List of territorial disputes

! Territory

! width=160px|Claimants

! class="unsortable"|Notes

| {{SDN}}
{{SSD}}

| Both Sudan and South Sudan have claimed the area after the civil war that led to South Sudan's independence. Heglig was controlled by South Sudan in mid-April 2012, but retaken by Sudan.

| {{FRA}}
{{COM}}
{{MDG}}

| Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean, a district of the French Southern Territories.

| {{FRA}}
{{MDG}}{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/326.html|title=Field Listing - Disputes - international| work=The World Factbook|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016195240/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/fields/326.html|archive-date=16 October 2020}}

| De facto part of the French overseas territory of the French Southern Territories.

| {{ESP}}
{{MAR}}

| Melilla and Ceuta have been Spanish territories since 1497 and 1640 respectively. They have had the status of autonomous cities since 1995.
After an incident on Perejil Island in 2002, both countries agreed to return to the status quo.{{cite web|url=http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|title=Comunicados y notas de prensa de la OID|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927030140/http://www.mae.es/NR/rdonlyres/E53D6D9A-03FF-49C9-9174-F96473692B2A/0/J.pdf|archive-date=September 27, 2007}}

|{{GBR}}
{{MDV}}
{{MUS}}

|The United Kingdom de facto administers the archipelago as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Mauritius and Maldives claims the islands. On 22 May 2025, Mauritius and the United Kingdom signed a deal to hand sovereignty over to Mauritius; the dispute between the two will end once the deal is ratified by both parties.{{cite web|last1=Sheppard|first1=David|last2=Ring |first2=Suzi|last3=Parker|first3=George|last4=Clover|first4=Charlie|last5=Pilling|first5=David|url=https://www.ft.com/content/2402978e-cf62-4a1e-8a0c-8bb85af85d8c|date=22 May 2025|title=UK to pay £101mn a year as it signs Chagos Islands deal|location=London|url-access=subscription|website=Financial Times|access-date=22 May 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250522143900/https://www.ft.com/content/2402978e-cf62-4a1e-8a0c-8bb85af85d8c|archive-date=22 May 2025|url-status=live}} However, the Maldives opposed the negotiations.{{cite news|url=https://en.sun.mv/93729|title=Govt refuses to disclose letter sent to UK over Chagos dispute|website=SunOnline|quote=[Maldivian President Muizzu] said that given the documental evidence of the historical connections between Maldives and Chagos, Maldives has a greater claim over the territory than any other country.|access-date=18 April 2025|archive-date=11 February 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250211081836/https://en.sun.mv/93729|url-status=live|date=8 December 2024}}

| {{ERI}}
{{DJI}}

| Basis of the Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict of 2008. Disputed territory occupied by Eritrea following withdrawal of Qatari peacekeepers in June 2017.{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-djibouti-eritrea-border-idUSKBN1971JR |publisher=Reuters |title=Djibouti, Eritrea in territorial dispute after Qatar peacekeepers leave |first=Aaron |last=Maasho |editor-first=James |editor-last=Dalgleish |date=June 16, 2017}}{{cite news |url=http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |publisher=Jane's Information Group |first=Chris |last=Suckling |title=Eritrea's alleged seizure of disputed Djiboutian territory increases likelihood of miscalculation leading to military escalation |quote=Djibouti's foreign minister, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, alleged in a televised address on 16 June that Eritrean forces had occupied the disputed Dumaira Mountains, immediately after Qatar withdrew a 500-strong contingent of peacekeepers without notification on 14 June. |access-date=2017-06-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625110211/http://www.janes.com/article/71617/eritrea-s-alleged-seizure-of-disputed-djiboutian-territory-increases-likelihood-of-miscalculation-leading-to-military-escalation |archive-date=2017-06-25 |url-status=dead }} Alternatively transliterated as the Dumaira Mountains.

| {{FRA}}
{{MDG}}
{{COM}}

| De facto a part of the French overseas territory of the French Southern Territories.

|{{EGY}}
{{SDN}}{{cite news|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |title=Why are Egypt and Sudan in a dispute over the Hala'ib Triangle?(Quizzical)(Brief Article) |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071113145252/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3120/is_200407/ai_n7779206 |archive-date=2007-11-13 }}

| Previously under joint administration; Egypt now maintains full de facto control of the Hala'ib Triangle. The boundaries claimed by Egypt and Sudan both include the Hala'ib Triangle. The area of Bir Tawil close to the triangle is unclaimed by both countries.

| {{KEN}}
{{SSD}}

|De facto controlled by Kenya. Ethiopian tribes used and made raids in the land, but the Ethiopian government has never made a claim to it, agreeing it was Sudanese in 1902, 1907, and 1972 treaties.{{Cite book|title=African Boundaries: A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopedia|last=Brownlie|first=Ian|author-link=Ian Brownlie|publisher=Institute for International Affairs, Hurst and Co.|year=1979|pages=867–884; 917–921}}{{Cite book|url=http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ethio_0066-2127_2004_num_20_1_1065|title=The Ilemi Triangle in: Annales d'Éthiopie. Volume 20, année 2004|last=Collins|first=Robert O.|year=2004|pages=5–12|doi=10.3406/ethio.2004.1065|access-date=2011-06-17}}The National Geographic Society in recent works has included an Ethiopian claim, later removed due to lack of sources. The World Factbook confirms that Ethiopia does not claim the territory

| {{ZAF}}
{{SWZ}}

| Eswatini claims territories that it states were confiscated during colonial times.{{cite web|url=http://www.irinnews.org/Report/44343/ESWATINI-Land-claim-falls-on-deaf-SA-ears|title=ESWATINI: Land claim falls on deaf SA ears|website=IRIN|date=June 16, 2003|access-date=March 7, 2012}} The area claimed by Eswatini is the former bantustan of KaNgwane, which now forms the northern parts of Jozini and uMhlabuyalingana local municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal, and the southern part of Nkomazi, the southeastern part of Umjindi and the far eastern part of Albert Luthuli local municipalities in Mpumalanga.

