=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T01
|storemode=property
|title=An Ontological Approach to Territorial Disputes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T01_DonohueEtAl.pdf
|volume=Vol-1304
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stids/DonohueOS14
}}
==An Ontological Approach to Territorial Disputes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1304/STIDS2014_T01_DonohueEtAl.pdf
An Ontological Approach to Territorial Disputes
Brian Donohue, J. Neil Otte, and Barry Smith
Department of Philosophy, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY, USA
{bd26, jeffotte, phismith}@buffalo.edu
Abstract – Disputes over territory are a major contributing II. THE TROUBLE WITH TERRITORIAL DISPUTES
factor to the disruption of international relations. We believe that The problems facing the successful ontological
a cumulative, integrated, and continuously updated resource
representation of territorial disputes include:
providing information about such disputes in an easily accessible
form would be of benefit to intelligence analysts, military (1) The need to identify the dispute at issue (which may
strategists, political scientists, and also to historians and others evolve with time and may be described in conflicting ways by
concerned with international disputes. We propose an ontology- the disputing parties, as when Israelis use ‘Israel’ and
based strategy for creating such a resource. The resource will
Palestinians use ‘the Zionist entity’ to refer to the same
contain information about territorial disputes, arguments for and
against claims pertaining to sovereignty, proffered evidence for territory).
such claims, political and military motives (overt or hidden), and (2) The need to identify the entities involved in a dispute,
associated conflicts. Our approach is designed to address several including:
issues surrounding the representation of geopolitical conflict,
including the tracking and individuation of disputes and the x The disputing parties (governments, underground
validation of disseminated information. militias, liberation movements); leaders and repre-
sentatives of the disputing parties (politicians, terrorist
Keywords—applied ontology; territory; international conflict;
BFO 2.0
leaders, tribal leaders, religious leaders…).
x External or third parties (multinational agencies such
as the UN, NGOs, aid agencies; mercenaries, religious
I. INTRODUCTION
bodies, press and broadcasting agencies, salient minor-
In what follows, our focus is on the ontological ities (for example, Russians in East Ukraine).
representation of territorial disputes and the different sorts of x Actions (negotiations, propaganda, military actions,
entities associated therewith. The ontology is intended to be acts of terrorism, terrorist campaigns).
used for the consistent annotation of data and information x Territories and territorial borders.
about territorial claims, arguments for and against such claims,
political and military motives (overt or hidden), and the x Information artifacts involved in territorial disputes
different types of conflicts associated with territorial disputes, such as diplomatic notes, treaties, claims, maps.
from occasional skirmishes and limited engagements to x Objectives and motives of the parties involved (both
terrorist campaigns and outright war. overt and concealed).
We begin with a survey of some of the problems faced in
representing territorial disputes in data and information III. IDENTIFYING AND TRACKING DISPUTES
systems. Second, we sketch how Basic Formal Ontology The first step toward the representation of a territorial
(BFO) 2.0 can be used as a framework for a realist dispute is the ability to identify the dispute itself. This can be
understanding of different ways in which individual and group problematic, since how we should individuate any given
agents participate in territorial and other conflicts dispute may be unclear. For example, is the on-going dispute
(http://www.ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo/). Third, we provide a over oil resources in the Arctic a single dispute or an
framework for the handling of data about territorial claims; interconnected web of disputes, involving multiple different
such claims can cause problems for a realist ontology, since countries? (See Supplementary Material Figure 4)
they are often marked by the use of empty or disputed
reference, for example when opposing parties in a territorial A second task for an ontology of territorial disputes is the
conflict produce maps of putative political entities in a given need to take account of conflicting descriptions of both the
territory which cannot simultaneously be veridical. Finally, we dispute and the surrounding matters of (actual and purported)
propose a way to capture the relationships between motives fact. For instance, the People’s Republic of China claims the
and arguments underlying territorial claims, and we conclude island of Taiwan as one of its provinces; the inhabitants of
with a case study of a territorial dispute between Japan and Taiwan, on the other hand, maintain that, not only the island,
Russia. but also the whole of mainland China, fall under the
jurisdiction of a distinct sovereign nation, viz., the Republic of
2
China, which was (they allege) wrongly forced off the In addition, an information artifact is a kind of entity that is
mainland in 1949. Such incompatibilities cause problems for capable of being about other entities. Territorial claims, maps,
theories – like the theory defended by John Searle – which see treaties—all exist as information artifacts in this sense. They
political entities such as nations as social objects maintained in are, like persons and roles, territories and territorial boundaries,
existence by the beliefs of the parties involved. An approach what BFO calls continuant entities, which means that they
like Searle’s, it seems, can provide an account of the ontology continue to exist through time, even while undergoing changes
of geopolitical entities that is satisfied only in a world in which of various sorts, for example in the form of amendments,
territorial disputes do not exist [1]. codicils, and ratifications.
