The role of natural resources in driving international conflict has been a consistent feature of human history, influencing economic stability, political power, and global security. This paper examines a series of case studies involving a range of resource-related conflicts, highlighting the drivers and variables involved in disputes over various types of resources to examine conflict patterns over resource security and distribution. From disputes over the Mekong River and South China Sea, to Venezuela’s claims over Guyanese territory and oil, and exploitation of peoples and nations of the global south, these cases underscore how resources transcend national boundaries, intertwining economic necessity with geopolitical strategies. The analysis also explores the dual role of mediation, showing how cooperative frameworks like the Mekong River Commission and the Suez Canal agreement have successfully mitigated tensions, while other attempts, constrained by power imbalances or unilateral actions, have fallen short. Through these examples, the paper illustrates that the success of mediation depends on balancing incentives, addressing structural inequalities, and fostering mutual assurance among stakeholders. In most cases, protectionist policies and geopolitical rivalries overshadow altruistic cooperation, reinforcing polarization and deepening global divides. Yet, when evenly matched parties engage in dialogue, there remains potential for equitable resolutions that prioritize sustainability and shared prosperity. The findings emphasize that resolving resource-driven conflicts requires diplomatic innovation and a commitment to addressing the underlying power dynamics that shape access and control.
Keywords: Natural Resources, Trade Policy, Exploitation, Climate Change, War, Diplomacy, Water, Oil, Agriculture, China, Venezuela, Egypt, Congo, Taiwan.
Introduction: Why Fight?
Natural resources have historically been a catalyst for many international conflicts, as states compete for access to vital materials such as water, minerals, oil, and agricultural goods. The control over these resources can directly influence a nation’s economic stability, security, and political influence, making them critical drivers of both cooperation and conflict. Resources like rivers, oil, and fisheries, which often transcend borders, are particularly contentious as they are vital for sustaining economies and populations. Since the dawn of civilization, natural resources have been weaponized in conflict, such as the poisoning of wells, burning of crops, or salting the earth. This reflects how even our earliest societies understood the value of natural resources and their impact of the sustainability and strength of a nation. The same is true to this day, though now resource wars are fought not just on the battlefield (though that still remains ever present) but also fought diplomatically and politically, ever changing as power dynamic shift and aliances bend, every nation looking out for their own interest over others, as resources insecurity seemingly approaches from all directions. Imbalances in resources remain central to war aims, as nations must weigh the cost and benefit to gaining control over, access to, and loss of resources as tools of leverage over both advisories and allies alike. When these resources are scarce or unequally distributed, tensions can rise between neighboring states, leading to disputes that often require mediation to prevent an escalation to violence. Here, we will explore specific cases of conflict over different types of natural resources, what those resources mean to the nations involved, the domestic and international dynamics at play, and how mediation has succeeded or failed to resolve disputes. Success in mediation is frequently tied to the willingness of states to share and compromise, which is too often tied to power imbalances.
Conflict Over Rivers: The Case of the Mekong
Rivers fill many roles, both culturally, economically, and politically. They are often the crux of communities, where major settlements and cities grow around a major source of fresh drinking water. These waters often serve as cultural resources as well, where communities gather for events and hold historical and religious significance to the communities they sustain. Of course, rivers are major sources of food for many and act as crucial trade routes, sustaining economies on both local and regional scales. They often serve as borders as well, both internally to a nation and broader international divides, due to the naturally defensible barrier rivers create militarily. This underscores just how multi-faceted and vital rivers can be to a nation. The Mekong River is one of the largest rivers in the world and a crucial water source for several Southeast Asian countries, including China, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam; it also serves as a natural border between many of these nations. The river provides essential water for agriculture, fishing, and electricity through the use of hydroelectric dams, supporting hundreds of millions of people across the region. However, conflicts have arisen due to China’s construction of dams along the upper reaches of the Mekong, which have disrupted water flow and harmed the agricultural and fishing sectors of its southeast neighbors (Eyler 2020). China’s control over the river’s headwaters has given it significant influence over the river’s flow, heightening tensions with countries reliant on the river for survival.
