 There are three important challenges to self-determination theories. Both Stilz and Moore can explain why people should not be expelled or relocated—because it will disrupt their located life plans—but neither can offer precise guidelines for boundary–drawing. This is because Moore’s group occupancy principle can only identify heartlands of groups, but as she concedes, in many cases, this does not draw precise boundaries because often groups overlap on the same land. It does not therefore provide an easy solution to border disputes. In many cases, territories cannot be parcelled into discrete units and power-sharing forms of self-determination between groups are necessary in particular areas. Stilz’s theory seems to be even less determinate with respect to identifying the location and scope of territorial rights because it’s not clear that individual located life plans would converge on the same place at all. Although Stilz uses the case of Navajos as a case of a group that was wrongly expelled, it’s not clear where the individual Navajos are entitled to return to, and why their claims are any different from any other person, who has plans with respect to a place, and in which, individual variation being as it is, there may or may not be overlap among different individual Navajos. 