Because territorial disputes do indeed exist, as also do the Territorial disputes, in contrast, are occurrent entities,
associated conflicting claims, an ontology of territorial disputes which means that they are entities that occur in time and unfold
must find some way to do justice to the fact that given claims themselves in successive temporal parts. Territorial disputes
may have no referent in the real world. To capture, for will differ along a number of dimensions, including their
example, what is involved when disputants talk about “the duration, the parties involved, and the degree to which they
Chinese territory of Taiwan” or “the Taiwanese territory of involve different levels of violent conflict.
China,” or when a neutral observer talks about the disputed
territory of Taiwan combined with (the rest of) China, we need They will also differ according to the territories to which
to find a way to link claims to the corresponding geographical they relate, the boundaries of these territories, the populations
regions without also prejudicing our representation in favor of of human beings occupying these territories, and so on. An
one or other party. ontology to support reasoning with territorial dispute data will
thus require a resource such as the I2WD Geospatial Ontology
Something similar holds when claims issued in the course (http://milportal.org), incorporating also references to the
of a dispute come in the form of accounts of a nation’s different kinds of fiat geopolitical entities described in [3].
historical presence in a territory which are offered as evidence
to legitimize a claim of present sovereignty over that region In the case of claims that nations stake upon disputed
(for example, accounts of the Jewish presence in the territory territory, the information artifacts involved may be descriptive
of present-day Israel since the time of the First Temple). or directive. For instance, during the Six Day War in 1967
Again, our ontology would need to be able to represent the Israeli forces seized East Jerusalem and asserted that this
content of such reports without necessarily endorsing their region is (and always had been) part of the geopolitical region
claim to truth, and the same would hold of geographic or of Israel. Thus, Israel’s claim on East Jerusalem is formulated
oceanographic reports documenting measurements of the as a piece of descriptive information. However, this claim was
boundaries of given territories in ways that may affect claimsof associated with directive information specifying how persons
sovereignty. For example, Russia has claimed approximately should conduct themselves with respect to that territory,
half of the Arctic Ocean (1.2 million square kilometers) on the declaring inhabitants of East Jerusalem subject to Israeli law
basis of measurements of its continental shelf (the natural and restricting access to the region by non-Israelis.
prolongation of its landmass, as defined by the United Nations Territorial claims are often bolstered by arguments aimed at
Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – see [2]). The establishing their truth. For instance, to justify the seizure of
international community has greeted these measurements with Palestinian territories, Geula Cohen of the Israeli Parliament
considerable skepticism. Nonetheless, it is essential that argued in 1999, “The Jews did not come back to Israel to be
analysts be able to search for data about the region Russia does safe but to build a nation on the lands given to us by the Bible.”
