Territorial disputes: Gibraltar (Part 1) [Post 31]

A long-standing TERRITORIAL DISPUTE is the case of Gibraltar. Different from the previous cases considered by this blog series, Gibraltar has already taken the first steps for what may be a future joint solution. In today’s post, a very brief introduction of the history behind the dispute. As with the previously reviewed TERRITORIAL DISPUTES, the following posts will introduce: different academic and non-academic views; the current situation; the views of the inhabitants (because in any case they are the ones who will live the consequences of any decision); coverage by the media including all parties in the dispute; the ideal methodology to solve the difference (what I call Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty); its application to some controversial elements; and some conclusive remarks.

 
Gibraltar, prior to modernity, was occupied by the Spaniards, Arab and Muslim Kingdoms and some other cultures. It is in 1713, after a war between Britain and Spain, that Spain ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity to the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Utrecht. However, after this agreement the dispute about the peninsula has continued, with Spain claiming sovereign rights. The Gibraltarians rejected Spanish sovereignty in referendums twice (1967 and 2002). In the last referendum, the Gibraltarians rejected shared sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Spain. However, shared sovereignty in this case did not consider the Gibraltarians in the negotiations.

Currently, and under the Gibraltar Constitution Order (2006), Gibraltar remains part of the United Kingdom’s dominions. It is important to make clear the British government cannot enter into arrangements with other States in relation to the sovereignty of Gibraltar against the Gibraltarians’ wishes. The Constitution recognises the right to self-determination. Although Gibraltar is in charge of its internal affairs, the United Kingdom deals with foreign affairs and defence. In relation to Spain, a trilateral process of dialogue started in 2004 allowing finally the principle of “two flags, three voices.”

 

To the reader, following two of our previous posts of this series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES:

  1. What are the issues at stakes in this a territorial dispute?
  2. Which remedy could be used to solve this particular territorial dispute?

 
For reference to these questions see:

POST 10: Territorial disputes: remedies
 

NOTE: This post is based on Chapter 7 in Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

 
Jorge Emilio Nunez
 
Twitter: @London1701
 

09th April 2018

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s