Abstract
The modern political map presents itself as complete, with every landmass assigned to a sovereign. That appearance is misleading. A small number of terrestrial areas are claimed by no state today. A much larger set of spaces, including the high seas, the deep seabed, and celestial bodies, has been placed beyond the reach of sovereign claim by treaty. Through most of recorded history, unclaimed land was common: frontiers, uplands, deserts, remote islands, and polar regions sat outside any durable claim for centuries. This paper surveys the leading contemporary cases (Bir Tawil, Marie Byrd Land, and the Danube pockets between Croatia and Serbia), reviews major historical categories of unclaimed territory, and proposes a nine-part typology explaining why land goes unclaimed. The central finding is that “unclaimed” seldom means “worthless.” Land usually stays unclaimed because of a relationship: between the land and the cost of holding it, between one claim and another, or between states and a legal regime that forbids claiming. A brief closing section considers the question from the standpoint of biblical teaching on ultimate ownership of the earth.
1. Introduction and Scope
The idea of a fully partitioned earth is recent. As late as the nineteenth century, cartographers left wide areas of Africa, Arabia, Central Asia, the Arctic, and Antarctica blank or labeled them with vague regional names rather than political boundaries. Elden (2013) has shown that “territory” as a bounded, measurable, exclusive space under a single authority is itself a historically specific concept, not a universal feature of human political life. Before that concept took hold, many polities claimed authority over people, routes, and tribute rather than over every square kilometer of ground (Herbst, 2000; Lattimore, 1940).
This paper treats three questions. First, what areas of the earth are unclaimed at present? Second, what kinds of land remained unclaimed through history, and how did they come to be claimed or left alone? Third, what general reasons explain why land goes unclaimed? The third question is the main contribution. A typology allows cases that look unrelated (a Saharan desert rectangle, an Antarctic ice sheet, a river floodplain in the Balkans, a guano-covered Pacific islet) to be compared on shared terms.
2. Definitions and Distinctions
Precision about what counts as “unclaimed” is necessary, because several distinct conditions are often blurred together.
Terra nullius refers to land belonging to no sovereign and open to acquisition by occupation. Classical international law held that such land could be acquired by a state through effective occupation: actual, continuous, and peaceful display of state authority (Shaw, 2017). The arbitral award in the Island of Palmas case (1928) set the modern standard, holding that discovery alone gives only an inchoate title, which must be perfected by effective occupation within a reasonable period.
Res communis refers to space that belongs to no state because it belongs to all, or is held in common, and is legally closed to appropriation. The high seas and outer space fall in this category (Steinberg, 2001).
Claimed but ungoverned land is land that a state formally claims but does not effectively administer. The Darién Gap between Panama and Colombia, or the interior of some failed or weak states, would fall here. Such land is not unclaimed, though it may function like a frontier.
Jointly held or neutralized land is land claimed by two or more states that have agreed to share, suspend, or neutralize it. Neutral Moresnet (1816–1920), the former Saudi–Kuwaiti Neutral Zone, and the Neutral Ground between Spanish Texas and the American Louisiana Territory (1806–1821) are examples. These are cases of claim abeyance, not absence of claims.
Doubly disclaimed land is land that each neighboring state insists belongs to the other. This is the rarest and most curious category, and it accounts for the surviving terrestrial cases of true non-claim.
This paper uses “unclaimed” in its strict sense (no state asserts sovereignty) while noting adjacent categories where they help explain the logic of non-claim.
A further distinction must be stated plainly: unclaimed by states is not the same as uninhabited or unowned by peoples. Much land treated by European powers as terra nullius was inhabited, used, and governed by its own peoples under customary systems. The International Court of Justice recognized this in its Western Sahara advisory opinion (1975), which held that territory inhabited by tribes or peoples having social and political organization was not terra nullius. The High Court of Australia reached a parallel conclusion in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992), rejecting the application of terra nullius to Australia at British settlement. Any honest history of “unclaimed land” must separate the question of whether a state claimed a place from the question of whether anyone held it.