claim. How, then, do we make sense of the content of our [4] In this statement, Cohen gives an argument in support of
words without thereby imparting to our words a referent in the Israel’s territorial claim on the basis of divine right. Here, we
world? In what follows, we propose a solution to this problem, can distinguish Israel’s territorial claim, Cohen’s argument in
whose goal is to render an ontology capable of handling both favor of this claim, and the religious beliefs underpinning this
true and false claims made within a territorial dispute. argument, all of which are salient to representing the territorial
dispute as a whole. Or consider also the 1994 argument of
IV. ENTITIES IN A TERRITORIAL DISPUTE Stephen N. Schwebel, in favor of the legality of the Israeli
settlements on the basis of the principle of a sovereignty
One of the questions an ontology is designed to answer is: vacuum [5] (See Supplementary Material Figure 5). Another
What kind of entity is X? Consider for example the role of important feature of territorial disputes are the motives of the
being an arbitrator of a dispute. In BFO terms, this is a disputing parties. Salient motives include:
specifically dependent entity – it could not exist apart from the
person who bears the role. Or consider the information about x total autonomy, independence, or secession (for
some arbitrator contained in some document; to what kind of example of Quebec from Canada, of Scotland from
entity are we referring when we refer to this information? From the United Kingdom, of Catalonia from Spain);
the BFO point of view, an information artifact of this sort is a x local autonomy (of Kashmir, South Tyrol, Sicily)
generically dependent entity, which means that whereas it within one or another existing sovereign nation;
requires some bearer – for instance, some hard drive – in order x economic advantage via the exploitation of natural
to exist, it does not require any specific bearer, because it can
resources (for example petroleum and natural gas in
be copied from one hard drive to another; forwarded over e-
mail, or printed out in the form of a paper document the areas surrounding Hans Island and Paracel
(http://code.google.com/p/information-artifact-ontology/). Islands, and in the Aegean Sea);
3
x restoration of territory held to have been lost (of in intensity of associated conflict). Even while we do not
Gibraltar to Spain, of Ceuta to Morocco, of Belize to believe that it is possible to articulate an exact account of the
Guatemala); identity conditions for disputes over time, we nonetheless
x expansion of territory (of Canada, Russia, the United believe that it is in many cases unproblematic to identify a
States, Denmark, and Norway into the Arctic Circle); given state of dispute as one and the same from one time to the
next. Just as an obligation comes into being upon the making
x strategic gain (of Tuzla Island and the Strait of Kerch
of a promise – for example as documented in a written contract
for Russia). – and only ceases to exist upon either the fulfillment of the
This collection of data relating to motives is complicated by promise or the waiving of the obligation by the one to whom
the fact that overt motives may differ significantly from hidden the promise was made, so a dispute comes into being upon the
ones. We contend in what follows that an ontology of territorial act of instigation and only ceases to exist upon either (1) a
disputes should have the resources to represent motives of both resolution amenable to the parties involved, (2) the ceasing to
types, though we recognize that obvious problems arise in exist of one or more of these parties, (3) the involvement of
regard to the latter since it is possible for the motive that is further parties for example in imposing a resolution by force,
driving a territorial claim to be perfectly concealed. This or in creating conditions which deprive the original dispute of
however is not different in principle from what is involved its basis.
when gaps in scientific knowledge are revealed by new Consider, now, the special case of territorial disputes, a
discoveries. typical case of which involves two or more governments in
dispute over sovereignty in regard to some specific territory. In
V. DISPUTES, CONFLICTS, AND RELATIONAL QUALITIES our view, the state of dispute is an entity existing through time
Persons, organizations, and governments engage in a wide as an entity in its own right inhering in the participant agents.
array of disputes over plans, goals, predictions, decisions, The state of dispute begins to exist because of actions on the
policies, laws, beliefs, property, and territory. Additionally, part of one of the parties involved (for instance, Nation A
they engage in a similarly wide array of conflicts. But what moves armed forces into a territory claimed by Nation B;
kind of things are disputes and conflicts, and how do they Nation A releases a map that depicts a region that is claimed by
relate to entities of other sorts? B as falling within the geopolitical boundaries of A). Dispute
processes may then ensue, for example on the diplomatic level,
As a provisional characterization, both disputes and but the state of dispute exists even during periods of time when
conflicts – whether or not they are territorial in nature – are no such processes are occurring.
relational processes in BFO terms; thus they are processes
dependent upon and involving as participants at least two In some cases, such dispute processes lead to outright
agents. In the case of a dispute, the participants have views that conflict, and there then arises a new relational quality called a
clash, and the dispute unfolds in a series of sub-processes in state of conflict, with subtypes including a state of war,
which each disputant offers claims and arguments in the hope between them. Both states of dispute and states of conflict are
of convincing others of the correctness of their views. A relational qualities that inhere in two or more agents.
