Hydrostrategic Decisionmaking and the Arab ... - Yale University

WOLF 223BORDERS, BOUNDARIES, AND HYDROSTRATEGICTERRITORYIn order to answer these questions, it is necessary to distinguish“hydrostrategic” territory (that is, land surface which has strategicvalue solely on the basis of water resource access) from other territoryunder conflict.Ratzel defines the difference between a border line and a borderfringe: “the border fringe is the reality and the border line is theabstraction thereof” (cited in Prescott 1987). The term “boundary”has become more common for the line, while “frontier” and/or“border region” are used regularly to refer to the zone on either sideof the boundary (O’Loughlin 1994). Prescott (1987) defines boundariesas “the line of physical contact between states” and identifiesthem as sources of both conflict and cooperation among states.The link between the attributes of the border region and internationalconflict has been well documented. Ratzel emphasized thephysical components of boundaries, arguing that states shouldestablish strong military boundaries, including mountain slopes andthe far banks of rivers (cited in Prescott 1965). The functional approachof political geography, as defined by Hartshorne (1950),Jones (1954), and others, describes the motives of state behavior;Douglass (1985) specifies security as the fundamental goal of a state:“security for its political system, its economic system and for itspeople....” Homer-Dixon (1991) offers a broad definition of securityalong similar lines, to include human physical, social, and economicwell-being. If delineation of boundaries does not further these goalsfor states on both sides of the line, they themselves can become acause of conflict. Waterman (1984) describes the hardships of thepeoples of Ireland and Palestine brought about by the imposition ofboundaries which insufficiently take geography into account. Cohen(1986) lists almost one hundred boundary disputes and describesthe most important elements which contribute to them.One problem is that many of these elements can be in opposition.As Tonkin (1994) points out, borders imply scarcity: “Bordersnow imply potential contestation and scarcity, a sense that territoryis either in short supply or potentially valuable.”Water certainly is a source of boundary conflict. Prescott (1965)describes disputes over water bodies which mark or cross a boundary(including territorial waters) as the most common source offunctional disputes, and both he and Bingham et al. (1994) describesuch examples from around the world. In contrast, ignoring water infavor of other parameters of boundary delineation has also provedunwise. The boundary between India and Pakistan, for example, wasdrawn mostly on the basis of religious considerations, all but ignor-YALE F&ES BULLETIN