How we organize ourselves as political communities remains an essential concern, whether from a historical perspective or in terms of current affairs. Border disputes and failed states are critical and interconnected aspects of contemporary international relations, deeply rooted in historical developments and influenced by evolving concepts of sovereignty, nationalism, and global power dynamics.
Border Disputes in International Relations
International Law and Evolving Territoriality: The modern international system, established since the 17th-century Peace of Westphalia, is "premised on territorial control," meaning a country cannot exist without exclusive control over some land. States are "increasingly jealous of their status" and wary of relaxing standards. However, the "very idea of territoriality as the premise of a governance regime/state is coming under increased pressure." Phenomena like diasporas (due to wars or climate change) and global integration through telecommunications/internet capabilities mean that the link between land and jurisdiction "means much less than a century ago". The plight of micro-states, particularly small island nations threatened by climate change, highlights the impracticality of the traditional model, raising questions about whether a country can exist without territory or how "permanent" a government-in-exile can be.
Failed States in International Relations
Definition and Characteristics of Failed States: A "failed state" is characterized by severe existential problems such as lawlessness, social collapse, and humanitarian crises, often involving civil war. Fundamentally, a state is defined as "the crystallization of the power structure of a society, institutionalized to preserve order (domestic and internationally) and to keep itself in operation." It typically aspires to a "monopoly of legitimate violence". A state is considered "failed" if it "can’t do at least its core job," evidenced by extended civil war or being invaded/taken over. States that were created and stabilized before World War II tend to be more coherent because the state is "embedded in a more-or-less established and coherent political society" with sufficient "social 'glue'." Many states fail because there is "no coherent community which the state can represent."
Causes of State Failure: A primary reason for state failure, particularly in post-colonial contexts, is that states were often formed with artificially drawn boundaries and had "relatively little time to accomplish social integration" compared to European nations that took centuries to coalesce. Western "nation building" efforts are often criticized for their culturally-blindered view, expecting other societies to adopt Western models within short timeframes, which is unrealistic given that true integration takes centuries, not decades. Furthermore, a lack of deep national community and democratic practice can lead to pervasive corruption and political instability.
Examples of Failed or Struggling States: The sources list several contemporary examples of failed or struggling states:
Proposed Remedies and Broader Context: Addressing failed states requires moving "beyond the critiques to actually thrashing around new concepts and frameworks". This includes reconsidering the traditional notions of sovereignty and independence and perhaps reviving an updated version of the "trusteeship" model, inspired by the UN's 1947 program and the League of Nations' "mandate" system. Under this model, affected territories would temporarily "surrender their 'sovereignty' for a period to gain some stability" and undergo a process leading to restored independence and improved living conditions. This approach would challenge "accepted myths of the modern global political system" like continuous political progress and self-determination. Key to its success would be ensuring a direct voice for the affected peoples through supervised elections and strong UN sanction for external and internal support. For micro-states, "laying low, sticking with the (generally friendly and good-natured) Danes" (as in the case of Greenland) might be preferable to seeking full independence, given their functional and financial dependencies.
In the larger context of international relations, both border disputes and failed states underscore the challenges to the traditional state system. While formal empires have largely declined due to their expense and complexity, they have been replaced by informal empires exerting economic and cultural influence, such as the US's historical informal imperialism towards Canada. The modern international system, based on territorial control, faces pressure from new phenomena like diasporas and global telecommunications, which diminish the significance of rigid land-based jurisdictions. Despite these pressures and the acknowledged problems, the nation-state remains the "fundamental mode of global political organization", and efforts towards a truly global democracy with population-weighted voting remain a "distant idealistic dream".
Border Disputes in International Relations
- Historical Roots and the Rise of Territoriality: The concept of a precisely defined national border is a relatively recent development in international relations. Prior to the 17th and 19th centuries, especially in Europe, boundaries were often "kind of squishy," and allegiances were more fragmented. The emergence of the modern nation-state was driven by factors such as the decline of feudalism, the rise of nationalism (based on ethno-linguistic groups), and advancements in surveying and mapmaking. These factors were exported by Europeans as part of their imperial gaze and in the way that they defined the international system for the (relatively small) group of countries which remained outside of imperial orbits. This led to an increased emphasis on territoriality, the idea of exclusive jurisdiction over a defined landmass. While this "fetishization" of the nation-state provided a "waystation" against globalization pressures, it has also frequently resulted in instability, rigidity, and the oppression of minorities in the 20th and 21st centuries.
