The Bases of Territorial Claims

Abstract

IRTUALLY all states and empires have treated territory as being of itself good, despite occasional warnings about dangers of overextension. They have felt that increases in land area enhance power of state and prove possession of power by state. Machiavelli went so far as to conclude that the wish to acquire more [territory] is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and when men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned.' It is not surprising, therefore, that world is beset by numerous conflicting claims to territory. Yet political geographers have not given much attention to bases of these conflicting claims, in contrast to their work on Staatsidee and on raison d'etre of state.2 Even Isaiah Bowman rarely dealt with claims as such in his classic The New World; his detailed discussion of problems was largely limited to economic difficulties and to presence of linguistic minorities.3 Ratzel saw expansion of state as an organic process that was divorced from such niceties as claims and defenses of claims.4 Because of enormous publicity accorded doctrine of Geopolitik, this organic emphasis dominated publications within field until early 1950'S. Whittlesey, in his study of France, seemed to view expansion of that particular state as resulting from a long process of growth, conditioned by physical factors of terrain.5 One had to look outside of geographical discipline, to a Swiss political commentator and historian, to find a clear statement to contrary.