conflict, on the other hand, is a relational process that is made
up of inherently hostile (violent) interactions among VI. DATA ABOUT TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
participants. Not every dispute engenders conflict: a
disagreement over the precise demarcation of a border, for A. Kinds of Data
example, may be resolved through negotiation. And not every We turn now to the handling of data about territorial
conflict involves a dispute, as when one person strikes another claims. Most of these data are readily treated with the resources
in some random attack. of the I2WD ontology framework, including the Information
When two agents – which may be either single persons or Artifact Ontology, Geospatial Ontology, Time Ontology, Event
more or less formally organized groups of persons – are Ontology, and Agent Ontology, with BFO as foundation. This
involved in a dispute, then there exists also a relational quality, suite of ontologies can be used as a tool for tagging different
which in BFO terms is a specifically dependent continuant that types of data salient to territorial disputes, including:
inheres in multiple bearers and which connects them together. (1) Map-based data: representations of geospatial regions
We can refer to this relational quality as a state of dispute. A in proclamations and agreements between nations, for example
state of dispute comes into existence at a certain time (for as claimed, disputed, demilitarized, and so on).
example as the result of an act by one of the parties of staking
(2) Causes of a dispute: assertions relating to the history of
or contesting a territorial claim); but it exists thereafter in its
a region (especially its political history), statements of motives
own right until, perhaps through some further act, it goes out of
for claims (concerning natural resources, strategic position,
existence. A state of dispute is essentially relational; thus it not
purported loyalties of a population, and so on), incidents
reducible to non-relational qualities inhering separately in the
prompting the emergence of the dispute.
involved parties (compare in this respect relational qualities
such as claims and obligations). (3) Arguments: the arguments offered on each side for the
legitimacy of a territorial claim can come in a variety of forms,
Once the state of dispute comes into existence and it including appeals to international courts, historical
preserves its identity for as long as it exists even while documemnts, results of referenda, and geographic and
undergoing a variety of different sorts of changes (for example oceanographic reports; they can be presented as official
4
announcements, through political speeches, diplomatic notes, misleading, provoking, inciting, and so on). In this way, we can
and so on. draw attention to the fact that the information is being
(4) Treaties: Treaties are relational qualities in the sense communicated with a special purpose or in a special context
outlined above. The treaty document serves multiple functions. that modifies the literal meaning of the words being used.
First, it documents the deliberative process which led to an However, category c. cannot be dealt with so easily. In
understanding on the part of the parties involved that the many cases, analysts do know with a high degree of certainty
dispute should be brought to an end. Second, it documents the that a claim is false. For example, in III we noted that Russia
terms of this understanding, which amount to a set of bi- has claimed 1.2 million square kilometers of the Arctic Ocean
directional obligations to act henceforth in accordance with on the basis of a false report of oceanographic measurements
these terms. Third (at least in the ideal case), by being ratified of its continental shelf. Our ontology must be able to represent
by the representatives of the involved parties it serves to bring what that report is about, in this case, the 1.2 million square
the dispute to an end. And fourth, by containing signatures of miles that (Russia claims) comprise their continental shelf. The
these representatives it documents their acknowledgement of problem is that, on the supposition that the Russian claim is
these terms and their acceptance of the concomitant false, there is no such entity as the Russian continental shelf of
obligations. Legal appeals to treaties can thus make reference 1.2 million square kilometers.
to both the treaty itself (the relational quality) and to the signed
document (an information artifact). Moreover, as we shall see A common strategy for representing false statements
in more detail below, already existing treaties may be utilized involves employing reified RDF triples, where an individual
as evidence in favor of new territorial claims. RDF statement may be annotated with the quality “false.” This
strategy allows knowledge about an RDF triple to be expressed
in two steps: the first consists in representing the triple by an
B. False and Disputed Information instance of a statement that has subject, predicate, and object
Any territorial dispute will involve conflicting information indicated separately in three different triples. The second step
about the status of some territory, the location of the relevant involves creating assertions about that instance as if it is a
borders, the soundness of the arguments supporting territorial statement – in our case, an assertion of falsehood. This strategy
claims, the (descriptive or rhetorical) character of given press allows for making statements about statements, but it has
releases, the validity of existing treaties and rights of other largely been found to be inefficient by many users, who find
nations or groups, the interpretation of salient judgments of that it dramatically increases the run-time of queries – often
international law, the history of the disputed region, and so making them impossible (though this may change in the future
forth. Sometimes the salient information can be classified with the introduction of new strategies [6].
