" Persistenza dei conflitti e stabilizzazione dei confini: spiegare gli esiti divergenti dei confini in Medio Oriente"

Abstract

This thesis examines why contested borders within the Middle East produce divergent security outcomes. While territorial disputes across the region share a broader historical and regional context, their contemporary trajectories vary considerably. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of the Israel–Lebanon, Israel–Syria, Jordan–Israel, and Iran–Iraq borders, the study compares four outcomes: persistent militarization, frozen hostility, cold peace and border stabilization, and post-conflict normalization. The analysis focuses on five interrelated factors: state capacity and territorial control, strategic interests, the presence of non-state armed actors, external mediation, and geographical and environmental conditions. Drawing on academic literature, international agreements, institutional reports, historical sources, and cartographic materials, the thesis approaches borders not simply as political lines but as territorial spaces whose security dynamics are shaped by the interaction of political authority and geography. The comparative analysis demonstrates that territorial contestation alone does not account for divergent border outcomes. More stable outcomes are associated with effective state authority, institutionalized mechanisms of border management, and the capacity to incorporate strategic and geographical issues into negotiated interstate arrangements. Conversely, persistent militarization is associated with fragmented territorial authority, competing military structures, unresolved territorial questions, and geographical conditions that acquire strategic significance within broader security conflicts. The thesis therefore argues that geography does not determine conflict or stabilization independently; rather, its effects depend on the political and institutional arrangements through which territory, resources, and border spaces are controlled and governed.

This thesis examines why contested borders within the Middle East produce divergent security outcomes. While territorial disputes across the region share a broader historical and regional context, their contemporary trajectories vary considerably. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of the Israel–Lebanon, Israel–Syria, Jordan–Israel, and Iran–Iraq borders, the study compares four outcomes: persistent militarization, frozen hostility, cold peace and border stabilization, and post-conflict normalization. The analysis focuses on five interrelated factors: state capacity and territorial control, strategic interests, the presence of non-state armed actors, external mediation, and geographical and environmental conditions. Drawing on academic literature, international agreements, institutional reports, historical sources, and cartographic materials, the thesis approaches borders not simply as political lines but as territorial spaces whose security dynamics are shaped by the interaction of political authority and geography. The comparative analysis demonstrates that territorial contestation alone does not account for divergent border outcomes. More stable outcomes are associated with effective state authority, institutionalized mechanisms of border management, and the capacity to incorporate strategic and geographical issues into negotiated interstate arrangements. Conversely, persistent militarization is associated with fragmented territorial authority, competing military structures, unresolved territorial questions, and geographical conditions that acquire strategic significance within broader security conflicts. The thesis therefore argues that geography does not determine conflict or stabilization independently; rather, its effects depend on the political and institutional arrangements through which territory, resources, and border spaces are controlled and governed.