The right to decide what happens to land is ownership. You seem to be operating from the premise that ownership belongs, fundamentally, to the soveriegn(whoever that is). Am I understanding you correctly?
If the people prefer a monarchy than I suppose that the only Soverign would be the King and his court.
If that nation decides that it wants to allow the whole of the territory to be shared by nomadic tribes who have no technological designs and at the same time tell oil producers that they have no claim to resources underneath the soil, then that is their prerogative and choice.
I would agree that if a country sold mineral rights and rights of way to a corporation so that they could get at the oil, it should abide by its contracts.
But the U.S. has no compelling interest to use war on behalf of any corporation that may or may not suffer from a tort or breach of contract within the borders of a sovereign nation.
And annalex appears to be saying that anyone should be able to claim un-tapped resources anywhere if the residents of that land do not have the intent of tapping those resources.
This assumes the worst of those people for one, and it assumes that tapping the resources is some God-given right which shan't be denied by the backwards people who just don't know what they have.
It assumes that our way of life is far superior to the rest of the world and that rights, rather than coming from nature or God, come from superior intellect and force.
It assumes that the people in whatever area in question do not actually have the right to direct their own destinies.
If that isn't a complete repudiation of "libertarian principles" nothing is. And I find it a bit troubling that this discussion is predicated on the assumption that this theory is consistent with libertarian principles.
No way.