Wars are a part of politics. Surely, everybody wants to avoid them and the suffering that comes with them, but why cannot states stop waging wars? Very simply put, a war always emerges when a state perceives a conflict of interests with another state and is either significantly stronger or weaker than the other state. In technical terms, wars emerge when the power discrepancy between states is high, and they pursue relative goals. So, stopping wars is theoretically possible if all states would implement devletist political systems and/or were very similar in economic and military power. Unfortunately, neither of these scenarios reflects the reality of today; therefore, we continue to experience wars. Among the many wars, there are different types of wars: ideological wars, expansionary wars, economic wars, defensive wars, protective wars and civil wars. There is also the category of territorial wars, which is a complex combination of varying types of wars, depending on the respective situation. As we are currently witnessing some cases of intensely fought territorial wars, we are taking a closer look at territorial wars, their nature and potential solutions to preventing future territorial wars.
Territorial Wars In Technical Detail
In principle, the territorial war is usually carried out by neighbouring states over the disputed ownership of a particular territory. It is not uncommon that states disagree with borders drawn in the past. Maybe the political situation was different a couple of decades or centuries ago, and one side needed to make concessions. Maybe the domestic socio-cultural structure and perception changed, triggering the emergence of territorial claims. Maybe it is just the temporary political climate in which a politician uses territorial claims to unite people’s anger for his benefit. The causes of territorial claims vary, but the systematic structure is very similar in most cases: two or more states disagree over the distribution of territory among the actors.
Now, there are different constellations of territorial wars. When only one state perceives injustice in the distribution of land, it is significantly stronger or weaker than the counterpart and attacks the other state, then we have a combination of an expansionary and defensive war. If both nations aspire to take the territory of the other, it is just an expansionary war (given that it does not include a central ideological element). If a territorial war is fought between two states with weak military (despite a power discrepancy between them), chances of the emergence of a civil war increase, due to the power vacuum. While there are different situations that make each territorial war unique, they all share that states try to settle the decision over disputed land by force. Expansionary wars, for example, are wars in which a state aims to be as big as possible. This can have ideological or economic motives, or, in some cases, the structure of the political system necessitates continuous expansion.
Why Do Territorial Wars Emerge?
Above, we established what territorial wars are and when they emerge. It follows from the argument that there must be a latent dynamic in place that informs violent state action when the perceived power discrepancy is high enough; otherwise, we would be in a constant state of war between all states, as there are many combinations of states with high power discrepancy. This underlying dynamic is the unique connection between geography and culture. Every geographic region is unique and shapes organisms within it in that unique way. Temperature, fertility of land, air pressure, humidity, terrain, water sources, stone formations, wind and countless other factors within a territory determine how organisms behave. For example, human beings on a tropical island with ample food resources and very few other competing communities are naturally more cooperative and forthcoming, as there is no competition for food, no external threats or harsh weather conditions to protect themselves from. On the other hand, human beings in cold, mountainous regions with fewer days of sunlight and more difficult hunting conditions are naturally more hostile as they need to protect the resources that are so hard to obtain.
In these examples, the influence of geography on our mode of living is neatly illustrated, but in reality, it expands much further. The mode of living influences every aspect of a people within a territory; how they talk to each other, their traditions, social structure, innovation drive and field, spiritual views and many more aspects. The aggregate of all these intra-societal interactions is called culture. Therefore, culture is inherently tied to geography through the aspect of the human being that has adapted himself to this territory. Man is what his environment is, and man, in turn, shapes his environment accordingly. How does that relate to territorial wars?
Geographical regions are not always hermetically isolated entities, but gradually changing landscapes. Where human communities are not separated by nature, such as rivers, oceans, mountains and deserts, they create the separations themselves. By drawing borders, we translated the natural borders that are reflected in our cultures into tangible rules. However, since lands are not always directly divisible, communities move through lands and countless wars have shifted races and perspectives; borders are not always agreed on. When two sides cannot convince each other that a certain piece of land rightfully belongs to their own society, a territorial war becomes increasingly likely.
Implications of Territorial Wars and Examples
What results from the above is a situation of high difficulty and complexity. As shown above, territorial claims (in most cases) arise from a natural condition: we are bound to our environment because our bodies and minds are the direct and perfectly adapted result of this environment. Therefore, holding onto one’s land is not an emotional bond but a biological necessity. We can observe many instances of people who were willingly or forcefully resettled into other parts of the world and are still highly incompatible. Europeans and Africans in the Americas or Arabs in Europe are current examples of the disconnect between land and man. In the same context, the continued effort by Palestinians to protect their land against the conquest of an outside force is not just a matter of patriotism but, again, a biological response to the threat of being forced into land where one would be incompatible.
