Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 21: Symmetric Nash Equilibrium (SNE), game theory and international territorial disputes

 

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium (SNE), game theory and international territorial disputes

To apply Symmetric Nash Equilibrium (SNE) in an n-player game theory context to the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, we need to conceptualize the situation where each player (Argentina, the UK, and the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders) aims to optimize their strategy given the strategies of others, assuming symmetry in the game’s structure.

In this context, “symmetry” implies that all players have identical strategy sets and payoff functions when roles are considered interchangeable. However, in this real-world scenario, this post will interpret symmetry more loosely to mean that each player’s payoff depends on the actions of all others in a balanced manner:

Setting Up the Game:

• Players: Argentina (A), United Kingdom (UK), and Falkland Islanders (FI).
• Strategies:
  • A: {Invade, Negotiate}
  • UK: {Defend, Concede}
  • FI: {Support UK, Seek Neutrality}
• Payoffs: These would be hypothetical and based on historical outcomes, political, economic, and social considerations:
• A Invades vs. UK Defends: High cost for both, potential loss of international standing for A, but national pride might be seen as a gain. FI would face significant upheaval.
• A Invades vs. UK Concedes: A gains territory but at the cost of international relations; UK loses prestige and territory; FI loses sovereignty.
• A Negotiates vs. UK Defends: No immediate conflict, but tensions remain; FI’s status quo preserved.
• A Negotiates vs. UK Concedes: Peaceful transfer of sovereignty might occur, A gains without war, UK avoids conflict but loses territory; FI’s preference depends on their alignment with UK or desire for self-determination.
• FI Supports UK: Enhances UK’s resolve, potentially escalates conflict; reduces A’s chance of success.
• FI Seeks Neutrality: Might reduce conflict intensity but leaves FI’s future uncertain.

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium Analysis:

• Equilibrium with Conflict: If both A and UK anticipate the other will act aggressively (Invade/Defend), no player can unilaterally change strategy for better outcomes. In this case, the equilibrium might involve:
  • A choosing “Invade” because defending the claim on the islands is seen as non-negotiable.
  • UK choosing “Defend” due to the high value placed on sovereignty and national pride, despite the costs.
  • FI choosing “Support UK” for maintaining status quo, leading to an equilibrium where conflict is likely.
• Equilibrium with Peace: Conversely, if all players recognize the high mutual costs of war:
  • A might choose “Negotiate” if the potential gains from peace (economic relations, international standing) outweigh the symbolic gain of the islands.
  • UK might choose “Concede” if the cost of conflict and maintaining the islands outweighs the benefits, especially if it’s seen as a diplomatic solution rather than a loss.
  • FI might “Seek Neutrality” if they believe their interests are better served by not escalating tensions, hoping for a diplomatic resolution where their rights are considered.
• Mixed Strategies: In reality, players might not commit fully to one strategy but play mixed strategies:
• A might mix between “Invade” and “Negotiate” to keep UK guessing, reducing the effectiveness of defense preparations.
• UK might similarly mix “Defend” with “Concede” to signal both resolve and openness to diplomacy.
• FI could alternate between supporting and neutrality to maximize influence in negotiations.

In a Symmetric Nash Equilibrium, each player’s best response to the strategies of others can lead to either conflict or peace. The equilibrium with conflict reflects the 1982 scenario where each side’s actions were predicated on the other’s expected behavior.

Post-conflict, a shift towards negotiation might reflect a new equilibrium where the costs of war are acknowledged, and peace through diplomacy becomes the best mutual strategy.

Obviously, it is important to note, this analysis simplifies a complex geopolitical situation into a theoretical model, where real-world variables like international law, domestic politics, and historical grievances significantly influence outcomes beyond pure game theory predictions. Other elements and factors such as leaders’ prestige, regional and international situation and questions pertaining to other cases such as Antarctica would need to be taken into account.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/01/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_27.html

NEXT POST:

Asymmetric Nash Equilibrium (SNE), game theory and international territorial disputes

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 29th January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 20: Prospect theory, game theory and international territorial disputes

 

Prospect theory, game theory and international territorial disputes

Prospect Theory, which is often associated with behavioral economics rather than game theory, shares some conceptual overlaps. Developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979, Prospect Theory describes how people choose between probabilistic alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known. Some key points about Prospect Theory are:

