Territorial dispute refers to disagreements between states over the ownership of land. Though scholars debate the definition of territorial disputes, most agree that territorial-based conflict is more likely to be militarized and that such conflicts are more deadly than other types of interstate conflict. The reasons for this are rooted in the physical reality that possessing and holding territory is valuable. While many states would prefer to take land peacefully, this is rarely the case. In fact, if the population of a disputed region is unwilling to cooperate, the process will eventually turn violent (see the example of the Yalta Agreement between Russia and Japan over the Southern Kuril Islands).
As a result, scholars study territorial disputes as an important factor in international violence and peace. However, there are significant challenges to understanding territorial-based conflict. For one, a clear distinction must be made between disputes that are primarily territorial in nature and those that have a substantial territorial component but also involve other issues like economics or culture. This distinction is essential because it allows scholars to distinguish the unique features of territorial-based conflict and develop a more precise theory for explaining it.
The distinction between disputes that are primarily territorial in nature is particularly important because it affects the likelihood of mediation-initiation. Derrick Frazier, for instance, finds that the extent to which a dispute is perceived as serious by mediators is a strong determinant of whether or not it receives mediation attention (see his article on territorial disputes). In addition, Beth Simmons has shown that states are more likely to ignore arbitration and court decisions on territorial claims if they can see tangible benefits or pay only limited costs for doing so.
About the Author
