Legal disputes over territorial boundaries, occupation and delimitation of spheres of influence can become particularly politicized and socially divisive. This can happen either because they involve two states with diverging preferences, such as border disputes, or because they strike close to the core of national sovereignty, such as separatist claims within one state. Control over a territory is traditionally considered one of the key elements of a sovereign state. The chapter focuses on the first category, namely on inter-state territorial disputes.
The focus lies with the strategies that international courts (ICs) deploy to avoid and mitigate backlash. The chapter analyzes how the territorial disputes arise before ICs, how they are framed, and what reactions follow, in order to identify what strategies the courts adopt to avoid backlash in those cases. The analysis also takes into account the various types of ICs facing those questions (regional/global, new-style/classic, economic/human rights) and how this affects the results.
Territorial disputes might be expected to be more inter-state in their nature, focusing on sovereign confrontation. However, we explore to what extend ICs also act as agents of the international community in those cases. This can be expressed with a focus on the development of international law norms, alignment with international organizations in which they are embedded, and close interactions with the transnational communities.
The chapter explores in particular two case studies. First, the border disputes within Central America, such as the ones between Nicaragua and Costa Rica or Nicaragua and Honduras. They were adjudicated by the Central American Court of Justice (CACJ) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Second, the occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey, which indirectly has been dealt with by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).