• Value Function: People evaluate outcomes based on changes in wealth or welfare rather than final states. This function is generally concave for gains (indicating risk aversion) and convex for losses (indicating risk-seeking behavior), with a steeper slope for losses than for gains, illustrating loss aversion.
• Reference Dependence: Choices are influenced by a reference point, often interpreted as the status quo or an expectation. Gains and losses are judged relative to this point.
• Loss Aversion: People tend to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. For example, losing $100 might hurt more than gaining $100 feels good.
• Probability Weighting: Instead of treating probabilities linearly, people tend to overweight small probabilities and underweight moderate to high probabilities. This leads to behaviors like buying lottery tickets despite the low odds of winning, or insuring against very unlikely events.
• Framing Effects: The way choices are framed can influence decisions. For instance, the same problem described in terms of potential gains versus potential losses can lead to different choices even when the outcomes are economically identical.

While Prospect Theory is not a type of game theory per se, it does intersect with game theory in how it models decision-making under risk, especially in scenarios where players’ decisions are influenced by perceived gains and losses rather than just objective outcomes. Both theories deal with strategic behavior, but Prospect Theory focuses more on individual decision-making biases and psychological impacts on choice, whereas game theory looks at strategic interactions among rational players.

Prospect Theory and the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict

Applying Prospect Theory to the Falklands/Malvinas conflict involves analyzing how each party (Argentina, the UK, and the Falkland Islanders) perceived gains, losses, and risks relative to their reference points. Here’s how Prospect Theory might explain the dynamics leading to conflict and the potential avenues for peace:

Reasons for Conflict:

1. Argentina’s Perspective:
   • Domain of Losses: Argentina had been experiencing economic and political instability. The loss of the Malvinas (as they call the islands) was a significant historical grievance, symbolizing national humiliation.
   • Loss Aversion and Risk-Seeking Behavior: Given their economic and political context, the military junta might have seen the invasion as a risky but potentially rewarding move to bolster national pride and unity. The perceived gain of reclaiming the islands might have seemed disproportionately large compared to the potential losses from international condemnation or military defeat, especially if they underestimated UK resolve.
   • Probability Weighting: Argentina might have overweighted the small probability of a peaceful resolution or British capitulation, leading to an aggressive action.
2. United Kingdom’s Perspective:
   • Domain of Losses: The UK was dealing with its own domestic challenges, including high unemployment and the decline of its global influence post-World War II. Losing the Falklands would represent not just a territorial loss but a significant blow to national prestige and the morale of the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher.
   • Loss Aversion: The UK’s decision to respond militarily can be seen as avoiding a certain loss (the Falklands) at the risk of military engagement. The potential for loss was magnified since the islands were seen as an extension of British sovereignty.
   • Framing Effect: The conflict might have been framed as a defense of sovereignty rather than just a territorial dispute, making military action seem like the lesser of two evils compared to the loss of control over the islands.
3. Falkland Islanders’ Perspective:
• Domain of Losses: The islanders saw any potential Argentine control as a loss of their way of life, identity, and British citizenship.
• Loss Aversion: Their preference would naturally lean towards maintaining the status quo under British rule rather than risking a change in sovereignty, which could lead to economic, cultural, or political losses.

Reasons for Peacebuilding:

1. Mutual Recognition of Losses:
   • Post-Conflict Reflection: After the conflict, both Argentina and the UK might recognize the immense costs (lives, resources, international standing) and see maintaining peace as avoiding further losses.
   • Shift in Reference Points: Over time, both nations might recalibrate their reference points, seeing peace as the status quo, thus making any move towards conflict viewed as a potential loss.
2. Economic and Political Gains from Peace:
   • Prospect of Gains: For Argentina, focusing on internal development rather than external conflicts could be seen as a gain. For the UK, maintaining peace would preserve its international reputation and economic ties.
   • Framing Peace as Gain: Peace could be framed not just as avoiding conflict but as an opportunity for economic cooperation, cultural exchange, or diplomatic achievements.
3. Islanders’ Role in Peace:
   • Self-Determination: Recognizing the islanders’ right to self-determination could frame peace negotiations around their wishes, reducing the perception of loss for both Argentina and the UK by aligning with international law and democratic principles.
4. Diplomacy and International Mediation:
   • Third-Party Involvement: Neutral parties or international bodies could help reframe the dispute in terms of shared benefits like resource management, environmental protection, or regional stability, transforming the narrative from one of zero-sum loss to mutual gain.