Mediation has been attempted through regional organizations such as the Mekong River Commission (MRC), which includes Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, established as a result of the Mekong River Treaty, which acts as a forum for these nations to communicate and collaborate with one another over the use of the river (Jacobs 2002). The MRC also facilitates negotiations and discussions to promote sustainable river management. In some cases, mediation has successfully created temporary agreements on water sharing and dam operation schedules, reducing the immediate risk of conflict. These agreements demonstrate how regional cooperation, supported by multilateral dialogue, can mitigate tensions over shared resources. In many ways this mirrors other efforts in river use mediation, such as the Colorado River Compact in the United States (US), which involves partnerships between states in the American Southwest, First Nations tribes in the region, and even Mexico. This compact has mitigated the economic tensions between communities and legal jurisdictions as climate change threatens water security in the region, though challenges remain. Another case in successful river management can be seen in the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, which is a framework that establishes various organizations to monitor and collaborate over the Danube River in Eastern and Central Europe, which continues to strive for equitable usage of the waters and environmental sustainability.
However, mediation over the Mekong has often fallen short of achieving long-term solutions, particularly due to the lack of involvement by China, who have routinely declined to participate in the MRC. Unlike the other examples of successful mediation over river usage, there is outsized influence over the Mekong by China which has characterized the MRC as a threat to its sovereignty over the headwaters in its territory in response to criticism over the intense construction of dams within its borders, including 11 major dams with more planned, and not counting the nearly 430 minor dams (Eyler 2020). China likely views the Mekong as a strategic bargaining chip when engaging with its junior neighbors to down river, which renders the MRC political disadvantageous from its geostrategic position (Tran 2021). The regime is overlooking the advantages gained by cooperating with its neighbors, which we will explore in the following section. China’s geographic advantage, combined with its economic and political influence, has limited the effectiveness of the MRC, and undermines the organization’s ability to enforce agreements or hold Beijing accountable for its actions.
Conflict Over Maritime Waters: The South China Sea Dispute
Maritime waters are often another source of conflict, not only in regards to food sources and marine exports, but also the intrinsic territorial claims that come with access and ownership over these coastal waters. Territorial and fishing rights in the South China Sea have long been a source of conflict, as China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other nations compete for access to the region’s rich fishing grounds. The South China Sea is also strategically important, as it is home to significant oil and gas reserves, and vital shipping routes pass through its waters. Like rivers, marine resources are multifaceted and thus very contentious. China’s expansive claims, demarcated by their ‘nine-dash line’, has sparked disputes over fishing rights with neighboring countries (Gao and Jia 2013). The Nine-Dash Line policy was invented whole-cloth by China to give themselves dominion over the sea arbitrarily and has no international recognition or historical validity; to the contrary, it violates international law, which demarcates the ownership over international water (Darmawan 2021). Chinese fishing fleets, often supported by the country’s navy, have clashed with vessels from other nations, exacerbating tensions in an already volatile region. This tension is greatest between China and the Philippines, who have come into direct conflict over some of the many small islands and atolls that dot the sea, some of which both countries (or more) lay claim to, and would expand their respective Exclusive Economic Zones considerably (De Castro 2015). Private fishing vessels too, under the guise of this conflict, have been documented attacking rival fishing vessels and murdering fishermen from other nations to reduce competition, or in response to piracy in the region. This is not to say the other involved nations do not come into conflict with one another and share disputes, but by large, China has sought dominance over the region and has played a pivotal role in escalating the conflict. In contrast, an example of successful mediation over maritime waters includes the plethora of treaties regarding both the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean, which while their resources are mired in various interests from many nations; these interests arguably more numerous and complex than that of the South China Sea, yet are shared with relative equitability and peace through dialogue and diplomatic cooperation.
Mediation efforts over the South China Sea, largely led by regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), have sought to de-escalate conflicts and negotiate disputes diplomatically and equitably. The 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was a major effort to create a peaceful resolution and cooperation framework. It outlined principles for behavior in the contested waters, including refraining from actions that could escalate tensions (Thao 2003). ASEAN, along with pressure from the international community, has attempted to bring the conflicting parties to the negotiating table and establish legal frameworks for resource sharing. Despite these efforts, mediation has largely failed to resolve conflict in the South China Sea, and in fact altercations has continued to escalate. China’s growing military and economic power, along with its disregard for the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, which invalidated its claims in the region, has undermined diplomatic efforts. The lack of enforcement mechanisms and China’s refusal to accept third-party rulings have left ASEAN and other mediating organs with limited influence (Kipgen 2018). As a result, fishing conflicts continue, with Chinese vessels routinely intruding into the territorial waters of neighboring countries, leading to skirmishes.
