Key Territorial Disputes

Why This Matters

Territorial disputes are where political geography concepts come alive on the exam. When you study these conflicts, you're not just learning place names—you're seeing sovereignty, nationalism, boundary types, and supranationalism tested in real-world contexts. The AP exam loves to ask why borders become contested, how colonial legacies create modern conflicts, and what happens when ethnic boundaries don't match political ones. These disputes demonstrate core concepts like irredentism, self-determination, and the challenges of maintaining territorial integrity in a world of competing nationalisms.

Understanding these conflicts also connects to broader themes you'll be tested on: resource competition, devolutionary pressures, and the role of international organizations in managing disputes. Each case study below illustrates specific mechanisms—whether it's a superimposed boundary from colonialism or a strategic chokepoint driving great power competition. Don't just memorize which countries are fighting over which territory—know what geographic principle each dispute illustrates and why it remains unresolved.

---

Colonial Legacy Disputes

Many of today's most intractable conflicts trace directly to boundaries drawn by colonial powers with little regard for ethnic, religious, or cultural geography. These superimposed boundaries created mismatches between nations (cultural groups) and states (political units) that persist today.

Kashmir (India-Pakistan)

• Partition of British India in 1947 created competing claims when a Hindu ruler governed a majority-Muslim population—a classic nation-state mismatch
• Line of Control functions as a de facto boundary but remains internationally unrecognized, making this a textbook example of a disputed frontier
• Irredentism drives Pakistan's claim that Muslim-majority Kashmir should unite with Pakistan, while India asserts territorial integrity

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

• Competing nationalisms over the same territory emerged from British Mandate boundaries and the 1948 partition—neither group achieved a contiguous nation-state
• Jerusalem's status exemplifies how cultural landscapes and sacred spaces complicate boundary negotiations
• Settlements and fragmentation create non-contiguous Palestinian territories, demonstrating how enclaves and exclaves undermine state viability

Western Sahara (Morocco-Polisario Front)

• Spanish colonial withdrawal in 1975 left no clear successor state, triggering Morocco's annexation and Sahrawi independence movement
• Self-determination remains unresolved—the UN considers it a non-self-governing territory awaiting a referendum that never happens
• Refugee camps in Algeria house displaced Sahrawis, illustrating how unresolved disputes create stateless populations

---

Strategic Resource and Chokepoint Disputes

Some territorial conflicts persist because of what the land (or sea) contains or controls. Strategic locations—whether for shipping lanes, military positioning, or natural resources—elevate local disputes into international flashpoints.

South China Sea Disputes

• Overlapping claims by China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei create a multilateral territorial dispute over islands, reefs, and maritime boundaries
• Nine-dash line represents China's expansive claim based on historical usage, conflicting with UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) definitions of exclusive economic zones
• Island-building demonstrates how states physically alter territory to strengthen legal claims—a dramatic example of territoriality

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (Japan-China-Taiwan)

• Uninhabited islands with potential oil/gas reserves and rich fishing grounds illustrate how resource competition drives territorial claims
• Strategic military significance in the East China Sea adds great power dimensions to what might otherwise be a minor boundary dispute
• Competing historical claims show how states use different antecedent interpretations to justify sovereignty

Gibraltar (UK-Spain)

• Chokepoint location at the Mediterranean entrance gives this 2.6-square-mile territory outsized geopolitical importance
• Treaty of Utrecht (1713) ceded Gibraltar to Britain, but Spain argues geographic contiguity should override colonial-era agreements
• Self-determination votes consistently favor remaining British, creating tension between territorial integrity (Spain's claim) and popular sovereignty (residents' wishes)

---

Post-WWII and Cold War Legacies

Several disputes stem from boundary decisions made during or after World War II, when victorious powers redrew maps with strategic rather than ethnic considerations. These consequent boundaries often ignored national identities, creating lasting tensions.

Kuril Islands (Russia-Japan)

• Soviet seizure in 1945 at WWII's end transferred islands Japan had controlled since 1855—no peace treaty has ever been signed
• Northern Territories (Japan's term) vs. South Kurils (Russia's term) shows how toponyms reflect competing sovereignty claims
• Strategic location controls access between the Sea of Okhotsk and Pacific, giving Russia submarine deployment advantages

Cyprus (Greece-Turkey)

• 1974 Turkish invasion following a Greek-backed coup divided the island along ethnic lines—a stark example of ethnic cleansing creating de facto boundaries
• Buffer zone maintained by UN peacekeepers demonstrates how international organizations manage frozen conflicts
• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recognized only by Turkey illustrates the concept of limited recognition states

Crimea (Russia-Ukraine)

• 2014 annexation following a disputed referendum violated Ukraine's territorial integrity and challenged post-Cold War European boundaries
• Ethnic Russian majority provided Russia's justification, demonstrating how irredentism can destabilize internationally recognized borders
• International law implications make this a key example of how the principle of territorial integrity vs. self-determination remains unresolved

---

Relic Claims and Historical Grievances

Some disputes persist based on historical claims that predate current international norms. These often involve former colonial powers or states asserting rights based on geographic proximity or past sovereignty.

Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas (UK-Argentina)

• 1982 war resulted from Argentina's invasion and British military response—a rare example of armed conflict over territorial dispute in the modern era
• Geographic proximity (300 miles from Argentina, 8,000 from UK) supports Argentina's claim, while self-determination of British-identifying residents supports UK sovereignty
• Resource potential including offshore oil adds economic dimensions to what began as a sovereignty dispute

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two disputes best illustrate how colonial-era partition decisions created lasting nation-state mismatches, and what specific mechanism (religious, ethnic, or tribal division) drove each conflict?

2. Compare the South China Sea and Kuril Islands disputes: both involve maritime boundaries and resources, but how do they differ in terms of the number of claimants and the role of international law (UNCLOS)?

3. If an FRQ asks you to explain how self-determination can conflict with territorial integrity, which dispute provides the clearest example and why?

4. Identify two disputes where geographic proximity is used to justify claims against a distant colonial power. How do the outcomes differ, and what role did military conflict play?

5. Compare Cyprus and Crimea: both involve ethnic division and military intervention, but how do they differ in terms of international recognition and the role of outside powers (Turkey vs. Russia)?