Partial Independence Beats Full Independence

Abstract

It is widely believed that fully independent sovereign states are peerless and preeminent. They are viewed as the ultimate political system for producing economic and security advantages. It is also widely believed that they are the only constitutive unit in the international system that possesses territorial sovereignty. As distinct from these views, this paper will provide theoretical and empirical support to argue in favour of the existence and relative advantages of partially independent territories (PITs). PITs tend to deliver degrees of public goods, nationalistic reconciliation, and credible commitment advantages that sovereign states often cannot provide. The result is that PITs tend to have higher degrees of wealth and security as compared to their sovereign state counterparts. The advantages and widespread existence of PITs amend assumptions about the structure of the Westphalian international system in which sovereign statehood is viewed as exclusive and unchallenged.

Resume

On croit généralement que les États souverains pleinement indépendants sont préeminents et sans pareils. Ils sont considérés le système politique par excellence pour réaliser des avantages dans les domaines de l’économie et de la sécurité. En règle générale, on estime aussi qu'ils représentent la seule unité constitutive du système international qui affirme sa souveraineté territoriale. Par opposition à ces points de vue, ce présent article fournira du soutien théorique et empirique en faveur de la présence et des avantages relatifs des territoires partiellement indépendants. Ces derniers ont tendance à livrer des degrés de biens publics, de réconciliation nationaliste et d'avantages d'engagement que souvent les États souverains ne sont pas à même de fournir. Il s'avère que les territoires partiellement indépendants jouissent des niveaux plus élevés de richesse et de sécurité par rapport à leurs homologues souverains. Les avantages et la présence répandue des territoires partiellement indépendants modifient les hypothèses à propos de la structure du système international westphalien où la notion d'un État souverain est considéré comme unique et incontesté.

摘要

绝对独立的主权国家，被广泛认为是无与伦比且超凡卓越的。它们被视为生产经济与安全优势的终极政治系统。人们同时广泛地相信，国家是国际系统中，具有领土主权的唯一构成单位。与上述观点不同的是，本文将提供理论及经验支撑，支持部分独立领土的存在和相对优势。部分独立的领土，倾向提供主权国家经常无法提供的公共财程度、民族和解，以及可靠的承诺优势。结果导致部分独立的领土，较其他主权国家对照而言，倾向拥有较大程度的财富与安全。部分独立领土的优势与广泛的存在，修正了西伐利亚国际关係结构的预设，其中主权国家被视为独佔、且不受挑战的。

Extracto

En general, se cree que los Estados soberanos totalmente independientes son inigualables y preeminentes. Se les considera el sistema político inmejorable que aporta ventajas económicas y seguridad. También se cree generalmente que son la única unidad constitutiva en el sistema internacional que posee soberanía territorial. Alejándonos de estas perspectivas, en este artículo proporcionamos una base teórica y empírica que defiende la existencia y las ventajas relativas de territorios parcialmente independientes. Los territorios parcialmente independientes suelen prestar niveles de bienes públicos, reconciliación nacionalista y ventajas de compromiso creíbles que muchas veces los Estados soberanos no pueden ofrecer. El resultado es que los territorios parcialmente independientes suelen tener un mayor nivel de riqueza y seguridad en comparación con sus Estados soberanos homólogos. Las ventajas y la existencia generalizada de los territorios parcialmente independientes modifican las suposiciones sobre la estructura del sistema internacional de Westfalia en el que la condición de Estado soberano se considera exclusivo e incontestable.

Keywords:

• federalism
• geopolitics
• integration
• multilevel governance
• political economy
• regional governance
• security
• territory

View correction statement:

Erratum

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Yusaku Horiuchi, Alexander Cooley, Paul MacDonald, Brian Greenhill, Benjamin Valentino, and participants at the 2013 government faculty workshop at Dartmouth College for their valuable comments.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. This paper draws on limited parts of Rezvani (2014).

2. Similar to ‘autonomy', a series of other broad terms have also been used that encompass a variety of different political forms. For example, Roeder (2007) used the term ‘segment state' to denote a polity that includes a wide range of constitutionally asymmetric and nationalistically distinct territories including colonies, protectorates, and partially independent territories. Still other terms are regionally specific. ‘Devolution' is used in the UK, whereas ‘commonwealth' is used in the US context to refer to both territories that have credible entrenchment of powers and those that do not (Bogdanor, 1999, pp. 2–3; Leibowitz 1989).

3. Although today France accords its remaining nationalistically distinct territories with a package of rights that is more similar to what is applied in France itself as compared to the past, Aldrich and Connell (1992) nevertheless observe that the status of these overseas territories possess attributes of constitutional asymmetry since they are not identical to governmental sub-divisions within France itself.

4. There is disagreement in the literature about the federal nature of Spain, but since Catalonia, Galicia, and the Basque Country began as clear cases of PITs in 1978 before the other autonomous regions emerged in 1982, these territories are still coded as PITs.

5. This method and its associated software was developed by Iacus et al. (2008).