This conflict mirrors that of the Mekong previously discussed, where China has sought to leverage its outsized influence to pressure junior neighbors into policy decisions that overtly favor China. This has arguably worked towards China’s increased detriment, as many of their neighboring countries have pivoted away from China, seeing it as an existential threat to resources and economic security, and instead turned to the US, which has increasingly partnered with Southeast Asian and Indonesian countries to reaffirm its interest in the region and defend international law, routinely patrolling the South China Sea as a show of force, and supporting nations like Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, and the Philippines economically and militarily. Indeed, the US has capitalized on these conflicts itself through its Pivot to Asia policy established during the Obama administration to further counter Chinese global influence. These countries likewise are leveraging their partnership with the US and other Western nations to push back against China’s outsized influence and bring them closer to the bargaining table (Beeson 2004).
Conflict Over Oil: Venezuela and Guyana
Oil is one of the most in-demand resources and has defined our modern world in many ways. Petroleum products are used in the creation of fuels and plastics, which are used in tens of thousands of products used in every industry around the world. The US is typically criticized for instigating oil wars, primarily in the Middle East, where it has become a hegemonic force, deploying Western-based private oil interests to secure and capitalize on the rich oil reserves in the region. Many nations have completely defined the economies of their oil resources, as seen in many Arab states. The Middle East is the typical focal point for discussion over oil conflict; other areas of the world also come into conflict over these fossil fuels, such as the Arctic, where drilling rights are often contended and environmental interests are often hotly debated. The eastern Mediterranean is often argued over by coastal nations, particularly Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, and Israel. The dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over oil-rich maritime territory in the Essequibo region has been ongoing for decades but has recently flared into a political conflict. Venezuela claims sovereignty over the region of Guyana, which has recently been discovered to have rich offshore oil reserves, while Guyana maintains its territorial integrity. The conflict intensified as oil exploration activities by oil companies heightened the stakes for both nations, leading to diplomatic tensions and military posturing. Venezuela went as far as to hold a ‘referendum’ to officially annex the territory this year, though a referendum in an authoritarian / illiberal nation is somewhat of an oxymoron. They have also engaged in military mobilizations, though like the referendum, this is simply posturing to leverage against Guyana, as no action has been taken to materialize its territorial claims (Wilkinson 2024).
Mediation efforts, primarily led by the US and regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), have aimed to resolve the dispute peacefully. The United Nations (UN) Secretary General has appointed personal representatives to facilitate dialogue, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been involved in assessing legal claims (ICJ 2023). One may argue that these attempts at dialogue have prevented an escalation in the conflict, but it appears more likely that security guarantees and naval exercises between Guyana and the US has been the leading deterrent for any escalation by Venezuela. This reflects the strategic control the US holds over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico at large, as it has used its partnerships with the Bahamas and Antilles island chain nations to encircle both Venezuela and its close ally Cuba, greatly limiting their ability exert economic or military influence in the region (Plummer 2011).
The primary failure of mediation has been the inability to produce a lasting settlement that satisfies both Venezuela’s territorial claims and Guyana’s rights to oil exploration. Venezuela’s political instability and domestic crises have made sustained diplomatic engagement both difficult and easier, depending on the perspective one takes. On the one hand, the economic weakening of the authoritarian state has reduced its ability to escalate the conflict, which bodes well for the international community the US has fostered in the region to prevent such conflicts. On the other hand, one could argue that the weakening of Venezuela has pushed it into further isolation and conflict, incentivizing leadership to make increasingly rash decisions as they have “less to lose” on the international stage. Though admittedly, there is no reason to assume that Venezuela would suddenly relinquish its long-standing claims over Guyanan territory if it were in a better economic and military state. As things stand, while mediation has maintained peace, it has failed to bring about a resolution, leaving the conflict in a state of diplomatic limbo, as has more-or-less been the case for decades now.
Conflict Over Agricultural: Congo’s Rubber Atrocities
Agricultural goods come in a wide variety, typically domesticated horticultural products, which vary from nation to nation based on variables involving climate, soil conditions, and demand from local and international customers. Considerable farmland is reserved for the cultivation of these crops, with nations even incentivizing production with special tax laws, land use zoning, and subsidies designed to benefit producers. These products range from staple foods such as fruit and nuts, grains and cereals, livestock feed and spices, textile products such as cotton, and products like soy, corn syrup, palm oil, and more used in a vast array of products. Not only do these products sustain domestic populations, but serve as major exports. A major modern example of conflict involving agriculture can be seen in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While there are many overlapping drivers of this conflict, a major one is the control over the vast farmlands in eastern Ukraine, described as one of the ‘breadbaskets’ of the world, a great deal of grain exports from Ukraine sustain African and Middle Eastern countries. Blockades imposed by Russia on grain shipments in the Black Sea, combined with attacks on ports, caused a real threat of famine in many regions. A great deal of tension during the conflict has been over Black Sea grain shipments being able to leave Ukrainian ports, particularly Odessa, which has been under fire by Russia in their attempt to maintain control over the Black Sea and force concessions from Ukraine and its western partners.