3. Contemporary Unclaimed Areas
3.1 Bir Tawil
Bir Tawil is a roughly trapezoidal area of about 2,060 square kilometers in the desert between Egypt and Sudan. It is the largest habitable land area on earth claimed by no state.[1]
Its status results from two inconsistent boundary lines drawn during the Anglo-Egyptian condominium over Sudan. The 1899 agreement set the political boundary along the 22nd parallel north. In 1902, British authorities drew a separate administrative boundary that departed from the parallel to reflect the grazing ranges of local peoples. Under the 1902 line, Bir Tawil (south of the parallel) was assigned to Egyptian administration, while the much larger and more valuable Halaib Triangle (north of the parallel, on the Red Sea coast, about 20,580 square kilometers) was assigned to Sudanese administration.
Egypt claims the 1899 line, which places Halaib in Egypt and Bir Tawil in Sudan. Sudan claims the 1902 line, which places Halaib in Sudan and Bir Tawil in Egypt. Each state’s claim to Halaib requires it to reject Bir Tawil. To claim Bir Tawil would be to concede the principle on which the rival’s claim to Halaib rests. Bir Tawil thus remains unclaimed not because it is valueless in itself (it has seasonal grazing and some mineral prospecting interest) but because its value is far smaller than the value of the claim it would compromise (Brownlie, 1979).[2]
3.2 Marie Byrd Land
Marie Byrd Land, in West Antarctica, lies roughly between 90°W and 150°W. At about 1.6 million square kilometers, it is the largest unclaimed land area on earth. Seven states (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims in Antarctica, several of which overlap on the Antarctic Peninsula. No state has claimed the Marie Byrd Land sector.[3]
Several factors explain this. The region is among the most remote and least accessible on the continent, far from the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australasia from which other claims were projected. The United States, whose explorers (notably Richard E. Byrd, who named the area for his wife) did most of the early survey work, chose not to make a formal claim, while reserving a basis for one. The Soviet Union took the same position. Then, Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty (1959) froze the legal situation: it provides that no new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, may be asserted while the treaty is in force (Dodds, 2012). Marie Byrd Land is therefore unclaimed by a combination of remoteness, strategic reservation by the major powers, and treaty prohibition.
3.3 The Danube Pockets (Croatia–Serbia)
Along the Danube between Croatia and Serbia, the two states disagree on how to fix their border. Croatia holds that the border follows cadastral municipal boundaries drawn when the river followed an older, more meandering course. Serbia holds that the border follows the thalweg (the main navigable channel) of the river as it now runs after nineteenth-century regulation works.
The result is a patchwork. Some land on the eastern (Serbian) side of the current river falls within Croatia’s cadastral claim, and Croatia claims it. Several small pockets on the western (Croatian) side would be Serbian under the cadastral line, but Serbia, holding to the river line, does not claim them, and Croatia, holding to the cadastral line, does not claim them either. The largest of these, Gornja Siga, covers about seven square kilometers.[4] In 2015 a private individual proclaimed a micronation called “Liberland” there. No state has recognized it, and Croatian authorities have restricted access.
The Danube pockets share the logic of Bir Tawil on a small scale: each state’s disclaimer is the price of maintaining a principle that yields it more elsewhere.
3.4 Spaces Placed Beyond Claim by Law
Several vast domains are unclaimed not by default but by legal design.
The high seas may not be subjected to any state’s sovereignty (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], 1982, Art. 89). This principle descends from the early modern debate over mare liberum, in which Grotius (1609/2004) argued that the ocean could not be occupied and therefore could not be owned.
The deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (“the Area”) and its mineral resources are designated the “common heritage of mankind,” and no state may claim or exercise sovereignty over any part of it (UNCLOS, 1982, Arts. 136–137).
Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means” (Outer Space Treaty, 1967, Art. II).
Antarctica is in a hybrid position. Existing claims are neither recognized nor renounced but suspended under Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, and new claims are barred.
These spaces are significant because together they make up most of the surface of the planet and essentially all of the reachable universe. The completeness of the terrestrial political map is, in this light, the exception rather than the rule.
4. Unclaimed Lands in History
4.1 Frontiers, Marches, and Zones of Indifference
Premodern states commonly lacked linear borders. Between core regions lay frontiers: zones of mixed allegiance, irregular taxation, and intermittent authority. Lattimore (1940) described the Inner Asian frontier of China as a zone rather than a line, in which steppe and sown societies interpenetrated. Kopytoff (1987) argued that precolonial African political life was shaped by an “internal frontier,” the open land between established polities into which dissenters, younger sons, and refugees could move to found new communities. Herbst (2000) extended this point: where land was abundant and people scarce, rulers sought to control people rather than territory, and broad areas between centers of power were simply not worth the cost of claiming.
