Territorial disputes aren't managed the same way across land, river, and maritime types. This paper argues that state interests—shaped by claim characteristics—and transaction costs drive distinct conflict management approaches.

Data & Methods: Analyzing international case studies of territorial claims using qualitative comparisons to identify patterns in how states manage these different disputes.

Key Findings: States favor informal bilateral negotiations for land claims, third-party non-binding mediation for river issues, and multilateral legal processes for maritime conflicts. Transaction costs shape these preferences as they aggregate state interests across claim types.

Why It Matters: This research highlights how territorial resource type fundamentally influences the institutionalized strategies states employ to manage conflict.