In applying Prospect Theory, we see that the conflict arose from misjudged risk perceptions and the valuation of gains and losses, especially under the shadow of significant historical grievances and national pride. Peacebuilding efforts would involve reframing these perceptions, highlighting the gains of peace over the losses of continued conflict, and altering the reference points of all parties towards a future where cooperation yields better outcomes than conflict.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/01/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_24.html

NEXT POST:

Symmetric Nash Equilibrium (SNE), game theory and international territorial disputes

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Monday 27th January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 19: New alternative approaches to solve international territorial disputes: The Falklands/Malvinas case

 

New alternative approaches to solve international territorial disputes: The Falklands/Malvinas case

The blog series considers today why currently available international law procedures and remedies are consistently failing to address peacefully and permanently the most controversial international territorial disputes.  In doing so, the post will use the Falklands/Malvinas dispute as the central example. The post will finish with a section explaining exploring new approaches like those proposed by Dr. Jorge Emilio Nunez is crucial:

Why Current International Law Procedures and Remedies Fail

1. Sovereignty and Self-Determination:
   • Non-Negotiable Sovereignty: Both Argentina and the UK fundamentally see sovereignty over the islands as non-negotiable due to historical claims, national identity, and political prestige. Negotiations often fail because any compromise might be perceived as a loss of sovereignty, which is politically costly.
   • Self-Determination: The principle of self-determination, supported by the islanders’ referendums favoring British sovereignty, complicates matters. Argentina disputes the validity of these referendums based on historical claims and demographic changes. This creates a deadlock where international law’s emphasis on self-determination clashes with historical territorial rights.
2. Arbitration and Mediation:
   • Lack of Binding Mechanisms: Arbitration or mediation outcomes are often non-binding unless both parties agree beforehand to accept the decision, which they haven’t in this case. Even if binding, there’s resistance to accept outcomes that don’t align with national interests.
   • Bias Perception: Both countries might perceive third-party mediators or arbitrators as biased, especially given the geopolitical context and historical alliances.
3. International Court of Justice (ICJ):
   • Jurisdiction Issues: Neither Argentina nor the UK has unconditionally accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction for this dispute. The UK has excluded territorial sovereignty from ICJ jurisdiction, and while Argentina has accepted it conditionally, this mutual non-acceptance makes legal recourse through the ICJ unlikely.
   • Enforcement Problems: Even if the ICJ were to rule, enforcement of such decisions can be problematic without both parties’ consent, especially when it involves territory.
4. United Nations:
   • Political Deadlock: The UN Security Council, where both nations are involved indirectly through allies or veto power, has not been effective in pushing for a resolution due to geopolitical interests.
   • Decolonization Narrative: While the UN’s decolonization agenda might support Argentina’s historical claim, the self-determination of the islanders, also a UN principle, counters this narrative, leading to no clear path forward within existing frameworks.
5. Conciliation:
   • Limited Success: Conciliation efforts have been hampered by the same issues as negotiation – lack of willingness to compromise on core issues and the political cost of appearing to back down.

Why New Approaches Like Nunez’s 2017 and 2023 Proposals Are Necessary

Without claiming Núñez’s 2017 and 2023 are the solution to international territorial disputes like the Falklands/Malvinas case, it is of utmost importance to do both, question current viability of traditional international law procedures and remedies for conflict resolution that are consistently failing to do what they are meant to do; acknowledge intricate international territorial disputes require more comprehensive approaches.

• Innovative Sovereignty Concepts:
  • Núñez ‘s idea of “Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty” offers a way out of the zero-sum game by redefining sovereignty in terms of shared governance, which could align with international law principles while addressing the unique aspects of this dispute.
• Inclusion of Multiple Stakeholders:
  • By recognizing the roles of individuals, communities, and states in different capacities (hosts, participants, attendees), Nunez’s frameworks provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dispute, potentially leading to more inclusive solutions that respect all parties’ rights.
• Cosmopolitanism and Justice:
  • Núñez ‘s 2023 work introduces cosmopolitanism, advocating for solutions that go beyond state-centric views to consider global justice, which is crucial in disputes where human rights, cultural identity, and self-determination are at play.
• Dynamic Game Theory Application:
  • Traditional game theory might predict ongoing stalemates or conflicts, but Nunez’s integration of game theory with new legal and political theories could provide insights into strategic shifts towards cooperation, showing how all parties could benefit from peace rather than war.
• Breaking the Deadlock:
  • The traditional mechanisms have entrenched the conflict in a pattern of inaction or escalating rhetoric. Nunez’s proposals could provide a theoretical breakthrough by offering conceptual tools to reframe the dispute in terms of shared benefits, thus potentially unlocking a dialogue that has proven elusive with current methods.