either as true or false simpliciter – for example, in the case of
geographical coordinates of given landmarks. In most cases, We are exploring an alternative two-step approach that
however, we shall need to refer to claims as true or false in the begins by appealing to the family of lacks relations introduced
eyes of one or other of the disputed parties, or as being such in [7] in the context of a treatment of negative assertions
that their truth or falsehood is uncertain (with various concerning medical documents. For example, the proposed
modalities). We now suggest a way of tagging information relation lacks_part would hold between a particular p and a
along these lines, distinguishing three categories of information universal U whenever p has no instance of U as part (such
that fall short of being true simpliciter: assertions will be made where there is an assumption that p
should have or is expected to have a part of this sort, as for
a. Information that has a truth-value that is to a degree example in: John is missing his left arm. Since the particular
uncertain. (John) and the universal (left arm) both exist, the assertion of a
b. Information that is not false, but has some related lacks_part relation between them is perfectly in order from a
defect, for instance, in being misleading. realist point of view. When applied to territorial disputes, this
strategy would allow us to posit the fact that corresponds to a
c. Information that falsely asserts that a relation or a false claim: e.g. that the Russian continental shelf lacks an
particular exists when it does not. extension covering 1.2 million square miles. We can then tag
Categories a. and b., which cover many territorial claims, the false claims as being both false and also about the
can easily be handled within our framework, For instance, it is corresponding lacks relation. This allows us to interpret the
(currently) uncertain whether Hans Island belongs (or should class of false information content entities as bearing an is about
belong) to Canada or to Denmark, whether Bethlehem belongs relation to an existing portion of reality. This allows us to deal
(or should belong) to Israel or to Palestine, and whether the with false believes held for example by specific governmental
Paracel Islands belong (or should belong) to China, to Taiwan, organizations while remaining in conformity with the
or to Vietnam. Confidence in such claims begins as a cognitive principles of ontological realism.
process of assessment that has as input, the claim, and, as
output some degree of confidence (uncertain, very uncertain, VII. ARGUMENTS, MOTIVES, OBJECTIVES
and so on) that will be used to tag the information in our
knowledgebase. Information in category b. that is not false, but Another significant component of territorial claims are the
in the vicinity thereof – because it is metaphorical, bullshit, arguments made by disputing parties in defense of their claims.
rhetorically embroidered, evokes codes only understood by its Any adequate representation of territorial disputes needs to
intended audience, and so on – can be handled by tagging the capture the arguments for or against the truth of given claims,
claim as output of one or other kind of performative act (of together with the other information content entities delineated
5
above. To this end, we likewise treat arguments as information (3) Economy: An economic argument in favor of some
content entities borne by documents of a range of different territorial claim makes appeal to economic necessity. In such
sorts. Like claims, arguments are generically dependent cases, a nation claims that the territory in question is necessary
continuants that can exist in many bearers, for example in for its sustenance or development. Such claims may include
multiple hard drives, in printed form in newspapers, in fliers appeal to the necessity of sea-routes, aerial routes, trading
posted on walls, and so forth. establishments, natural resources, raw materials, agricultural
potential, or foreign investment for a nation’s flourishing.
We should think of arguments as wholes that are comprised (Such arguments may also make reference to a nation’s
of informational parts. For example, the argument supporting proximity to certain economically valuable resources, but
the thesis that Russia exercises sovereignty over half the Arctic strictly these considerations are adjudicated by UNCLOS, and
Ocean involves both the conclusion that Russia exercises do not flow from the existence of economically valuable
sovereignty over a particular region and other claims (the considerations taken in and of themselves.) Assessment of an
premises of the argument) offered to support that conclusion, argument from economic necessity requires assessment of its
here: that international law stipulates the criteria for a nation’s individual components. Our ontology therefore captures
continental shelf, that the measurements of Russia’s information pertaining to, for example, deposits of natural
continental shelf include half the Arctic Ocean, and that resources, trade and transport routes, their economic value to
whatever falls within a nation’s continental shelf belongs to the territory in question, as separately evaluable entities.
