This House believes the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change

It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people.[1]

[1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 11 January 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/

Unlike the Maldives or Kiribati the Seychelles will still have a small amount of land.[1] The government could establish a permanent outpost even if it does have difficulties with water supplies. The Seychelles would therefore be able to maintain sovereignty through this outpost much as mounting bases on small islets around the world provide sovereignty without acquiring new territories elsewhere.

[1] Conan, 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130049417

The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles

States can get very worked up about very small pieces of land. Size appears to matter little when the issue is one of sovereignty. For that matter neither does the worth of the land or the population living on it. A great many of the world’s hot spots are over very small areas of land often with small or non-existent populations such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Senkaku, and the islands of the South China Sea. 

If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.”[1]Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory.

There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII.[2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible.

[1] Yu, 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/

[2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005, http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/PPA-730-27/Krasner.pdf, p.77

Shared sovereignty is likely to create problems in the future. No state wants to have another state controlling some aspects of its sovereignty and any deal the Seychelles entered into would be an unequal one as the Seychelles would both be much smaller and be the state asking for help. If the host state for example maintained control over national defense what would there be to stop that country essentially mounting a takeover of the Seychelles new territory in the future?

The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”.[2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state.[3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land.

[1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  http://ilsa.org/jessup/jessup13/Disapearing%20States,%20Jane%20McAdam.pdf, p.4

[2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

[3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961, http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html

The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens. 

It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people.[1]

[1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 11 January 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/

Unlike the Maldives or Kiribati the Seychelles will still have a small amount of land.[1] The government could establish a permanent outpost even if it does have difficulties with water supplies. The Seychelles would therefore be able to maintain sovereignty through this outpost much as mounting bases on small islets around the world provide sovereignty without acquiring new territories elsewhere.

[1] Conan, 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130049417

The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles

States can get very worked up about very small pieces of land. Size appears to matter little when the issue is one of sovereignty. For that matter neither does the worth of the land or the population living on it. A great many of the world’s hot spots are over very small areas of land often with small or non-existent populations such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Senkaku, and the islands of the South China Sea. 

If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.”[1]Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory.

There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII.[2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible.

[1] Yu, 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/

[2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005, http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/PPA-730-27/Krasner.pdf, p.77

Shared sovereignty is likely to create problems in the future. No state wants to have another state controlling some aspects of its sovereignty and any deal the Seychelles entered into would be an unequal one as the Seychelles would both be much smaller and be the state asking for help. If the host state for example maintained control over national defense what would there be to stop that country essentially mounting a takeover of the Seychelles new territory in the future?

The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”.[2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state.[3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land.

[1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  http://ilsa.org/jessup/jessup13/Disapearing%20States,%20Jane%20McAdam.pdf, p.4

[2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

[3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961, http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html

The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens. 

The Seychelles are not a particularly rich place. Their main industries are tourism and tuna fishing accounting for 32% of employment,[1] both of which are unfortunately entirely dependent upon the territory of the islands themselves and cannot be moved. The result is that the Seychelles have little to offer those states that might consider giving up territory. The country will therefore have difficulty rebuilding its economy and would likely be a drain upon its host making countries unwilling to take on the commitment.

[1] The World Bank, ‘Seychelles Overview’, October 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/seychelles/overview

The cost need not be borne by the state from which they Seychelles is given land; rather it could come from the funds that have been set up to help developing nations adapt to climate change such as the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund.[1] This would mean the money would be coming from developed countries that can easily afford the costs of helping rebuild the lives of 90,000 people not the country that provides the territory.

[1] ‘Finance’, unfccc.inc, accessed 26/2/2014, https://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/items/2807.php

There have been very few countries that have been created in circumstances that are at all similar to that which would happen when island nations are forced to abandon their homeland. The closest parallel is Israel when Jews arrived en mass first because they were promised the land after WWI, when it is notable that they purchased the land they occupied,[1] and then after the disaster of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have not been happy about the loss of territory. Indeed there have been few examples in history of peoples’ willingly giving up land to a new arrival whether it is due to colonialism or migration. The result, especially if sovereignty is involved, is usually conflict.  

[1] Pipes, Daniel, ‘Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel’, National Review Online, 21 June 2011, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270064/not-stealing-palestine-purchasing-israel-daniel-pipes

Israel while it may be the only obvious modern example is a terrible analogy. The number of people from small island states is tiny compared to the number of Jews wishing to live in Israel/Palestine. Those from the small island state are unlikely ever to be in a position to dictate terms to those who are already living in the state so there will be cooperation not conflict.

While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan.  For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world.[1]

A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such.[2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory.[3]

[1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines, http://www.smc.org.ph/administrator/uploads/apmj_pdf/APMJ1999N1-2ART8.pdf, p.182

[2] Yu, 2013, http://www.ajelp.com/comments/the-sinking-nation-of-kiribati-the-lonely-stand-against-statelessness-and-displacement-from-rising-oceans/

[3] McAdam, 2010, http://ilsa.org/jessup/jessup13/Disapearing%20States,%20Jane%20McAdam.pdf, p.8

While this is technically the case, and indeed the Seychelles would even maintain some territory, it would not be a viable long term option. While other countries would maintain recognition of a territory-less state for a while would they do so over the long term? The Seychelles government would meanwhile have immense problems exercising any kind of authority. How would a state with no, or very little, territory collect any taxes? Without a functioning government with revenues providing any of the services of a state to its citizens would be impossible. Meanwhile its citizens would likely be scattered and there would be a clash between any services offered by the state they are staying in and a government in exile trying to exercise control.