A territorial dispute involves a contest for sovereignty over territory. It is a fundamentally political and highly complex issue that has given rise to numerous international adjudications. In this article, we focus on the relationship between formal legal title and the actual exercise of state power (effectivites). When international courts like the ICJ or arbitral tribunals assess claims to sovereignty over specific territories they are looking at both evidence of historical control as well as concrete displays of authority like law enforcement, infrastructure development, and symbolic acts such as flag hoisting. The general rule is that when a valid legal title exists, consistent and peaceful effectivites will confirm it. This principle of uti possidetis juris is central to the legal definition of sovereignty and has implications for determining how disputed territories are allocated.
Historical ownership arguments have become one of the most common justifications for territorial claims, but little research has been done into the dynamic processes that engender domestic support for these positions. We suggest that such support is conditional and that people’s belief in territorial indivisibility depends on the significance of a particular territory for their national identity. We test these predictions using a survey experiment. We find that respondents who receive a treatment suggesting that the hypothetical disputed territory was historically owned by their country are more likely to prefer an uncompromising outcome for the dispute.
Territorial disputes are typically decided by an adjudication mechanism like a treaty, international court or arbitration, or a bilateral negotiation process. These mechanisms, however, often rely on the application of international law rather than incorporating social and economic factors into their decision-making process. This can lead to inconsistent judgments that are a significant challenge to the coherence of international territorial jurisprudence.
About the Author