that nation. The argument in favor of Russia’s sovereignty over
half the Arctic is the logically ordered collection of these (4) Culture: An argument from culture appeals to “common
information artifacts. Dividing an argument into its parts language, religion, kinship, or other cultural characteristic that
allows our ontology to keep track of the ways arguments are defines the group of people living in a particular territory.”
amended over time. In the first place, we can tag the claim that Quebec’s attempted secessions from Canada have involved
Russia exercises sovereignty over the Arctic as the conclusion arguments of this sort, factors relating common cultural
of an argument. We can then situate that claim within an background being offered as evidence for the drawing of new
aggregate of other relevant claims. If different reasons are territorial borders insofar as these factors would contribute to
given at a different time, then we can treat those supporting the unification of a region’s population. In some territories,
reasons as comprising a separate argument on behalf of the religion plays a strong unifying role. Again, our ontology
same conclusion. Finally, if some argument is bolstered or captures such arguments by treating cultural factors such as
diminished by new evidence (e.g., if an independent party ethnicity, religion, and language as separate entities.
issues the results of new and more precise measurements of
Russia’s continental shelf) then we can represent that (5) Effective Control: Arguments from effective control
emendation. appeal to facts about a nation’s de facto uncontested
administration of a given territory. Historical appeals to such
Next, we consider the various kinds of arguments that administration are used to support arguments for adverse
could be offered in support of different kinds of claims. Kinds possession of a region. Analogous arguments are applied, too,
of argument are differentiated by what kinds of considerations over longer time scales, for example in support of native
they appeal to, for example evidence from geography, from populations’ claims to sovereignty over regions of territory
geology, from history, and so on. Brian Sumner [8] identifies over which they once held sway and which have subsequently
nine such kinds of considerations nations might appeal to in colonized by outsiders.
defense of a given territorial claim:
(6) History: Many territorial claims make reference to
(1) Treaty Law: Treaties between nations form the basis of purported historical facts about the region under dispute. For
a strong legal appeal for the legitimacy of a claim of instance, China claims that their fishermen have made use of
sovereignty over given territory. However, these treaties are the bulk of the South China Sea for centuries, and that this fact
also disputable, most importantly by third parties, who were is strong evidence in favor of a claim over the vast majority of
not included in the making of the treaty, but who have other the Sea. (This also shows the overlap between historical and
considerations in favor of a claim over the territory in question. economic considerations, insofar as China’s claim rests upon
Further, treaties may turn out to expire or suffer revocation at a the longstanding economic importance of the region to China.)
later date, e.g., if colonizers of some land made a treaty
concerning that land’s territorial borders. (7) Uti Possidetis (meaning “as you possess”) is a principle
upon which newly independent nations inherit the boundaries
(2) Geography: Geographic and environmental features determined by colonial powers. Nowadays, this principle is
naturally suggest territorial boundaries. In Sumner’s words, only rarely invoked. More to the point, it is usually taken to be
“Mountain ranges, rivers, oceans, and other bodies of water relatively weak evidence for a claim, and considerations (1)-(6)
and physical formations have perennially separated political generally take precedence over uti possidetis.
entities.” Our ontology readily accommodates the use of
geographic features as evidence for a territorial claim, insofar (8) Elitism: Arguments under this heading comprise
as it differentiates between the geographic features themselves involve appeal to the fact that one participant in a territorial
(mountains, oceans, etc.) and the geopolitical boundaries that dispute is in one or other respect in a superior position with
are claimed to coincide with these geographic features. (Recall respect to another participant. This includes appeals to divine
that these claims may be tagged as false or disputed.) right, the superiority of one’s civilization, or racial superiority.
Such claims, too, have become increasingly rare, and
arguments from elitism are nowadays considered to be
6
relatively weak. However, that is not to say that such viewing arguments in light of these motives. Motives comprise
arguments are not made. Recall Cohen’s claim, quoted earlier, the objectives the government has in winning the territorial
that the Jewish people returned to Israel “to build a nation on dispute, whereas arguments are devices to facilitate progress
the lands given to us by the Bible.” toward gaining these objectives. That is to say, arguments are
only one part of a government’s plan to realize its objective,
(9) Ideology: Finally, arguments from ideology make which is authority or sovereignty over a given disputed
reference to ideological factors for the legitimacy of some territory.
