January - March 2019: Overview of Events during Quarter1
This is the first of a series of quarterly reviews of major events related to international conflict and cooperation, summarizing major events in the news from the past three months. We focus on conflict and cooperation between countries that disagree over specific types of contentious issues, in order to track how countries choose to manage, escalate, or settle their disagreements. This draws from research by the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) research project, which currently studies four types of contentious issues2:
- Territorial Claims: explicit contention between the official representatives of at least two nation-states regarding sovereignty over a specific piece of territory. These might involve contention over land along the border between the two states (such as the claim between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights), islands (such as the claim between Japan and Russia over the Kuril Islands/Northern Territories), or colonial/dependent territory far from one or both sides' homelands (such as the claim between Argentina and the UK over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands).
- River Claims: explicit contention between the official representatives of at least two nation-states regarding the use or abuse of a specific international river or river system shared by the two states. These might involve contention over the quantity of water crossing the border, the quality of water (due to pollution), navigation, or flooding; prominent examples include the claim between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over Ethiopia's Grand Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile River and the claim between Bangladesh and India over sharing Teesta River waters.
- Maritime Claims: explicit contention between the official representatives of at least two nation-states regarding the use of a specific maritime zone. These might involve concerns over fishing, undersea resources such as oil, or navigation rights through the zone; prominent examples include the claim between Kenya and Somalia over the maritime border in the Indian Ocean and claims between a number of states over waters in the South China Sea.
- Identity Claims: explicit contention between the official representatives of at least two nation-states regarding the status of a shared ethnic group. These might involve demands for better treatment or autonomy for the group within the target state (such as Austrian demands over the rights of ethnic Germans in the former province of South Tyrol in Italy), independence of the group from the target state (such as the Turkish support for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus against Cyprus), or irredentist demands for the transfer of the group from the target state to the challenger state making the demands (such as the Russian demand against Ukraine over the Crimean Peninsula in 2014).
Our quarterly review methodology page explains the process of searching for news related to each of these four issue types during this quarter, and describes the types of events that are identified for inclusion in this review. Please note that the ICOW project does not endorse or support any country's positions with respect to any of the claims in our data set. Our purpose is to provide an impartial compilation of data on territorial, river, maritime, and identity claims (as well as any other future data sets that we might collect) by using rigorous coding rules to identify cases where nation-states explicitly disagreed over specific issues. Where possible, we use the most common English-language names for disputed features or groups, supplemented with widely used names in other languages; the choice of which names to list or in which order does not imply any support for either state's position.
ICOW Site Search
This search interface allows you to search through these quarterly reviews for such terms as names of territories, countries, or leaders. (For now, this is limited to ICOW's quarterly reviews of news over territorial, river, maritime, or identity claims, covering events since the beginning of 2019. In the future, we plan to expand this search to include access to summary web pages for each of the more than 1200 claims identified by the ICOW project, which will be created as part of the next external grant that the ICOW project receives.)
New Claims and Potential Claims
No new claims began during this quarter, although there were 33 cases that had some elements of claims during the quarter and could potentially qualify as codable claims in the future. These potential claims generally failed to meet at least one of the requirements of the ICOW definition listed above, which requires explicit contention over a specific territory, river, maritime zone, or shared ethnic group by official government representatives who are authorized to make foreign policy:
16 potential territorial claims made news this quarter but did not meet the full ICOW definition:
- No explicit contention: There were six cases where outsiders speculated that a country might be seeking to claim territory, but there was no evidence of this (the supposed Albanian claim to Kosovo, Chinese claim to Kyrgyz territory, or Turkish claim to Syrian territory) or the supposed claimant explicitly denied any such claim (supposed Macedonian claim to Greece, Myanmarese claim to St. Martin's Island, or Russian claim to Belarus).
- No specific claim: Two potential cases lacked a claim to specific territory: There were vague references by government officials to possible claims between Armenia and Georgia and possible Iranian claims to parts of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, but not enough detail to code a specific claim in either case.
