Territorial disputes: The Persian Gulf (Part 26) [Post 186]

Natural resources and the Persian Gulf
Last week, we introduced the way in which natural resources may be distributed, and the fact that there are other elements for consideration (for example, exploration and exploitation). How can this work here?
In the case of the Persian Gulf, the many parties (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) could be co-owners of the natural resources located in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone.
Undoubtedly, there are several differences amongst Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Therein, some of these differences show how the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY could work.
The first difference is given by the fact the inhabitants possess the total of natural resources at stake (100%). By applying the egalitarian shared sovereignty, each party receives the rights to the same ideal portion (an equal percentage of the ownership of natural resources, minus original ownership of the inhabitants of the islands in question). It would be either over simplistic or naïve to imagine Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates be able to explore and exploit to the same level their shares of natural resources (second difference). However, each of them individually have some elements that put them in a better position in relation to the rest, for example local work force, geographical proximity (third difference).
With all these differences in mind, the party most developed technically and economically could explore and exploit natural resources (as they are in the best position to do it), and both the inhabitants adjacent to areas rich in natural resources could offer the work force for the joint venture and grant privileges in terms of location to companies that take the exploration and exploitation. Thus, less advantaged parties in terms of means for exploration and exploitation could also offer the most advantaged party certain exclusive rights in the sea-zone that overlaps with their jurisdictions.
Continuous assistance from, for example, Saudi Arabia or Iran, to other parties might become a permanent feature (it may lead to domination or an unbalanced relationship).  To avoid this, in the example, Saudi Arabia or Iran, respectively, would have to help the others in developing their means of exploration and exploitation to relatively the same level they have.
At the beginning of the agreement Saudi Arabia or Iran would be contributing more towards the exploration and exploitation and hence have a larger return. However, these uneven distributions of burdens and benefits amongst the parties would only be in the short term. Natural resources and all that they imply in terms of rights and obligations are part of a wider agreement that has a target: the Persian Gulf.
Finally, the way in which each party redistributes the benefits of this shared model within each population is entirely a matter of national or local distribution and hence may have various forms. That is to say, the egalitarian shared sovereignty gives the basic structure of the solution; the details are subject to actual rather than hypothetical negotiation. As an example, the resultant revenues of some or all the joint activities could be destined to a distribution fund benefiting all the inhabitants.
NOTE: based on Chapter 7, 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 Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
10th December 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 )

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