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

这个研究项目涉及“谁”对世界自然资源有“什么”权利。我们可以区分出三个构成部分：第一，说明谁对自然资源拥有权利;第二，说明他们拥有的特定种类的权利;第三，说明前两个组成部分的理由。我把我的调查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什么样的权利，为什么？现代资源权利的特点是国家主义的方法：联合国（1962年）承认“所有国家自由处置其自然财富和资源的不可剥夺的权利”。“然而，考虑第一个斜体段落：自然资源应该属于被理解为管理机构的国家，还是属于被理解为政治共同体的公民，还是属于像易洛魁人或苏族这样的土著民族这样的确定群体，甚至是个人？还有其他可能性：人类可能对地球的自然资源拥有权利，我们甚至可以建议未来的人对自然资源拥有权利。现在考虑第二个斜体的段落：我们可以建议，虽然一个国家在道德上有理由声称拥有一组资源，但它可能没有权利以任何方式使用它们;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，我们可以主张，虽然一个国家对自然资源没有占有权，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在性由此可见一斑，进一步探讨自然资源正义问题是必要的。第一，自然资源公正具有重大的现实意义。关于这些权利的争论具有严重的影响，对这些问题的规范性回答的理论化可以帮助解决我们一些最紧迫的问题。自然资源确实大大助长了跨境冲突：联合国维持和平（无日期）报告说，在过去60年中，“40%的国家间冲突与自然资源有关。“自然资源的争议性重要性进一步证明了当前影响欧洲和其他地区的能源危机所产生的紧张局势（卢卡·沃兰特，2022年）。关于气候变化的争论还说明了自然资源问题的重要性：脱碳等过程需要大量提取矿物（Arrobas等人，2017年），谁有权决定如何使用这些资源的问题仍然是突出的。第二，这个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著作都试图从领土权利理论中推导出这些权利，例如摩尔（2015）和斯蒂尔兹（2019）。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得出这些结论，例如Wenar（2018）。然而，这两种方法都没有采取足够全面的分析。该项目旨在通过一项全面的理论研究，开发一种替代方案，这种研究是关于自然资源对同一种资源的作用的组成性而不是衍生性的。第三，这种处理自然资源的方法认识到需要包括相互竞争的考虑因素-例如土著人民的要求、全球正义的要求以及对后代的责任。由于对文学中的流行传统不满，这些传统要么过分强调要么低估了土地的重要性和资源的道德随意性，这个项目试图做出新的贡献，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.