World map of disputed territories


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/12/28/world-map-of-disputed-territor.html


#2

What the hell nobody wants Åland?


#3

Conversely, there is an area that NO ONE seems to want to claim.

Bir Tawil


#4

the interactive map does not work for me (site boingboinged or is it a problem on my end?) but Germany should be red on the overview map in the BB article: the Dutch-German border in the Dollart is disputed since WW2. The Netherlands see the border in the middle of the bay, Germany claims ownership of the whole water area


#5

I’m honestly pretty surprised at the number of little oceanic specks that are listed as ‘undisputed’. Yes, tiny rocks are mostly worthless; but claiming a 700 mile radius around a few grains of sand that are Indisputably An Inalienable Part of Your Patrimony or whatever seems to be all the rage these days.


#6

The Canada-Denmark one is funny. About every six months a military patrol from one of the nations lands on the island takes down the other’s flag and places it in a box with along with a case of liquor then they put up there’s (which was left by the other guys) and takes the case of booze left there for them in turn. This has been going on for years now apparently.


#7

so one could influence the Canadian-Danish relationship by stealing the booze?


#8

We would know. Vengeance would be swift and terrible.

Remember The Pig War!


#9

No mention of Liberland?


#10

what an excellent prank.

“how was your vacation?” - “fine, thanks. drank lots of booze and started a small war.”


#11

No, no, I’m pretty sure the red areas are the countries making claims - not the disputed area. That’s what makes this map less than helpful. Huge countries like the US and Russia have a dispute somewhere? That’s utterly unsurprising, and yet it colors most of the map red. Maybe the problem is that the disputed areas are mostly too tiny to see.


#12

This map is far too generous. Nearly all of the world is “disputed territories”. All it takes to be a recognized nation state is the say-so of a couple hundred other countries and maybe the UN - how many individuals is that, a few ten thousands out of the billions who live here? Most nation-states are only undisputed to the extent that people are assumed to defer to their local hegemon. There appears to be consensus only as the results of the efforts of a small minority.


#13

Northern Ireland should be included as a disputed territory. The Republic of Ireland lays claim to it but foregoes pursuing the claim for the sake of peace.


#14

This map is missing so many disputed territories, it only lists “official” ones between UN recognized nations. When I clicked on Canada it failed to list 98% of British Columbia as disputed territory, even though there are no treaties between the federal government and First Nations and the land has never legally been ceded to Canada.

Also, the entirety of Palestine should be listed as disputed territory, not just the areas that are currently being invaded.


#15

No it shouldn’t: articles two and three of the Irish constitution were amended as part of the peace process formally recognising the legitamacy of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland isn’t a disputed state, it is perfectly valid. There is no such country as the Republic of Ireland however (that’s the name of the soccer team, not the rugby team which represents the whole island of Ireland including the states of Ireland and Northern Ireland), That is a British propaganda term they came up with to avoid calling Ireland Ireland as the definition of Ireland according to the Irish constitution was “the whole island of Ireland”. Article four of the constitution says that the name of the state is Ireland (actually it say’s it’s Éire or in the English language Ireland) and you can look up any of the agreements such as EU treaties for example and see the lists of signatories including:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA,
THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND,

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12007L%2FTXT
I’m not suggesting that any of that is important what is important is the political realities expressed. NI is not disputed in any important way.


#16

Apparently the NZ territorial claim in Antarctica does not overlap with anyone else’s claim (yet). Must try harder.


#17

this is a funny exception (and the only one according to the signees of the Lisbon treaty) - the guy is not king of Belgium but the Belgians. how many generations is this binding when one of them emigrates? and are immigrants directly subjects of the guy?


#18

This styling originates from the French Revolution, specifically the constitution of 1791. It established that sovereignty belonged to the people, who simply happened to consent to being ruled by a king, as opposed to the king being sovereign over the country whether the people liked it or not. Thus, “King of France” became “King of the French”. Kingdom of Belgium adopted the tradition presumably because it was also founded by means of a popular revolution in 1830.


#19

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.