Does stewardship alone settle territorial disputes?

It seems the stewardship principle alone answers legal and moral questions.

If someone accepts the stewardship principle as the highest principle,

then yes,

within that person's own theory,

many territorial disputes would indeed be decided primarily by present governance.

But notice what has happened.

The person has already accepted a normative premise:

Present stewardship deserves the greatest weight.

Someone who rejects that premise

will reject the conclusion.

That is why I said

history alone does not settle the dispute.

The disagreement lies in the underlying principle itself.