The Natural Resource Question: An Exploration of Rights to Natural Resources

这个研究项目关注的是“谁”对世界自然资源拥有“什么”权利。我们可以区分三个组成部分：第一，谁对自然资源拥有权利的解释，第二，他们拥有的特定权利的解释，第三，对前两个组成部分的证明。我把我询问的实质内容称为自然资源问题。我暂时将其表述为：谁对世界自然资源拥有何种权利，为什么？现代资源权利的特点是中央集权：联合国（1962年）承认“所有国家都有自由处置其自然财富和资源的不可剥夺的权利[…]”。然而，请考虑第一段斜体文字：自然资源应该属于作为管理机构的国家，还是属于作为政治共同体的公民，还是属于像易洛魁人或苏人这样的土著民族这样的特定群体，甚至属于个人？还有进一步的可能性：人类可能对地球的自然资源有权利，我们甚至可以建议未来的人对自然资源有权利。现在考虑第二段斜体文字：我们可以认为，虽然一个国家声称拥有一系列资源在道德上是正当的，但它可能没有权利随心所欲地使用它们；或者，虽然它可以使用资源，但它可能没有权利获得100%的利益。或者，我们可以坚持认为，虽然一个国家没有权利占有自然资源，但它可能有权使用这些资源——例如，根据需要。自然资源问题的复杂性和潜力由此可见一斑。进一步调查自然资源的公平性是有理由和必要的。首先，自然资源正义具有重要的现实意义。关于这些权利的争论有着严重的影响，对这些问题的规范答案的理论化可以帮助解决我们一些最紧迫的问题。自然资源确实在很大程度上助长了跨境冲突：联合国维和部队（日期未知）报告称，在过去60年里，“40%的国家间冲突都与自然资源有关。”目前影响欧洲和其他地区的能源危机所引发的紧张局势进一步证明了自然资源的争议性意义（Luca Volante, 2022）。关于气候变化的争论也说明了自然资源问题的重要性：由于脱碳等过程需要大量开采矿物（Arrobas等人，2017），谁有权决定如何利用这些资源的问题与以往一样突出。其次，本项目旨在填补文献中的一个重要空白。许多研究谁对自然资源拥有权利的作品都试图从领土权利理论中推导出这些权利，比如摩尔（2015年）和斯蒂兹（2019年）。或者，其他人从国际法和对当前国际体系有害影响的分析中推导出它们-例如Wenar（2018）。然而，这两种方法都没有进行足够全面的分析。该项目旨在开发一种替代方案，在全面的理论研究中，自然资源的作用是构成的，而不是衍生的。第三，这种处理自然资源的方法认识到需要包括相互矛盾的考虑因素——例如土著人民的要求、全球正义的要求以及对子孙后代的责任。不满意流行的传统文学，要么过分强调或低估土地的重要性和资源的道德随意性，这个项目寻求做出新的贡献，特别是探索世界主义的潜力。

This research project is concerned with "who" has "what" rights over the world's natural resources. We may distinguish three constitutive components: first, an account of who has rights over natural resources, second, an account of the particular kinds of rights they have, and third, a justification of the two earlier components. I refer to the substance of my enquiry as the Natural Resource Question. I provisionally formulate this as:Who has what kinds of rights over the world's natural resources, and why?Modern resource rights are characterised by a statist approach: the United Nations (1962) recognises the 'inalienable right of all states to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources [...].' However, consider the first italicised passage: should natural resources belong to the state understood as a governing body, or to citizens understood as a political community, or to determinate groups such as indigenous peoples like the Iroquois or Sioux - or, even, to individuals? There are further possibilities: humanity may have a right to the earth's natural resources, and we may even suggest that future people have rights to natural resources. Consider now the second italicised passage: we may suggest that whilst a state is morally justified in claiming possession of a set of resources, it may not have a right to use them however it wishes; or that whilst it may use the resources, it may not have a right to 100% of the benefits. Alternatively, we may maintain that whilst a state has no right of possession over natural resources, it may have a right to use these resources - according to need, for instance. The complexity and potential of the Natural Resource Question is thus evident.Further enquiry into natural resource justice is warranted and necessary. First, natural resource justice is of great practical relevance. Debates over such rights have severe implications, and the theorisation of a normative answer to such questions can aid in solving some of our most pressing issues. Natural resources have indeed significantly fuelled transborder conflict: United Nations Peacekeeping (no date) reports that, in the last 60 years, '40% of all interstate conflict have [had] a link to natural resources.' The contentious significance of natural resources is further evidenced by the tension stemming from the current energy crisis affecting Europe and other regions (Luca Volante, 2022). Debates over climate change additionally illustrate the significance of the Natural Resource Question: with processes such as decarbonisation requiring intense extraction of minerals (Arrobas et al., 2017), the question of who has the right to decide what is to be done with such resources is as salient as ever.Second, this project aims to fill an important gap in the literature. Many works examining who has rights over natural resources have sought to derive them from a theory of territorial rights - such as in Moore (2015) and Stilz (2019). Alternatively, others have derived them from international law and an analysis of the harmful effects of the current international system - such as in Wenar (2018). Neither approach, however, adopts a sufficiently comprehensive analysis. This project seeks to develop an alternative, in a comprehensive theoretical enquiry which is constitutive rather than derivative as to the role of natural resources to the same.Third, this approach to addressing natural resources recognises the need to include competing considerations - such as the claims of indigenous people, the demands of global justice, and responsibilities to future generations. Dissatisfied with prevalent traditions in literature, which either over-emphasise or undervalue the significance of land and the moral arbitrariness of resources, this project seeks to make a novel contribution, specifically exploring the potential of Cosmopolitanism.