The Anglo-Scottish “Debatable Lands” of the sixteenth century illustrate a related condition. Both crowns claimed the area, yet neither governed it effectively, and it became a refuge for raiding kin groups until it was formally partitioned in 1552. Such cases show that the line between “claimed by both” and “held by neither” was often thin in practice.
4.2 Upland and Highland Refuges
Scott (2009) used the term “Zomia” for the highlands of mainland Southeast Asia and southwestern China, arguing that for centuries these hills were not merely unclaimed by lowland states but were actively chosen by peoples who wished to remain outside state control. Rugged terrain, dispersed settlement, shifting cultivation, and mobile social organization made these regions what Scott (1998) elsewhere called “illegible” to states: difficult to count, tax, and conscript. Similar dynamics have been described for the Atlas, the Caucasus, the Pyrenees, and the Appalachian interior. These regions were not empty, but they were long left outside effective sovereign claim.
4.3 Deserts
The Rub’ al Khali (“Empty Quarter”) of the Arabian Peninsula, among the largest sand deserts on earth, had no agreed boundaries for most of the twentieth century. British officials and regional rulers negotiated and renegotiated lines across it from the 1910s through the 1990s, and much of the interior remained undemarcated until the discovery of petroleum gave the sand a value it had not previously held (Wilkinson, 1991; Thesiger, 1959). The Sahara presents a similar history: colonial powers divided it on paper with long straight lines, often with little or no effective presence in the interior. Deserts show clearly how the decision to claim land tracks its perceived value, and how a change in that value (in this case, the discovery of oil) rapidly converts indifference into contest.
4.4 Remote Oceanic Islands
Small, remote islands form one of the most richly documented categories of historically unclaimed land.
Guano islands. The United States Guano Islands Act of 1856 authorized American citizens to take possession of any unclaimed island, rock, or key containing guano deposits, on behalf of the United States. Dozens of Pacific and Caribbean islets were claimed under the act. Many were abandoned once the guano was exhausted, and some claims were later dropped or ceded (Skaggs, 1994). These islands passed from unclaimed to claimed and, in some cases, back toward disuse, as their single economic value rose and fell.
Clipperton Island. France claimed this isolated Pacific atoll in 1858 but did not occupy it. Mexico later asserted a claim and occupied it. In the 1931 arbitration, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy awarded the island to France, holding that for an uninhabited and remote territory, a lighter display of sovereignty sufficed for title (Clipperton Island, 1931). The award confirmed that the standard of “effective occupation” varies with the nature of the land.
Svalbard (Spitsbergen). For three centuries, Svalbard was used by whalers, hunters, and miners from many nations, but it was claimed by none in a way others accepted. The Treaty concerning Spitsbergen (1920) granted sovereignty to Norway while guaranteeing nationals of other signatory states equal rights to economic activity there. Svalbard illustrates terra nullius resolved by multilateral agreement rather than unilateral occupation.
Bouvet Island, Peter I Island, and Rockall. Bouvet Island, often described as the most remote island on earth, was sighted in 1739 but not effectively claimed until Norway did so in 1927. Norway claimed Peter I Island in Antarctic waters in 1929. The United Kingdom formally annexed the tiny North Atlantic islet of Rockall in 1955, chiefly for strategic and later maritime-resource reasons; its incorporation was confirmed by legislation in 1972. In each case, a speck of rock long ignored became worth claiming once technologies (radar, missile tracking, offshore resource extraction, or maritime-zone law) gave it value.
4.5 Declined Cessions
Sometimes land remained unclaimed because a state refused an offer of it. In 1858, the Fijian chief Seru Epenisa Cakobau offered to cede Fiji to Britain. The British government declined in 1862, concluding that the cost and liabilities outweighed the benefits. Only in 1874, after debts, settler disorder, and pressure from Australian colonies had grown, did Britain accept the cession (Banner, 2007). Imperial archives contain many such refusals. They show that claiming land creates obligations (defense, administration, debt, responsibility for populations), and that states have often treated territory as a liability to be avoided rather than a prize to be seized.
