A Principle of Political Theory

A quick and easy user’s guide

to

Who Belongs Where, and How They Got There

The Principle:

Rights of Settlement and Migration are Established through Conflict and Convention

Translated:

Whenever claims to a place or its resources are contested,

if and when rights to a new claim are established, or an existing claim is maintained,

it will be through some combination of conflict or agreement.

The bottom line:

It is whatever the parties can agree upon and be enforced by law and arms.  That’s it.

This principle is the most concise and comprehensive explanation for Who Belongs Where, and one of the fundamental features of humanity.

Terms explained:

            Rights

                        Formal.  By treaty or contract, formally recognized.

                        Informal.  Accepted through long established common practice.

            Settlement and Migration

Relate to the ongoing and to the temporary use of a place or its resources, respectively.

            Conflict and Convention

                        Conflict.  In all its manifestations, from verbal disagreement to general war.

                        Convention.  Agreement, in all its manifestations, and efforts to reach one.

Key points of the principle:

Universal.  It operates at all levels, in any and all combinations, from individuals to states/empires.

Value neutral.  It describes what necessarily occurs, not desirable outcomes.

Narrative.  Everyone has a story; each party has its justifications.  While Narrative may figure, it is not determinative, only Conflict and Convention.

Unpacking the principle—expressed as a dialectic:

1^st term: Settlement/Migration, the status quo

2^nd term: Conflict/Convention, status quo challenged

3^rd term: Rights, challenge resolved, a new status quo

The dialectic explained:

In the first term, two dynamic elements make up the status quo, of a parties either in place or in movement.  In the second term, again two dynamic elements result from a challenge to the status quo in the first term.  When, or if, the dialectic resolves in the third term, the result will be as new rights, recognized as the new status quo.

Thus, expressed as a single dialectic, we account in the present for how a specific party’s right to territory was established.

Documenting a history. 

Through an unfolding series of dialectics, we can solve, either for party or place, respectively, how a party—that is to say, a people or nation—developed over history; likewise, we can trace the history of a place and its different populations over time.

This feature could be programmed as an app.  Solved for party or place, displayed graphically.

What we learn from this:

            Nothing new—in the way of facts.  The principle clarifies the issues.  It does not create facts.  The facts themselves are often well-documented, but must contend with Narrative.

The TAT Moment

The neo-Hegelian stage where parties arrive at the negotiating table to get down to business.  Time to put up or shut up. 

Each party must declare whether they are in Conflict or Convention.  If Convention, then parties must commit to what may be a difficult and lengthy effort.  If Conflict, that is if the parties are in a de facto, if not fully declared, state of hostilities, then they have limited say over how the opposing side conducts its war—though agreeing to such terms is an intermediate step to Convention.

The word “must” in this context refers to what needs to occur to achieve resolution.  If the parties do not seek resolution through Convention, they may indefinitely remain in some stage of Conflict.

Caveats

            This principle is offered as one means to address a complex issue.  We must avoid the Folly of the Pure Model.  Seldom will any one model tell the whole story.  We should seek better questions, as easy answers have historically led to catastrophe.

A model may be thought of as viewing a problem from one angle or perspective.  Or, like a transparent overlay of different features placed over a map, photo, or charts.  Each will reveal a different aspect of the whole, and will tell us something even as it reveals nothing—like a litmus test.

Levels of abstraction—or, for the glass is half full folks, degrees of specificity.  Models need to be understood at the correct level of abstraction.