![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Riegl et al. say: ‘The second criterion (constitutionally unincorporated status) is plagued by the same problem as the first one, i.e., the lack of a proper definition and its subsequent application to the selected territories.’ A simple word search shows that this is untrue.
2 Constitutional incorporation and unincorporation are defined in the context of the discussion of colonies and again with regard to the discussion on Puerto Rico:
Colonies are also similar to PITs because they are constitutionally unincorporated into the core state with which they are linked (since a different set of constitutional rights and privileges prevail in the colonial system as compared to the imperial metropole).
3 The authors assert that it ‘is being claimed [in the paper] that units of a federation are constitutionally unincorporated within the core state, i.e., that these units are not integral parts of the state under question.’ Again, a simple word search shows that this is untrue.
4 As is plainly mentioned on p. 274 (as well in other parts of the paper), ‘unlike PITs, federation member-units are fully incorporated in the constitutional system of the rest of the sovereign states. In other words, the same constitutional rights and potentialities that prevail within them also prevail within other federation member units.’
5 The commentators state, ‘The first criteria (nationalistically distinct populations) is made problematic already by the fact that the article does not define the term “nation.”’ Again, a simple word search shows that this is untrue.
6 As the paper clearly says on p. 281, ‘Nationalism is the principle that says that a distinct population ought to rule over itself within a particular geographic area (Gellner, Citation1983, p. 1; Hechter, Citation2000).’ Still again on p. 273 in the context of a comparison between partially independent territories and colonies, the paper states: ‘Similar to PITs, colonies tend to be nationalistically distinct because they consist of a culturally distinctive population that believes that they ought to have some self-rule within a specific territory (Gellner, Citation1983; Hechter, Citation2000).’
7 Since the Mariana Islands are a geographical reference that refers to both Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, I assume that the commentators are asserting that my 2016 paper omits reference to the Northern Mariana Islands. Either way, however – whether they are using Mariana Islands as a geographical reference or using the term to refer to the Northern Mariana Islands – the paper does indeed refer to these islands several times.
8 There is, however, no evidence of this in their paper. Indeed, except for three references in which material from my 2014 book is quoted from my 2016 article, neither my book nor my other papers are directly cited by them in their text.
9 One of these elements is nationalism. When Riegl et al. complain that ‘nation’ is not defined in the paper, my assumption is that they are referring to the overall concept of nationalism. This assumption comes from the fact that the authors say that they are attempting to critique the defining elements of partially independent territories (one of which is nationalism). A nation is a group that embodies or implements the principles of nationalism.
10 When they begin their discussion of constitutional unincorporation, they begin with a first sentence that acknowledges their lack of understanding of the paper’s definition. They state: ‘The second criterion (constitutionally unincorporated status) is plagued by the same problem as the first one, i.e., the lack of a proper definition and its subsequent application to the selected territories.’ They then follow up with a second sentence that conveys their view that the concept is tantamount to constitutional independence: ‘The author argues that Catalonia, Kurdistan (KRG), Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sardinia, Sicily, Wales, but also many other similar territorial units are constitutionally independent and thus are not an integral part of the core state.’
11 The treaty-making capability of overseas British Territories as it applies to their status as tax havens is an example of a power that evolved over time based on precedent and ad hoc agreement with the core state.
12 Although their definitions are not explicitly defined, many of them (as with their use of nationalism and constitutional unincoporation) are largely discernible through their application of their view of these concepts when applying them to various territories.