4.6 The Abuse of the Terra Nullius Doctrine
The history of unclaimed land cannot be separated from the history of land falsely declared unclaimed. European powers frequently treated inhabited regions as terra nullius in order to justify acquisition by occupation rather than by treaty or conquest. Fitzmaurice (2014) and Benton (2010) have traced how the doctrine developed and how inconsistently it was applied. Locke’s (1689/1988) argument that property arises from mixing labor with land, and that land not cultivated in the European manner lay “in common,” supplied a philosophical rationale that colonial administrators used to dismiss indigenous tenure. The Western Sahara (1975) and Mabo (1992) decisions formally repudiated this approach. Its legacy remains an essential caution: claims that a place is “empty” often reveal more about the observer than about the land.
5. A Typology of Reasons Land Remains Unclaimed
The cases above can be organized into nine types of reason. They are not mutually exclusive; most real cases combine two or three.
Type 1: Negative Net Value (Inhospitability)
Land remains unclaimed when the expected cost of holding it exceeds the expected benefit. Ice sheets, sand seas, and barren rocks fall here. This is the most intuitive reason, but it is unstable over time: a change in technology or markets can reverse the calculation abruptly, as with Arabian oil, Pacific guano, or polar minerals. Inhospitability delays claims; it rarely prevents them permanently.
Examples: Rub’ al Khali before petroleum; Bouvet Island before 1927; interior Antarctica.
Type 2: Inaccessibility and Remoteness
Distinct from inhospitability, remoteness concerns the cost of reaching and maintaining a presence, not the cost of living on the land itself. Remote land may be quite habitable but too far from any state’s base of power to hold. Antarctic claims were projected along lines of access from the nearest southern landmasses, leaving the least accessible sector, Marie Byrd Land, unclaimed.
Examples: Marie Byrd Land; Clipperton before 1858; many Pacific islands before steam navigation.
Type 3: Positional Opportunity Cost (Claim Entanglement)
Land remains unclaimed when claiming it would undermine a more valuable claim elsewhere. The land’s value is real but smaller than the value of the principle its disclaimer protects. This type produces the rare condition of land that each neighbor insists belongs to the other.
Examples: Bir Tawil (against Halaib); the Danube pockets (against the cadastral and thalweg principles applied to other parcels).
Type 4: Cartographic and Survey Artifact
Land is left unclaimed when inconsistent maps, shifting rivers, or survey errors create gaps that no instrument assigns to anyone. Artifacts produce gaps; Type 3 incentives often preserve them. Many small slivers along historic boundaries have been unclaimed for a period only because two surveys did not meet.
Examples: the conflicting 1899 and 1902 lines in Bir Tawil; Danube channel shifts; small slivers left by mismatched colonial surveys.
Type 5: Legal Prohibition (Juridical Closure)
Land or space remains unclaimed because states have agreed that it may not be claimed. Unlike the other types, this one is a deliberate collective choice, typically made to avoid conflict, preserve access, or reserve resources for common use.
Examples: the high seas; the Area; outer space and celestial bodies; Antarctica under Article IV.
Type 6: Strategic Reservation
A state with a plausible basis for a claim declines to assert it, so as to preserve future options or avoid recognizing the claims of others. This posture keeps land unclaimed while signaling that the question is not closed.
Examples: United States and Soviet/Russian positions in Antarctica; reserved rights over Marie Byrd Land.
Type 7: Liability Aversion
Land remains unclaimed because claiming it would bring obligations a state does not want: defense, administration, debts, refugees, or responsibility for an unsettled population. This type is easily overlooked because it leaves few traces on maps, but it appears repeatedly in imperial archives.
Examples: Britain’s refusal of Fiji (1862); numerous declined offers of protectorate status in the nineteenth century.
Type 8: Illegibility and Evasion
Land remains outside sovereign claim because its terrain and its inhabitants resist being counted, taxed, and governed. Here the agency lies partly with the people of the land, who may choose dispersal, mobility, and difficult terrain precisely to stay unclaimed.
Examples: Zomia; the Debatable Lands; many mountain and forest refuges.
