Historical and Neocolonial Dimensions of Territorial Disputes: The Impact of Colonial Borders on the Present

This article examines the historical evolution of border formation, emphasizing the critical influence of political, economic, and social factors across the colonial, postcolonial, and neocolonial eras. During the colonial period, European powers imposed artificial boundaries with little regard for indigenous ethnic, cultural, or geographic realities, creating enduring fault lines in regions such as Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. The postcolonial era saw the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris, which sought to preserve colonial boundaries to avoid territorial chaos but inadvertently exacerbated ethnic tensions and territorial disputes. In the neocolonial phase, although direct political control diminished, former colonial powers maintained influence through economic mechanisms and multinational corporations, further complicating boundary issues. The article highlights how weaker states, driven by national identity and prestige, often pursue boundary claims against more powerful actors, resulting in persistent regional instability. Comparative analysis reveals that in Asia and the Middle East, border disputes tend to escalate into militarized conflicts more frequently than in Africa, where confrontations often remain localized. Although international law provides a framework for maintaining borders, the colonial legacy continues to challenge its effectiveness. The study argues for the necessity of integrated solutions that address historical, socio-cultural, and political dimensions to achieve sustainable peace and regional cooperation.

1. Herbst J. States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton University Press. 2000. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247640980_States_and_Power_in_Africa_Comparative_Lessons_in_Authority_and_Control

2. Frederick BA, Hensel PR, Macaulay C. The Issue Correlates of War Territorial Claims Data, 1816–2001. Journal of Peace Research. 2017;54(1):99–108. DOI: 10.1177/0022343316676311

3. Altman D. The evolution of territorial conquest After 1945 and the limits of the territorial integrity norm. International Organization. 2020;74(3):490–522. DOI: 10.1017/S 0020818320000119

4. Chen C. Territorial dispute initiation by weaker states. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 2018;11(3):339–372. DOI: 10.1093/cjip/poy009

5. Galeano EH, Galeano E. Open veins of Latin America: Five centuries of the pillage of a continent. New York: NYU Press; 1997.

6. Weller M. The international response to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. American Journal of International Law. 1992;86(3):569–607. DOI: 10.2307/2203972

7. Brunet-Jailly, E. Preface. Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia (3 Volumes). California: ABC–Clio. 2015. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301649487_Border_Disputes_A_Global_Encyclopedia

8. Forsberg T. Explaining territorial disputes: From power politics to normative reasons. Journal of Peace Research. 1996;33(4):433–449. DOI: 10.1177/0022343396033004005

9. Prorok A.K., Huth P.K. International law and the consolidation of peace following territorial changes. The Journal of Politics. 2015;77(1):161–174. DOI: 10.1086/678529

10. Sumner BT. Territorial disputes at the international court of justice. Duke Law Journal. 2004;53(6):1790–1836. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=665304

11. Hensel P. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816–1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science. 1996;15(1):43–73. DOI: 10.1177/073889429601500103

12. Carter D. B., Goemans H. E. The making of the territorial order: New borders and the emergence of interstate conflict. International Organization. 2014;68(4):288–301. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818311000051