- The Enduring Legacy of Colonialism: A significant source of modern border disputes is the legacy of European imperialism. During the 18th and 19th centuries, imperial powers often drew arbitrary "straight lines on a map in some Chancery in St. Petersburg, London or Berlin" with "little thought given to any sense of social or economic or geographic sensibility; much less to any cultural traditions of the peoples who had lived in those lands for centuries." Following decolonization, particularly in Latin America (early 19th century) and Africa (mid-20th century), newly independent countries largely accepted these inherited imperial lines. This was a "conscious decision... to avoid the complexity and conflicts inherent in revisiting those old lines," which, while contributing to stability by "forgetting the past," also laid the groundwork for ongoing problems. Many current African political crises, for example, stem from disputes between traditional groups forced to coexist within (and often split by) these externally imposed boundaries.
- Nationalism and Identity as Core Drivers: Nationalism is a powerful force, often transforming into a "reactionary ideology" in the 20th and 21st centuries, fueling border disputes. Claims to territory are frequently rooted in "a national mythology" (e.g., China's historical self-perception as the "Middle Kingdom"). Political leaders often exploit foreign "enemies" or territorial claims to generate "rousing nationalistic politics," deflecting from domestic insecurity. The "othering" of groups perceived as different from a core national identity, often based on constructed notions of "race" or "nation," provides a mechanism for explaining disruption and uncertainty, which can "turn ugly on a global scale". Assertions of national "honor" can escalate to military conflict, as seen in the Falklands War. Even historical claims, sometimes "thousands of years old," are often "more a reflection of the modern (human?) tendency to seek validation from the past (instead of dealing with the current 'facts on the ground')". The sources suggest that accepting the status quo of existing boundaries and "consigning the past to the past is likely the better course" for geopolitical stability, as efforts to rectify historical wrongs often prove counterproductive.
- China's territorial claims against small Bhutan in the Himalayas and in the South China Sea (against Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines) are mostly bluster used for domestic nationalistic politics or leverage.
- Venezuela's drum-beating over Guyanese territory is similarly a distraction from internal issues.
- The Falklands War in the 1980s and low-level conflicts between China and India since the 1960s illustrate how such disputes can "spiral out of control” into actual military conflict.
- Kashmir (India and Pakistan) and Jerusalem (Israel, Jordan, Palestine) are "live and dangerous disputes". The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular, relies heavily on competing historical claims and narratives, despite the "historical dubiousness" of some aspects. The idea of a coherent "Palestinian" nationhood prior to 1948 is doubtful, it's a "derivative and negative case" exacerbated by the geographic split between Gaza and the West Bank. A "three-state solution" (Gaza, West Bank, and Israel) is a potential path forward, moving beyond historical arguments.
- Russia's invasion of Ukraine is framed within Vladimir Putin's "highly-selective and often-distorted view of history," claiming that "Russians and Ukrainians... all actually one people". This aggression is complicated by the Taiwan analogy, as Chinese endorsement of Russia's actions would set a precedent for US involvement in supporting Taiwan, which China seeks to avoid.
- Northern Ireland's border illustrates how Brexit's "insistence on formal sovereignty" has resurrected complex issues, forcing a choice between an economic border with the Republic of Ireland (and the EU) or maintaining the UK's territorial integrity at the cost of social stability in the North. The Good Friday Agreement had made Northern Ireland effectively a "British-Irish condominium," where a clean demarcation was never truly possible.
- Greenland's potential independence raises questions about micro-states with very small populations (<60,000) and their ability to function internationally, often relying on subsidies from former colonial powers like Denmark or payments from military bases. The current US administration's recent rumblings about annexation or buying Greenland highlights continued (though informal) imperialistic tendencies.