| {{BFA}}
{{BEN}}

|Burkina Faso and Benin retain a border dispute at this 7.75  km² triangular area of land near the tripoint border with Togo.{{Cite web|url=http://lefaso.net/spip.php?article31781|title=Différend frontier Burkina-Bénin: Kourou/Koalou déclarée zone (...) - leFaso.net, l'actualité au Burkina Faso|website=lefaso.net|language=fr|access-date=2017-10-12}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/benin/|title=CIA World Factbook – Benin|access-date=12 October 2017}} In a 2008 meeting, it was declared that the territory was a neutral zone, neither Burkinabé nor Beninese. According to the UN Refugee Agency in 2015, there were issues of children being born stateless in the area, however, a Beninese civil registration office has taken control of registering births in the area.{{Cite web|url=https://data2.unhcr.org/ar/documents/download/54204|title=UNHCR Newsletter – January–August 2015|page=5|access-date=12 October 2017}}

| {{CIV}}
{{GIN}}

| The Guinean military occupied this village for 1 month from January to February 2013, before withdrawing in preparation for talks.{{cite news|title=Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire Border Dispute Reportedly Resurfaces |url=http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/ |work=Guinee News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140308072638/http://guineenews.org/2014/03/le-conflit-frontalier-entre-la-guinee-et-la-cote-divoire-autour-de-kpeaba-refait-surface/ |archive-date=2014-03-08 }} In December 2016, Guinea soldiers and civilians attacked the village, killing 1 and wounding several others, before returning to their side of the border.{{Cite news|url=http://www.jeuneafrique.com/387125/politique/cote-divoire-civil-tue-militaires-guineens-a-kpeaba-louest-pays/|title=Côte d'Ivoire : un civil tué par des militaires guinéens à Kpéaba dans l'ouest du pays, la Guinée dément – JeuneAfrique.com|date=2016-12-23|work=JeuneAfrique.com|access-date=2017-10-12|language=fr-FR}} According to the Guinean Minister of Defence, the Guinean army had been asked not to send any soldiers to this area and had no involvement in this incident.{{Cite news|url=http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20161223-cote-ivoire-guinee-kpeaba-attaque-civil-soldat-militaire-ministre|title=Côte d'Ivoire/Guinée: un ancien litige frontalier ressurgit à Kpéaba - RFI|work=RFI Afrique|access-date=2017-10-12|language=fr-FR}}

| {{SSD}}
{{UGA}}

|A 1914 British colonial order defined the international border based on the tribal boundary between the Kuku of Kajokeji (South Sudan) and the Ma'di of Moyo (Uganda). However, the border was never formally demarcated.{{Cite journal|last=Leonardi|first=Cherry|date=2020-07-13|title=Patchwork States: The Localization of State Territoriality on the South Sudan–Uganda Border, 1914–2014*|journal=Past & Present|issue=248|pages=209–258|doi=10.1093/pastj/gtz052|issn=0031-2746|doi-access=free}} In 2014, a conflict was triggered by the Ugandan national census when Ugandan officials were detained by South Sudan authorities.{{Cite web|title=South Sudan – Uganda Relations|url=https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/south-sudan-uganda-relations/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=ACCORD|language=en-GB}}

| {{ZMB}}
{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo|name=DR Congo}}

|Zambia and Congo have different interpretations of the borders set out in an 1894 treaty between British settlers and Leopold II, King of the Belgians. There have been incidents between the armies of both countries in 1996, 2006, and 2016. In March 2020, Zambia deployed troops on the Congolese side of the border.{{Cite web|last=Tshiamala|first=Stanis Bujakera|date=2020-08-27|title=Zambia & DRC's disputed territory in Tanganyika since colonial era|url=https://www.theafricareport.com/38156/zambia-drcs-disputed-territory-in-tanganyika-since-colonial-era/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=The Africa Report.com|language=en-US}}

| {{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo|name=DR Congo}}
{{ZMB}}

|

| {{FRA}}
{{COM}}

| Under the 2009 referendum, the population supported becoming an overseas department of France, so Mayotte became one on March 31, 2011.

| {{TZA}}
{{MWI}}

| Lundo Is. and Mbamba Is. are claimed as part of the lake, as Malawi has claims to the shore − based on the 1890 Anglo-German treaty. See Tanzania–Malawi dispute.

| {{COG}}
{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo|name=DR Congo}}

|Most of the boundary in the Congo River remains undefined.{{Cite web|title=Disputes – international - The World Factbook|url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/disputes-international|access-date=2021-06-03|website=Central Intelligence Agency}}

| {{CMR}}
{{GNQ}}

|{{Citation |title=Cameroon |date=2023-11-14 |url=https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/cameroon/#transnational-issues |work=The World Factbook |access-date=2023-11-17 |publisher=Central Intelligence Agency |language=en}}

| {{BEN}}
{{NGA}}

|

| {{RWA}}
{{BDI}}

|In 1965, the Akanyaru River changed course due to heavy rains. Burundians point to Rwandan farmers for contributing to the change of course by rice-growing.{{Cite web|date=2006-01-31|title=Tension increases in ongoing land dispute|url=https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/57979/burundi-rwanda-tension-increases-ongoing-land-dispute|access-date=2021-06-03|website=The New Humanitarian|language=en}}

| {{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo|name=DR Congo}}
{{UGA}}

