Drowning under: Small island states and the right to exist
| Author | Milla Emilia Vaha |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088215571780 |
| Published date | 01 June 2015 |
| Date | 01 June 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Symposium: Rethinking states in international politics |
Journal of International Political Theory
2015, Vol. 11(2) 206 –223
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088215571780
ipt.sagepub.com
Drowning under: Small island
states and the right to exist
Milla Emilia Vaha
University of Turku, Finland
Abstract
This article considers the phenomenon of ‘state-extinction’: a situation in which a state
faces a very real and imminent threat of literal disappearance from the surface of the
Earth. By looking at the case of sinking small island states, this article explores the role
and meaning of territory to statehood, while advancing the idea that rather than as
a claim-right to territory, the situation of sinking island states should be understood
through a state-right to exist as a state – an internationally recognised political authority
– in the system of states. If and when this is the case, states under the threat of physical
state-extinction may have claims towards international community to continuing
existence as political entities without necessarily having a right to new territory.
Keywords
Climate change, Kant, Locke, small island states, states, territorial rights
‘Our future is actually written. It is written on the wall that the sea level will rise and it
will affect our islands. So, the international community cannot ignore that’.
Anote Tong, President of Kiribati1
In his famous article, Peter Singer describes the following scenario:
If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull
the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death
of the child would presumably be a very bad thing. (1985: 249)
Corresponding author:
Milla Emilia Vaha, Department of Political Science and Contemporary History, University of Turku,
Arwidssoninkatu 2, Building 2, Turku 20014, Finland.
Email: mevaha@utu.fi
571780IPT0010.1177/1755088215571780Journal of International Political TheoryVaha
research-article2015
Article
Vaha 207
By emphasising the need of the drowning child to be rescued, Singer aims at offering a
justification for his argument in favour of a ‘duty of justice’ towards the global poor.
According to Singer, ‘if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening,
without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, mor-
ally, to do it’ (1985: 249, emphasis mine). In short, it is morally wrong not to save the
drowning child if it is in our power to do so. This article is, in a sense, about the drowning
child in Singer’s famous example. The question that I will pose is similar to the one in
which Singer answers in the affirmative: do we have a duty to rescue the child from
drowning? The ‘child’ here, however, is the state and ‘we’, the international community
of states. The answer, reflexively, is not as straightforward as it seems to be in Singer’s
famous example.
This article explores a phenomenon that I will call ‘state-extinction’: a situation in
which a state faces a very real and imminent threat of disappearance from the surface of
the Earth. Whether it is due to the rarity of empirical cases of state-extinction in recent
centuries or the legalistic nature and persistent practices of state sovereignty, International
Relations (IR) theory has yet to really discuss the consequences of possible territorial
disappearance of states. Yet, states do ‘die’ and are ‘(re) born’ occasionally – from a his-
torical perspective, often as a consequence of political disturbance/or (civil) war.
Presently, one can find a new type of acute threat to the existence of some states created
by environmental circumstances: Due to global warming and sea-level rise, small islands
states have become potential victims of state-extinction – together with states located in
drylands suffering from serious desertification.2
While states historically have indeed ‘died’ through wars and natural disasters,3 as
well as formed new states through occupation, annexation and unions (forcible and vol-
untary), the case of ‘sinking islands’ seems to be qualitatively different. In the words of
Avery Kolers,
[S]inking islands and all-consuming deserts are distinctive for at least two reasons. First, the
state’s failure is triggered not directly by political problems, but by the geographic problem of
the disappearance or ruination of the land base. It is not just the state that is coming or going,
but also the country. Second, and for that reason, there is no prospect of ‘successor’ states that
would … inherit the territory, population and political institutions of the disappearing state.
(2012: 333)
The question that the physical, territorial state-extinction poses is not, thus, of only
political but also of theoretical and normative importance. The dominant discussion on
the effects of climate change has concentrated on the individual rights of those who are
forced to leave their country.4 An interesting and so far underexplored question is what
actually happens to the state when it goes under? Moreover, one might ask whether and
to what extent international community of states has a duty to prevent or react to such
state-extinctions, in the same manner as individual morality and duties require us to help
the dislocated people (a duty equivalent to the one that requires us to save the ‘child from
drowning’).
In order to answer those questions, this article explores how IR should understand the
‘deterritorialisation’ of sinking island states. It proposes that instead of being mere claims
To continue reading
Request your trial