In summary, the persistent failure of traditional international law mechanisms in the Falklands/Malvinas case stems from their inability to reconcile deeply held national interests with the evolving principles of international law, particularly self-determination. New theoretical approaches like those from Núñez could introduce innovative ways to conceptualize, discuss, and resolve territorial disputes by considering a broader spectrum of interests and rights, potentially leading to a more just and peaceful outcome.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/01/territorial-disputes-in-americas-blog_23.html

NEXT POST:

Prospect theory, game theory and international territorial disputes

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Friday 24th January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 18: Which case do you want me to research in detail?

 

Which case do you want me to research in detail?

Greetings, intrepid explorers of the geopolitical maze! Welcome again, my readers, to an engaging session on my blog where we will turn our attention to the fascinating and often contentious world of international territorial disputes in the Americas. I am excited to involve you in deciding which current, ongoing disputes between two or more sovereign states or communities we should explore in depth. Your participation will help shape our journey into understanding how these conflicts continue to shape the geopolitical landscape of the continent.

In selecting our case studies, I will harness the multidimensional framework I introduced in my 2023 book, “Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory.” This approach will guide our analysis through a blend of disciplines such as law, political science, and international relations. We’ll look at the roles of various agents—ranging from individuals to states—playing parts as hosts, participants, or observers, all within the contexts of domestic, regional, and international spheres. This method allows us to appreciate the complexity of territorial disputes by acknowledging the influence of different normative systems, from legal frameworks to moral and religious considerations, encapsulating what I call a “pluralism of pluralisms.”

I invite you to engage with this exercise by choosing from the questions listed below. Your selections will not only direct our research but also enrich our understanding of how these disputes reflect broader themes of sovereignty, identity, and resource control. Whether it’s a landlocked nation’s quest for sea access, historical conflicts involving indigenous rights, or contemporary issues over resource-rich territories, your choices will help us delve into the heart of these disputes, offering insights into the intricate dance of diplomacy, law, and politics that defines international relations in the Americas.

You’ll find below five distinct questions about international territorial disputes in the Americas:

1. What case of a landlocked country in the Americas seeking access to the sea would you like me to study?
2. Which historical border conflict involving indigenous land rights in the Americas should I delve into?
3. Can you recommend a case where an island or archipelago is contested among multiple nations in the Americas?
4. What contemporary issue involving resource-rich territories in the Americas would you find compelling to explore?
5. Which dispute in the Americas, where colonial legacies play a significant role, should I research for historical context?

Now’s your moment to be part of this exploration! Cast your vote, share your insights, and let’s embark on this adventure together. Your choices will guide our deep dive into these international disputes, offering a unique perspective on the complexities of sovereignty, law, and politics. So, what are you waiting for? Join the conversation, and let’s unravel the mysteries of the Americas’ territorial disputes together!

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/search/label/Book%20preview

NEXT POST:

New alternative approaches to solve international territorial disputes: The Falklands/Malvinas case

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Wednesday 22nd January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 17: Self-determination: Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People)

Self-determination: Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People)

The concepts of self-determination in the cases of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, particularly concerning the Raizal people, are complex and intertwined with historical, legal, and political dimensions.

Falkland Islands/Malvinas

Historical Context and Current Situation

Sovereignty Dispute: The Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as Islas Malvinas, have been a point of contention between Argentina and the United Kingdom since the 19th century. The UK has administered the islands since 1833, with Argentina claiming them based on historical Spanish possession before Argentine independence.

Self-Determination

Referendum: In 2013, a referendum was held on the Falkland Islands where 99.8% of voters chose to remain an overseas territory of the UK, emphasizing their right to self-determination. However, Argentina argues that the principle of self-determination does not apply because the inhabitants are not considered a “people” (see previous blog post for this) with a distinct identity separate from the UK, and their presence is a result of British colonial policy.