|The dispute is related to fishing rights in Lake Edward and Lake Albert.{{Cite web|last1=Gitta|first1=Alex|last2=Lubega|first2=Emmanuel|last3=Natalis|first3=Veronica|date=27 December 2018|title=Contested waters: Conflict on Africa's Great Lakes {{!}} DW {{!}} 27.08.2018|url=https://www.dw.com/en/contested-waters-conflict-on-africas-great-lakes/a-45245425|access-date=2021-06-03|website=Deutsche Welle|language=en-GB}}

| {{ZMB}}
{{ZWE}}{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IDE5DwAAQBAJ&q=sindabezi+island+dispute&pg=PA190 | title=The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the European Union (EU): Regionalism and External Influence| isbn=9783319453309| last1=Muntschick| first1=Johannes| date=2017-10-09| publisher=Springer}}

| Tourist island on the Zambezi River, west of the Victoria Falls

| {{FRA}}
{{MUS}}
{{MDG}}

| De facto a part of the French overseas territory of the French Southern Territories.

| {{EGY}}
{{SDN}}

|Most of the disputed territory comprised villages flooded by Lake Nasser after the construction of the Aswan Dam.{{Cite web|last=Jacobs|first=Franks|date=2010-07-23|title=396 - "You take it - No, you take it": the Bir Tawil Trapezoid|url=https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/396-you-take-it-no-you-take-it-the-bir-tawil-trapezoid|access-date=2021-06-03|website=Big Think|language=en}}

! Territory

! width=130px|Claimants

! class="unsortable"|Notes

| {{COL}}
{{HON}}
{{USA}}

| Jamaica and Nicaragua have recognized the sovereignty of Colombia; other claimants have not. On November 19, 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Colombia has sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla.{{cite web |author=International Court of Justice |year=2012 |title=Territorial and maritime dispute (Nicaragua vs Colombia) |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/124/17162.pdf |access-date=2012-11-27}} Honduras implicitly recognized Colombian sovereignty in a 1999 maritime delimitation treaty, but continues to claim the two banks in its constitution.{{Cite web |title=Honduras 1982 (rev. 2013) Constitution |url=https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Honduras_2013 |access-date=2023-12-18 |website=Constitute |language=en}}

| {{HND}}
{{SLV}}

|

| {{BLZ}}
{{GTM}}
{{HND}}

| Guatemala formally claims all of Belize; an International Court of Justice decision over the matter is pending.

| {{BLZ}}
{{GTM}}

|The Guatemalan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement in which Guatemala specifically claims territory between the Sibun and Sarstoon rivers, which makes up around half of Belizean-administered territory. However, Guatemala also claims all of Belize because its historical recognition of British Honduras was contingent on the construction of a road between Guatemala City and the Atlantic Ocean which was never built, an apparent violation of the Wyke-Aycinena Treaty. An International Court of Justice decision over the matter is pending.{{Cite web |title=Guatemala's Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize) |url=https://icj-cij.org/case/177 |access-date=2023-12-02 |website=International Court of Justice}}

| {{DOM}}
{{USA}}

|Since 2007, the Dominican Republic in Hispaniola considers itself an archipelagic state, encroaching the long-established median or equidistance line dividing the EEZ of the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and claiming portion of the EEZ claimed by the United States in relation to the archipelago of Puerto Rico, which is itself an unincorporated U.S. territory.{{Cite web |title=Sea Around Us {{!}} Fisheries, Ecosystems and Biodiversity |url=http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/eez/630?chart=catch-chart&dimension=taxon&measure=tonnage&limit=10 |access-date=2024-10-04 |website=www.seaaroundus.org}} The United States does not accept the archipelagic status and maritime boundaries claimed by the Dominican Republic.{{cite web |title= Limits in the Seas No. 130 Dominican Republic: Archipelagic and other Maritime Claims and Boundaries |url= https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/221366.pdf |access-date=14 January 2014 |work= United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs}} Victor Prescott, an authority in the field of maritime boundaries, argues that, as the coasts of both states are short coastlines with few offshore islands, an equidistance line is appropriate.

| rowspan="2"| New Brunswick

| rowspan="2"| Maine

! width=250px|Territory

! width=120px|Claimants

! class="unsortable"|Notes

| {{GUY}}
{{VEN}}

| Approximately two-thirds of Guyana's sovereign territory is claimed by Venezuela. Following arbitration, a demarcated border was established in 1905 following the Arbitral Award of 1899 but was later contested by Venezuela in 1962 following the publication of the Mallet-Prevost memorandum. The crisis was renewed recently following the discovery of oil deposits.

| {{BRA}}
{{URY}}

| Dispute in the {{Convert|237|km2|abbr=on|adj=on}} Invernada River region near Masoller, over which tributary represents the legitimate source of the Quaraí River/Cuareim River. The UN does not officially recognize the claim.{{Clarify|reason=Which claim: the Brazilian one or the Uruguayan one? Both countries are listed as claimants.|date=January 2024}}

| {{FRA}}
{{SUR}}

|The source or tributary of the Lawa River between Suriname and French Guiana is disputed but eventually follows to the tripoint with Brazil. The Netherlands, and now Suriname, contends that the boundary follows the Malani River to the east, while France asserts that the border follows the Litani River to the west.

| {{GUY}}
{{SUR}}

| The New River Triangle (also known as the Tigri Area) is a region within the Guiana Highlands that has been disputed by Suriname and Guyana since the 19th century. It involves the Courantyne River and the interpreted source of the river. In 1871, the New River was discovered, questioning the boundary between the two states.

| {{BRA}}
{{URY}}

| Uruguayan officials claim that the island falls under their Artigas Department (the UN does not officially recognize the claim).

| {{BOL}}
{{BRA}}

| An island in the river Rio Mamoré that serves as a border between Bolivia and Brazil, alongside the other 80 islands that are not assigned to any country. Isla Suárez is geographically closer to Bolivia, however economically dependent on the Brazilian city of Guajará-Mirim. Both countries signed a treaty in 1958 that keeps the island in a status quo.

