In other words, the countries or entities involved may agree on where the boundary lies, but they disagree on how it should be used. This can lead to conflict over:
* Resource management: Sharing of water resources (rivers, lakes), fishing grounds, oil and gas reserves, or other natural resources.
* Environmental issues: Pollution, deforestation, wildlife conservation, or the impact of development on the border area.
* Transportation and infrastructure: Use of roads, railways, airports, or pipelines that cross the boundary.
* Migration and movement: Control of the flow of people and goods across the border.
Key characteristics of functional boundary disputes:
* Focus on usage, not location: The dispute is not about the boundary itself, but rather about how it should be used.
* Potential for cooperation: Unlike territorial disputes, which often involve a desire to gain territory, functional disputes can be resolved through cooperation and compromise.
* Long-term implications: These disputes can have lasting effects on the relationship between the countries involved and on the sustainable management of the shared area.
Examples of functional boundary disputes:
* The Nile River: Disagreements between Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia over the allocation of water resources from the Nile River.
* The Bering Sea: Disputes between the United States and Russia over fishing rights and the management of fish stocks.
* The US-Mexico border: Conflicts over the control of migration, drug trafficking, and environmental issues.
Understanding the concept of functional boundary disputes is crucial for understanding the dynamics of international relations and the challenges of managing shared resources and spaces.