Self-Determination and Resource Rights: In Defence of Territorial Jurisdiction Over Natural Resources

Banai, Ayelet

doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9308-8

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If there is some other account of self-determination more plausible than the purely instrumentalist one I have described here, then we can avoid not just the colonialism objection described above, but also reap other benefits, because perhaps an approach to politics with a stronger theory of selfdetermination is more plausible overall. This is a claim found in many recent views advanced by thinkers like Stilz, Moore, Ayelet Banai, Alex Levitov, Ryan Pevnick, Chris Armstrong, Lea Ypi, and others (Armstrong, 2010;Banai, 2010Banai, , 2013Banai, , 2015Banai, , 2016Banai & Kollar, 2019;Levitov, 2015;Moore, 1997Moore, , 2015Pevnick, 2011;Stilz, 2015Stilz, , 2016Stilz, , 2019Ypi, 2013c). It has also all along been the claim of associationists and ascriptivists, both of whom grant pride of place to the right to self-determination in their views (see e.g., Tamir, 1993;Wellman, 2005, pp.…”

Section: Saving Self-determinationmentioning

confidence: 68%

A cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession

Weltman

2023

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Saving Self-determinationmentioning

confidence: 68%

A cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession

Weltman

2023

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resource rights are also argued to secure individual autonomy (Banai ). For Kant, freedom requires the social guarantee that one can expect to use certain goods for various ends.…”

Section: Self‐determinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource Rights and Territory

Nine

2016

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines the most recent justifications for a people's (or state's) exclusive right to resources as part of a territorial right. Divided into eight parts, the discussion covers contemporary philosophical discussion regarding: the conception of natural resources, the conception of resource rights, the general form of arguments supporting resource rights, arguments from self-determination, objections to arguments from self-determination, arguments from residence, arguments from improvement, and new directions for research in the future.How can a man or a people seize an immense territory and keep it from the rest of the world except by a punishable usurpation, since all other are being robbed, by such an act, of the place of habitation and the means of subsistence which nature gave them in common? 1

show abstract

“…On functionalist accounts of self-determination, see alsoStilz (2011). For another defence of territorial claims to natural resources from a functionalist self-determination perspective, seeBanai (2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Must a Just Distribution of Emissions Shares Respect Territorial Claims to Terrestrial Sink Capacity?

Mathie

2022

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central task of climate justice is to agree upon a just distribution of the right to emit greenhouse gases. According to the equal per capita shares view, the right to emit should be divided equally between every inhabitant of Earth, since to emit is to use up the resource of atmospheric absorptive capacity, and this is a resource to which no one person has any stronger claim than any other. The fact that a significant proportion of the Earth’s ability to absorb and sequester greenhouse gases actually comes not from the atmosphere, but from terrestrial climate sinks that are located within national borders, and that are therefore plausibly subject to legitimate territorial claims, poses a serious challenge to the intuitive egalitarian simplicity of the equal per capita shares view. A defence of this view, then, is tantamount to a defence of the redistribution of terrestrial sink capacity, and therefore must involve either (1) an argument against the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity, or (2) an argument for why legitimate territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity should nevertheless be ignored in favour of an equal per capita distribution of emissions shares. One strategy for doing so involves applying Charles Beitz’s resource redistribution principle to terrestrial sink capacity. Some authors have argued that this strategy will fail due to important differences between the nature of ‘conventional’ natural resources, and the nature of a resource link climate sink capacity. In this paper, I consider five arguments to this effect that seek to establish the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity. Respectively, they appeal to attachment, identity, self-determination, improvement and fairness in order to do so. I argue that each one either fails to establish the legitimacy of territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity, or, where they do plausibly establish legitimacy, they do so in a way that renders them vulnerable to type-(2) objections that suggest territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity should nevertheless be ignored. I conclude that, if one is willing to adopt the resource redistribution principle, a just distribution of emissions shares need not respect territorial claims to terrestrial sink capacity.

show abstract

Self-Determination and Resource Rights: In Defence of Territorial Jurisdiction Over Natural Resources

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

A cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession

A cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession

Resource Rights and Territory

Must a Just Distribution of Emissions Shares Respect Territorial Claims to Terrestrial Sink Capacity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About