- No official government actor: Six potential claims included four that were stated by private citizens or politicians who don't have foreign policymaking authority: a Canadian claim to the U.S. "Northwest Angle," both a British claim to Ireland and an Irish claim to Northern Ireland as the Brexit deadline approached, and a potential Italian claim to parts of Croatia and Slovenia, but legitimate government officials with the authority to make foreign policy declined to support them, and two that had no interstate claimant in what are best described as separatist issues (Transnistria, Western Sahara).
- Other reasons: Two other potential cases failed to qualify because they were not over territorial sovereignty (Jordan-Israel over airspace near Eilat) or they concerned poorly marked rather than disputed borders (Kenya/Tanzania in Lake Victoria).
Four potential maritime claims made news this quarter but did not meet the ICOW definition:
- No explicit contention: There were two cases that fell short on this count. Indonesia and Palau held cooperative negotiations to determine the exact location of their maritime border, but there was no evidence of the sort of competing demands that would qualify as a maritime claim. The U.S.-China "freedom of navigation" operations also failed to qualify, because the U.S. was seeking to demonstrate freedom of navigation rather than challenging a specific Chinese policy denying foreign navigation rights in a specific maritime zone.
- No official government actor: An Argentine patrol vessel chased a Chinese fishing boat in Argentine waters, and the Maldives seized four Sri Lankan fishing boats. In both cases, the seized fishermen appear to have been acting as private citizens, rather than acting at the instruction of the Chinese or Sri Lankan governments.
13 potential identity claims made news this quarter but failed to meet the ICOW definition:
- No official government actor: In nine potential cases, there was no government actor making explicit demands over the treatment of the group in the other country. Any demands were only made by private citizens, and their government either declined to support them or explicitly disavowed their demands (Albania- or Kosovo-North Macedonia over Albanians, Armenia/Kazakhstan over Armenians, Bangladesh/India over Bengalis/Muslims, China/Kyrgyzstan over Chinese, France/Spain over Catalans, Iran/Pakistan over Balochis, Kazakhstan/China over Kazakhs, Kyrgyzstan/China over Kyrgyz), or the potential challenger took action against the group in another country rather than the country's government (Turkey against Syrian Kurds).
- No codable EPR/TEK group: Three other potential claims could not qualify because the EPR/TEK data set of ethnic groups does not identify the group as being politically relevant in both states (Bangladesh/Myanmar over Rohingya, Ukraine/Russia over Crimean Tatars, and Turkey/China over Uyghurs). The ICOW project relies on this widely used data set for our list of ethnic groups that could become involved in claims, rather than trying to construct our own list of groups from scratch, so any group that does not appear in this data set can not be included in our data.
- Other reasons: In one case, the potential claim involved the name of the group in question rather than its treatment or status (Bulgaria-North Macedonia over Macedonians, whom Bulgaria regards as Bulgarians).
Case Summaries:
Claim Escalation and Provocations
This quarter saw militarized threats or actions by at least one side in 16 claims, including nine territorial claims, five maritime claims, and two identity claims.3 Most of these remained at relatively low levels of escalation, with only four claims leading to fatalities. Notably, five of the nine territorial claims that were militarized also had a maritime claim element (typically for claims to islands or coastlines that are also associated with claims to associated offshore fishing or mineral rights), although these typically involved events like seizures of fishing boats or military patrols in the disputed waters, and none of these joint territorial-maritime claims led to any fatalities.
- 4 fatal conflicts: Two territorial claims and two identity claims led to fatalities during this quarter. Both soldiers and civilians died in heavy shelling in the territorial claim between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and several civilians were killed by other civilians in riots related to the territorial claim between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The identity claim between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh saw at least one military death in near-daily shelling, and there were numerous military and civilian deaths in the identity claim between Russia and Ukraine over ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine (but it is not clear how many - if any - of the Ukrainian military deaths resulted from the actions of Russian military personnel rather than separatists, or how many - if any - of the apparent separatist deaths were actually Russian military personnel).
