Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Resources lying across a boundary can lead to confl ict. In
short, states often argue about their boundaries. Bound-
ary disputes take four principal forms: defi nitional, loca-
tional, operational, and allocational.
Defi nitional boundary disputes
focus on the legal lan-
guage of the boundary agreement. For example, a bound-
ary defi nition may stipulate that the median line of a river
will mark the boundary. That would seem clear enough,
but the water levels of rivers vary. If the valley is asymmet-
rical, the median line will move back and forth between
low-water and high-water stages of the stream. This
may involve hundreds of meters of movement—not very
much, it would seem, but enough to cause serious argu-
ment, especially if there are resources in the river. The
solution is to refi ne the defi nition to suit both parties.
Locational boundary disputes
center on the delimita-
tion and possibly the demarcation of the boundary. The
defi nition is not in dispute, but its interpretation is. Some-
times the language of boundary treaties is vague enough
to allow mapmakers to delimit the line in various ways.
For example, when the colonial powers defi ned their
empires in Africa and Asia, they specifi ed their interna-
tional boundaries rather carefully. But internal adminis-
trative boundaries often were not strictly defi ned. When
those internal boundaries became the boundaries between
independent states, there was plenty of room for argu-
ment. In a few instances, locational disputes arise because
no defi nition of the boundary exists at all. An important
case involves Saudi Arabia and Yemen, whose potentially
oil-rich boundary area is not covered by a treaty.
Operational boundary
disputes
involve neighbors who
differ over the way their border should function. When
two adjoining countries agree on how cross-border
migration should be controlled, the border functions sat-
isfactorily. However, if one state wants to limit migration
while the other does not, a dispute may arise. Similarly,
efforts to prevent smuggling across borders sometimes
lead to operational disputes when one state's efforts are
not matched (or are possibly even sabotaged) by its neigh-
bor. And in areas where nomadic ways of life still prevail,
the movement of people and their livestock across inter-
national borders can lead to confl ict.
Allocational boundary disputes
of the kind described
earlier, involving the Netherlands and Germany over nat-
ural gas and Iraq and Kuwait over oil, are becoming more
common as the search for resources intensifi es. Today
many such disputes involve international boundaries at
sea. Oil reserves under the seafl oor below coastal waters
sometimes lie in areas where exact boundary delimitation
may be diffi cult or subject to debate. Another growing
area of allocational dispute has to do with water supplies:
the Tigris, Nile, Colorado, and other rivers are subject
to such disputes. When a river crosses an international
boundary, the rights of the upstream and downstream
users of the river often come into confl ict.
People used to think physical-political boundaries were
always more stable than geometric boundaries. Through
studies of many places, political geographers have con-
fi rmed that this idea is false. Construct your own argument
explaining why physical-political boundaries can create just
as much instability as geometric bound a ries.
HOW DOES THE STUDY OF GEOPOLITICS
HELP US UNDERSTAND THE WORLD?
Geopolitics is the interplay among geography, power,
politics, and international relations on Earth's surface.
Political science and international relations tend to focus on
governmental institutions, systems, and interactions. Geo-
politics brings locational considerations, environmental con-
texts, territorial ideas and arrangements, and spatial assump-
tions to the fore. Geopolitics helps us understand the spatial
power arrangements that shape international relations.
Classical Geopolitics
Classical geopoliticians of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries generally fi t into one of two camps: the
German school, which sought to explain why certain states
are powerful and how to become powerful, and the British/
American school, which sought to offer strategic advice by
identifying parts of Earth's surface that were particularly
important for the maintenance and projection of power. A
few geopoliticians tried to bridge the gap, blending the two
schools, but for the most part classical
geopoliticians who
are still writing today are in the British/American school,
offering
geostrategic perspectives on the world.
The German School
Why are certain states powerful, and how do states become
powerful? The fi rst political geographer who stu
died these
issues was the German professor Friedrich Ratzel (1844-
1904). Infl uenced by the writings of Charles Darwin, Rat-
zel postulated that the state resembles a biological organ-
ism whose life cycle extends from birth through maturity
and, ultimately, decline and death. To prolong its existence,
the state requires nourishment, just as an organism needs
food. Such nourishment is provided by the acquisition of
territories that provide adequate space for the members of
the state's dominant nation to thrive, which is what Ratzel
called
lebensraum
. If a state is confi ned within permanent