Type 9: Non-Territorial Conceptions of Authority
Land remains unclaimed in the modern sense because the relevant societies did not organize authority as exclusive control over bounded space. Authority over people, kin, routes, wells, or tribute may coexist with indifference to fixed lines. Such land is “unclaimed” only from the perspective of a territorial state; it may be thoroughly held under other systems.
Examples: precolonial African frontiers (Kopytoff, 1987; Herbst, 2000); pastoral ranges in Arabia and the Sahara; Inner Asian steppe frontiers (Lattimore, 1940).
Summary Table
| Type | Core Reason | Durability | Representative Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Negative net value | Cost of holding exceeds benefit | Low; reversed by new value | Rub’ al Khali (pre-oil), Bouvet |
| 2. Inaccessibility | Cost of reaching and sustaining presence | Moderate; reversed by technology | Marie Byrd Land, Clipperton |
| 3. Positional opportunity cost | Claim would undermine a better claim | High while dispute persists | Bir Tawil, Danube pockets |
| 4. Cartographic artifact | Inconsistent lines leave gaps | Variable | 1899/1902 Sudan lines |
| 5. Legal prohibition | Agreement that space is unclaimable | High while regime holds | High seas, Area, outer space |
| 6. Strategic reservation | Option value of not claiming | Moderate | U.S. and Russia in Antarctica |
| 7. Liability aversion | Claim brings unwanted obligations | Low to moderate | Fiji (1862) |
| 8. Illegibility and evasion | Terrain and people resist the state | Declining in modern era | Zomia, Debatable Lands |
| 9. Non-territorial authority | Authority not organized as bounded space | Largely ended by colonial partition | African and Inner Asian frontiers |
6. Analysis
Four observations follow from the typology.
First, unclaimed status is relational, not intrinsic. Only Type 1 concerns the land considered alone, and even there value depends on the technology and markets of the moment. The remaining types concern the land’s relation to access routes (Type 2), to other claims (Types 3 and 4), to legal regimes (Type 5), to state strategy (Types 6 and 7), to inhabitants (Type 8), or to concepts of authority (Type 9). This explains why apparently valueless land is so often contested once circumstances change, and why apparently useful land, such as Bir Tawil’s grazing ground, can stay unclaimed for over a century.
Second, the historical trend has run from Types 1, 2, 8, and 9 toward Types 3, 5, and 6. Before the twentieth century, most unclaimed land was unclaimed because it was hard to reach, hard to hold, held by peoples outside the state system, or simply not conceived as territory. Steam navigation, aviation, cartography, colonial partition, and the global spread of the territorial state eliminated most of those conditions. The unclaimed spaces that remain do so chiefly because of entanglement with other claims, legal prohibition, or deliberate reservation. In other words, modern non-claim is largely a product of law and strategy rather than of nature.
Third, legal closure has replaced terra nullius as the main category of unclaimed space. The international order after 1945 converted the largest remaining open spaces (the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, the seabed, outer space, and in effect Antarctica) from potential terra nullius into res communis or suspended zones. This represents a reversal of the older rule that unclaimed space invited occupation. Whether these regimes will hold under pressure from deep-sea mining, lunar resource extraction, and Antarctic resource interest is one of the open questions of the coming decades.
Fourth, the language of emptiness has a moral history. The doctrine of terra nullius was frequently used to strip inhabited land from its peoples. Any study of unclaimed land must therefore test claims of emptiness carefully, separating the absence of a state’s claim from the absence of human presence, use, and customary right.
7. A Note on Ultimate Ownership
From a biblicist standpoint, the category “unclaimed land” is always provisional, because Scripture presents the earth as already possessed by its Creator: “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1, KJV). The God who made the land also “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” for the nations (Acts 17:26, KJV; compare Deuteronomy 32:8). Human claims, on this view, are stewardships rather than absolute titles, and the Law given to Israel made this explicit: “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me” (Leviticus 25:23, KJV).
Scripture also records situations closely resembling the typology above. When strife arose between the herdsmen of Abram and Lot, Abram resolved it by pointing to land abundance: “Is not the whole land before thee?” (Genesis 13:9, KJV), an early illustration of the frontier logic Kopytoff and Herbst describe. Joshua 13:1–6 speaks of “very much land” that “remaineth yet to be possessed,” land promised but not yet held, a reminder that possession and claim are not the same. These passages do not settle questions of international law, but they frame the subject usefully: no human map is complete in the deepest sense, and every human claim is answerable to a prior owner.
