Territory disputes - Why do we care?

[AqD]

Let's say there are some part of territory that both of your country and some others try to claim. Either there is no-one from your nation lives there, or there are a lot of people who don't like your government, thus it's not owned by any happy citizen. And the land is either a waste, or supposedly militarily-important according to the military manual before nuclear bomb was invented, or it's rich of resources which, if the land is officially claimed back, would fall into the hands of some evil companies which has nothing to do with anyone.

So as a citizen, you gain nothing from it, but you may lose some if your government push too hard (eg. terrorists). Then, why do you want it back at all? What's the point?


Of course you can claim that according to the history (maybe 1,000 years ago) it's owned by the nation, but what does it have anything to do with you? or anyone in that nation? (PS: dead people cannot be counted)

Why does it matter?

[SLN445]

Supposadly it matters alot that some crappy land you happened to own a long time ago is yours again even though no one living there likes you, ill be damned if i know why.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Ok, setting aside the fact that the claims made in the Opener Post are extremely ignorant of International Relationships and Companies-/-State relationships or Citizen-State ones I'll only say that there's 2 basic reasons to claim land:

-Economic Resources and their potential effect on a State's GDP.

-Geopolitical projection, one might not need or claim a territory out of economic improvement but more out of internal security and access. Like Israel holding the Golan Heights. Or the USA pushing for Bi-oceanic projection.

A third and usually debated reason is assimilating an ethnically similar population who might wish to join one's country, in any case that reason is quite separated from the usually ''rational'' choices in following a path of land annexation since the inclusion of a culturally similar population can also mean economic hardships(like Germany having to burden a great deal of the East's underdevelopment during the early 90's reunification. Or future conflicts with other ''players'' in the area.

[Diamat]

Ok, setting aside the fact that the claims made in the Opener Post are extremely ignorant of International Relationships and Companies-/-State relationships or Citizen-State ones I'll only say that there's 2 basic reasons to claim land:

-Economic Resources and their potential effect on a State's GDP.

-Geopolitical projection, one might not need or claim a territory out of economic improvement but more out of internal security and access. Like Israel holding the Golan Heights. Or the USA pushing for Bi-oceanic projection.

A third and usually debated reason is assimilating an ethnically similar population who might wish to join one's country, in any case that reason is quite separated from the usually ''rational'' choices in following a path of land annexation since the inclusion of a culturally similar population can also mean economic hardships(like Germany having to burden a great deal of the East's underdevelopment during the early 90's reunification. Or future conflicts with other ''players'' in the area.

Very good. However, there is a major outlier to those theories: the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. Here we have a completely worthless piece of rock between Korea and Japan, with each country claiming it is theirs. There are only two residents living on this island, and it is much too hilly to support military bases and the like. In short, its value is not worth the ardent nationalistic claims it begets.

Yet, in South Korea, for example, there are children songs made especially about how Dokdo belongs to Korea. In fact, most children have to make a field trip to Dokdo and write poems about the island. Whenever the issue comes up, South Korean citizens are quick to rise up in a spirit of extreme nationalism, shouting slogans against the Japanese.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The slogan reads: "Dokdo is our soil"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It reads: Korea! Relinquish Dokdo to Japan!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It reads: Dokdo protection and love. Let's set out for Dokdo!

What seems to be going on here has nothing to do with your outlined points. Rather, it is a matter of historical memory. Due to Japanese colonization and the birth of Korean nationalism within that colonial environment, Koreans feel a strong sense of urgency to correct those historical ills by asserting themselves in the present. Thus, one could argue that territorial disputes sometimes can have no economical or military value, but instead are caused by historical/cultural factors leading to extreme nationalism.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Let's say there are some part of territory that both of your country and some others try to claim. Either there is no-one from your nation lives there, or there are a lot of people who don't like your government, thus it's not owned by any happy citizen. And the land is either a waste, or supposedly militarily-important according to the military manual before nuclear bomb was invented, or it's rich of resources which, if the land is officially claimed back, would fall into the hands of some evil companies which has nothing to do with anyone.

So as a citizen, you gain nothing from it, but you may lose some if your government push too hard (eg. terrorists). Then, why do you want it back at all? What's the point?


