When we attempt to explore our intuitions regarding real cases of territorial disputes, it is particularly interesting to observe how the same individual can experience conflicting intuitions. For example, when we consider the process of decolonization that took place in the second post-war period, we are typically guided by nationalist or voluntarist intuitions, advocating for the right to independence and self-determination. On the other hand, when we focus on the topic of immigration and the current refugee crisis in Europe, we tend to give more weight to the states’ capacity to perform a set of functions connected with the realm of the respect of human rights, thus we set aside our nationalist intuitions in favour of statist or functionalist preferences.
As the criteria for choosing one theory in certain cases and a different one in others remain unclear, all justifications end up seeming equally valid. Consequently, in practice, when dealing with a territorial issue, it becomes difficult for any single justification to convincingly prevail over the others.
This practical problem necessitates shifting the analysis to the ideal level in order to identify a theory that is ideally valid regardless of particular circumstances, yet still effective in addressing real-world issues and formulating possible solutions.
In the first section of this paper, I will provide a brief terminological introduction to the meanings that I attribute to the concepts of ideal theory and action-guidance.
In the second section, I present a classical version of functionalist theory, drawing primarily on the work of Anna Stilz, with the aim of demonstrating that it is a universally applicable theory regardless of particular circumstances, and remains action-guiding despite being an ideal theory.
In the third section, I present three potential objections that could arise from Lockean theories, voluntarist theories, and nationalist theories, respectively.
In the fourth and final section, I respond to these objections, partly by reworking Stilz’s theory in a way that is specifically designed to meet the objective outlined at the beginning: to develop a theory that is both action-guiding when applied to real territorial disputes and universally generalizable as a mainstream approach to justifying states' territorial rights more broadly.
Disclaimer: If this paper seems particularly dense, it is because it is, in fact, a reworking of the near-final chapter of my doctoral thesis. Much of what is briefly outlined here is explored in greater detail in earlier chapters of the thesis. The primary goal of this chapter—and thus of this paper—is to demonstrate the advantages of adopting a functionalist perspective when addressing territorial issues. This will remain the main objective throughout the paper.
Camilla Barbieri is a PhD candidate in Ethics and Political Philosophy at the University of Eastern Piedmont, Italy.
The 'DynamiTE lunchtime seminars' are a part of the project 'Dynamic Territory'. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 948964).