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| From Mount Fitz Roy to Cerro Murallón the border remains undefined, while in the zone of Murallón and Cerro Daudet both countries already defined a border in 1998, but their respective cartographies differ.

| {{flag|Argentina}}
{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} United Kingdom

| {{flag|Argentine Antarctica}}
{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}

| {{flag|Argentina}}
{{flag|Chile}}
{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} United Kingdom

| {{flag|Argentine Antarctica}}
{{flag|Antártica Chilena Province}}
{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}

| {{flag|Chile}}
{{flagdeco|United Kingdom}} United Kingdom

| {{flag|Antártica Chilena Province}}
{{flag|British Antarctic Territory}}

| {{LBN}}
{{flag|Syria|revolution}}

| Mazraat Deir al-Ashayer is administered and controlled by Lebanon's Zahlé District, Beqaa Governorate, but claimed by Syria's Al-Zabadani District, Rif Dimashq Governorate.{{Cite web |last=Ismail |first=Safira |title=مزرعة دير العشاير.. أرض خصبة ومياه نظيفة وموسم خضراوات واعد |url=https://sana.sy/?p=1424229 |access-date=2024-05-13 |website=Syrian Arab News Agency |language=ar}}

| {{nowrap|{{IRN}}
{{ARE}}}}

| In 1971, the Iranian navy took control of Abu Musa, at the time part of the Emirate of Sharjah. The Emirate of Sharjah later joined the United Arab Emirates, who therefore inherited an official claim on Abu Musa. As of 2022, this is an ongoing dispute, with Iran in control of the island since its takeover in 1971.

| {{IRN}}
{{ARE}}

| Closely related to the dispute over Abu Musa, Iran had also around the same time seized control over the Greater and Lesser Tunbs while they were under control by the Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah. When Ras al-Khaimah joined the United Arab Emirates, the dispute was also inherited to the UAE. The dispute is still ongoing as of 2022.

| {{THA}}
{{MYS}}

|

|{{flagicon|Pakistan}} Pakistan
{{flagicon|India}} India

| Administered by Pakistan and claimed by India. Part of the Kashmir conflict.

|{{IND}}
{{PAK}}

|Part of the Kashmir conflict. Both India and Pakistan claim the former independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (including Ladakh, which India split off from the portion that it controls in 2019), leading to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947. A UN-mediated ceasefire put a halt to the conflict in January 1949. The UN resolution called for both the countries to demilitarise the region, following which a plebiscite would be held. However, no demilitarisation plan acceptable to both the countries could be agreed. The countries fought two further wars in 1965 and 1971. Following the latter war, the countries reached the Simla Agreement, agreeing on a Line of Control between their respective regions and committing to a peaceful resolution of the dispute through bilateral negotiations. An armed insurgency broke out in 1989 in the Indian administered part of Kashmir, demanding "independence". Pakistan has provided arms and training to the militants.

{{citation |last=Korbel |first=Josef |author-link=Josef Korbel |title=Danger in Kashmir |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1966}}

{{citation |first=Victoria |last=Schofield |author-link=Victoria Schofield |title=Kashmir in Conflict |publisher=I. B. Taurus & Co |location=London and New York |year=2003 |orig-year=First published in 2000 |isbn=978-1860648984 |url=https://archive.org/details/00book584554548 }}

{{citation |first=Sumantra |last=Bose |author-link=Sumantra Bose |title=Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-674-01173-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/00book939526581 }}

{{citation |last=Varshney |first=Ashutosh |author-link=Ashutosh Varshney |chapter=Three Compromised Nationalisms: Why Kashmir has been a Problem |editor=Raju G. C. Thomas |title=Perspectives on Kashmir: the roots of conflict in South Asia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xrPtAAAAMAAJ |year=1992 |publisher=Westview Press |isbn=978-0-8133-8343-9 |pages=191–234|chapter-url=https://apps.cndls.georgetown.edu/courses/rudolph/g238/files/Varshney-_1992-Why-Kashmir.pdf}}

|{{IND}}
{{PAK}}

|India annexed Junagadh (located within Gujarat) in 1947, shortly after the partition of India. Junagadh was one of the many princely states that was contested between India and Pakistan; Manavadar was a vassal state of Junagadh, alongside Babariawad and Mangrol. The dispute fell into obscurity over the next few years due to the prioritisation of the Kashmir conflict. In August 2020, Pakistan revived the decades-old dispute by highlighting "Junagadh and Manavadar" as a part of Pakistan in an official map on its "Survey of Pakistan" website. The dispute is largely symbolic in nature and is politically connected to the dispute over Kashmir, which is much more important to Pakistan.{{Cite web |last=Iwanek |first=Krzysztof |date=August 10, 2020 |title=Why Did Pakistan Lay Claim to the Indian Territory of Junagadh? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/why-did-pakistan-lay-claim-to-the-indian-territory-of-junagadh/ |access-date=October 21, 2022 |website=The Diplomat}}{{cite web |url=http://www.surveyofpakistan.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/political_map_pakistan.pdf |title=Pakistan Political Map |date=2020 |access-date=8 April 2024 |website=surveyofpakistan.gov.pk}}

| {{GEO}}
{{AZE}}

|Since the monastery complex is located on the border between Georgia and Azerbaijan, both parties have entered a dispute over which nation it belongs to.

| {{MYA}}
{{THA}}

|

| {{BHR}}
{{QAT}}

| These are island territories that are disputed between Qatar and Bahrain. Controlled by Bahrain, Qatar argues that the territories do not qualify as "islands" and hence are not covered by the International Court of Justice ruling (2001–2003) that handed them over to Bahrain.