- The US's historical "longing northward" to "grab Canada" through formal annexation has largely been replaced by "informal economic and cultural imperialism," although recent US rhetoric has taken a "more hostile than familial tone."
International Law and Evolving Territoriality: The modern international system, established since the 17th-century Peace of Westphalia, is "premised on territorial control," meaning a country cannot exist without exclusive control over some land. States are "increasingly jealous of their status" and wary of relaxing standards. However, the "very idea of territoriality as the premise of a governance regime/state is coming under increased pressure." Phenomena like diasporas (due to wars or climate change) and global integration through telecommunications/internet capabilities mean that the link between land and jurisdiction "means much less than a century ago". The plight of micro-states, particularly small island nations threatened by climate change, highlights the impracticality of the traditional model, raising questions about whether a country can exist without territory or how "permanent" a government-in-exile can be.
Failed States in International Relations
Definition and Characteristics of Failed States: A "failed state" is characterized by severe existential problems such as lawlessness, social collapse, and humanitarian crises, often involving civil war. Fundamentally, a state is defined as "the crystallization of the power structure of a society, institutionalized to preserve order (domestic and internationally) and to keep itself in operation." It typically aspires to a "monopoly of legitimate violence". A state is considered "failed" if it "can’t do at least its core job," evidenced by extended civil war or being invaded/taken over. States that were created and stabilized before World War II tend to be more coherent because the state is "embedded in a more-or-less established and coherent political society" with sufficient "social 'glue'." Many states fail because there is "no coherent community which the state can represent."
Causes of State Failure: A primary reason for state failure, particularly in post-colonial contexts, is that states were often formed with artificially drawn boundaries and had "relatively little time to accomplish social integration" compared to European nations that took centuries to coalesce. Western "nation building" efforts are often criticized for their culturally-blindered view, expecting other societies to adopt Western models within short timeframes, which is unrealistic given that true integration takes centuries, not decades. Furthermore, a lack of deep national community and democratic practice can lead to pervasive corruption and political instability.
Examples of Failed or Struggling States: The sources list several contemporary examples of failed or struggling states:
- Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Syria have experienced revolutions, reaching some form of climax, though their long-term stability is uncertain.
- Venezuela, Sudan, and Myanmar have ongoing revolutionary struggles.
- A broader list includes Haiti, Sudan, Palestine, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, northwestern Myanmar, Kurdistan, Iraq, and many minute island countries in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific.
- Cuba has struggled economically since the collapse of the Soviet Union, largely due to a long-standing US economic embargo and isolation, despite its socialist economy.
Proposed Remedies and Broader Context: Addressing failed states requires moving "beyond the critiques to actually thrashing around new concepts and frameworks". This includes reconsidering the traditional notions of sovereignty and independence and perhaps reviving an updated version of the "trusteeship" model, inspired by the UN's 1947 program and the League of Nations' "mandate" system. Under this model, affected territories would temporarily "surrender their 'sovereignty' for a period to gain some stability" and undergo a process leading to restored independence and improved living conditions. This approach would challenge "accepted myths of the modern global political system" like continuous political progress and self-determination. Key to its success would be ensuring a direct voice for the affected peoples through supervised elections and strong UN sanction for external and internal support. For micro-states, "laying low, sticking with the (generally friendly and good-natured) Danes" (as in the case of Greenland) might be preferable to seeking full independence, given their functional and financial dependencies.
In the larger context of international relations, both border disputes and failed states underscore the challenges to the traditional state system. While formal empires have largely declined due to their expense and complexity, they have been replaced by informal empires exerting economic and cultural influence, such as the US's historical informal imperialism towards Canada. The modern international system, based on territorial control, faces pressure from new phenomena like diasporas and global telecommunications, which diminish the significance of rigid land-based jurisdictions. Despite these pressures and the acknowledged problems, the nation-state remains the "fundamental mode of global political organization", and efforts towards a truly global democracy with population-weighted voting remain a "distant idealistic dream".
RSS Feed