The relationship between resource scarcity and intra-state and inter-state conflict is significant. When resources are scarce, competition for access can lead to conflict. Disputes can occur at intra-state levels, between different groups, or at the inter-state level, between states. Scarcity is not the only cause of intra-state and inter-state conflicts. Resource abundance can also lead to conflict. Control over valuable resources can be a source of tension and competition between states. The same applies to intra-state: if resources are not distributed equitably within a state, this can lead to social unrest and intra-state conflict.
However, resource scarcity or abundance is not the only factor that could lead to conflict. Multiple other factors, such as ideological, territorial, political, historical, ethnic, and economic, usually play a significant role. An example of vital resource scarcity, as well as unilateral control of the said resource, is that of a potential war over water between China and India. Pak 2016 examines how likely water insecurity could cause a war between China and India and concludes that just water scarcity will not cause such a significant inter-state conflict. However, water scarcity and other important factors could increase the likelihood of such a conflict (Pak, 2016). Pak demonstrates that, while resource scarcity could play a role, other factors, such as the changing Chinese domestic conditions, including China’s water scarcity and its impact on national sovereignty, political instability, as well as the Sino-Indian dispute over Arunachal Pradesh, may increase the likelihood of war (Pak, 2016). On a similar topic, Gawande et al. 2017 claim that the intensity of conflict in India’s Maoist belt is affected by levels of water resources (Gawande et al., 2017).
An example of conditions under which natural resources may cause intra-state conflict is discussed by Rasch 2017. The author explores social movements in Latin America organized as a response to the opening of pit mining, oil extraction, and the building of hydro dams and large plantations (Rasch, 2017). Such social movements impact foreign companies involved in these activities and armed and non-armed domestic groups fighting to exploit the same resources (Rasch, 2017). Consequently, these are considered intra-state threats to national security by governments.
Some conditions under which natural resources can cause conflict are:
1. Resource scarcity: When resources are scarce, competition for access can lead to conflict. This is often the case for resources critical for survival, such as water and food.
2. Resource control: Control over valuable resources can be a source of tension and competition between different groups within a state or between states. This can occur if resources are distributed unequally or if a small group of people or entities restricts access to these resources.
3. Economic dependence: If a state or group of people heavily depend on a particular resource for their economic survival, they may be willing to go to war to protect their access to that resource (Rasch, 2017).
4. Strategic importance: Some resources, such as oil and minerals, are considered strategically important and can be a source of conflict if control over them is perceived as vital to state security or economic survival.
5. Displacement: Large-scale extraction or exploitation of resources can lead to the displacement of local communities, which can lead to conflict with the government and companies.
6. Ideological and Ethnic differences: Resource extraction or exploitation can occur in areas where different ethnic groups and ideological factions coexist, leading to tension, mistrust, and conflicts (Tang et al., 2017).
Resources can influence the onset, intensity, and duration of intra-state and inter-state conflicts. Water and food, for example, are critical for survival and are more likely to lead to conflict when scarce. Other resources, such as minerals and oil, are valuable for economic and strategic reasons and can be a source of tension and competition between states and within states.
Water is considered a critical resource because it is essential for survival. Therefore, competition for access to water can lead to conflict, particularly in regions where water is scarce. For example, water disputes have occurred in the Middle East, where water resources are low, and multiple states share the same river or underground aquifers. However, Orlando 2015 writes that water has yet to lead to major inter-state conflicts, despite the consensus that water scarcity is a significant threat to world peace (Orlando, 2015). Baer 2015 focuses on the importance of implementing the human right to water in Bolivia and the challenges associated with this endeavor, specifically how protests against water privatization led to the retreat of multinational water companies from Bolivia and the impact of this decision on implementing the human right to water (Baer, 2015). This is an excellent example of how intra-state conflicts can jeopardize access to a vital resource such as water. Literature on hydro-politics tends to link water conflicts to water scarcity. However, Burgess et al. 2016 believe that deeper causes, including social, ethnic, and religious issues, often play significant roles in water conflicts (Burgess et al. 2016). Water conflicts remain a slow-growing long-term concern driven by water scarcity, but the risk of such conflict exploding based on water scarcity alone remains low (Burgess et al. 2016).
Oil is a valuable resource because it fuels economies and is a critical component in many industries. Control over oil resources has been the cause of inter-state conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, where this resource is abundant, and states have competing claims to the resources. Meierding 2016 states thatcontrary to the accepted assumptions and predictions, states do not engage in oil wars (Meierding, 2016). The author bases this statement on analyzing four international conflicts identified as oil wars and concludes that none of these conflicts was caused primarily by the desire to control oil resources. Aggression was not connected to oil interests in two of the analyzed conflicts, but rather states fought for survival and not for control of oil resources (Meierding, 2016). Security needs took precedence. While inter-state conflicts may occur in oil-rich territories, these conflicts are not fought for oil (Meierding, 2016). Tang et al. 2017 are of a similar opinion. The authors analyze if oil could cause ethnic war and conclude that oil has rarely been a serious cause of ethnic war, but rather that the ethno-geographical location of oil resources has the tendency to reignite dormant conflicts that originate in more profound ethnic hatred, which in turn could cause intra-state conflicts (Tang et al., 2017).
