Territorial dispute is one of the most dangerous types of conflict in international politics. These disputes run a high risk of triggering massive military action and possibly a global war among the most powerful – and heavily armed – states in the world. Although scholars have studied many different kinds of political conflict, including regime type and ethnicity, territorial disputes have consistently emerged as the most likely to trigger a global conflagration.
While a number of research studies have shown that state leaders often make concessions to resolve a territorial dispute, these concessions are often not enough to avoid the outbreak of violence. A large body of research suggests that a key reason for this failure is the belief that territorial indivisibility is fundamental to a nation’s identity and thus should not be compromised. A key driver of this belief may be a sense that a disputed territory was unfairly lost in the past, generating a desire to fully recover that land and undo the injustice done to the national identity.
The evidence also suggests that a sense of historical ownership shrinks the set of acceptable policy outcomes for a dispute, leaving no room for compromise. This is especially true when the dispute involves a disputed territory that was historically owned by the respondent’s nation. Moreover, a sense of historic ownership makes respondents more likely to support economic sanctions and military actions than to favor negotiation or arbitration. The findings presented here suggest that a better strategy for avoiding a territorial dispute would be to create an international norm that prohibits the forceful acquisition of territory.
About the Author
