Innovative Approaches to Territorial Disputes: Using Principles of Riparian Conflict Management

Abstract

Many belligerents in ethno-territorial conflicts claim they have an absolute right to contested space, operate on a zero-sum basis, and use maximalist negotiation strategies. This article draws on ongoing fieldwork that examines ethno-territorial conflict and focuses on the transition from rights-based to needs-based negotiations over sites of worship, parading routes, and national borders. These three sites represent different scales and expressions of spatial conflict, including accommodations for Jewish and Muslim worshipers in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron/al-Khalil, West Bank, the terms and conditions agreed to for sectarian parading in the town of Derry/Londonderry, Northern Ireland, and the return and subsequent lease of land on the Israeli–Jordanian border. In each case, negotiated arrangements allow for the belligerents to meet their minimal territorial needs, even as the broader dynamics of the conflict persist. Central to these arrangements is a shared recognition that space is a mutable resource and that needs-based negotiation can allow sharing of contested territory at a variety of scales. The article draws from analogous dynamics in international river treaty negotiations, specifically the riparian model developed by the authors in earlier work. We conclude by enumerating the contributions geographers can make to theories of conflict and peace.