Cara Nine argues in that the Lockean proviso means a people
who have their homeland destroyed, or made uninhabitable by ecological
disaster, have a theoretical right to a new homeland. Global warming increases the probability of this happening. Nine argues that other states
have a duty to provide for this homeland by ceding part of their sovereign
territory (1). The Lockean proviso roughly means we have unlimited rights to
any resource provided there is enough of this resource left for others. If
however the resource becomes limited we must share this resource. For instance
if people A have their water resources provided by river B and people X have
equally good water resources provided by river Y then people A can have exclusive
rights, to own, the water resources provided by river B. However according to
the proviso if resources become scarce and river Y dries up people A cease to
have exclusive rights to B and should share their water resources with people
X. Does it follow from accepting the above that if people C lose their homeland
due to ecological disaster that people D should cede part of their territory to
people C? I will argue it does not.
Let it be accepted the Lockean proviso does mean other
states should share some resources by offering food, shelter and a home to
ecological refugees whose homeland has become uninhabitable. Does this sharing
of resources extend to ceding the territory needed to permit these refugees to
continue living in the same state albeit in a different place? Nine believes
the Lockean proviso depends on a natural duty to promote the preservation of
humankind (2). Let us assume these refugees come from a state which denies
women equal rights and persecutes minorities. Allowing the creation of a
similar state by ceding territory rather than simply aiding these refugees by
offering food, shelter and a new home does not seem to promote the preservation
of humankind. For instance should the territory of North Korea become
uninhabitable due to radioactive fallout because of this regime’s nuclear
policy it would be ridiculous for any country to cede land in order to allow
the continuation of the current regime. It follows the Lockean proviso does not
apply to all states. Nine argues provided we accept that if the people of
current legitimate states have the right to self-determination then we should
also accept the loss of a state’s territory does not destroy the right of its
people to self-determination. In what follows I will only consider refugees who
come from a legitimate state which permits self-determination. The question now
becomes if a legitimate state which permits self-determination becomes
uninhabitable due to ecological disaster then does the accepted sharing of resources
required by the Lockean proviso extend to including the ceding of land by
unaffected states to permit the refugees to live in the same state albeit in a
different place?
I believe the answer to the above question is no for two
reasons. Firstly if we are required to share water or food due to drought or
famine then each of us as individuals should take a little less to help those
suffering. However no such equitable solution is available if we were to try to
resettle an entire state displaced by ecological disaster on new land. If we
are to stick strictly to the Lockean proviso then all of the states unaffected
by the disaster should cede a small part of their territory. In such a scenario
it seems ridiculous to say the land ceded permits these refugees to live in the
same state albeit in a different place. Clearly any state with a formerly
unified territory which becomes split over a hundred far flung pieces of land
is not the same state it was. If we accept the Lockean proviso must have an
equitable solution then it cannot even theoretically apply states which are
destroyed by ecological disaster.
Secondly let us assume that a more unified state might be
created in one state from all the other states. I myself find the possibility of such a scenario as highly
doubtful because of doubts as to whether the compensation could be equitable.
However putting my doubts to one side and assuming we can equitably create such
a state does the Lockean proviso give us a reason to create of such a state? I would
argue in this revised scenario the Lockean proviso gives us no reason to do so.
In her paper Nine assumes “that the loss of existing territorial domain due to
ecological disaster does not eliminate this right of self-determination (3). I
agree with Nine. However the loss of someone’s state and her subsequent
resettlement in a different state which permits self-determination does not
eliminate her right to self-determination. Nine’s argument seems to depend on a
second assumption. Nine assumes the loss of someone’s state and her subsequent
resettlement in a different state, albeit a state which permits
self-determination, would damage her self-determination. Her argument seems to
be based on the idea that the Lockean proviso requires that we must seek to
repair this damage. This second assumption seems doubtful. It is of course true
a refugee’s resettlement might alter the way her
self-determination is expressed but alteration is not the same as
damage. Indeed an altered way of self-determination may be an
improvement. It seems the Lockean proviso only applies when resources are lost,
become sparse or are damaged. The Lockean proviso does not apply to altered
resources provided these resources are adequate. If the above is accepted then
the Lockean proviso of course means accepting we have a duty to resettle
ecological refugees. It does not follow from the above that this resettlement must
include the ceding of territory by other states in order to permit these
refugees to continue living in the same state albeit even if this state is in a
different place. However even if Nine is mistaken about the need for states to cede territory a further important implication follows from the Lockean proviso. Provided the Lockean proviso involves restoring a right to self determination then a host state should grant full civic rights, such as the right to vote, to ecological refugees. Such a conclusion might be hard for many to accept in the Western world.
- Cara Nine, 2010, Ecological Refugees, States Borders and the Lockean Proviso, Journal of Applied Philosophy; 27.
- Nine, page 361.
- Nine, page 359.
