When Big Groups Took Over New Places!

Conquest, in its historical context, refers to the acquisition of territory through military victory or the application of overwhelming force, leading to the subjugation of one political entity by another. For millennia, this was a primary driver of state formation and imperial expansion. Empires like the Achaemenid, Roman, and Ottoman were built and sustained through systematic conquest, absorbing diverse populations and vast resources.

The absence of strong international legal frameworks meant that might often made right, and the ability to project military power was a direct pathway to increased state capacity and influence. This process was not merely about claiming land but also about asserting political dominance, extracting tribute, and imposing cultural or administrative systems upon the conquered populace. The very structure of the international system was, for much of history, defined by the ebb and flow of conquests and the rise and fall of empires.

The advent and diffusion of nationalism, particularly from the 19th century onwards, fundamentally altered the perception and acceptability of conquest. Nationalism posits that the nation-state should be the primary political unit, with a congruence between ethnic or cultural identity and state borders. Under this paradigm, the conquest of territory inhabited by a distinct national group became increasingly difficult to justify, both domestically and internationally. Popular opinion, fueled by nationalist sentiments, began to view such actions as illegitimate infringements on the self-determination of peoples.

This ideological shift created a growing normative pressure against territorial expansion through force, laying the groundwork for future international prohibitions. The idea that states should respect existing borders and the sovereignty of other nations gained traction, challenging the long-standing practice of conquest.

The devastating global conflicts of the 20th century, World War I and World War II, served as stark catalysts for formalizing prohibitions against conquest. The international community recognized that unchecked territorial ambition was a significant source of instability and war. Following World War I, the League of Nations was established, aiming to promote collective security and prevent future conflicts, implicitly or explicitly discouraging conquest.

However, it was the establishment of the United Nations after World War II that most robustly codified this norm. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This marked a profound shift, moving conquest from a common practice to a violation of fundamental international law and a threat to global peace.

Despite the strong normative and legal prohibitions, the strength and universality of the norm against conquest remain subjects of scholarly debate. Since 1945, large-scale territorial conquests have indeed been rare, a testament to the effectiveness of international institutions and collective security mechanisms. However, this does not mean the practice has disappeared entirely.

States have continued to pursue the annexation of smaller territories, often through more subtle or protracted means, or by exploiting geopolitical vacuums. These instances, while not always resulting in the complete subjugation of a state, challenge the absolute efficacy of the norm. Scholars analyze these events to understand the conditions under which the norm is upheld, when it is violated, and the role of power politics in shaping international behavior regarding territorial integrity.