Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 21–35 | Cite as

Shared Sovereignty over Migratory Natural Resources

  • Alejandra Mancilla
Article
  • 524 Downloads

Abstract

With growing vigor, political philosophers have started questioning the Westphalian system of states as the main actors in the international arena and, within it, the doctrine of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. In this article I add to these questionings by showing that, when it comes to migratory natural resources, i.e., migratory species, a plausible theory of territorial rights should advocate a regime of shared sovereignty among states. This means that one single entity should represent their interests and maybe also those of third parties, managing and making decisions over the resource as a whole. Although such a regime might be the tacit goal of existing international conventions regarding wildlife, it remains untheorized in political philosophy and largely under-theorized in international law. By presenting the critical situation of the monarch butterfly in North America, I point to the inadequacy of the compartmentalized current regime, which generates injustice in migration; namely, the phenomenon whereby range states of a given species may neglect or over-exploit it while in their territory, to the detriment of others. I suggest that more flexible and imaginative governance arrangements are needed to deal in a better way with these and similar natural resources.

Keywords

Shared sovereignty Migratory species Natural resources Monarch butterfly 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For their insightful comments on earlier drafts, I thank the participants at the PPPE Club and the Conference Ecological Challenges (University of Oslo), the Annual Conference of the Association for Legal and Social Philosophy (University of Leeds), and the Mancept Workshop on Animal Rights and Political Theory (University of Manchester). I am also thankful for their written feedback to Megan Blomfield, Lars Christie, Alfonso Donoso, Avery Kolers, Kerstin Reibold, Scott Wisor and an anonymous referee of this journal. Finally, I thank Douglas Tallamy, Lincoln Brower and Jorge Zeballo for detailed scientific information about the monarch’s decline. This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, Project Number 179566/V20.

References

  1. Armstrong, Chris. 2015. Against permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14: 129–151.Google Scholar
  2. Blomfield, Megan. 2014. Natural resources and historical injustice: Ecological debt without equal shares. In Paper presented at the workshop Governing Natural Resources in Times of Climate Change. Salamanca: European Consortium for Political Research.Google Scholar
  3. Bonn Convention. 1979. Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals. http://www.cms.int/en/node/3916. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  4. Bowman, M.J. 1999a. International treaties and the global protection of birds: Part I. Journal of Environmental Law 11: 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman, M.J. 1999b. International treaties and the global protection of birds: Part II. Journal of Environmental Law 11: 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brower, Lincoln P., Orley R. Taylor, Ernest H. Williams, Daniel A. Slayback, Raul R. Zubieta, and M. Isabel Ramirez. 2012. Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: Is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conservation and Diversity 5: 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Klemm, Cyril. 1989. Migratory species in international law. Natural Resources Journal 29: 935–978.Google Scholar
  8. Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hope for monarch butterfly after Mexican logging halted. 2014. Illegal logging portal. http://www.illegal-logging.info. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.
  10. Impacta el narcotráfico áreas naturales protegidas de México. 2014. Verdebandera. http://verdebandera.com.mx/impacta-el-narcotrafico-areas-naturales-protegidas-de-mexico. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  11. International Court of Justice. 2010. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina vs. Uruguay). http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=135&p3=4. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  12. Johnson, Tim. 2014. The butterfly effect: Do monarchs’ woes signal broader problems? McClatchyDC, March 31, 2014. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/31/222959/the-butterfly-effect-do-monarchs.html. Accessed 30 May 2014.
  13. Kolers, Avery. 2009. Land, conflict and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lorenz, Edward. 2000. Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? In The chaos avant-garde: Memories of the early days of chaos theory, ed. Ralph Abraham, and Yoshisuke Ueda, 91–94. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  15. Mancilla, Alejandra. 2015. The volcanic asymmetry, or the question of permanent sovereignty over natural disasters. Journal of Political Philosophy 23: 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, Russell, and Rebecca M. Bratspies., eds. 2006. Introduction. In Transboundary harm in international law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1–10. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Monarch Butterfly Fund. 2015. Monarch action list. http://www.monarchbutterflyfund.org/sites/default/files/file/MonarchActionList_22May14.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  18. Moore, Margaret. 2012. Natural resources, territorial right, and global distributive justice. Political Theory 40: 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Navid, Daniel. 1989. The international law of migratory species: The Ramsar Convention. Natural Resources Journal 29: 1001–1016.Google Scholar
  20. Nine, Cara. 2014. When affected interests demand joint self-determination: Learning from rivers. International Theory 6: 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2015. Natural resources. Glossary of Statistical Terms. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1740. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  22. Perrez, Franz Xaver. 1996. The relationship between permanent sovereignty and the obligation not to cause transboundary environmental damage. Environmental Law 26: 1190–1211.Google Scholar
  23. Pleasants, John M., and Karen S. Oberhauser. 2013. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robbins, Jim. 2013. The year the monarch didn’t appear. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sunday-review/the-year-the-monarch-didnt-appear.html?_r=0. Accessed 28 May 2014.
  25. Roberts, Carter, and Omar Vidal. 2014. NAFTA leaders could save the monarch butterfly. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/14/opinion/roberts-monarch-butterflies/index.html. Accessed 28 May 2014.
  26. Sands, Philippe. 2003. Principles of international environmental law, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steiner, Hillel. 2009. Left libertarianism and the ownership of natural resources. Public Reason 1: 1–8.Google Scholar
  28. Stone, Christopher. 2010. Should trees have standing?, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. 2014. Press Conference by President Obama, President Peña Nieto, and Prime Minister Harper. Washington D.C. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/19/press-conference-president-obama-president-pe-nieto-and-prime-minister-h. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  30. Tuomela, Raimo. 2013. Social ontology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. United Nations. 1992. Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  32. UNGAR. 1962. Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  33. UNGAR. 1974. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. http://www.un-documents.net/a29r3281.htm. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  34. UNGAR. 1976. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  35. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed. 2008. The Gale Group, Inc. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Joint?Tenancy. Accessed 16 Jan 2015.
  36. Ypi, Lea. 2012. A permissive theory of territorial rights. European Journal of Philosophy 22: 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN), Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations