Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Why do states have territorial rights?

  • Anna Stilz (a1)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: astilz@princeton.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

B.S. Byrd J. Hruschka (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: 217282.

A. Buchanan (1997), ‘Theories of secession’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(1): 3161.

T. Hill (2002), ‘Questions about Kant’s opposition to revolution’, Journal of Value Inquiry 36(3): 283298.

W. Kersting (1984), Wohlgeordnete Freiheit, Berlin: de Gruyter.

T. Meisels (2005), Territorial Rights, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

C. Nine (2008), ‘A Lockean theory of territory’, Political Studies 56: 148165.

P. Pettit (2005), ‘Rawls’s political ontology’, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 4: 157174.

P. Pettit (2006), ‘Rawls’s peoples’, in R. Martin and D. Reidy (eds), Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3856.

A.J. Simmons (2001b), ‘On the territorial rights of states’, Philosophical Issues 11: 300326.

H. Steiner (1977), ‘The natural right to the means of production’, Philosophical Quarterly 27(106): 4149.

R. Tuck (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.

L. Wenar (1998), ‘Original acquisition of private property’, Mind 107(428): 799819.

K. Westphal (1992), ‘Kant on the state, law, and obedience to authority in the alleged “anti-revolutionary” writings’, Journal of Philosophical Research 17: 383426.

L. Wenar (2005), ‘The nature of rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(3): 223253.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Theory
  • ISSN: 1752-9719
  • EISSN: 1752-9727
  • URL: /core/journals/international-theory
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score