1

Territorial Disputes leading to war

Definition
A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or
more states.

Introduction
Among the tangible conflicts the territorial disputes have special importance because of
the territorial nature of the state. State exists physically on a geographical parameter.
State values and maintains its territorial integrity. Maintaining its territorial integrity is
the unyielding goal of state’s ontology.

Because states value home territory with an almost passionate attachment, border
disputes tend to be among the most intractable in International Relations. States rarely
give up territory in exchange for money or any other positive reward. Nor do states
quickly forget territory that they lose involuntarily. For example, Germany took the
French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine after defeating France in 1871. French
resentment over the loss and French Nationalism among the inhabitants of the province
made Germany’s possession of territory difficult; ultimately it was returned after
Germany lost World War–I. This form of territorial dispute leads to serious interstate
conflicts.

Competition over territorial control, therefore, has served as the basis upon which many
rivalries, conflicts, wars and negotiations have been building up perhaps over the past
millennium. Territorial disputes are a key independent variable producing inter-state
conflict involving the use of force and leading to the outbreak of war. It is also known in
IR theories that states rarely come to an agreement over territorial disputes, which
becomes recurring diplomatic events worsening inter-state relations. Moreover, in
resolving territorial disputes, if a concerned state uses coercive strategies, other states
tend to respond in a similar manner. And recurring disputes have a marked tendency to
go up to war. All of these make territorial disputes as the most significant sources of
inter-state war making in international relations theories.

Territorial disputes are a major cause of wars and terrorism, as states often try to assert
their sovereignty over a territory through invasion, and non-state entities try to influence
the actions of politicians through terrorism. International law does not support the use of
force by one state to annex the territory of another state. The UN Charter (Chapter # 1,
article # 2, Clause # 4) says: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 2

Territorial disputes still stand as a visible configurative aspect of world politics. Disputes
over territory form the important basis of many bilateral relationships all over the world.
For example, the India-Pakistan disputes over Kashmir and the Israel- Palestinian
disputes over ownership of Jerusalem, rights of return for Palestine refugees, and the
legitimacy of Israelis settlements essentially characterize the pattern of their interactions
and also affect directionality of regional orders from conflictual to peaceful ones.

The Case of Colonies

An exception regarding the association of territory with the integrity of state used to exist
in regard to colonies and other territorial possessions. Because these were not part of the
home territory or associated with the idea of the nation, they were valued only as property
to be won, lost, sold, or traded in political deals and wars. For example, France and
Russia sold their territories in Louisiana and Alaska, respectively, to United States of
America. Such territories are only valued for their natural resources or their geopolitical
location.

Types of Territorial Disputes

Territorial Disputes can be categorized into two types:

1. Dispute over border or a piece of land/territory

2. Dispute over the entire State

Dispute over border or a piece of land/territory

Dispute over border or land is disagreement over a border or the possession/control of

land between two or more states.

Examples:

Dispute between India and Pakistan over the control of the territory of Kashmir is a
dispute over land or control of territory.

Dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan over the Durindline border is a dispute over
border.

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 3

Dispute over the entire State

Dispute over the entire state is a disagreement over the control or possession of the entire
state. In such disputes one state does not recognize the other as a sovereign state and
claims that it is its part. And thus, this sort of dispute leads to war.

Example:

In August 1990 Iraq launched invasion on Kuwait by claiming that Kuwait is the part of
Iraq. But this invasion was not recognized by the international community. So on the
request of Kuwait an alliance was formed headed by USA, which compelled Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait. And due to this invasion sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the
International community. It is the best example of dispute over the entire state.

IR Theories on Territorial Disputes

Why is territory important? Why does state involve in territory disputes and seems to be
less capable of revolving them? Obviously, these questions seem so trivial that any
answers will do; no rational state will not voluntarily give up its own territory that define
the physical parameter of its sovereignty. However, if territory disputes are still the
defining character of international relations or bilateral relationship, and if territory
disputes are difficult to resolve while consistently emerging as sensitive issues among
neighboring states, analyzing why states are sensitive to territory disputes would shed
lights on better understanding international politics of territory disputes from the deep
down. As many asserts that the 21st century world politics is nothing but strengthened
interdependence coupled with transnational financial networks, division of labor and
complex webs of supply chains, what is unrealized, therefore should be interesting, is the
fact that states involving in territory disputes do not conflict over a big size landmass.
Rather they are essentially involved with small rock islands and/or a geographically small
sized land. In short, why states disagree over a small piece of land?