| {{KGZ}}
{{TJK}}
{{UZB}}

| Kyrgyzstan: Barak is a tiny Kyrgyz village in the Fergana Valley region (where Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan meet). In August 1999, the area around Barak was occupied by Uzbekistan. Barak became a de facto enclave only 1.5 km from the shifted main border.{{cite web|title=Kyrgyz In Exclave In Uzbekistan Want To Relocate To Kyrgyzstan|date=12 May 2011|url=http://www.eurasianet.org/print/63475|publisher=EurasiaNet|access-date=2014-03-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319135155/http://www.eurasianet.org/print/63475|archive-date=19 March 2014|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan intensify work on delimitation and demarcation of state border|date=18 Feb 2014|first=Demir|last=Azizov|url=http://en.trend.az/regions/casia/uzbekistan/2243118.html|access-date=2014-03-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319133327/http://en.trend.az/regions/casia/uzbekistan/2243118.html|archive-date=19 March 2014|url-status=live}}{{cite web |title=Продолжаются споры по линии прохождения узбеко-кыргызской границы. Неделимы Сох, Барак и Гавасай |url=http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1014330840 |date=22 Feb 2002 |author=Борис ГОЛОВАНОВ |publisher=Вечерний Бишкек |access-date=2014-02-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319134929/http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1014330840 |archive-date=19 March 2014 |url-status=live }} ([http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.66667,72.76667&z=12&t=K&marker0=40.66667%2C72.76667 Map]) In August 2018, Kyrgyz and Uzbek authorities agreed to a land swap that would eliminate the exclave, claiming that the exchange process may take up to two years.{{Cite news|url=https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-agree-to-work-on-land-swap-near-border/29435146.html|title=Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan Agree To Work On Land Swap Near Border|website=RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty|language=en|access-date=2019-01-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190315023547/https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-agree-to-work-on-land-swap-near-border/29435146.html|archive-date=2019-03-15|url-status=live}} As of a February 2022 report, only 85 percent of the land was traded, and then work stopped, leaving only 15 families to preserve Barak.{{Cite web |last=MASALIEVA |first=Jazgul |date=2022-02-03 |title=Residents of Kyrgyz Barak exclave ask for meeting with Kamchybek Tashiev - |url=https://24.kg/english/222767_Residents_of_Kyrgyz_Barak_exclave_ask_for_meeting_with_Kamchybek_Tashiev/ |access-date=2022-09-04 |website=24.kg |language=en-US}} Tajikistan: There are three Tajik exclaves, all of them in the Fergana Valley. One of them, the village of Sarvan, is surrounded by Uzbek territory, whereas the remaining two, the village of Vorukh and a small settlement near the Kyrgyz railway station of Kairagach, are each surrounded by Kyrgyz territory. Uzbekistan: There are four Uzbek exclaves, all inside Kyrgyz territory in the Fergana Valley. Two of them are the towns of Sokh and Shakhimardan and the other two the tiny territories of Chon-Qora and Jani-Ayil. There may be a fifth Uzbek exclave inside of Kyrgyzstan.{{cite web|url=http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/|title=Enclaves III: The Fergana Valley|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017233031/http://cominganarchy.com/2005/12/23/enclaves-iii-the-fergana-valley/ |archive-date=October 17, 2013 }} Most of the border in the area is still not demarcated.

| {{KGZ}}
{{TJK}}

|In April 2021, a violent disagreement broke out in Isfara Valley, supposedly over the installation of surveillance cameras by the Tajiks at a water intake station of a reservoir.{{Cite web |date=2021-05-28 |title=What drove the worst Kyrgyz-Tajik conflict in years? |url=https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/regional-cooperation/climate-nationalism-unresolved-borders-and-the-pandemic-drove-kyrgyz-tajik-conflict/ |access-date=2022-09-04 |website=The Third Pole |language=en-US}} It escalated into an armed conflict that reached hundreds of civilian casualties. The area's dispute is mainly due to faulty allocation of resources during and after the breakup of the Soviet Union and its republics, leading to tense relations between nations over said allocation of resources, namely water.

| {{IDN}}
{{MYS}}

|

| {{ISR}}
{{flag|Syria|revolution}}

| Syrian territory captured by Israel in 1967 (the Six-Day War), and unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1981. In 2008, a plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly voted by 161–1 in favor of a motion on the "occupied Syrian Golan" that reaffirmed support for UN Resolution 497; United Nations, December 5, 2008). During the Syrian civil war period, Syrian Arab Republic had lost direct control of the Eastern Golan areas and retreated from cease-fire line with Israel (in favor of various rebel and Jihadist groups), though did regain the area in 2018.

| {{TUR}}
{{flag|Syria|revolution}}

| Annexed by Turkey in 1939, claimed by Syria.{{cite web | url=https://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/54340?lang=en | title=Syria's "Lost Province": The Hatay Question Returns }}

| {{ISR}}
{{LBN}}
{{flag|Syria|revolution}}

|

| {{ISR}}
{{flagicon|Palestine}} Palestine

| See Israeli–Palestinian conflict

| {{ISR}}

::{{small|{{Flag|Israel|name=Civilian rule by Israel proper}} applied in East Jerusalem}}

::{{small|{{Flag|Israel|tsahal|name=Military occupation}} has jurisdiction over all matters in Area C and security-related matters in Area B}}

{{PLE}}

{{small|has jurisdiction over all matters in Area A and civil matters in Area B}}

| See Israeli occupation of the West Bank

| {{IND}}
{{NPL}}

|Kalapani is administered by India while Susta is administered by Nepal. The few remaining border disagreements with Nepal since delineation was announced 98% complete in 2019.Territorial disputes of India and Nepal See Territorial disputes of India and Nepal.

