Eastern Asia's revitalization of the state ideal through maritime territorial disputes

- State territorial preservation can work ideologically against erosion of territorial sovereignty.
- Eastern Asia's maritime territorial conflicts strengthen state territorial ideology.
- Three rhetorical mechanisms to strengthen state ideology are identified and analyzed.

In the midst of globalization and other processes that redefine state-territory-sovereignty relationships, reassertion of traditional state ideals is common. This article highlights one venue through which this takes place. Building on Stuart Elden's distinction between territorial sovereignty and territorial preservation as two aspects of “territorial integrity,” among other conceptual guides, the article posits that strong emphasis on territorial preservation through territorial disputes in effect works to counteract territorial sovereignty's slippage. Analysis of states' semi-official prosecution of five maritime territorial disputes in eastern Asia shows various rhetorical strategies that prop up traditional notions of unbreakable bonds between state, territory, and sovereignty. These include obscuring state historicity and naturalizing the nation-state relationship, using territory to represent historical victimhood and sanctifying state territory, and using the disputes to find a place for the state within the international state system. The analyzed territorial disputes include the southern Kurils/Northern Territories (Russia vs. Japan), Dokdo/Takeshima (Korea/Japan), Senkaku/Diaoyutai (Japan/China), Paracels (China/Vietnam), Spratlys (Vietnam/Philippines/China, especially).