AI-generated from sources
The enduring contradiction: acquisition, property, and the dilemma of insular sovereignty
In Brief
- The status of insular territories is defined by a fundamental conflict between the governing power's right to acquire territory (often viewed as property) and the inhabitants' inherent right to self-determination.
- Historical legal doctrines treated acquired territories as subject to the absolute legislative will of the external government, subjecting inhabitants to a state of 'sub-sovereignty' and denying them full constitutional citizenship.
- The concept of 'dormant sovereignty' attempts to justify this conditional status by framing external rule as temporary tutelage aimed at preparing the people for an eventual, but not immediate, state of equality and full self-rule.
- Greenland’s limited autonomy under Danish foreign control exemplifies the lasting contradiction of partial sovereignty, where local self-governance is granted but core sovereign powers remain conditional on the metropolitan state.
Main authors
The governance of insular territories reveals a fundamental conflict between two opposing principles: the treatment of land and populations as transferable assets and the ideal of self-government as an inherent popular right [1]. This tension is particularly acute for island domains, which have historically been subject to acquisition by larger powers through transactions framed as legitimate purchases [2, 3]. The resulting political status is often one of sub-sovereignty, where the instinct for self-determination, described as a primary source of political institutions [4], is subordinated to the strategic interests and legal frameworks of an external governing state.
This ambiguous status is enabled by competing legal and philosophical doctrines. On one hand is the principle that sovereignty, upon breaking from a colonial power, vests directly in the people of distinct communities, not in a larger aggregate body [5]. This suggests an immediate capacity for self-rule. On the other hand, legal interpretations within acquiring nations have often established that such territories are subject to the absolute legislative will of the central government, such as the U.S. Congress [6]. These territories are explicitly acquired for the benefit of the existing states that form the union, not necessarily for the inhabitants of the newly acquired land [7]. This creates a complex and often contradictory dynamic where insular peoples are governed under a system they did not create and in which their sovereignty is recognized only in a limited or potential form.
The Logic of Acquisition: Territories as Property
The historical approach to insular territories has often been grounded in a transactional logic that treats them as purchasable commodities. The planned acquisition of the Danish West Indies by the United States is a clear example of this practice, where sovereignty was a matter of negotiation and sale between external powers . This framework is often justified through a narrative that distinguishes such acquisitions from violent conquest, framing them instead as a "fair purchase" . This language positions the territory as a piece of property, fundamentally shaping the relationship between the governing state and the territorial inhabitants.
The legal ramifications of this property-based paradigm are profound. It establishes a clear hierarchy where the right to govern is seen as an undeniable and unquestioned consequence of the right to acquire the territory itself [9]. Under this model, territories can be administered independently of, and sometimes contrary to, the governing nation's own constitution [8]. Their inhabitants may not be considered citizens in the full constitutional sense, and their lands are subject to the complete authority of the external legislative body . This effectively transforms the relationship into one of ownership, where political representation can be perceived as something bought and sold, rather than an inherent right [10].
This perspective fosters a paternalistic mode of governance. Territorial communities are often deemed "immature" and not yet capable of self-subsistence [11]. The governing power, therefore, assumes the role of a guardian, managing the inhabitants as a father would his children, with the stated goal of preparing them for an eventual, but not immediate, state of equality . This approach inherently denies the present sovereignty of the people, framing them as wards rather than as a polity possessing an active and legitimate collective will [12].
The Ideal of Self-Governance: An Inherent but Dormant Right
In direct opposition to the property model stands the powerful ideological commitment to self-government. This principle is not viewed as a privilege to be granted, but as a foundational human instinct and an inviolable right upon which free republics are built . The ability of a people to control their own affairs and properties without interference from an external power is a core tenet [13]. Political legitimacy, in this view, flows from the people's participation in their own sovereignty, typically exercised through voting, which is considered a primary right of a free people [14]. This ideal of self-rule is presented as the very engine of national strength and global influence [15].
The challenge of reconciling this ideal with the reality of territorial administration led to the development of the concept of "dormant sovereignty" [16]. This theory posits that while a territory is under the control of an external power, its people's inherent sovereignty is not extinguished but merely lies latent. The role of the governing power, therefore, is to protect the rights of the inhabitants until such time as this dormant sovereignty can be awakened and activated, typically upon achieving statehood . This concept provides a justification for a transitional period of tutelage, during which the territory is governed by external authority .
This tutelary model is reflected in policies that promise a gradual, step-by-step extension of self-government to territorial possessions [17]. However, this process implies that full sovereignty is conditional and must be earned or granted over time, a notion that clashes with the revolutionary idea that sovereignty passed directly and immediately to the people of each community . The modern status of Greenland serves as a powerful illustration of this staged and incomplete process. After a period of integration into Denmark, it was granted self-government, yet its foreign affairs remain under Danish control, demonstrating a lasting condition of limited or partial sovereignty [18].
The Contradictions of Sub-Sovereignty in Practice
The practical application of these conflicting ideas creates a state of perpetual contradiction. When a territory is acquired, the constitution of the governing power is presumed to extend over it, granting its citizens the right to occupy the land and establish institutions consistent with those constitutional principles [19]. However, this extension is often incomplete. The inhabitants are denied a full share in the national sovereignty and are subjected to the authority of a legislature in which they are not fully represented, creating a system of rule without full consent that violates core republican ideals .
This tension became a central issue in debates over concepts like "Squatter Sovereignty," the notion that settlers in a new territory should decide their own internal laws. This was criticized by some as a premature elevation of what were considered undeveloped communities to a state of independent self-subsistence . The core of the critique was the question of how sovereignty could be conjured without a formal process, such as a grant, a purchase, or a revolution, suggesting that sovereignty is not something that can simply be claimed by residents but must be formally conferred [21].
Ultimately, the political status of insular territories often reflects a pragmatic calculation that prioritizes the interests of the larger governing power. Small islands, viewed as incapable of protecting themselves, are often considered natural dependencies, their right to self-determination secondary to the strategic or geopolitical ambitions of a larger state [20]. This leaves them in a state where their sovereignty is inherently divisible and subject to alteration by external forces [22]. They possess the form of local governance but lack the self-acting and self-sustaining principle that defines a truly sovereign state [23].
The political condition of insular territories is thus defined by a persistent and unresolved tension. On one side is the logic of acquisition, which treats territories as assets to be purchased and governed as property , and on the other is the powerful ideological belief in self-government as an intrinsic popular right . The result is a durable state of sub-sovereignty, a political twilight in which territories are neither fully dependent colonies in the old imperial sense nor fully self-governing states. Instead, they exist within complex arrangements of limited autonomy, where crucial aspects of sovereignty remain controlled by the external power .
The historical shift from outright purchase to more nuanced models of managed self-governance has not eliminated this core contradiction but has instead institutionalized it. The legal framework supporting this arrangement posits that the right to govern is an inescapable consequence of the right to acquire territory . While the concept of a "dormant sovereignty" offers a theoretical pathway to eventual equality , its activation remains contingent on the political and strategic calculations of the metropolitan power. The fundamental question thus endures: whether a system built on acquiring territory for the benefit of the original states can ever fully cede control and recognize the unconditional, inherent sovereignty of the peoples it governs .