territorial claim. Sumner cites anti-colonialism and the
movement for social justice as sources of ideological This objective will in every case be embedded within a
arguments for territorial claims. nation’s efforts to realize broader economic, political,
ideological, and military goals. A country might have a plan
This classification becomes especially useful when we whose objective is to grow its economy, and this plan might
analyze arguments employed in territorial disputes from the include subplans for some sort of political or military action to
perspective of the known or suspected motives of the achieve sovereignty over some region and exploit its resources.
governments involved. For instance, there is reason to believe ([9] provides a detailed discussion of some Norwegian,
that the Arctic region is the site of untapped natural resources. Russian, and Finnish strategies pertaining to territorial claims
Russia’s stated arguments in favor of its sovereignty over half in the Arctic along these lines.) The components of these
this region may make no mention of these resources, and yet an subplans will in turn involve, at still lower levels, plans
analyst can reasonably suppose that the intention to exploit concerning how to achieve this task, whether by vigorously
those resources is one of Russia’s motives for claiming defending some claim at the United Nations or intimidating the
sovereignty. Thus, we first propose distinguishing between military craft of other nations in a given area.
stated arguments and known or suspected motives, and then
Figure 1: Kuril Island Treaty Timeline
7
VIII. APPLICATIONS: THE CASE OF THE KURIL DISPUTE century, the dispute escalated into full conflict between Russia
We will now apply our ontological approach to data about a and Japan, which was eventually resolved through ratification
specific dispute, namely that between Russia and Japan over of a peace treaty through the mediation of the United States.
the Kuril Islands, which has been on-going for over a century After the October Revolution of 1917, Russian forces again
(Bobic, 2012, see Figure 1). In 1855, Russia and Japan signed clashed violently with Japanese in the region, but this
the Treaty of Shimoda, which divided the northern and eventually led to another agreement, the Peking Convention of
southern islands between them. One island, named Sakhalin, 1925. Following the conclusion of World War II, Stalin
contained Russian, Japanese, and Ainu inhabitants, and so was expressed his desire to seize the Kuril and Sakhalin Islands
omitted from the Treaty. Hostilities increased among the from Japan, and did so with Roosevelt’s blessing in the Yalta
inhabitants of Sakhalin, and in 1875 Russia and Japan signed Agreement of 1945 (see Figure 2). Japanese-Russian relations
the Treaty of St. Petersburg, which gave sovereignty of were “normalized” in 1955, but the dispute over the islands
Sakhalin to Russia and sovereignty of all the remaining Kuril remained. Late in the 1970s, the Soviet Union stationed troops
Islands to Japan. As Bobic notes, the interest in the Kuril on some of the islands, and a few years later Japan sent Prime
Islands is largely strategic. The islands have held strategic Minister Suzuki to visit the southern islands in the archipelago,
significance especially for Soviet Russia, which sought to and designated a “Northern Territories Day,” which only
station submarines in the area. Their economic value, however, served to escalate tensions. At last, starting in 1990, Yeltsin in
is meager, as there are few petroleum or mineral deposits. Russia moved toward a proper resolution of the dispute, and
There is some possibility of oil and gas reserves, but the met with Japanese officials in 1993. Eventually, this led to an
amount is unknown. Finally, the islands have symbolic agreement of mutual use of fisheries in the region and of visa-
significance, insofar as they have been the site of important free travel for Japanese to the area. Most recently Putin,
violent struggles between Russia and Japan. As Bobic reports, however, has stalled further talks on resolution of the dispute.
“the symbolic value of the islands matters the most to the local (See Figure 3 in the Supplementary Data provided at
Russian residents, who believe that this was the land won with http://ontology.buffalo.edu/14/territorial-disputes/.)