Here we will focus on a much older conflict over rubber harvesting in the Congo ‘Free’ State during the late 19th and early 20th century. This is one of the most infamous examples of resource exploitation and cruelty in modern history. Under the control of King Leopold II of Belgium, the Congo was subjected to brutal labor conditions as local populations were forced to harvest rubber from the trees of the region. Millions of Congolese were enslaved, murdered, worked to death, or mutilated by the horrible regime implemented by Belgian authorities, using the indigenous Congolese to harvest rubber from their homeland (Stanard 2013). This shares some parallels with the Banana Republics that the US had installed in some Central and South American countries, where the high demand for Bananas proved so profitable that it allowed corporate and government interests to interfere with the governance of their junior neighbors and install political regimes that prioritized exports. Local communities were exploited and subjugated in order to secure production, even resulting in labor activists losing their lives at the hands of militias serving at the behest of political and commercial leaders.
The Congo Reform Association, an early international NGO, played a pivotal role in raising awareness and pressuring Belgium to reform its colonial administration. Through extensive documentation of the atrocities and ad campaigns, the association garnered widespread support for its cause (Clay 2016). Ultimately, this pressure forced the Belgian government to take control of the Congo from King Leopold in 1908, ending the worst of the abuses. While the Congo Reform Association’s efforts succeeded in ending the immediate atrocities, they failed to address the systemic exploitation and colonial oppression that persisted in the Congo. The reforms imposed by Belgium did little to improve the long-term well-being of the Congolese people, as many of those who enacted said abuse retained their positions and faced no repercussions. But it paved the way to the Congo’s independence, as part of Europe’s larger exit from Africa.
There are similarities between the Congo Reform Association’s methods and the approach many modern activist groups engage in, particularly when it comes to media engagement and high-profile endorsements from cultural icons and political leadership. For example, the Kony 2012 movement pivoted an international spotlight onto the crisis of child soldiers and human rights abuses by the Lord’s Resistance Army, ironically continuing the legacy of horrific abuse in the Congo region, force attention to a cause through outrage which the developed world may otherwise ignore (Cukic 2024). Other organizations advocate for communities that are under threat or exploited by cartels and companies in order to maintain control over major global exports, such as cocoa beans, mangos, and avocados (literal cash crops). This demonstrates the roles NGOs and private organizations can play in resolving resource-driven conflicts and how public pressure, particularly in regard to human rights abuses, can be used to resolve conflict through reputational damage.
Conflict Over Trade Routes: The Suez Crisis
Trade routes act as the circulatory system of the global economy, getting resources where they need to go, and allowing nations to capitalize on surpluses of natural resources. A threat to a trade route, such as an embargo, piracy, or conflict near a choke-point, can render a country’s natural resources economically mute if it can not deliver goods to international partners. A trade route may itself be seen as a natural, geographical resource, and nations certainly see it as such when it comes to conflict. We have seen these types of tensions rise recently in various conflicts, including the Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, Ethiopia’s military posturing to Eritrea for port access, and Russia’s threat to Ukrainian grain shipments through the Black Sea discussed earlier, just to mention a few. The focus here is on the Suez Crisis of 1956, which provides a key example of conflict over access to one of the most vital trade routes in the world. Following WWI and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the United Kingdom (UK) administered the Suez Canal directly (Morewood 2016). After Europe’s colonial exodus from Africa, the newly independent Egyptian government gained limited control over the canal. When Egyptian President Gamal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, a critical trade route for Europe’s oil supply, the UK, France, and Israel launched a joint military intervention to regain control. The conflict risked spiraling into a larger war, as the canal was and is of immense strategic importance for global trade.
