COMPROMISE AND ORIGINAL ACQUISITION: EXPLAINING RIGHTS TO THE ARCTIC

• Published in: Social Philosophy and Policy
• Main Author: Nine, Cara
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 2015
• Subjects: General Social Sciences; Philosophy; Arctic
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052515000114; https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0265052515000114

Abstract: Up until now, political philosophy has explained the acquisition of natural resources, in one way or another, through the terms of human settlement. An agent acquires natural resources by moving into the geographic area that contains these resources. Even how we make claims to the ocean floor depends on settlement — claimants must be adjacent to settled land. This essay extends original acquisition theories so that they can respond to cases that do not presuppose any conditions of human settlement. I suggest that resource rights in the deep sea may be created, alternatively, through acts of compromise. Compromise can alleviate conflict, allowing for claimants to move beyond stalemate to acquire goods. It also allows for a large degree of flexibility in the specification of rights, and thereby can explain nontraditional rights over areas of migration. The tricky part of a theory that grants rights through agreement is explaining why external parties, those not part of the agreement, have a duty to respect those rights. A compromise under certain conditions, I argue, places all persons under a duty to respect the rights created by the compromise. Thus, when two parties compromise, they may acquire goods from the commons — creating a duty for all others to respect the parties’ rights over these goods. Importantly, rights created through compromise are constrained by a set of concerns for those excluded.