Territorial dispute can be defined as an explicit expression of disagreement between

states over the location of borders or ownership of territory including islands but
excluding maritime demarcation disputes over exclusive economic zones. Although
territory disputes, both on land and over offshore areas, differ and vary in scale, history,
and number of involved states, they share common elements in varying degrees in terms
of tangible and intangible factors influencing them. These factors encompass both
tangible attributes (i.e., size of area in dispute, populations, and natural resources, number
of population killed and/or wounded) and intangible attributes (historic animosity,
cultural differences, and third party involvement). Territory is a piece of land that has
geographical entity. But its meaning is essentially diverse. Territory may have tangible or
real value because of its residing population, natural resources and strategic location. On
the other hand, the very same piece of land also may have intangible, perceptual,

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 4

symbolic, relational and even sentimental values. States attach historical, religious, social
and cultural significance to a particular piece of land. For example, conflicts over
Northern Ireland, Kosovo, and Kurdistan fundamentally raise issues of territorial control
grafted onto broader concerns of ethnicity, religion, and historical memory. Conflict over
the control of oil reserves and pipelines, freshwater sources, ocean fish stock and arable
land, all of which are gaining increasing attention amidst growing global consumption
and advanced technological capabilities, also imply conflict over territory. Territorial
issues also dominate many ethnic and other intrastate conflicts.

International relations scholars often characterize world politics as competition over

varying issues, rivalry for economic prosperity and struggle for power. And acquiring and
maximizing material power are the ontological mission of state as states essentially tries
to survive in the world free of the central government called anarchy. In this world of
anarchy, the contending theory of IR such as liberalism as well as realism essentially
argue that states’ motive and intention are defensive meaning that states will secure its
material/tangible prosperities such as control of its territory, protection of its citizenry
and economic wealth. On the other hand, constructivism essentially alludes that states
will also try to maintain its intangible objectives such as cultural identity, language,
historical legitimacy, traditional customs and ideology of its own. While states contend
over many issues in international relations, territorial disputes have been highly
associated with war more frequently than any other issues. And armed conflicts over
territory are more likely to escalate. In short, territorial disputes are dangerous creating
recurrent diplomatic tensions and militarized conflicts. The following review of the
extant literature provides how IR theories have dealt with territorial disputes related to
state behaviors making war and peace.

Contiguity

Early theorists emphasized contiguity. In other words, among states sharing borders,
conflict is more likely, if not near necessary, because of enhanced military access and
greater opportunities for interaction. For example, Diehl analyzed the effect of
geographic location on the likelihood of territorial disputes that would escalate to war.
According to his analysis, among conflicts involving major power rivals from 1816 to
1980, 12 out of 50 territorial disputes escalated to war and these 12 disputes were
geographically contiguous, while only one escalated to war among 54 non-contiguous
territorial disputes. Bremer also argues that that war was about 35 times more likely to
occur among geographically contiguous states than between noncontiguous states in any
given year from 1816 to 1965. Thus, it seems that geographical contiguity and territorial
disputes are highly associated with major wars.

Human factors

Some attributes high correlation between territorial disputes and conflict to human-
factors. Vasquez argues that human possess strong tendency to occupy and, if necessary,

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 5

defend territory. Humans are aggressive and obsessive in their attempt to occupy and
defend their territory, which defines their parameter of control and well being. Although
all territorial disputes will not always lead to war, they tend to end in war if disputants
employ military/realpolitik strategies.

Economic Development

Historically, rapid internal growth has propelled states to redefine and expand their
foreign interests. Moreover, economic development helps fund the acquisition of military
capabilities to pursue these interests, especially long-standing territorial claims. A rising
power might take advantage of a more advanced military to threaten use of force, or
actually use force, to facilitate desirable resolutions of territorial claims.

