over unoc... more This article is interested in the general question of what justifies territorial rights over unoccupied places, including places that are not occupied but are situated within the territorial borders of a state. This question arises because one of the most common defenses of rights over territory makes use of the idea of occupancy and has difficulty explaining such rights in places that are not occupied. It explores this question through an examination of the claims and arguments in the Canadian Arctic, which provides an historically specific test case for the merits and plausibility of the various arguments appealed to. It argues that territorial rights in unoccupied places, including the Canadian Arctic, are justified on different grounds than in occupied parts of the territory, and that the justification also affects the kinds of rights—particularly over resources—that such states can claim.
This chapter explores and defends the territorial rights of states in an argument that is rooted ... more This chapter explores and defends the territorial rights of states in an argument that is rooted in the value of collective self-determination. It offers a critique of rival values to explain territorial rights, and then explores the implications of that argument for defensive rights over territory. The justification in terms of self-determination is compatible with Michael Walzer’s argument that self-determination is a central principle of the international order in Just and Unjust Wars. The argument provided, in terms of territorial rights, is distinct from the one that Walzer offered, however, perhaps because his argument was focused centrally on war.
The three major normative theories of secession are just-cause theories, choice theories, and nat... more The three major normative theories of secession are just-cause theories, choice theories, and national self-determination theories. Just-cause and choice theories are problematic because they view secession in terms of the application of liberal theories of justice or a liberal principle of autonomy, without regard for the dynamics of nationalist mobilitization and national politics. National self-determination theories can be supported by a collective autonomy argument. This is related to a particular view of the relationship between collective self-government and territory.
ABSTRACT The paper argues for ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’, understood as a way to reconcile universa... more ABSTRACT The paper argues for ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’, understood as a way to reconcile universal duties of justice with particularist commitments and attachments. It considers various attempts at such a reconciliation, and argues that they are inadequate.
This paper focuses on land as a domain in which legitimate expectations can give rise to entitlem... more This paper focuses on land as a domain in which legitimate expectations can give rise to entitlements. The central argument is that people are connected to other people and to projects, which are symbolically and materially rooted in particular places. This gives rise to an interest – an interest that is sufficiently weighty that it imposes obligations on other people – to protect stability of place. There are two ways in which legitimate expectations structure argument about land. It justifies liberty rights to remain in a place, and not be removed or expelled from it, independently of the coercion that often accompanies forcible expulsion, and argue for rights of return as a second-order right when this right has been violated. I also argue that passage of time in a changed context can affect people’s legitimate expectations, and so their entitlements.
One of the most important and divisive issues facing heterogeneous or culturally diverse states—a... more One of the most important and divisive issues facing heterogeneous or culturally diverse states—and most states are culturally diverse—is the relation between these different cultures and the state.This question was raised initially in contemporary liberal political philosophy in terms of the fruitful debate between liberals and communitarians. Sandel, for example, criticized Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and, by extension, all liberal theories for falsely abstracting from conceptions of the good, abstracting from culturallyspecific conceptions, and grounding his liberal principles in terms of an abstract Kantian individualism. Liberal theorists countered by complaining that communitarians falsely conceived of a single homogeneous community. Although Rawls’s revised defense of liberal justice in his 1993 book Political Liberalism does not refer directly to the liberal-communitarian debate, nevertheless, his new grounding of liberal political principles, as principles which would be ac...
First, let me say that it is a pleasure to be asked to comment on the work of Walker Connor, who ... more First, let me say that it is a pleasure to be asked to comment on the work of Walker Connor, who is a huge figure in the study of nationalism, and has been tremendously influential for me both personally and in my own work. Let me say something personal, first. In the spring of 2005, Walker Connor came to my home university, Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, as a Fulbright Fellow. This was our first Fulbright Fellow and we were thrilled to have an international star in nationalism join us. He was witty, humorous, smart, and very, very kind. He was also – I was struck by this – very generous with his time, with students, and with junior scholars. He talked at length to our graduate students who were working on nationalism. He told me that he enjoyed students very much, and that in his opinion the American liberal arts colleges were excellent places to work because one could see the impact of one's ideas and challenges on students.
Uploads