21st century decolonization, or why we need 'unusual' dispute resolutions

This paper proceeds from the empirical recognition of the need for 21st century decolonization. Various prolonged territorial conflicts in the contemporary era bear a similarity to the colonial era conflicts in terms of the questions of representation, repressions of rights, and resource extraction. After an overview of such contemporary conflicts in terms of the dominant narratives (relevant actors, issues at stake, trends), I highlight historical work about various "unusual" strategies that have sometimes played a role in resolving territorial conflicts (including arbitration, purchase of territory, ceding territory, plebiscite). I draw upon classical peace research that argues for the need to rethink these conflicts in normative rather than in power-political terms. I put forward that the status quo drivers of these conflicts form a four-fold matrix of legitimacy, comprised of the use of agnotological governing practices for domestic populations; public diplomacy for non-government publics abroad; material gains for transnational corporations through sourcing of repression and surveillance infrastructures; and specific versions of the sovereignty argument for the international legal community. Lastly, I emphasise the multidimensional human cost of these conflicts and why our pedagogical and political intersections must find ways to build the material and ideational incentives for resolution.