On the opposite spectrum, Colgan 2013 claims that the political effects of the oil industry could be a leading cause of war (Colgan, 2013). The author analyzes the role of resources such as oil and energy in developing international conflicts. Opinions on the topic are divided, from the belief that the U.S.-led wars against Iraq were motivated by oil resources, to the firm statement of the US government claiming that oil was not the cause of any of these wars (Colgan, 2013). The author mentions the disagreement among scholars, with some claiming that wars for resources are frequent, with oil playing a pivotal casual role. In contrast, others doubt that wars on resources are significant, as there is no clear evidence. These disagreements are worrisome because a lack of consensus points to a need for a clear understanding of the role of oil in international conflict (Colgan, 2013).
Focusing on intra-state conflicts, primarily civil conflicts, Clayton 2016 writes that such conflicts within oil-rich states usually last longer and do not end in mediated, peaceful settlements (Clayton, 2016). This research attempts to discover if the existence of non-lootable natural resources such as oil impacts civil war mediation and concludes that oil makes it difficult for insurgents to request and obtain guarantees in mediation (Clayton, 2016). Piazza 2016 also looked at intra-state conflict mediators in cases of terrorism and concluded that onshore oil-rich states are more likely to experience terrorist attacks (Piazza, 2016). This is because onshore oil exploitations usually lead to human rights violations, resulting in population grievances, manifesting as terrorist actions (Piazza, 2016). This research links oil resources to terrorism, which is significant for intra-state conflict analyses.
The literature on how rich oil resources affect the onset of intra-state conflict usually focuses on how oil reserves might shape the relationship between rebel groups and governments, giving rebel groups the ability to finance their activities. However, Bell and Wolford 2015 claim that new oil resources could shift the bargaining power in favor of governments, which can be an additional motivator for rebel groups to pursue conflict (Bell and Wolford, 2015). The authors researched if the discovery of petroleum resources leads to civil conflict and discovered that this tendency is more likely to occur in poor states because, in these cases, the discovery of new oil reserves could change the balance of power within the state (Bell and Wolford, 2015). Related to this topic, Kelanic 2016 tried to explain why powerful states fear oil coercion and how this fear can shape their strategies to protect themselves from it. According to Kelanic, these strategies depend on a state’s vulnerability to oil coercion. Powerful states use self-sufficiency, indirect and direct control to mitigate oil coercion (Kelanic 2016).
Bibliography
Baer, Madeline. 2015. “From Water Wars to Water Rights: Implementing the Human Right to Water in Bolivia.” Journal of Human Rights 14 (3): 353–76. doi:10.1080/14754835.2014.988782.
Bell, Curtis, and Scott Wolford. 2015. “Oil Discoveries, Shifting Power, and Civil Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly 59 (3): 517–30. doi:10.1111/isqu.12150.
Burgess, J Peter, Taylor Owen, and Uttam Kumar Sinha. 2016. “Human Securitization of Water? A Case Study of the Indus Waters Basin.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (2): 382–407. doi:10.1080/09557571.2013.799739.
Clayton, G. (2016). Oil, relative strength and civil war mediation. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(3), 325–344. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1177/0010836715610596
Colgan, Jeff D. 2013. “Fueling the Fire.” International Security 38 (2): 147–80. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00135.
Gawande, K., Kapur, D., & Satyanath, S. (2017). Renewable Natural Resource Shocks and Conflict Intensity: Findings from India’s Ongoing Maoist Insurgency. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(1), 140–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714567949
Kelanic, Rosemary A. 2016. “The Petroleum Paradox: Oil, Coercive Vulnerability, and Great Power Behavior.” Security Studies 25 (2): 181–213. doi:10.1080/09636412.2016.1171966
Meierding, Emily. 2016. “Dismantling the Oil Wars Myth.” Security Studies 25 (2): 258–88. doi:10.1080/09636412.2016.1171968.
Orlando, Leonardo. 2015. “Fighting Water Wars: Regional Environmental Cooperation as a Roadmap for Peace.” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 39 (2) (Summer): 101-110.
Pak, Jin H. 2016. “China, India, and War Over Water.” Parameters 46 (2) (Summer): 53-67.
Piazza, James A. 2016. “Oil and Terrorism: An Investigation of Mediators.” Public Choice 169 (3-4) (12): 251-268. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1007/s11127-016-0357-0.
Rasch, Elisabet Dueholm. 2017. “Citizens, Criminalization and Violence in Natural Resource Conflicts in Latin America.” Revista Europea De Estudios Latinoamericanos y Del Caribe (103) (Jan): 131-141. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.18352/erlacs.10193.
Tang, Shiping, Yihan Xiong, and Hui Li. 2017. “Does Oil Cause Ethnic War? Comparing Evidence from Process-Tracing with Quantitative Results.” Security Studies 26 (3): 359–90. doi:10.1080/09636412.2017.1306392