Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-zpsnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-14T17:20:18.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do states have territorial rights?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Anna Stilz
Anna Stilz*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, 247 Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544-1012, USA
*
E-mail: astilz@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What gives a particular state the right to exercise jurisdiction and enforcement power over a particular territory? Why does the state of Denmark have rights over the territory of Denmark, and not over the territory of Sweden, and vice versa? This paper first considers a popular argument that purports to ground state territorial rights in citizens’ rights of land ownership. On this view, the state has jurisdiction over territory insofar as its people owns the territory, and delegates jurisdictional powers over their land to the state. It is argued that we should reject this approach, because it is unable to explain: (a) how the state can establish a continuous territory; (b) why later generations consent to the state’s jurisdiction; and (c) why non-consenting property owners cannot secede.

Rather than considering state jurisdiction to be derived from the people’s prior property rights, this paper claims that we should consider state jurisdictional rights over territory to be primitive. It defends an alternative Kantian account of territorial rights. On this view, a state’s claim to jurisdiction over territory is justified if that state imposes a system of property law that meets certain basic conditions of legitimacy. This Kantian approach, it is argued, allows us to make better sense of state territorial rights.

Keywords

territorypolitical authorityboundariesglobal justiceLockeKant

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
International Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 185 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beitz, C. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beitz, C. (1980), ‘Tacit consent and property rights’, Political Theory 8(4): 487–502.Google Scholar
Blake, M.Risse, M. (2008), ‘Migration, territoriality, and culture’, in J. Ryberg, T. Petersen, and C. Wolf (eds), New Waves in Applied Ethics, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brilmayer, L. (1989), ‘Consent, contract, and territory’, Minnesota Law Review 74(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Brilmayer, L. (1991), ‘Secession and self-determination: a territorial interpretation’, 16 Yale Journal of International Law 189: 177–202.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. (1991), Secession, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. (1997), ‘Theories of secession’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(1): 31–61.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. (2003), ‘The making and unmaking of boundaries: what liberalism has to say’, in A. Buchanan and M. Moore (eds), States, Nations, and Borders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–261.Google Scholar
Burch, K. (1998), Property and the Making of the International System, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Byrd, B.S.Hruschka, J. (2002), ‘The natural law duty to recognize private property ownership: Kant’s theory of property in his doctrine of right’, University of Toronto Law Journal 56: 217–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B.S. (2006), ‘The state as a “moral person” ’, in B.S. Byrd and J. Hruschka (eds), Kant and Law, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 379–397.Google Scholar
Cassese, A. (1995), Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. (1995), Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. (1985), ‘Nozick on appropriation’, New Left Review 1(150): 95–98.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (1997), ‘Democracy and communal self-determination’, in R. McKim and J. McMahan (eds), The Morality of Nationalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotius, H. (2005), in R. Tuck (ed.), The Rights of War and Peace, Vol. 1. Indianapolis, USA: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. (1984), ‘Are there any natural rights?’, in J. Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–90.Google Scholar
Hill, T. (2002), ‘Questions about Kant’s opposition to revolution’, Journal of Value Inquiry 36(3): 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohfeld, W. (1923), Fundamental Legal Conception as applied in judicial reasoning and other essays, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Holtman, S. (2002), ‘Revolution, contradiction, and Kantian citizenship’, in M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 210–231.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1900), Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften (edited by the German Academy of Sciences), Berlin: Walter deGruyter & Co.Google Scholar
Kersting, W. (1984), Wohlgeordnete Freiheit, Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1980), Second Treatise of Government, Indianapolis, USA: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ludwig, B. (2002), ‘Whence public right? The role of theoretical and practical reasoning in Kant’s doctrine of rights’, in M. Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–183.Google Scholar
Meisels, T. (2005), Territorial Rights, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Munzer, S. (1990), A Theory of Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nine, C. (2008), ‘A Lockean theory of territory’, Political Studies 56: 148–165.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2005), ‘Rawls’s political ontology’, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 4: 157–174.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2006), ‘Rawls’s peoples’, in R. Martin and D. Reidy (eds), Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, A. (1996), Kant’s Theory of Justice, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, S.P. (1997), Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law, The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A.J. (1992), The Lockean Theory of Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A.J. (2001a), Justification and Legitimacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A.J. (2001b), ‘On the territorial rights of states’, Philosophical Issues 11: 300–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sreenivasan, G. (1995), The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, H. (1977), ‘The natural right to the means of production’, Philosophical Quarterly 27(106): 41–49.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. (1996), ‘Territorial justice’, in S. Caney, D. George and P. Jones (eds), National Right, International Obligations, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 139–148.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. (2005), ‘Territorial justice and global redistribution’, in G. Brock and H. Brighouse (eds), The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, L.W. (1987), The Moral Foundation of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, R. (2003), ‘Boundaries from the natural law perspective’, in A. Buchanan and M. Moore (ed.), States, Nations, and Borders: the Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, J. (1980), A Discourse on Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, J. (1993), ‘Rediscovering America: the two treatises and aboriginal rights’, in J. Tully (ed.), An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vattel, E. (2008), in B. Kapossy and R. Whatmore (eds), The Law of Nations, Indianapolis, USA: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (1988), The Right to Private Property, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Wellman, C. (2005), A Theory of Secession: The Case for Political Self-Determination, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenar, L. (1998), ‘Original acquisition of private property’, Mind 107(428): 799–819.Google Scholar
Wenar, L. (2005), ‘The nature of rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(3): 223–253.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (2004), ‘The state as person in international theory’, Review of International Studies 30(2): 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. (1992), ‘Kant on the state, law, and obedience to authority in the alleged “anti-revolutionary” writings’, Journal of Philosophical Research 17: 383–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar