Issue indivisibility and territorial claims*

Abstract

Early research on contentious issues in world politics suggested that there is an important distinction between largely tangible and largely intangible issues. Tangible issues are thought to be easier to resolve, while intangible issues can fester for long periods of time through fruitless negotiations and repeated armed conflict. Research on territorial issues has suggested that many territorial claims are driven by both tangible and intangible concerns, though, which complicates the analysis of issue tangibility. The authors argue that territorial issues with greater intangible salience (e.g. historical possessions, important homelands, sacred sites, identity ties) should be harder to resolve peacefully and should produce more frequent and severe militarized conflict. Empirical analyses of 191 territorial claims in the Americas and Western Europe (1816-2001) provide mixed support for these expectations. Territorial claims with high intangible salience are significantly more likely to experience militarized disputes and wars. Surprisingly, though, states are much more likely to strike peaceful agreements with their adversaries over territories that are valued for intangible reasons.

Bones of Contention

“…Yet the difficulty of dividing an issue or reaching a compromise solution is conceptually distinct from issue salience, and it is not clear that (ceteris paribus) states assign greater value to an issue that is difficult to divide than to one that is more easily divisible. For a more in-depth discussion of issue divisibility, see Hensel and Mitchell (2005).…”

“…Territory, for example, is often described as quite important to states for both tangible and intangible reasons (Hensel 1996;Hensel and Mitchell 2005;Vasquez 1993). Territorial claims often involve land that contains economic and/or strategic value, thus relating to the tangible values of wealth and physical security.…”

Evolutionary determinants of war

“…15 Player i earns the prize with a probability that depends on the player's share in total …ghting e¤ort and the two players' '…ghting strengths' b i and b i = 1 b i . More precisely, if …ghting takes place, i's winning probability 16 is equal to…”

Territorial and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Asia

“…Territory is also important for symbolic reasons because it is viewed in terms of a state's national identity or as an inherent part of the integrity of the state. Scholars, for example, discuss territorial disputes as an issue that is indivisible, or appears to be so, and is thus much more difficult to settle (Goddard 2006;Hassner 2003;Hensel and Mitchell 2005). Many times, of course, the material and symbolic value of territory becomes intertwined, especially when disputes intensify before domestic audiences who do not wish to see their leaders admit defeat over something as fundamental as national sovereingty.…”