Abstract

  The purpose of this paper is to explore how we should understand the relationship among a particular land, a group of people, and the culture of that group by critically examining Margaret Moore’s arguments in current debates on territorial rights in contemporary political philosophy. In the current debates, it is said that it must be shown why any particular state can legitimately make a claim for territorial rights regarding any particular piece of land (particularity justification).

  In this paper, I examine Moore’s arguments, which places emphasis on explaining the relationship between land and people. Moore’s conception of an agent who can claim for a territorial right is not a cultural group but a political one. Can we really assume that a political group that does not share their culture can be an agent of territorial rights? In this paper, referring to David Miller’s arguments, I would like to show that the relationship among a particular land, its natural environment, and the culture of the agent group that has been shaped through being influenced by its environment, at least partly constitutes both the individual identity of the group member and the collective identity of the group. I will then argue that environment and culture are important elements to take into consideration in the normative theory of territorial rights. In doing so, I would like to scrutinize the relationship between “place” and people, with reference to theoretical findings of cultural geography and environmental psychology.