General Assembly
Colonization and Territorial Asylum
by
Stuart A. Handley
Few nations can claim that they never have been colonies of other nations. Almost every region in the world has been under the political or economic control of another political entity. Struggles for territorial integrity have often been layered in blood, with success not necessarily the final result. Too often, innocent people have lost their lives and/or their livelihoods in the cause of territorial integrity.
A number of questions are present in the study of colonization and territorial asylum. The first two are somewhat definitional: What is colonization and What is territorial asylum? Must they viewed individually, collectively, or can they be taken in one context and incorporated into the other? Are there solid definitions for these rather abstract terms? Can any definition be valid when tested against history? !s it possible to define adequately the two concepts at all? Without something resembling a consensus on the two terms, finding solutions to the problems of colonization and territorial asylum is remote at best.
The most obvious way to look at territorial asylum is to explore the concept of borders. Most nations in the world have relatively fixed borders separating them from other nations. Indeed, the concept of boundaries has been studied in many ways. Scholars of political geography looked at what makes nations strong by exploring borders and geographic location (Prescott 1975; Dougherty and Pfaltz-graff 1981, 54-83). Others, including Ratzel (1923), used "Geopolitik" as a means of defining or justifying aggression as a political right to maintaining territorial integrity, even if doing so violated territorial integrity.
Throughout its history, the United Nations has been faced with real or perceived threats to territorial integrity, including invasions and incursions. Situations in Palestine (1947 to present), Korea (1950-53), Vietnam (1950-75), Iran and Iraq (1980-89), and the Falkland Islands (1982), etc., have vexed the UN and its desire for peace. Indeed, that most territorial disputes have either been solved militarily or not at all points out the difficulties facing UN organs. To maintain territorial integrity, a definition of borders and territories is a priori for agreement, a task that is difficult to say the least. (Puchala 1981, 19-22; Puchala 1982, 1-4 and 21-23; Tessitore and Woolfson 1987, 4-16; Freedman 1982, 196-210. See Finnegan et al (1979) for a closer look at international law, varied disputes, and conflict resolution.)
The third and fourth questions are far more political than the first two, because the two terms, once defined, must be categorized into types and subtypes. The questions are: What constitutes colonization and What constitutes a violation of territorial asylum? What one nation or group of nations may view as colonization another nation or group of nations may deem legitimate for national or regional security. Politics and ideology play major roles in determining not only what colonization and territorial asylum are, but also whether or not such they are occurring in specific areas.
The problem of territorial integrity and national or regional security is not necessarily relegated only to land disputes. Rivers and oceans have been the focus of disputes almost since earliest history. The principal questions here are: What are the demarcations for territorial versus international waters and What are the responsibilities between nations vis-a-vis other nations regarding rivers? Territorial waters have changed over time and are not means uniform. Nations claim territorial waters (seas and oceans) of 3 to 200 nautical miles, and sometimes change them without warning. Ships venturing into them are often confiscated or destroyed and their crews arrested and prosecuted.
Within the questions regarding territorial versus international waters lie another problem, that of resources in these waters. The 1982 Law of the Sea, "a comprehensive treaty covering all ocean uses development" (Tessitore and Woolfson 1982, 104), has had its share of problems, including the fact that some developed nations have not signed it. (See also United Nations 1983, 43-46; Puchala 1981, 108-10; Puchala 1982, 96-100.) They are concerned they will be discriminated against regarding seabed mining and mineral development, etc. (Tessitore and Woolfson 1987, 104-07; United Nations 1983, 99-100; Bennett 1984, 180-85). Questions involving rivers, especially those separating nations, have also been a source of frustration for nations wanting territorial integrity, although there have been successes.
Finally, if territorial asylum is violated, what can be done to correct the situation? The possibilities here are almost infinite, and each one brings with it a new and different set of problems. Will force or the threat of force lead to increased violence and death? Will political attempts to correct the situation work given an aura of mistrust? The UN has always urged the use of negotiations to solve such disputes, and provides a neutral forum to air grievances and to solve disputes without using force.
Conflicts are not limited to explicitly national boundaries. Questions on territorial asylum and integrity also involve embassies, consulates, and other types of diplomatic quarters. Crises such as the taking of the US embassy in Iran points out the need for comprehensive international agreements on the sanctity of national borders, embassies, etc.. There is a need for nations to abide by convention and treaty principles. (See "The Question of Diplomatic Asylum" for a more detailed look.)
The question of territorial asylum is not one that is easily resolved, but it must be so if nations are not to feel threatened. Without territorial integrity, nations will continue to be at conflict with each other.