Rivalry

Rivalry defines the broader context in which clashes over the control of land occur. Some
territorial disagreements are embedded within rivalry contexts and these are the ones that
are most likely to develop into armed clashes. Territorial disputes between rivals act as a
flaming trigger for all the psychological baggage and mistrust associated with protracted
antagonisms. Thus, it is not territory per se, but more of mistrust of one’s intention, fear
of domination, and dislike of one’s enemy that magnifies territorial disputes. Contested
territory combined with rivalry work together interactively to produce greater chances of
militarized conflict than is the case in their absence. The most dangerous territorial
contests intertwine with rivalry. Territorial issues between non-rivals should be less
difficult to manage short of warfare.

Diversionary War

Territorial disputes become convenient vehicles for combating the external enemy, while
enhancing weak domestic political regime. Apart from the value of territory in dispute,
states oftentimes manipulate territory disputes for the purpose of creating the rally-round-
flag effect that seeks to turn the domestic political environment more favorable to the
regime. It works the other way around as well. Without something concrete as a territorial
dispute, rivalries may seem too abstract to large portions of the publics involved.
Territorial disputes act much like an endless sporting event in which both sides can
readily tell who is winning or losing.

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 6

Tangibility: Material Value

Territory may be important for its tangible/ material properties that it offers to states’
strategic and economic benefits. Strategic territory offers control of trade or
communications routes. It also could improve its military positions relative to its rival or
neighboring states. States suffering from resource scarcity is likely to involve in
territorial disputes and tends to focus on localized, sub-state disputes and violence. Such
territorial disputes emerge from an uneven distribution of benefits from natural resources.
If territory in dispute is known to possess globally-valued resources (e.g., oil and
diamonds) and how such resources contribute to power dynamics in relation to the state
(e.g., state to state conflict over access to these resources or resource-funded, sub-state
rebellion as a challenge to state sovereignty), territory disputes tend to linger and become
hard to resolve unless one state predominates the other by force.

The issue of territory becomes more salient if the area is known to possess valuable
natural resources such as oil, minerals or natural gas. Thus, if one state possesses the
territory; it gains both better defensive positions and better positions for a potential
offensive against its neighbor, while the neighboring states are essentially in
disadvantageous position. States are more prone to use force in disputes over land highly
valued for its strategic importance, economic potential, or symbolic significance, or when
they are stronger militarily than their adversary.

Intangibility: Perceptual Value

The value of territory is not exclusively limited to its material and strategic value. States
value territories for its intangible values for historical and sentimental reasons. And
although these seem to be superficial, they are real affecting states’ behavior in territorial
disputes. Territory can be seen as part of the national identity, religious sanctuary,
cultural icon and ethnic origin. Indeed, even beyond the discipline of Geography, there is
recognition that territory is better understood as having dynamic meaning that
influences conflict – not just ‘‘on-off’’ features of proximity or contiguity. Territory
may have tangible or ‘‘real’’ value as measured by population, resources or the number
of people killed in a conflict. The very same territory also may have intangible, symbolic
or relational value to others who equate the land with historical claims, attach religious or
cultural significance to territory, or recognize third party involvement. Thus, if territory
symbolizing such perceptual values is to be disputed by other states, states do not easily
give up, thereby making virtually impossible to find any mutually acceptable solutions.
Territory often coincides with nationalism. People equate themselves with a particular
area of territory and identify territory as belonging to part of its history. In other words,
they are likely to equate defense of the collectivity with the precise location and defense
of those boundaries. Oil deposit may be shared or jointly developed, division is far less
appealing for territory containing or symbolizing its intangible values.

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 7

The aforementioned brief survey of IR contribution to the study of territory disputes

indicates that territory dispute is an important variable generating conflicts among states
more likely involving use of forces. In short, territory is a major source of international
conflict. However, one must be clear that territory dispute per se is not necessarily the
major source of conflict. The recent studies indicate that the Cold War period sought only
36 cases of history disputes out of 129 developed into enduring conflictual rivalries
involving actual use of force. And about one third of all 129 territorial disputes had been
actually disputed by involved states. It is also noticeable that only about a half of the
disputes did not involve the threat or use of military force. Therefore, in the long span of
history, one can say that territorial disputes have resulted in more wars than peaceful
resolution. However, the more recent trend indicates that the likelihood of territorial
disputes escalating to major armed conflicts is essentially declining.

