Do Insecure Property Rights Ground Rights of Jurisdiction? Miller on Territorial Justice
- Kim Angell
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
A prominent approach in the debate on territorial rights claims that a group may have jurisdictional rights over a particular land if that land has become a repository of value for the group. This justification relies on a premise which has remained largely unsubstantiated, namely that having jurisdictional rights should be our preferred means for ensuring the group’s retaining of the land’s embedded value. This article discusses a recent attempt to fill this gap. David Miller acknowledges that the value could be retained by the group if it has private property rights. However, he argues that because such rights can be changed at will by the holder of jurisdictional rights the group’s retaining of value is unacceptably insecure. I argue that this attempt fails. Miller’s argument is briefly stated so I start with some reconstructive work. Most importantly, I suggest that the argument relies on a descriptive claim about empirical probabilities, namely that the group’s having jurisdictional rights (in international law) provides the largest feasible reduction of insecurity. I then provide some tentative suggestions about expected state behavior which challenge the validity of that descriptive claim; I argue that a reform of international law which confers internationally enforced property rights on the relevant groups—rather than jurisdiction—may provide a similar (or even relatively larger) reduction of insecurity. My tentative conclusion is that Miller’s appeal to insecurity fails to provide the “embedded value” approach (favored by him and others) with the needed bridge from property rights to rights of jurisdiction.
- Anaya, S.James, and Claudio Grossman. 2002. The case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua: a new step in the international law of indigenous peoples. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 19: 1–15.
- Falk, Richard. 2011. The Kosovo advisory opinion: conflict resolution and precedent. The American Journal of International Law 105: 50–60. CrossRef
- Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. 2009. The new developments regarding the Saami peoples of the North. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 16: 67–156. CrossRef
- ILO. 2009. Indigenous and tribal people’s rights in practice: a guide to ILO convention no. 169. Geneva, International Labour Organisation (ILO): International Labour Office.
- Meisels, Tamar. 2009. Territorial rights, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
- Miller, David. 2007. National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Miller, David. 2008. Political philosophy for earthlings. In Political theory: methods and approaches, ed. David Leopold, and Marc Stears. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Miller, David. 2011. Territorial rights: concept and justification. Political Studies 60: 252–268. CrossRef
- Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Do Insecure Property Rights Ground Rights of Jurisdiction? Miller on Territorial Justice
Volume 19, Issue 2 , pp 183-192
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Insecure rights
- David Miller
- Territorial rights
- Kim Angell (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, P.b. 1097 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway