Structuration Theory and the Analysis of International Territorial Disputes: Lessons From an Application to the El Chamizal Controversy

Abstract

This study argues that Structuration Theory (ST), developed by sociologist Anthony Giddens, has promise for improving our understanding of the dynamics of international territorial disputes. To tease out its analytical value, ST's basic assumptions are compared to those of two state-centric approaches within the international relations literature, dependency theory, and strategic coalition theory, and then applied to the case of a well-known territorial dispute between Mexico and the United States, the Chamizal controversy, which has been previously analyzed in dependency theory and strategic coalition theory terms. A comparison of the three approaches shows that an ST interpretation does not disqualify the rival explanations but adds value by drawing attention to analytical elements that tend to be neglected by state-centric explanations of dispute settlement. The study concludes by noting ST's potential applications within this issue- area.