| {{AZE}}
{{ARM}}

| rowspan="2" | Azerbaijan and Armenia have controlled these areas as part of the wider Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

| {{ARM}}
{{AZE}}

|{{AZE}}
{{ARM}}
{{flag|Artsakh}}

|Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan{{cite web |date=14 March 2008 |title=General Assembly adopts resolution reaffirming territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, demanding withdrawal of all Armenian forces |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm |access-date=23 Dec 2016 |publisher=United Nations}} but controlled by the Republic of Artsakh, which was de facto supported by Armenia until it became a government-in-exile in 2024. Artsakh claimed a part of Goranboy district, which it lost during Operation Goranboy in 1993 during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, as part of Shahumyan Province. Artsakh also claimed but did not control parts of Khojavend and Tartar districts as parts of Martuni and Martakert provinces, respectively. Azerbaijan captured the surrounding territories and the city of Shusha during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, then finally all of Nagorno-Karabakh proper during a 2023 offensive.

| {{PRK}}
{{KOR}}

| The Democratic People's Republic of Korea administers North Korea, but Article 1 of the Constitution of North Korea reads: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people." The Republic of Korea administers South Korea, but Article 3 of the Constitution of South Korea reads: "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands."

| {{KOR}}
{{PRK}}
{{JPN}}

| {{see also|Liancourt Rocks dispute}} The Liancourt Rocks, known as Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese, are a set of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. Japan claims sovereignty over the islets, pointing out the fact that in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, Dokdo/Takeshima was not included among the territories to be renounced by Japan.

South Korea currently maintains control over the territory, which it has administered since June 1954. The status of Dokdo/Takeshima remains a point of contention between the two countries.

| {{RUS}}
{{KOR}}

| In 1990, the former Soviet Union and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) signed a border treaty which made the border run through the center of the Tumen river, leaving Noktundo as a former island in Russia. South Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty.{{cite web|url=http://ru.apircenter.org/publications/the-problem-of-the-noktundo-island-in-the-media-in-south-korea/ |trans-title=The problem of the Noktundo island in the media in South Korea |script-title=ru:Проблема острова Ноктундо в средствах массовой информации Южной Кореи |language=Russian |publisher=ru.apircenter.org |accessdate=2023-11-03 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130910052035/http://ru.apircenter.org/publications/the-problem-of-the-noktundo-island-in-the-media-in-south-korea/ |archivedate=10 September 2013|url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Westcott |first1=Ben |last2=Seo |first2=Yoonjung |title=South Korea fires warning shots at Russian military aircraft |url=https://www.10news.com/news/national-news/south-korea-fires-warning-shots-at-russian-military-aircraft |access-date=24 November 2023 |agency=10 News San Diego |date=2019}}{{cite journal |last1=Lanko |first1=D.A. |title=Russian and Japanese approaches to the Korean Peninsula: A comparison from a societal viewpoint* |journal=Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations |date=202 |volume=13 |issue=2 |page=243 |url=https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/19123/1/238-250.pdf |access-date=24 November 2023}}

| {{SGP}}
{{MYS}}

| The International Court of Justice rendered its decision on 23 May 2008 that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore; sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia. It said sovereignty over South Ledge would remain disputed until the states could determine the ownership of the territorial waters in which it is located.Pedra Branca case, operative clause; {{citation|title=Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=2026&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1&PHPSESSID=7c038bcd8cb75e026e5d43874209030d|publisher=International Court of Justice|date=23 May 2008|access-date=25 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527094640/http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=2026&pt=1&p1=6&p2=1&PHPSESSID=7c038bcd8cb75e026e5d43874209030d|archive-date=27 May 2008|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}. See also {{citation|title=ICJ awards Pedra Branca's sovereignty to Singapore|url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/349592/1/.html|publisher=Channel NewsAsia|date=23 May 2008|access-date=23 May 2008|archive-date=25 May 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080525210019/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/349592/1/.html|url-status=dead}}; {{citation|title=Court awards islet to Singapore|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7416473.stm|work=BBC News|date=23 May 2008}}

| {{SGP}}
{{MYS}}

| Malaysia claims the land was reclaimed in its territorial waters.

| {{LAO}}
{{KHM}}

| {{Cite web|last=Dara|first=Mech|title=Hun Sen set to visit Laos, discuss border issues|url=https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/hun-sen-set-visit-laos-discuss-border-issues|access-date=2022-01-15|website=Phnom Penh Post|language=en}}

| {{THA}}
{{KHM}}

| Temple complex awarded to Cambodia by an International Court of Justice ruling in 1962; "promontory" measuring 0.3 km² immediately adjacent to temple awarded to Cambodia by ICJ ruling in 2013; both countries acknowledge continuing dispute over an additional 4.3 km² immediately northwest of the 2013 ruling's area.

| {{MYS}}
{{PHL}}

| The Philippines retains a claim on the eastern part of Sabah (see North Borneo dispute) on the basis claimed by the Government of the Philippines that the territory is only leased by the former Sultanate of Sulu to British North Borneo Company, of which the Philippines argued that it should be the successor state of all Sulu past territories.

| {{KSA}}
{{UAE}}

|

| rowspan="2" |{{IND}}
{{PAK}}

| Controlled by India after Operation Meghdoot in 1984.{{cite web|url=https://indianairforce.nic.in/content/op-meghdoot|title=OP MEGHDOOT|work=Indian Air Force|access-date=2020-09-17}}

| A dispute over where in the estuary the line falls; only small areas of marsh land are disputed, but significant maritime territory is involved. It is divided mid-creek.

