Borders define jurisdictions. To uphold borders is to claim jurisdiction; to claim the right to decide on the law. The nation state makes such a claim. It seeks jurisdiction over a particular... Show moreBorders define jurisdictions. To uphold borders is to claim jurisdiction; to claim the right to decide on the law. The nation state makes such a claim. It seeks jurisdiction over a particular territory. By implication, the nation state also acknowledges that other jurisdictions may apply beyond that territory. Borders work two-ways, and while they grant the nation state exclusive jurisdiction, they also limit the nation state’s claims to the designated territory. Supranationalism and multiculturalism undermine the idea of exclusive territorial jurisdiction. Supranationalism grants institutions the power to break through national borders and to overrule the nation state’s territorial arrangements. In this way, borders become increasingly porous. Multiculturalism, meanwhile, not only deligitimizes the nation state’s borders by weakening the collective identity of the people living behind them; it also encourages religious sub-groups to invoke rules from beyond the nation state’s borders, thereby undermining the very idea of territorial jurisdiction. ‘God’s heart has no borders’, to put it bluntly. Supranationalism and multiculturalism are thus antithetical to national sovereignty and to the borders therein implied. Supranationalism dilutes sovereignty, and so brings about the gradual dismantling of borders from the outside; multiculturalism weakens nationality, thus delegitimizing their existence altogether from the inside. !e idea of political organization that fundamentally opposes supranationalism and multiculturalism – the idea of the nation state – has been declared ‘outdated’ and ‘irrelevant’ by an overwhelming number of commentators. Yet while supranationalism and multiculturalism have dominated politics and academia over the last several decades, their popularity is questionable and debates about national identity divide most European countries at present. Show less
This theoretical study considers the interplay between the rights and responsibilities of (postcolonial) states in forming the underpinnings of public international law. It considers the ways... Show moreThis theoretical study considers the interplay between the rights and responsibilities of (postcolonial) states in forming the underpinnings of public international law. It considers the ways states administer their territory, in some cases after having inherited colonially defined boundaries. It then contrasts this with the general sense in international law that basic human rights standards, including the concept of ‘self-determination’, are to be upheld by states themselves. The thesis observes that international law has become developed to the extent that the concept of self-determination may, in some circumstances, be equated with that of self-defence, and in some circumstances, a 'people' can be formed as a direct response to specific, predatory actions of a state. The thesis concludes by observing that the ability of a state to administer itself in conformity with international human rights law is of equivalent importance to that of its legitimate claims of title to territory, and that territorial modifications may be legitimate legal possibilities in the face of, for example, massive human rights violations. Show less