NATURAL RESOURCES AND STRATEGIC LOCATION AS DETERMINING FACTORS OF TERRITORIAL DISPUTES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17308/history/1995-5480/2026/1/13-18Keywords:
territorial disputes, natural resources, strategic position, geopolitical competition, national security, economic interests, border conflictsAbstract
Тerritorial disputes are considered one of the most prominent sources of interstate conflicts in the international relations literature. This study focuses on the internal (concrete) dynamics of these disputes, with particular attention to the determining role of natural resources and strategic position, supported by empirical evidence. Oil, natural gas, valuable minerals, and water, which possess strategic significance, serve as not only essential components of economic development but also key elements of national security for states. Competition over access to and control of these resources constitutes one of the main factors escalating border conflicts. In cases where consensus on resource allocation cannot be reached, military tensions increase, and the likelihood of long-term conflicts rises. At the same time, the role of natural resources is not limited solely to generating conflicts; in some cases, they also facilitate the development of cooperation mechanisms to protect shared interests. The effectiveness of such cooperation processes is directly linked to the management of resources and their equitable distribution. Unilateral control or unfair allocation reinforces economic inequality and political instability, thereby entrenching long-term conflicts. Strategically important regions serve multifaceted functions for states: they provide not only military advantage but also control over trade routes, expansion of geopolitical influence, and protection of economic interests. Historical and empirical evidence indicates that strategic position is a key factor increasing the intensity of territorial disputes. Examples such as the Kuril Islands, the Himalayas, and the South China Sea demonstrate the impact of strategic significance on the longevity of conflicts and interstate power competition. Consequently, the internal causes of territorial disputes are directly linked to states’ security concerns, economic interests, and geopolitical strategies. Therefore, the development of sustainable resolution mechanisms should not be limited to diplomatic negotiations alone; equitable resource management and the establishment of mutual trust in strategic regions play a central role in this process. Ignoring internal (concrete) factors hinders the sustainable resolution of border disputes and complicates the achievement of long-term stability.
References
1. Wiegand K. E. Nationalist discourse and domestic incentives to prevent settlement of the territorial dispute between Guatemala and Belize // Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. 2005. Vol. 11, No. 3. P. 349–383.
2. Zacher M. W. The territorial integrity norm : International boundaries and the use of force // International Organization. 2001. Vol. 55, No. 2. P. 215–250.
3. Goertz G., Diehl P. F. Territorial Changes and International Conflict. London : Routledge, 1992. 192 p.
4. Mandel R. Roots of the Modern Interstate Border Dispute // Journal of Dispute Resolution. 1980. Vol. 24, No. 3. P. 427–454.
5. Murphy A. B. Historical justifications for territorial claims // Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 1990. Vol. 80, No. 4. P. 531–548.
6. Fozouni B. Confutation of Political Realism // International Studies Quarterly. 1995. Vol. 39, No. 4. P. 479–510.
7. Spykman N. J., Rollins A. A. Geographic objectives in foreign policy, I // American Political Science Review. 1939. Vol. 33, No. 3. P. 391–410.
8. Forsberg T. Explaining Territorial Disputes : From Power Politics to Normative Reasons // Journal of Peace Research. 1996. Vol. 33, No. 4. P. 433–449.
9. Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. Power and Interdependence : World Politics in Transition. New York : Longman, 2001. 365 р.
10. Doyle M. W. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Aff airs // Philosophy & Public Aff airs. 1983. Vol. 12, No. 3. P. 205–235.
11. Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System : Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1974. 440 р.
12. Anderson J. The Security Dilemma : A Theory of International Relations // International Studies Quarterly. 1983. Vol. 27, No. 1. P. 1–19.
13. Hensel P. R., Mitchell S. M. Issue indivisibility and territorial claims // GeoJournal. 2005. Vol. 64. P. 275–285.
14. Wright T. M., Rider T. J. Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2014. Vol. 31, No. 2. P. 119–144.
15. Vasquez J. A. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 2009. 508 р.
16. Frederick B. A., Hensel P. R., Macaulay C. The Issue Correlates of War Territorial Claims Data, 1816–2001 // Journal of Peace Research. 2017. Vol. 54, No. 1. P. 99–108.
17. Hensel P. R. Charting a Course to Conflict : Territorial Issues and Interstate Conflict, 1816–1992 // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 1996. Vol. 15, No. 1. P. 43–73.
18. Toft M. D. The Geography of Ethnic Violence : Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2003. 241 р.
19. Goddard S. E. Uncommon ground : Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy // International Organization. 2006. Vol. 60, No. 1. P. 35–68.
20. Abramson S. F., Carter D. B. The historical origins of territorial disputes // American Political Science Review. 2016. Vol. 110, No. 4. P. 675–698.
21. Caselli F., Morelli S., Rohner D. The Geography of Interstate Resource Wars // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2015. Vol. 130, No. 1. P. 267–315.
22. Meierding E. Dismantling the Oil Wars Myth // Security Studies. 2016. Vol. 25, No. 2. P. 258–288.
23. Meierding E. Fighting to Agree : Conflict and Cooperation in Oil-related Territorial Disputes // Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Toronto. Canada, March 26–29, 2014.
24. Schultz K. A. Mapping interstate territorial conflict : A new data set and applications // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2017. Vol. 61, No. 7. P. 1565–1590.
25. Чуркина Л. М. Правовое регулирование территориальных споров // Вестник Костромского государственного университета. 2018. № 1 (24). С. 192–196.
26. Leng R. J. Reciprocating influence strategies in interstate crisis bargaining // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1993. Vol. 37, No. 1. P. 3–41.