Of course you can claim that according to the history (maybe 1,000 years ago) it's owned by the nation, but what does it have anything to do with you? or anyone in that nation? (PS: dead people cannot be counted)

Why does it matter?

In practice the only uninhabited disputed territories are small islands. These extend a state's exclusive economic area so therefore are unfathomably valuable to the owner.

Next question.

[PointOfViewGun]

Next question.

I think the case of Nagorno-Karabakh fits in his question as well.

[CiviC]

Why would I care about anything then myself and maybe my relatives? That's your point? The Hell with the rest, the country can disapear, the people too, anything as long I'm good.

[AqD]

Why would I care about anything then myself and maybe my relatives? That's your point? The Hell with the rest, the country can disapear, the people too, anything as long I'm good.

As as I said the land disputed is often not owned by any citizen, or anyone who's happy with their current country. So what's the matter? If you care about something, there should be a reason for it, out of some benefits for some people. If it gives no practical gain and nobody is hurt by losing it, why care?

I guess OP raised a more naive pacifist related question.

That said, even if one of the sides goes "pacific" and doesn't care about that, some other might claim land, and if the "pacifist" side does nothing, it will simply perish.

And this is meant to be bad how?? Are you so certain that your government is the #1 in the world? If there is some part of land claimed by both of North Korea and South Korea, and everyone there support South since South is much better. Now, as a North Korean, you'd support the NK government's claim so to avoid the final "perish"?

In practice the only uninhabited disputed territories are small islands. These extend a state's exclusive economic area so therefore are unfathomably valuable to the owner.

While causing war at the same time. Is it really worthy?

[removeduser_487563287433]

While causing war at the same time. Is it really worthy?

Not in my opinion. These things ought to be settled at the International Court.

[CiviC]

As as I said the land disputed is often not owned by any citizen, or anyone who's happy with their current country. So what's the matter? If you care about something, there should be a reason for it, out of some benefits for some people. If it gives no practical gain and nobody is hurt by losing it, why care?

Becuase it gives every citizen the satisfaction to see the map painted in the national colours.

Also I don't believe there is such thing as wortheless piece of land, every piece of land worths something one way or another.

[fkizz]

And this is meant to be bad how?? Are you so certain that your government is the #1 in the world? If there is some part of land claimed by both of North Korea and South Korea, and everyone there support South since South is much better. Now, as a North Korean, you'd support the NK government's claim so to avoid the final "perish"?

Do nothing, see you and your family killed, and everything possibly pillaged.

It's self-defense.

By your logic, it's foolish for people to avoid getting robbed or using the police, as it's dumb for people to rely on government/military to avoid getting robbed of land.

[Treize]

Belgium is ours. It is not French, remember that.

[Cat-astrophic]

Each case has to be viewed individually to determine it's relevance to subjects.

[fkizz]

I guess OP raised a more naive pacifist related question.

That said, even if one of the sides goes "pacific" and doesn't care about that, some other might claim land, and if the "pacifist" side does nothing, it will simply perish.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Argentinians seem to care.

[chamaeleo]

In many cases the aggressor doesn't want the territory or even need it. What they desire is an excuse to fight, and the disputed territory just happens to fit that bill.

BTW: welcome back Ferrets!

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's inhabited though.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's inhabited though.

He puts forward a bunch of criteria:

Let's say there are some part of territory that both of your country and some others try to claim. Either there is no-one from your nation lives there, or there are a lot of people who don't like your government, thus it's not owned by any happy citizen. And the land is either a waste, or supposedly militarily-important according to the military manual before nuclear bomb was invented, or it's rich of resources which, if the land is officially claimed back, would fall into the hands of some evil companies which has nothing to do with anyone.

I think it fits the bolded criteria and he doesn't really hold the land being uninhibited as the only and necessary requirement.

[removeduser_487563287433]

He puts forward a bunch of criteria:


I think it fits the bolded criteria and he doesn't really hold the land being uninhibited as the only and necessary requirement.

Fair shout, I missed that.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Even if its a worthless rock off the coast of Antarctica its important. Why? Politics. Projection of power and influence is very important. If you appear weak, other countries will be more apt to push you around.