Resolution of Disputes from IR-Perspectives: Three

Possible Pathways

While the tendency for territorial disputes to escalate to war is declining, it still remains
as a conflict-prone factor in international relations. Therefore, what matters as to
territorial disputes is more about how states have consciously managed such disputes
from degenerating into conflictual situations conducive to major wars. In short, territorial
disputes management is more illuminating in order to understand the dynamics of inter-
state politics. In this vein, conflict management provides more insights as to how states
can devise ways to prevent territorial disputes from becoming war. Conflict management
is defined as “process, methods, devices, techniques and strategies employed to manage
or resolve a conflict.”

The management of territorial disputes in the world has taken many forms while
corresponding to the complexity of geographical and geopolitical arrangements in
regions. Among them, conflict prevention and resolution are the most common trend in
the post Cold War ear. Conflict prevention involves consciously designed frameworks to
prevent the involved claimants from conducting violent and mutually destructive
behaviors, while conflict resolution implies providing solutions by modifying the current
demands and claims of claimants. Wang provides a useful set of three pathways for
enhancing conflict prevention and resolutions – bilateral consultation and negotiation,
multilateral confidence building regimes and conflict management by institutions.

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 8

Bilateral consultation and negotiation

Bilateral consultation and negotiation is often aimed both at demarcating state borders in
order to remove sources of conflicts among neighboring states, while it can also seek to
maintain the status quo and stabilize the situation in areas of disputes. This management
may take place when involved claimants aims to improve the current relations, if not
deteriorate, in the hope of increasing trade, strategic partnership and socio-cultural
exchanges, which both mutually perceive as beneficial. Therefore, as long as there exists
constant bilateral negotiation on territory disputes, it signifies low probability for such
disputes to escalate to a major armed conflict as both claimants are intrinsically interested
at least in maintaining the status quo. Also, this pathway is perhaps the most common and
effective way to resolve the disputes.

Multilateral confidence-building regime

Multilateral confidence-building regime for management of territorial disputes involves

more than two claimants, which may not necessarily require a formal and
institutionalized organization. And this is not also necessarily a substitute for bilateral
negotiation, as the dispute is managed bilaterally. Rather the mission of this pathway is to
increase confidence measures and reduce tension in the border area so that the broader
security environment encircling disputing claimants can function as conflict-prevention
mechanism and settlement-encouraging frameworks. Such measure includes reductions
in military of border areas, hot-line installment between top leadership, and renunciation
of military exercises nearby border areas. This is rather an indirect method; territory
dispute is treated rather as one of many other regional security issues and such regime
tries to incubate more stability-oriented regional order in the region thereby territory
disputes do not go out of control.

Conflict Resolution by Multilateral institutions

Conflict Management by Multilateral institutions may be effective if disputed claimants

accept the organization’s efficacy and legitimacy in managing territorial disputes.
Essentially this is a third-party involvement that encourages bilateral settlement of the
disputes while acting as an arbiter role. Moreover, the conflictual intensity of territorial
disputes should be low that the third-party involvement may bear actual resolving
frameworks. However, what is required for effective enforcement by multilateral/third
party intervention is the actual and strong commitment from the enforce and mutual
agreement between the disputed claimants. Although this mechanism has not yet been
effective in actually resolving any territorial disputes, while ASEAN has been partially
successful preventing territorial disputes from escalating to military conflicts.

Territorial dispute is hard to resolve, as each claimant has its own justification to claim its
rights and strong commitment to the area in disputes. Moreover, territorial dispute tends

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad
 9

to be intertwined with the question of national identity as states tend to perceive and
identify the area of dispute as crucial part of their history. Theoretically speaking, as long
as one can divorce the question of identity from territory issues, then territory disputes
may as well become easier to resolve either at bilateral or multilateral level. But its
feasibility still remains questionable.

Bibliography

1. http://www.un-documents.net/ch-01.htm

2. http://www.kaisnet.or.kr/board09/download.asp?idx=366

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_dispute

4. Goldstein, Joshaua, “International Relations”, Sixth Edition, Dorling Kindersley

(India)

Contributed by: Zahid Aqil

International Islamic University Islamabad