- 7 military activity in disputed area: In five territorial claims, one maritime claim, and one identity claim, military forces committed border violations or other provocations in disputed areas. Examples include intrusion by Chinese patrol boats into waters around the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and Russian military exercises in the Kuril Islands/Northern Territories.
- 6 military action against civilians: In two territorial claims and four maritime claims, military, police, or coast guard personnel from one of the claimants harassed or arrested civilians from the other country. Examples include Thai forces warning Cambodian farmers to stop farming cassava in disputed areas along the border, the Irish seizure of British fishing boats in Dundalk Bay, and the Sri Lankan seizure of Indian fishing boats in the Palk Strait.
Another 25 claims saw provocations below the level of militarized action, including thirrteen territorial claims, two river claims, eight maritime claims, and two identity claims.
- 15 non-military activity in disputed area: Seven territorial claims and eight maritime claims saw at least one side announce or undertake actions in the disputed territory/river/maritime zone. Examples include Israel building a border wall in territory also claimed by Lebanon, calls for bids on oil/gas exploration rights by Egypt in Red Sea waters claimed by Sudan near Halaib/Halayeb and by Somalia in Indian Ocean waters that may include some waters claimed by Kenya, and Chinese and Filipino construction projects in the Spratly/Nansha Islands and Indonesian construction in the Natuna Islands.
- 11 other non-military provocations: Seven territorial claims, two river claims, and two identity claims were also the subject of verbal or other non-militarized provocations. These range from China warning that it would not rule out the use of force if Taiwan did not agree to unify with China peacefully and Japan approving textbooks for school use that described disputed islands as "an integral part of Japanese territory" to Israel's successful effort to convince the United State to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights.
Comparison to Past Quarters
Because this is the first quarterly review of events, it is not yet possible to discuss how this quarter compares to previous quarters. Future quarterly reviews will add comparisons of claim provocations and escalation over time.
Regional Comparison
[Regional bar graph will go here]
xxx
Case Summaries:
Peaceful Claim Management and Settlement
36 claims saw peaceful conflict management or settlement attempts during the quarter, some of them using more than one type of management technique. This includes about one-third of the claims that saw militarized or other provocations during the quarter (12 of 37, or 32.4%), which is consistent with the expectation that escalation attracts conflict management (by the parties themselves or by third parties).
- 24 bilateral negotiations: 15 territorial claims, seven river claims, and two maritime claims were managed through bilateral negotiations between the claimants during this quarter. These talks produced a total of five functional agreements and two procedural agreements, as described below.
- 7 non-binding third party activities: three territorial claims, three maritime claims, and one identity claim were managed with the non-binding assistance of third parties. The mediators included the United States, Germany, and Ethiopia as well as the EU, OSCE, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). None of these efforts produced an agreement to end the claim in question, although the ICJ did issue a non-binding advisory opinion in the Chagos archipelago case.
- 8 binding third party activities: Eight claims were under consideration in binding arbitration or adjudication processes during the quarter, including seven at the International Court of Justice (two territorial, two river, two maritime, and one identity claim) and one maritime claim at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. None of these cases was completed during this quarter.
- Other progress toward settlement: While not a settlement attempt in its own right, campaigning continued as Belize approached the date of a referendum on whether to submit the Guatemala/Belize territorial claim to the ICJ. Two previously settled cases also advanced during this quarter: the 2017 Kazakh/Kyrgyz border treaty was ratified and entered into effect, and demarcation work began after the 2018 Tajik/Uzbek border treaty.
None of these settlement attempts successfully ended the claim in question during this quarter, but several made progress toward settlement.
- 5 functional agreements: Four territorial claims and one maritime claim reached what ICOW terms "functional" agreements, which call for demilitarizing the claimed territory or taking other steps to reduce tensions but do not directly settle the disputed issue itself: Greece and Turkey agreed to confidence building measures in their claim over Aegean Sea islands, South Sudan and Sudan agreed to set up a buffer zone and open more border crossings along the disputed border, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan agreed on road construction and removing border checkpoints in an area where there had been tensions, the Philippines and Vietnam agreed to refrain from arresting each other's fishermen, and Malaysia and Singapore agreed to suspend implementation of their controversial maritime claim, suspend commercial activities in the disputed zone, and remove government vessels from that zone).