the blood of Russian soldiers.” [10] Early in the twentieth
Figure 2: Kuril Islands Treaty (1945)
8
Our ontological approach is capable of representing this SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
complex situation, spanning over a century of tension, conflict, Provided at http://ontology.buffalo.edu/14/territorial-disputes/:
treaties, and shifting borders. We do this by first considering
the timeline formed by a sequence of acts of treaty signing. Figure 1: Kuril Island Treaty Timeline
Each such act has the output of a signed treaty, and it also Figure 2: Kuril Islands Treaty (1945)
occurs at a specific temporal interval, which can be Figure 3: Russian Troops FDICE
timestamped. Thus, there is an act of treaty signing with output Figure 4: Arctic Dispute
the Treaty of St. Petersburg. This act has two participants – the Figure 5: Schwebel Argument
governments of Japan and Russia – and occurs at a temporal Figure 6: North Korea FDICE
interval that is designated ‘1875’. Such temporal intervals are
proper parts of the temporal interval occupied by the territorial REFERENCES
dispute taken as a whole. Two discrete increases in conflict,
[1] Barry Smith and John Searle. 2003. “The Construction of Social Reality:
resulting in armed conflict, occur on their own temporal An Exchange,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 62, 2:
intervals, designated by dates, and each overlaps with parts of 285-309.
the temporal interval of the dispute. (See Figure 2 figures in [2] Kathryn Isted. 2009. “Sovereignty in the Arctic: An Analysis of
accompanying material.) Territorial Disputes & Environmental Policy Considerations,” Journal
of Transnational Law & Policy 18, 2: 343-76.
In addition, the symbolic importance of the islands rests on [3] Barry Smith. 1995 “On Drawing Lines on a Map,” in A. U. Frank and
an instance of the disposition type we have labeled W. Kuhn (eds.), Spatial Information Theory. A Theoretical Basis for
nationalism, and this symbolic importance serves as an GIS, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 475-84.
ideological motive for the dispute. The objectives of the [4] Milton Viorst. Sands of Sorrow: Israel’s Journey from Independence
governments, on the other hand, turned on strategic naval (I.B. Tauris, 1987).
advantage. Both motives and objectives are distinct from the [5] Stephen M. Schwebel. 1994. Justice in International Law: Selected
explicit arguments put forward by participants in the dispute at Writings (What Weight to Conquest?). Cambridge: Cambridge
different times through the century. Acts with arguments as University Press. pp. 521–526.
outputs can be represented in their turn as occurring on specific [6] Vinh Nguyen, Olivier Bodenreider, and Amit Sheth. “Don’t like RDF
Reificiation? Making Statements about Statements Using Singleton
temporal intervals that are designated by particular dates. Property.” Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web
Conference 2014: 759-770.
IX. CONCLUSION [7] Werner Ceusters, Peter Elkin, and Barry Smith. “Negative Findings in
Electronic Health Records and Biomedical Ontologies: A Realist
We have surveyed the ways in which our ontological Approach.” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2007
approach can capture the features of a territorial dispute within December; 76 (Supplement 3): 326-333.
the framework of the Basic Formal Ontology by appealing to [8] Brian Taylor Sumner. 2004. “Territorial Disputes at the International
the I2WD ontology suite. In particular, the ontology we Court of Justice,” Duke Law Journal 53: 1779-1812.
propose offers the ability to capture the peculiar character of [9] Stefano De Luca. 2013. “The Cartographic Reasoning in the Arctic:
disputes and associated conflicts, it has a strategy to deal with Modern Territorial Representations of the State in the Arctic Strategies
of Norway, Russia and Finald.” Master’s Thesis, University of Tampere.
both false and disputed information, and with the various kinds
of arguments, motives, and objectives at work within them. In [10] Marinko Bobic. 2012. “Words or Swords: Russia’s Strategies in
Handling its Territorial Disputes.” Master’s Thesis, Leiden University.
addition to terms representing entities such as claims,
[11] Anneta Lytvynenko. 2011. “Arctic Sovereignty Policy Review,” URL:
arguments, territories, and roles, the ontology must specify also http://www4.carleton.ca/cifp/app/serve.php/1355.pdf. Accessed August
the relationships among the diverse elements involved, for 25, 2014.
example, the relationship between the content of a piece of [12] Marsha Walton. 2009. “Countries in tug-of-war over Arctic resources,”
propaganda and an objective, or between an argument and a CNN (January 2, 2009), URL: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/sci-
claim, relations such as aboutness, support, ratified by, and so ence/01/02/arctic.rights.dispute/. Accessed August 25, 2014.
on. Some of these relations are illustrated in the Figures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank John Beverley for incisive comments on an
early draft of this paper, and Ron Rudnicki and Yonatan Schreiber for
fruitful discussion of these issues.
9