Cara Nine

In this paper, I critically examine an important premise in theories of global distributive justice that, despite its widespread influence, has remained largely unexamined. This is the claim that state borders are morally arbitrary with respect to a just distribution of goods. I examine two common arguments for this claim, the argument that state borders are historically unjust and therefore morally arbitrary; and the argument first made by Charles Beitz that the conditions of a fair, hypothetical social contract would not include knowledge of one's location with respect to the distribution of natural resources between state borders. I argue that there are good reasons to reject both arguments. Beitz's immense contribution to international justice can be gauged by the fact that it is difficult to find a contemporary work on global justice that does not reference his arguments in Political Theory and International Relations . Although some authors find Beitz's cosmopolitan theory objectionable, no author has, to my knowledge, criticized Beitz's pivotal arguments that our placement in the distribution of natural resources is morally arbitrary. The aim of this paper is to do just that

Territorial rights come with both costs (war, inequality and oppression) and benefits (political participation, coordinated use of resources). The immense importance of these normative aspects of territorial rights solidifies our need for a principled theory of territory. With globalisation and transnational interactions, a cosmopolitan account of territorial rights is required – it should justify territorial authority generally. This generalised justification must also provide an account of the special, normative relationship that certain groups have with certain lands and resources, providing groups with special claims to particular lands. Since democratic theory values territoriality for its necessary relationship to equality and individual autonomy, a comprehensive democratic account of territorial rights presents a real possibility for explaining territorial claims from cosmopolitan ideals. Unfortunately, democratic accounts of territoriality suffer a serious drawback; they cannot give a comprehensive account of self-determination rights over particular land and resources. On the contrary, democratic theory addresses only persons – how they should be treated and how their associations should be organised. The first half of this article explains how democratic accounts of self-determination are wanting in specific ways. The second half presents an alternative account of the right of self-determination and territorial rights as a feature of compromise. Because compromise is an essential element of democracy and an important element of justice, it can be used to explain the unique connection that democracies have with a particular territory. Through this theory of compromise, we can explain the scope, longevity and breadth of a democracy's territorial rights from cosmopolitan ideals. However, this account has acute limitations. As merely an initial sketch of theoretical connections between democracy and territory, it does not yet offer an account of the complicated territorial issues of transnational democratic associations. In fact, the theory from compromise reveals a vital obstacle for the establishment of borders, especially in cases of possible secession.

In ‘What’s Wrong with Colonialism,’ Lea Ypi argues that the wrong of colonialism can be expressed as procedural wrongs, not as wronging territorial rights. On her view, colonial practices went wrong in two ways: they forced residents into political associations, and the terms of the political association were not established through equal and reciprocal negotiations. I argue that because Ypi’s account successfully side-lines all but essential claims to territory, her theory ends up being vulnerable to an objection it means to avoid. Historical residents may be subject to unequal treatment under newly formed political associations because their historical patterns of land use are not considered to have any independent moral weight. My analysis does not rely on any appeal to property or territorial rights. Instead, I appeal to pre-existing obligations holding between residents.

This article examines theories of ocean rights based on the works of Hugo Grotius and Samuel von Pufendorf. Grotius's object‐centred view uses features of the natural world to justify claims to external objects. I show that Grotius's view is inadequate, because it relies on an outdated claim that oceanic resources are sufficiently abundant for anybody to use. Further, adaptations of his view are wanting, because they either rely on arbitrary distinctions or disregard the values of cultural minorities. Pufendorf's relational view constructs rights through the exercise of human will. While Pufendorf believes that agreements create rights, he also argues that property rights can be unilaterally acquired from the commons without express consent from others. The relational view is a viable alternative to the object‐centred view, because it both delimits territorial claims over the ocean to a ‘modest’ size and also respects cultural variability. A major aim of this article is to present Pufendorf's theory of territorial rights extended over oceans and to demonstrate how it is useful for assessing contemporary disputes. In the final sections, I apply the relational view to Canadian claims to the Northwest Passage, and I also sketch implications for assessing expanding claims to the seabed.