This joint military incursion was launched against Egypt, with a handful of skirmishes leaving a few thousand dead, though it had not escalated to full-blown war just yet. Mediation efforts, led by the UN and US, were instrumental in resolving the conflict. The US pressured its allies to reverse their military intervention, even going as far as to threaten full sanctions against Israel, as they facilitated dialogue on the control and regulations of the canal. Former US President Eisenhower adamantly opposed any move that could be seen as colonial (Skardon 2010). Meanwhile, the Soviet Union supported Nasser’s position as they competed with the US for arms trade with Egypt, threatening to send troops to support Egypt which poised them as allies to the Arab world at large, as the conflict had become a symbol of Arab struggle against western occupation, particularly given the recent establishment of the modern nation of Israel, and subsequent conflicts. Ultimately, US diplomacy proved successful with the adoption of UN Resolution 997 (ES-I), which formally called for troop withdrawals, among other agreements regarding the administration and access to the Suez Canal (UN 2024). The successful mediation prevented further escalation and ensured that the canal remained open for international trade while still under Egyptian control, yet further solidified Arab and Jewish divisions, as the assault by Israel and subsequent victory by Nasser, was hailed in the Arab world as a triumph. This division opened the doors for Soviet influence in Arab countries and the Mediterranean, particularly Egypt.
Conflict Over “Unnatural” Resources: Mediation Between Taiwan and China
There is something to say about man-made, or ‘unnatural’, resources, which functionally fill the same economic roles as many natural resources. While the differentiation between “natural” and “unnatural” are ultimately arbitrary, the distinction here has some relevance as it helps us contextualize the dynamics pertaining to the resources discussed. Many man-made products are not necessarily determined by a nation’s climate or geography, but are a result of a nation (or private interest therein) adapting its industry to fulfill a need. Yet in some cases, a man-made product is more-or-less unique to the nation producing it, and thus can be thought of as a ‘natural’ byproduct of a nation’s cultural-commercial behavior and industrial investments. A prime example of this can be seen in the microchip and semiconductor industry of Taiwan, who produce the premier types of these technologies for global consumption, heavily used in artificial intelligence and computing, and even everyday products such as refrigerators and vehicles. This resource is desperately needed in China, as sanctions led by the US and European Union (EU) have kept this technology largely out of reach. This is done to stifle China’s technological growth as fears that the authoritarian regime will exploit these emerging technologies, as evident in China’s abuse of AI technology to pursue a surveillance state within its borders, as demonstrated in its use in oppressing the Uyghur peoples (Healy 2021). This blockade has strategic significance as well, as it has prevented Chinese allies from obtaining these technologies, as seen in Russia following recent conflicts. While mediation between Taiwan and China over trade, particularly in electronics and machine parts, has been a key factor in maintaining the status quo between the two nations (Chen 2009), and as has been seen, the weakening of these agreements has resulted in conflict. Taiwan has leveraged this manufacturing resource when engaging in trade agreements with China. This economic interdependence has, to some extent, moderated Chinese aggression and allowed for a complex relationship of both rivalry and cooperation, but also applies pressure to China in its retaliatory military posturing and claims of sovereignty over Taiwan.
As Taiwan seeks to diversify its trade partners, particularly with the US and Europe, tensions with China have escalated. Mediation attempts, largely through unofficial channels, have succeeded in preventing direct conflict but have failed to resolve the underlying political dispute over Taiwan’s sovereignty. Taiwan continues to strengthen its military and economic ties with the West, even building semiconductor manufacturing centers in the US (Ngo 2024). This continued pull from China risks further economic and military escalation, highlighting how economic partnerships and dependencies promote peace and how the absence of such relationships may create a vacuum for conflict. While mediation attempts have been successful in the past in establishing various trade agreements, including a free-trade relationship, as tensions have increased these agreements have been frozen or discontinued, including China exiting the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement after the election of current president of Taiwan, and pro-independence politician, Lai Ching-te in 2024 (Kang 2024). This is not to say that a nation should yield its sovereignty over its resources and products in response to military threats, but it remains important to acknowledge the response to trade policy (or any policy) by partners and adversaries alike.
What More Is There To Say?
