This land is no longer yours: a textbook on territorial disputes

War maybe not on the rocks, but often it is conducted from behind the rocks. Earth, to be precise. Starting with the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and ending with fears that Russia is preparing to invade Eastern Ukraine, the war is often, if not always, fought over land.

Translation of an article from the site "War on the rocks".

Researchers of international relations who study the war offer numerous explanations for its occurrence: it is a "tragedy" caused by the very nature of the international system; this is partly how states are formed; or it is precisely what gives meaning to states. But the key factor, perhaps, the key factor is the territory. Indeed, the recognition of the central role of territory in interstate war is of great importance in explaining why war, although it is often euphemized by such phrases as "use of force" or "militarized disputes," entails the use of physical violence to cause death or serious injury.

Although the "territory" may include rivers and waterways, the project Issue Correlates of War, conducted by Sara Mitchell and Paul Hensel, finds that the vast majority of territorial disputes in their data concern land. In a recent review of empirical work on this topic, Paul Hansel and Hein Humans report that 85% of fatal militarized conflicts between states since 1945 are related to territorial issues. Such data support Monica Duffa Toft's 2014 analysis: "It is clear that territory has been and will remain a key issue in explaining the escalation and initiation of the war." This echoes Paul Hut, who wrote almost 20 years ago that "one of the permanent features of international politics" is clashes over disputed territory.

Of course, this is not the only type of dispute that can arise between states. Disagreements may arise in states on policy issues, for example, regarding the creation of nuclear weapons. They can also participate in disputes about the type of regime, which is the main driving force behind imposed foreign regime change, or about "identity" and the treatment of different ethnic groups, which can provoke internal conflicts and genocide. But again and again, scientists have found that territorial disputes are likely to turn into violent conflicts.

What is this in the earth? Is this simply because land is valuable and disputes over its ownership – like ownership of any scarce resource – will inevitably lead to hostilities? This is consistent with the hard fact that most of the planet's surface consists of water, not land. But the lack of land is only part of the answer.

Political geographers emphasize that the concept of territory should not be identified only with land. The meaning must be considered more deeply. Political subjects, such as states, define their ownership of a place as a means of asserting influence. Consequently, it is the need to assert influence over others, not the land itself, that is the driving force behind the conflict.

Simply put, territory is still largely tied to physical land, and ownership of land requires physical presence. Physical actions are necessary to control the permanent population or move someone from this place. Such physical actions will be violent if the population does not want to be controlled, or the subject who owns the land does not want to move. Generally speaking, states usually prefer to avoid violence. Violence is still costly. Karl von Clausewitz made a famous joke that aggressors are always "peaceful" - they would like to invade peacefully if there is no organized resistance. This is the basis of the fait accompli - an increasingly common means by which states take territory from each other. In the event of a fait accompli or seizure of land, the armed forces of the state quickly move forward, and then hold a small piece of territory, usually without firing a single shot. A well-known example of such actions are the "green men", which Russia used to seize Crimea in 2014. The goal is to move quickly and establish the status quo for any future turf battles. Indeed, the deployment of troops and the militarization of the territory to retain land is the key reason why such disputes become protracted.

In the same way, states achieved "peaceful" territorial capture by erecting walls. Although territorial defense and capture are not the main reasons why states build such walls, it does happen. While the state can build a wall to stop illegal immigration, the wall can be built in such a way that it penetrates into disputed territory. This is what Israel did with its border wall that runs through the Palestinian territories.

If possible, the states will avoid militarization in order to take possession of the disputed territory. Although former President Donald Trump was widely derided for suggesting that the United States buy Greenland from Denmark, the truth is that land purchases have not been uncommon throughout most of history. The Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase are just two examples familiar to most Americans. The purchase of land by the state is still carried out today, although such a practice occurs less often, and the plots of land are much smaller.

But do not be mistaken: although it is preferable to take land without resorting to violence, it is often not so. As long as states define themselves according to the territory they own, peaceful territorial acquisitions will be news in international politics. Even if the territorial national state is no longer the main political unit used to organize human society, land remains relatively scarce. Physical space is required. Although the state stopped talking about "living space" in the same terms as the Nazi regime, the reality is that ownership and ownership of land will remain valuable.

Some people argued that the rule adopted after 1945, prohibiting violent territorial changes, reduced the probability of the beginning of the conquered. Indeed, full-scale invasion and conquest of another nation is less acceptable than in the past, and such a practice has become rare. But the territorial conflict has not completely disappeared or even declined. Moreover, some states, especially dependent on resource extraction, still consider the seizure of territory by force to be economically beneficial.

In fact, all potential foci of conflict between major powers in this century revolve around the territory. Although Russia's actions in relation to Ukraine opened up this part, it is only one of several areas, from islands near Japan to waterways in the Arctic, which may become locations of future territorial conflicts between Russia and other states. It should also be noted that there is a strong territorial element in disputes between China and its neighbors: battles over the Line of Actual Control with India, disputed claims on islands between China and Japan, and fears about a potential invasion of Taiwan.

All this indicates that the future will resemble the past in many ways: the territory will remain valuable, states will strive to get it, and conflicts will inevitably arise. The consequence of this is that the war, especially because of the drought, will not go anywhere.

Author:

Paul Poast is an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Chicago and a research fellow in foreign policy and public opinion at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. His last book is "Disputes about alliances: the art of agreement in negotiations on a military pact" (Cornell University Press). He tweets @ProfPaulPoast.