The examples above are, of course, very complex and extreme examples of displacement. In most cases, territorial wars are fought along borders, as states cannot agree on which place belongs to whom. For centuries, Germany and France fought over Alsace–Lorraine. The vast green steppe-like landscape makes it indeed difficult to assess to whom it should belong. People living there are influenced by franco-germanic culture alike, while the culture in Paris is distinguishably French and the culture in Berlin is distinguishably German; Alsace–Lorraine is in between. Another example of territorial wars is the border dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is also the reason why both nations have or had quasi-exclaves in the respective other territory. Next, and currently intensifying, Pakistan and Afghanistan fight along their border. The vast arid mountains and plains make government control difficult, giving rise to local armed groups that aim to fill the power vacuum. Similarly, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda recently put aside their hostilities over their shared border, even though militant groups still exercise power in the borderlands. The list continues with Sudan/South Sudan, Morocco/Western Sahara/Mauritania, China/Tibet/India, Ukraine/Russia and practically the whole Balkan.
On the positive side, there are many examples where nations have successfully agreed on borders even though the lands are not naturally separated. Germany and the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Egypt/Libya/Tunisia/Algeria, China and the Koreas, Ethiopia and its neighbours and, most prominently, the Turkic states of Central Asia. What all have in common is that these are all regions where cross-border cultural homogeneity is very high. The races that live in the respective territories are culturally very close to one another, which creates a foundation of mutual respect and acceptance. That alone is not sufficient, however. Russia and Ukraine, and other pairs of conflicting nations from the list above, are, too, quite homogeneous. What truly separates peace from a territorial war is the power discrepancy. In many of those cases where we can observe peace today, we have seen, or will see, territorial wars when one side was significantly stronger or weaker.
When nations are significantly stronger than a neighbouring nation with similar societal structures, they can develop the claim to be the righteous representative of both territories. They can aim to exploit the power gap and start a territorial war. On the other side, a relatively very weak nation could also start a territorial war. Here, the triggering motive is rather the fear of being attacked first and losing in a defensive war. By attacking first, the nation might not make territorial gains but would force the other nation into a defensive stance that would likely result in the confirmation of previous borders. Therefore, it is very important that nations are economically, politically and militarily quite similar in strength. This prevents one nation from assessing an attack on the other nation as feasible; the risk-reward ratio is not favourable.
How To Prevent Territorial Wars?
First of all, when a territorial war has begun, it is very difficult to end it, as the resolution of it depends on the willingness of the individual politicians to make peace. The reason for that is that both sides usually legitimise the war by referring to a theme that includes the aspects above on the connection between humans and the territory. This emotional and biologically entrenched feeling is a strong driver for lasting hostilities. Usually, territorial wars are fought until a clear victory of one side can be declared. More effective political work can be done in times of peace.
Balancing Strength
In 2020, we at Essydo Politics established that a multipolar international state order is the optimal environment for peace (click here to read more on this topic). In the context of territorial wars, this is true, as well. As conflicting parties are in competition, it is naturally difficult for the weaker nation to catch up with its competitor because the other side might engage in blocking activities. However, through international partnerships, the strength gap can temporarily be closed. Moreover, by creating smart dependencies, a nation can prevent hostilities. For example, states A and B are in conflict over their shared border. State B is considerably stronger than A but not significantly. State A could make diplomatic deals with partner nations of B that would add state A to the supply chain of resources of B. By that, there is a smart dependency that would prevent B from directly attacking A in this constellation.
International Agreements
An advantage in territorial wars is that often, very similar people fight each other. This means that there are commonalities and common interests somewhere. Identifying these and cleverly using them as leverage for diplomatic understanding and recognition could be a way that drives cooperation, peace and positive spillover effects into other policy areas. Another way is to seek international support to broker an agreement. However, these agreements are often not sustainable because they imply some sort of pressure that does not produce an organic legal framework that both sides implement intrinsically.
Agreement to Disagree
It has a negative connotation, but is often the healthiest solution to territorial conflicts: the agreement to disagree. Some states just neutralise their relations, knowing there will be no cooperation, but also ensuring there will be no war. Türkiye and Armenia, for example, have no diplomatic relations, a highly controlled border and peace. None of the parties interferes with their counterpart, meaning that they forgo the opportunity to grow together, but also eliminate the factor of war.
Final Remarks
Just like the many other forms of war, the territorial war has its own properties and implications. Most notable is its concentration on border regions and disputed areas between quite similar states that have ongoing claims over the territory. As we have shown, a nation’s continued effort to protect the territory does not result from emotional attachment but from biological necessity. Therefore, we can and should approach territorial wars with more understanding. However, this also helps us to understand the architecture of a territorial war, which, in turn, helps us to understand the tools we have at hand to prevent them.