Success in mediation, in terms of resolving conflict over natural resources, appears to largely depend on mutual assurance coupled with a balance in incentives to engage in agreements. Nations with little incentive to engage in resource sharing or those who can leverage a resource against partners rarely appear to engage in meaningful dialogue willingly. This drives junior partners to seek leverage through alliances and collective pressure. When it comes to natural resources, protectionist policies appear to outweigh sentiment for altruistic cooperation, values that all nations preach but rarely engage with when it comes to their own interests. More often than not, approaches relating to realism and securitization, usually involving military posturing, result in forced agreements. Too often, junior parties in these disputes rely on the existing superpowers, which are happy to intervene in the dispute to further their aims and reinforce hegemony against opposing world leaders, demonstrating a tendency to favor the polarization of the global community rather than seeking pathways that seek multi-polar, pluralistic collaboration (Erdmann 2024). In terms of natural resources, which are intrinsically tied to the viability of a nation, it sadly appears that parties in conflict usually default to taking advantage of the situation in the absence of incentives to pursue an equitable agreement. There are, of course, examples of entirely diplomatic resource sharing, but these appear more or less constrained to parties that hold relatively equal power between one another. Power, it seems, is always exploited.
References:
Beeson, Mark 2004. US hegemony and Southeast Asia: The impact of, and limit to, US power and influence. Critical Asian Studies 36.3.
Clay, Dean 2016. Transatlantic Dimensions of the Congo Reform Movement, 1904-1908. English Studies in Africa 59.1.
Chen, Chien-Kai 2009. China and Taiwan: A Future of Peace? A Study of Economic Interdependence, Taiwanese Domestic Politics and Cross-Strait Relations. Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies.
Cukic, Kristina 2024. Protests for environmental protection. World Mediation Organization Conflict Insight. ISSN: 2628-6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
Darmawan, Aristyo 2021. “China’s New Coast Guard Law: Illegal and Escalatory.” ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
De Castro, Renato 2015. The Philippines confronts China in the South China Sea: Power politics vs. liberalism-legalism. Asian perspective 39.1.
Erdmann, Daniel 2024. The Dynamics of Polarized Pluralism: On the Benefits, Challenges, and Threats of a Constantly Changing Fragmented World Order. World Mediation Organization Conflict Insight. ISSN: 2628-6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
Eyler, Brian 2020. Science shows Chinese dams are devastating the Mekong. Foreign Policy 22.
Eyler, Brian 2020. “Science Shows Chinese Dams Are Devastating the Mekong.” Foreign Politics. Accessed 24 October 2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/22/science-shows-chinese-dams-devastating-mekong-river/
Gao, Zhiguo and Bing Jia 2013. The nine-dash line in the South China Sea: History, status, and implications. American Journal of International Law 107.1.
Healy, Conor 2021. “Uyghur Surveillance & Ethnicity Detection Analytics in China.” Expert Report Presented to the Uyghur Tribunal. London: Uyghur Tribunal. https://uyghurtribunal. com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Conor-Healy.pdf.
International Court of Justice 2023. “Summary of the Order of 1 December 2023.” Accessed 16 October 2024. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203344
Jacobs, Jeffrey W. 2002. The Mekong River Commission: transboundary water resources planning and regional security. Geographical Journal 168.4.
Kang, Taejun 2024. “China suspends tariff arrangements on 134 items under Taiwan trade deal.” Radio Free Asia. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-taiwan-trade-05302024235419.html
Kipgen, Nehginpao 2018. ASEAN and China in the South China Sea disputes. Asian Affairs 49.3.
Morewood, Steve 2016. “Prelude to the Suez Crisis: The Rise and Fall of British Dominance over the Suez Canal, 1869–1956.” Reassessing Suez 1956. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Ngo, Madeleine and Don Clark 2024. “TSMC Will Receive $6.6 Billion to Bolster U.S. Chip Manufacturing.” The New York Times. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/us/politics/tsmc-taiwan-chips-grants.html
Plummer, Gayle 2011. “Building US hegemony in the Caribbean.” The Caribbean: A History of the Region and Its People, 417-432. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Skardon, C. Philip 2010. “A Lesson for Our Times: How America Kept the Peace in the Hungary-Suez Crisis of 1956.” 194-195. AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN.
Stanard, Matthew G. 2013. “Violence and Empire: The curious case of Belgium and the Congo.” The Routledge History of Western Empires. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Thao, Nguyen Hong 2003. The 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea: a note. Ocean Development &International Law 34.3.
Tran, Hai Yen 2021. Rising Strategic Competition Between the United States and China in Mekong River Subregion. Global Policy and Governance 10.2.
United Nations Digital Library 2024. “Resolution 997 (ES-I)” Signed 1965. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/208414?v=pdf&ln=en
Wilkinson, Bert 2024. “Guyana condemns Venezuela for signing into law a referendum approving annexation of disputed region.” Associated Press. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://apnews.com/article/guyana-venezuela-essequibo-dispute-maduro-law-a72e94ed5417f99d090e1062c68017d7