International Perspective

• United Nations: The UN has repeatedly called for negotiations between Argentina and the UK to resolve the sovereignty dispute, acknowledging the interests of the islanders but focusing on decolonization rather than affirming self-determination in this context. The UN Special Committee on Decolonization has annual resolutions on the matter, emphasizing a negotiated solution.
• Legal Arguments: Some international law scholars argue that the right to self-determination should not supersede Argentina’s claim based on territorial integrity and historical continuity from Spain. Others support the UK’s stance, highlighting the democratic process and the will of the inhabitants.

San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People)

Historical Context and Current Situation

Ethnic and Cultural Identity: The Raizal people are an Afro-Caribbean ethnic group with a strong cultural identity, primarily speaking Creole and practicing Protestantism. They assert rights to self-determination, cultural preservation, and land autonomy within Colombia.

Sovereignty and Autonomy

• Legal and Political Movements: There have been movements for self-determination by the Raizal, including declarations of independence and demands for greater autonomy, particularly after natural disasters like hurricanes that have exacerbated their socio-economic and cultural challenges. They argue for recognition under international law, especially the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169.
• International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ has ruled on related issues, affirming Colombian sovereignty over the islands themselves but leaving maritime boundary disputes unresolved, which affects Raizal fishing rights and environmental concerns.
• Cultural and Environmental Issues: The Raizal community faces challenges from mass migration policies by the Colombian government, which they claim aim to dilute their ethnic majority, alongside environmental degradation from tourism and foreign interests. There’s a push for the recognition of their rights to manage their land and resources independently.

Both cases, the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People), show how self-determination can clash with national sovereignty claims, with the Falklands/Malvinas Islands focusing on a political and legal dispute between nations, and San Andrés involving ethnic identity, cultural preservation, and environmental stewardship within a sovereign state.

The international community’s approach varies, often calling for negotiation and respect for human rights and cultural identities while navigating the complexities of international law and politics.

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

https://london1701.blogspot.com/search/label/Book%20preview

NEXT POST:

Which case do you want me to research in detail?

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Monday 20th January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Territorial Disputes in the Americas blog series. Post 16: Self-determination and territorial disputes in the Americas

 

Self-determination and territorial disputes in the Americas

There are several current cases in the continent of America where territorial disputes are based on issues of self-determination:

1. Puerto Rico (United States):
   • Description: The status of Puerto Rico involves a long-standing debate over its political relationship with the United States. Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the U.S., there are movements advocating for statehood, independence, or a form of free association. The Puerto Rico Status Act, which aimed to resolve Puerto Rico’s status through a binding plebiscite, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate. This reflects ongoing self-determination debates.
2. Belize-Guatemala Territorial Dispute:
   • Description: Guatemala claims a significant portion of Belize based on historical rights from the Spanish colonial period. The dispute involves both territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with resolving this issue, with referendums in both countries supporting taking the matter to the ICJ. This case is less about self-determination of a community within Belize but more about national sovereignty and historical claims, though it does involve local communities’ rights and identity.
3. Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute (Essequibo region):
   • Description: Venezuela claims nearly two-thirds of Guyana, particularly the Essequibo region, based on colonial-era agreements and maps. This dispute has historical roots but has seen renewed tension with Venezuela’s referendum on annexing the area. The dispute involves Guyana’s right to self-determination as an independent nation and control over its resources, particularly oil discovered offshore in the disputed area. The case is before the ICJ.

Self-determination and indigenous populations

1. Native American Reservations (United States/Canada):
   • Description: Numerous Native American tribes in both the U.S. and Canada have ongoing disputes related to land rights, water rights, and sovereignty. While these are not strictly “territorial disputes” between states, they embody self-determination issues as tribes seek to reclaim or assert control over lands historically theirs, often challenging state or federal jurisdiction. Examples include disputes over water rights in the American Southwest or land claims in Canada. This is a broad, ongoing series of disputes rather than a singular case.
2. There are other cases like the Mapuche community (Argentina and Chile) that will be explore in detail in future blog posts.

Other cases

1. Falkland/Malvinas Islands: This case will be discussed in the next blog post.
2. San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People) This case will be discussed in the next blog post.

Each of these cases reflects different aspects of self-determination, ranging from national sovereignty, control over natural resources, to cultural and ethnic identity preservation. These disputes often hinge on historical claims, legal interpretations, and the rights of peoples to govern themselves or decide their political status.

I include below a video in which I explain the relationship between sovereignty and self-determination concerning territorial disputes (see at 26′ 59″):

NOTE:

This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

PREVIOUS POST:

NEXT POST:

Self-determination: Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina (Raizal People)

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Friday 17th January 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world