| {{MYA}}
{{THA}}

|

| {{RUS}}
{{KAZ}}

|

| {{UZB}}
{{KGZ}}

|

| {{Flag|South Ossetia}}
{{GEO}}

{{small|South Ossetia is internationally recognized as a proxy of {{RUS}}}}

| Ossetia claims two gorges and their connecting plateau, all controlled by Georgia as part of the Kazbegi Municipality, as "historically eastern Ossetian lands." South Ossetia claims to have attempted to press these claims during the Russo-Georgian War, but was deterred by Russia, with the issue flaring again in 2018 and 2019.{{cite web |title=Land of abandoned villages |url=https://project.jam-news.net/land-of-abandoned-villages |website=JAM News |access-date=11 September 2024}}{{cite web |last1=Zurabashvili |first1=Tornike |title=Backgrounder: Tskhinvali's Territorial Claims in Kazbegi Municipality |url=https://civil.ge/archives/275926 |website=Civil Georgia |date=7 February 2019 |access-date=11 September 2024}}

| {{RUS}}
{{UKR}}

| In 2014, Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in a disputed referendum. Russian ownership of Crimea is recognized by a minority of countries.Maria Raquel Freire, "Ukraine and the Restructuring of East-West Relations" in The Russian Challenge to the European Security Environment (ed. Roger E. Kanet), p. 201. The General Assembly Resolution 68/262 by votes 100 "in favor", 11 "against", 58 "abstained" and 24 abstentions noted that Crimea was part of Ukraine. Nonetheless, Crimea is practically a de facto subdivision of Russia as most of the control is in Russia's hands.{{cite web|url=https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/03/464812-backing-ukraines-territorial-integrity-un-assembly-declares-crimea-referendum|title=Backing Ukraine's territorial integrity, UN Assembly declares Crimea referendum invalid|website=United Nations News|date=March 27, 2014}} Russia and Ukraine both divide Crimea into two subdivisions, including a "republic" (Ukraine's Autonomous Republic and Russia's Republic) and the independent city of Sevastopol (Ukraine's "special city" and Russia's "federal city").

| rowspan="5" |{{flag|Ukraine}}
{{flag|Russia}}

| rowspan="5" |See Russian invasion of Ukraine.

| {{RUS}}
{{EST}}

| In 1917, the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia was formed by merging the governorates of Estonia and (parts of) Livonia. In the same year, a referendum was held in the midst of the Russian Revolution, joining Narva (and Ivangorod) to the governorate, which were previously part of Saint Petersburg Governorate.{{Cite web |last=Davõdov |first=Ilja |date=January 2008 |title=Vladimir Uljanovi (Lenini) allkirjaga dokument 16. novembrist 1917 Narva Linnavalitsuse arhiivifondis |url=https://www.ra.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DavodovIlja_Vladimir_Uljaonovi_TUNA2008_1.pdf |access-date=2 February 2024}} The south-eastern border was based on old provincial borders, which lay west of the present border.Eestimaa kubermangu administratiivse juhtimise ja kohaliku omavalitsuse ajutise korra kohta. 12 April 1917 Under the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, the border of the newly established Republic of Estonia was set eastwards after border talks, incorporating the later-formed Petseri County. Estonia was occupied and annexed by the USSR in 1940. In 1944, decrees of the USSR Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, set the northeastern border along Narva river, re-ceding Ivangorod to Leningrad Oblast (but keeping Narva within the Estonian SSR) and select volosts/parishes of Petserimaa to Pskov Oblast. The Estonian constitution still references the 1920 treaty as the border. Repeated attempts to resolve the border dispute have de jure failed, as no border treaty has been ratified.{{Cite news |date=9 September 2022 |title=Venemaa kinnitas huvi piirilepingu ratifitseerimiseks |url=https://www.err.ee/1608493730/venemaa-kinnitas-huvi-piirilepingu-ratifitseerimiseks |access-date=1 February 2024 |work=ERR Uudised}} The unratified agreement does, however, renounce Estonian claims to these lands, in addition to acknowledgements of the de facto situation by heads of state and government at various points.{{Cite news |last=Sildam |first=Toomas |date=9 May 2019 |title=Tarand vanas intervjuus Tartu rahu piirist: romantikaga on keeruline elada |url=https://www.err.ee/938132/tarand-vanas-intervjuus-tartu-rahu-piirist-romantikaga-on-keeruline-elada |access-date=1 February 2024 |work=ERR Uudised}}{{Cite news |date=11 February 2014 |title=Ilves: peame leppima tõsiasjaga, et Tartu rahu riigipiiri osas sajaprotsendiliselt ei kehti |url=https://www.delfi.ee/artikkel/67790347/ilves-peame-leppima-tosiasjaga-et-tartu-rahu-riigipiiri-osas-sajaprotsendiliselt-ei-kehti |access-date=1 February 2024 |work=Delfi}}

| {{GRC}}
{{TUR}}

| Broad number of delimitation disputes about a.o. national airspace, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Includes Imia/Kardak dispute.

| {{FRA}}
{{ITA}}

| France asserts that the principal peaks on the Mont Blanc massif—Dôme du Goûter, Punta Helbronner, and Mont Blanc lie in French territory, while Italy asserts that the summits are shared.{{cite web|author=Michael Day|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mont-blanc-controversy-french-suffer-a-fit-of-pique-as-italys-prime-minister-reclaims-europes-10351349.html|title=Mont Blanc controversy: French suffer a fit of pique as Italy's Prime Minister 'reclaims' Europe's highest mountain|website=Independent|date=June 28, 2015}}

| {{UK}}
{{ESP}}

| Dispute over the interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht and the location of the border.