- 4 procedural agreements: Two territorial claims (Kenya/Uganda over Migingo Island and Iran/Iraq over border territory), one river claim (Iran/Iraq over the Shatt al-Arab) and the identity claim over Nagorno-Karabakh reached "procedural" agreements, making progress toward the future settlement of the claim by agreeing on future talks or future settlement procedures.
- 2 substantive agreement: Two substantive agreements were reached over claims during this quarter. In one, Thailand claims that bilateral talks convinced China to stop its policy of blasting rapids on the Mekong River to allow deeper navigation, potentially ending the claim (although no confirming evidence was provided during the quarter). In the other, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion in the Mauritius/UK claim over the Chagos Archipelago, concluding that the UK had acted improperly in detaching the archipelago from Mauritius during the decolonization process and should end its control "as soon as possible." Court rulings are considered to be agreements, because the two sides agreed to the jurisdiction of the court (either for the specific case in question or for the court's jurisdiction more generally). In this case, though, the court had only been asked to give an advisory opinion rather than a legally binding ruling that both sides were obligated to accept, and the UK did not seem interested in complying.
Conflict management or settlement activities were somewhat more successful when there had been escalation during the quarter, as four agreements (three functional and one procedural) were reached in the twelve claims that experienced both escalation and management -- including two of the three that saw fatalities (a functional agreement over the disputed territory between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and a procedural agreement to continue talks with OSCE mediation over Nagorno-Karabakh). By comparison, only four agreements (two functional and two procedural) were reached in the 22 claims that saw peaceful management efforts in the absence of escalation or provocations during the quarter. Bilateral negotiations produced seven agreements (five functional and two procedural) in 21 claims during this quarter, as compared with two agreements (the OSCE-mediated procedural agreement reached over Nagorno-Karabakh and the ICJ's non-binding advisory opinion over the Chagos Archipelago) in the seven claims experiencing non-binding settlement activity and no agreements during this quarter in the eight claims experiencing binding activities. It should be noted, though, that many of these peaceful settlement attempts remained ongoing at the end of the quarter, so they may yet produce successful agreements. In particular, all eight claims that had binding arbitration or adjudication proceedings underway during the quarter remained under consideration at the end of the quarter.
Comparison to Past Quarters
Because this is the first quarterly review of events, it is not yet possible to discuss how this quarter compares to previous quarters. Future quarterly reviews will add comparisons of claim management and settlement over time.
Case Summaries:
To view the detailed summaries of each individual territorial, river, maritime, or identity claim that has been active during this quarter, follow any of the "Case Summaries" links in the overview above, or go directly to the quarter's Case Summaries page.
Footnotes
1 Jackie DeMeritt, Roman Krastev, Jim Meernik, and Idean Salehyan offered helpful advice about this page. Credit or blame for all page content remains the responsibility of the page author, though. [Return to Top]
2 More detail on the project is available on the ICOW Project home page as well as in Hensel and Mitchell's 2017 Conflict Management and Peace Science paper "From Territorial Claims to Identity Claims: The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project." [you may prefer the journal's official page for this article if your library has access][Return to Top]
3 Claims that fall into multiple categories (such as claims over islands that include both a territorial component because of sovereignty over the island and a maritime component because of the exclusive economic zone that can be claimed around the island) are listed in the category that best distinguishes them from other cases (so territorial/maritime claims are listed here under territorial claims to distinguish them from maritime claims over fishing rights that do not have a territorial component). [Return to Overview]
http://www.paulhensel.org/rev2019q1.html
First posted 22 May 2019 (Last updated 25 January 2020)
This site © Copyright 1996-present,
Paul R. Hensel. All rights reserved.
Site Privacy Policy