Self-Determination without Nationalism: A Theory of Postnational Sovereignty

Conclusion

A s this study of self-determination and sovereignty draws to a close, it is worth highlighting both the advantages and the disadvantages of reaffirming these concepts. The advantages result in particular from developing a concept of ecosovereignty out of a principle of popular self-determination. These new concepts of selfdetermination and sovereignty should help us move beyond the impasse between theories of nationalism and internationalism that has dominated international ethics now for a generation. The disadvantages of using these concepts result from difficulties with enacting them in the current international environment. Finally, it is worth asking to what degree acting to realize these notions of self-determination and sovereignty will ameliorate violent political conflicts in the future. The Two Meanings of Ecosovereignty The concept of ecosovereignty used here has two distinct meanings. First, it designates the right of self-rule of a people inhabiting distinct countries. Second , it establishes the right of sovereign peoples over the resources necessary to sustain their lives and habitats. This section spells out some examples—not to be taken as exhaustive—of each meaning. In the first case, ecosovereignty justifies the priority given to the political independence and integrity of ecological regions as opposed to states, which may either divide or subsume such regions to their detriment. It also entails a robust conception of the rights of Conclusion Conclusion 207 indigenous peoples to lands and resources necessary to sustain their distinctive ways of life. In the second case, ecosovereignty provides a rationale for food sovereignty—the right of local food producers to take measures to maintain the viability of their production and markets. It also justifies a certain understanding of environmental security—namely, the right of peoples to protect the ecological integrity of their local environments. Clearly this concept requires much further elaboration to fully capture the range of applications, but some preliminary comments can be made. While the use of ecological regions as the basis for political sovereignty is new, it is appropriate given the contemporary critique of state-based sovereignty discussed in Chapter 6. The connection between regions and peoples is important to emphasize here, although it does not preempt the specifically political dimension of popular self-determination. Rather, it captures the sense of unity experienced by peoples of well-formed territories better than does a purely political characterization that misses the material basis of political identities. There are, of course, paradigmatic cases of peoples whose political identities have been formed by distinctive regions. Such cases, wellknown to political geographers, include political communities based on islands and archipelagoes (e.g., Cuba, the British Isles), mountainous regions (e.g., Switzerland, Tibet), peninsular territories (e.g., the Iberian Peninsula, Korea), and climatically distinctive zones (e.g., Scandinavia, southern India). The examples just given, it will be noted, include not only some existing states but also regions spanning or, in some cases, subdividing them. Considerations of demography and ethnology—what populations and which peoples have settled the regions—further complicate the matter. The concept of ecosovereignty provides a criterion for sorting legitimacy claims of rival political groups and movements in accordance with the ecological integrity of the territories concerned. The means for such “sorting”— federation and devolution—are examined in Chapter 7. While they do not mandate changes in sovereignty, they do provide criteria for resolving conflicts over sovereignty when they occur. The second example of ecosovereignty, in terms of the political independence and integrity of distinct countries, is that of the recently articulated rights of indigenous peoples. While the idea of indigeneity shares some characteristics with other conceptions of lifeworlds and ethical communities (such as those discussed in Chapter 4), it has some special features as well. Principally concerned with defining the idea of “traditionally” distinct peoples (and territories), indigeneity denotes groups and lands characterized by (1) a historical continuity with precolonial societies; (2) a belief in the enduring value of distinct ways of life and identities; (3) the occupation of 208 Conclusion nondominant, not to say oppressed, positions in contemporary societies; and (4) a determination to preserve ancestral territories. Indigenous peoples, estimated at up to half a billion globally, occupy a substantial portion of the earth’s territory, including some of the most intact ecosystems left on the planet. Some have argued that these characteristics should mandate a special concern for the needs, and perhaps rights, of such peoples. In acknowledgment of this view, the UN in 2007 adopted the Declaration...