Abstract
Borders as a mean of territorial demarcation have long been a central notion in international relations and have an important impact on states’ foreign and security policies. Borders are often disputed, and disputes are often more complex on the sea, as a clear definition of sea borders is missing. The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) attempts to offer a maritime border regime but lacks the mechanisms that a completely functional border regime would require. UNCLOS fails to regulate conflicting claims and border disputes on the sea. This leads to a lack of clarity concerning territorial demarcation and increases the possibility of conflict, which influences security policies. In this chapter, it is argued that in the absence of clear borders states fear their security is compromised as this absence can create incentives for states to act as a territorial expansionist. This is explored in two case studies, the Arctic Sea and the South China Sea. Both cases represent areas where the lack of defined borders causes conflicting interests, especially economic ones, and where tensions are increasing. The cases will be investigated from a realist perspective as examples of a security dilemma.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Signed by the 51 founding states of the U.N., the U.N. Charter is a constituent treaty whose rules all U.N. member states have to follow.
- 2.
Charter of the United Nations, Chapter I, http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/. Accessed 05.04.2016.
- 3.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 396. Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
- 4.
Until today, 167 states have ratified UNCLOS. States that have not signed the Convention include the United States and Turkey.
- 5.
For example by Boggs (1930, 1937) or Minghi (1963: 422), who stated: ‘A maritime boundary, unlike a land boundary which directly affects only the two states it separates, marks the limits of the spatial encroachment of a state's sovereignty into the area of the high seas, and thus affects many states’. However, as these discussions took place before the introduction of UNCLOS, their contemporary impact is highly questionable. It is important, however, to highlight the extensive duration of this debate.
- 6.
China’s Military Strategy. Retrieved from http://news.usni.org/2015/05/26/document-chinas-military-strategy
- 7.
Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/folkerett/avtale_engelsk.pdf
References
Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.
Basaran, T. (2008). Security, law, borders: Spaces of exclusion. International Political Sociology, 2(4), 339–354.
Blazevic, J. J. (2012). Navigating the security dilemma: China, Vietnam and the South China Sea. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 31(4), 79–108.
Boggs, S. W. (1930). Delimitation of the territorial sea: The method of delimitation proposed by the delegation of the United States at the Hague conference for the codification of international law. American Journal of International Law, 24, 541–555.
Boggs, S. W. (1937). Problems of water-boundary definition, median lines and international boundaries through territorial waters. The Geographical Review, XXVII, 445–456.
Boyle, A. (1997). Dispute settlement and the law of the sea convention: Problems of fragmentation and jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46(1), 37–54.
Brunet-Jailly, E. (2005). Theorizing borders: An interdisciplinary perspective. Geopolitics, 10(4), 633–649.
Brunet-Jailly, E. (2011). Special section: Borders, borderlands and theory: An introduction. Geopolitics, 16(1), 1–6.
Byers, M. (2009). Who owns the arctic? Understanding sovereignty disputes in the high north. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
Carlson, J. D., Hubach, C., Long, J., Minteer, K., & Young, S. (2013). Scramble for the arctic: Layered sovereignty, UNCLOS and competing maritime territorial claims. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 33(2), 21–43.
Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (1988). Territorial change and militarized conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(1), 103–122.
Dutton, P. (2011). Three disputes and three objectives. China and the South China Sea. Naval War College Review, 64(4), 42–65.
Emmerson, C. (2011). The future history of the Arctic. How climate, resources and geopolitics are reshaping the north, and why it matters to the world. London: Vintage Books.
Gao, Z., & Jia, B. B. (2013). The nine-dash line in the South China Sea: History, status and implications. The American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 98–124.
Giordano, M. F., Giordano, M. A., & Wolf, A. T. (2005). International resource conflict and mitigation. Journal of Peace Research, 42(1), 47–65.
Grimm, D. (2015). Sovereignty. The origin and future of a political and legal concept. New York: Columbia University Press.
Heininen, L. (2012). State of the Arctic strategies and policies—A summary. Arctic Yearbook, 2012, 2–47.
Herz, J. H. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics, 2(2), 157–180.
Huebert, R. (2010). The newly emerging Arctic security environment. Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute.
Järvenpää, P., & Ries, T. (2013). The rise of the Arctic on the global stage. In J. Kraska (Ed.), Arctic security in an age of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Jervis, R. (1999). Realism, neoliberalism, and cooperation: Understanding the debate. International Security, 24(1), 42–63.
Jervis, R. (2011). Dilemmas about security dilemmas. Security Studies, 20(3), 416–423.
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Minghi, J. (1963). Review article: Boundary studies in political geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 53(3), 407–428.
Nyman, E. (2013). Oceans of conflict: Determining potential areas of maritime disputes. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 33(2), 5–14.
Paasi, A. (2009). Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory. Journal of Power, 2(2), 213–234.
People’s Republic of China. (2015). China’s military strategy. Retrieved from http://news.usni.org/2015/05/26/document-chinas-military-strategy. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
Perlez, J. (2016). Beijing’s South China Sea claims rejected by Hague Tribunal. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html. Accessed 13 July 2016.
Phillips, T., Holmes, O., & Bowcott, O. (2016). Philippines wins South China Sea case against China. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china. Accessed 12 July 2016.
Rahman, C., & Tsamenyi, M. (2010). A strategic perspective on security and naval issues in the South China Sea. Ocean Development & International Law, 41(4), 315–333.
Rosenberg, D. (2011). Governing the South China Sea. From freedom of the seas to ocean enclosure movements. Harvard Asia Quarterly, 12(3&4), 4–12.
Simmons, B. A. (2002). Capacity, commitment and compliance. International institutions and territorial disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(6), 829–856.
Sørensen, G. (1999). Sovereignty: Change and continuity in a fundamental institution. Political Studies, 47(3), 590–604.
Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128–161.
Tang, S. (2009). The security dilemma: A conceptual analysis. Security Studies, 18(3), 587–623.
Taylor Fravel, M. (2011). China’s strategy in the South China Sea. Contemporary South East Asia, 33(3), 292–315.
Thomson, J. E. (1995). State sovereignty in international relations: Bridging the gap between theory and empirical research. International Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 213–233.
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wezeman, S. T. (2012). Military capabilities in the Arctic. SIPRI Background Paper.
Williams, J. (2002). Territorial borders, toleration and the English school. Review of International Studies, 28(4), 737–758.
Zacher, M. W. (2001). The territorial integrity norm: International boundaries and the use of force. International Organization, 55(2), 215–250.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Binder, C. (2017). Border Disputes Through Ill-Defined Borders: Maritime Territorial Conflicts and Their Impact on Security. In: Günay, C., Witjes, N. (eds) Border Politics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46855-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46855-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46854-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46855-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)