8. Conclusion
The truly unclaimed land surface of the earth is now very small: one Saharan rectangle, a few Balkan floodplain parcels, and one great Antarctic sector whose status is frozen by treaty. Yet the spaces beyond sovereign claim, chiefly the oceans, the seabed, and outer space, are larger than all claimed territory combined. Historically, unclaimed land was common, and it remained unclaimed for a range of reasons that this paper has organized into nine types. The typology shows that non-claim is rarely a simple judgment of worthlessness. More often it reflects the cost of access, the entanglement of rival claims, the burden of responsibility, the resistance of inhabitants, the structure of legal regimes, or the strategic value of keeping options open. As technology continues to assign new value to remote places, the main question will be less whether unclaimed spaces exist than whether the legal and moral restraints that keep them unclaimed will hold.
Notes
[1] Bir Tawil’s area is commonly given as about 2,060 square kilometers. It is sometimes described as the only habitable land on earth claimed by no state, although Marie Byrd Land is far larger; the distinction rests on Marie Byrd Land’s ice cover and its position under the Antarctic Treaty regime.
[2] Egypt has administered the Halaib Triangle since the 1990s. Neither state has altered its position on Bir Tawil. Several private individuals have published “claims” to Bir Tawil; none has legal effect, since international law recognizes acquisition of territory by states, not by private persons.
[3] The Marie Byrd Land sector is generally described as lying between 90°W and 150°W, with an area of roughly 1.6 million square kilometers. Some descriptions differ slightly on the boundaries depending on whether adjacent ice shelves are included.
[4] Area figures for Gornja Siga vary slightly among sources, generally between about six and seven square kilometers. Other smaller pockets exist along the same stretch of the Danube.
[5] The distinction between claim and effective occupation, set out in Island of Palmas (1928) and refined in Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933) and Clipperton Island (1931), explains why many historically “discovered” lands remained legally open for decades or centuries after first sighting.
[6] Scott’s (2009) thesis on Zomia has been debated on empirical grounds, particularly regarding the degree to which highland peoples chose statelessness as opposed to having it imposed by circumstance. The typology here treats illegibility and evasion as one reason among others and does not depend on accepting the strongest form of Scott’s argument.
[7] Scripture quotations are from the King James Version.
References
Antarctic Treaty, Dec. 1, 1959, 12 U.S.T. 794, 402 U.N.T.S. 71.
Banner, S. (2007). Possessing the Pacific: Land, settlers, and indigenous people from Australia to Alaska. Harvard University Press.
Benton, L. (2010). A search for sovereignty: Law and geography in European empires, 1400–1900. Cambridge University Press.
Brownlie, I. (1979). African boundaries: A legal and diplomatic encyclopaedia. C. Hurst & Company for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Clipperton Island (France v. Mexico), 2 R.I.A.A. 1105 (1931).
Dodds, K. (2012). The Antarctic: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Elden, S. (2013). The birth of territory. University of Chicago Press.
Fitzmaurice, A. (2014). Sovereignty, property and empire, 1500–2000. Cambridge University Press.
Grotius, H. (2004). The free sea (R. Hakluyt, Trans.; D. Armitage, Ed.). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1609)
Guano Islands Act, 48 U.S.C. §§ 1411–1419 (1856).
Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. Princeton University Press.
Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. United States), 2 R.I.A.A. 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928).
Kopytoff, I. (Ed.). (1987). The African frontier: The reproduction of traditional African societies. Indiana University Press.
Lattimore, O. (1940). Inner Asian frontiers of China. American Geographical Society.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53 (Apr. 5).
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1689)
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
Prescott, J. R. V., & Triggs, G. D. (2008). International frontiers and boundaries: Law, politics and geography. Martinus Nijhoff.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Skaggs, J. M. (1994). The great guano rush: Entrepreneurs and American overseas expansion. St. Martin’s Press.
Steinberg, P. E. (2001). The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge University Press.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1769). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1611)
Thesiger, W. (1959). Arabian sands. Longmans.
Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, Feb. 9, 1920, 2 L.N.T.S. 7.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16).
Wilkinson, J. C. (1991). Arabia’s frontiers: The story of Britain’s boundary drawing in the desert. I.B. Tauris.