|{{IRL}}
{{UK}}
{{DNK}}
{{ISL}}

|Rockall is an uninhabited islet in the North Atlantic Ocean with disputed claims to its basin.{{cite news|date=8 June 2019|title=Who owns Rockall? A history of disputes over a tiny Atlantic island|newspaper=The Irish Times|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/who-owns-rockall-a-history-of-disputes-over-a-tiny-atlantic-island-1.3919668|access-date=7 February 2021}}

| {{ESP}}
{{PRT}}

| In 1801, during the War of the Oranges, Spain, with French military support, occupied the territory of Olivenza (in Portuguese Olivença). During the Vienna Treaty, the signatory powers (including Spain) agreed with the Portuguese arguments concerning its claim on Olivença but Spain never fulfilled its duty of giving the city of Olivença and its territory back to Portugal.

| rowspan="3" | {{HRV}}
{{SRB}}

| Limited areas along the Danube
Parts of Osijek-Baranja and Vukovar-Syrmia Counties and West and South Bačka Districts.

|

|

| {{flag|Slovenia}}
{{HRV}}

| The complex is in the area of Žumberak/Gorjanci

| {{HRV}}
{{MNE}}

|

| {{flag|Slovenia}}
{{flag|Croatia}}

| {{further|Croatia–Slovenia border disputes}}

! Territory

! Claimants

! Notes

| {{TON}}
{{FJI}}

| Fiji claims that the entire reef is submerged at high tide, negating use of Minerva as a basis for any sovereignty or maritime EEZ claim by Tonga under the rules of UNCLOS.

| {{RUS}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

| Generally held to have been resolved in October 2004 by the Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the Eastern Section of the China-Russia Boundary. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China, which would consider the Argun as the basis of the Sino-Russian border there per the Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689.

| {{flag|Abkhazia}}
{{GEO}}

|{{Further|Abkhaz–Georgian conflict}}

| {{flag|China}}{{refn|group=note|name=China1|Since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the de facto territories of the Republic of China (ROC) are limited to the Taiwan Area.{{cite book|last1=Sarmento|first1=Clara|title=Eastwards / Westwards: Which Direction for Gender Studies in the 21st Century?|year=2009|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VvcYBwAAQBAJ&q=people%27s+republic+of+china+controls+mainland+china+hong+kong+macau&pg=PA127|page=127|publisher=Cambridge Scholars |isbn=9781443808682}}{{cite book|last1=Henckaerts|first1=Jean-Marie|title=The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order: Legal And Political Considerations|year=1996|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=roc+1949+taiwan+effective+control&pg=PA117|page=117|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |isbn=9789041109293}} Meanwhile, the People's Republic of China (PRC) controls mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. Officially, both the ROC and the PRC claim de jure sovereignty over all of China (including Taiwan), and regard the other government as being in rebellion.{{cite book|last1=Hudson|first1=Christopher|title=The China Handbook|year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hm63AwAAQBAJ&q=prc+and+roc+legitimacy&pg=PA59|page=59|publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781134269662}}{{cite book|last1=Rigger|first1=Shelley|author1-link=Shelley Rigger|title=Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Reform|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hiiEAgAAQBAJ&q=roc+limited+to+taiwan&pg=PA60|page=60|publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781134692972}}}}
{{ROC}}
{{IND}}

|

| {{IND}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

| Controlled by India but claimed by the PRC and ROC who dispute the validity of the McMahon Line.

| {{VNM}}
{{ROC}}

| Transfer to Vietnam by the PRC in 1957. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.

| {{flag|China}}
{{KOR}}
{{ROC}}

| Settled by the PRC and DPRK in 1962. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea.

| {{BTN}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{BTN}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}
{{BTN}}

|

| {{IND}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

|

|{{IND}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

| Controlled by India but claimed by Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet, China. Disputed areas located between Aksai Chin and Nepal.

| {{flag|Pakistan}}
{{flag|India}}
{{ROC}}

| The People's Republic of China relinquished its claim to Pakistan. India and the Republic of China did not.

| {{MYS}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

| The Republic of China would claim its southernmost point to be at 4°N.

| {{flag|Northern Cyprus}}
{{flag|Cyprus}}

| Northern Cyprus (a state with limited recognition) controls and administers the northern part of the island.
The Republic of Cyprus claims the whole island.

| {{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

| {{Main|Cross-Strait relations}}

| {{MDA}}
{{flag|Transnistria}}

|

| {{flag|Northern Cyprus}}
{{flag|Cyprus}}

| Northern Cyprus controls and administers Kokkina, an area separated from the rest of the main land on Northern Cyprus via the land controlled by the Republic of Cyprus.

| {{RUS}}
{{ROC}}{{refn|group=note|name=China2|Relinquished by the People's Republic of China (PRC) but is still officially claimed by the Republic of China (ROC). Officially, both the PRC and the ROC claim de jure sovereignty over all of China (including Taiwan), and regard the other government as being in rebellion. Therefore, the ROC does not recognize any territorial dispute settlement entered into by the PRC.{{cite web|url=http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/94roc/context/Ch01/010202.htm|title=第一篇 總論 第二章 土地 第二節 大陸地區|publisher=Government Information Office|work=China Yearbook|date=2005|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329140535/http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/94roc/context/Ch01/010202.htm|archive-date=2012-03-29}}}}

| Generally held to have been resolved in October 2004 by the Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the Eastern Section of the China-Russia Boundary. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China, which would claim its easternmost point to be at 135°4′E.

| {{MYA}}
{{ROC}}

| Northern parts of Sagaing Region and Kachin State, claimed by the Republic of China as part of Yunnan. Formerly claimed by the People's Republic of China until 1961.

| {{KAZ}}
{{ROC}}

| The Kazakh Government ceded 407 km² to the PRC, and the PRC ceded 537 km² to Kazakhstan in 1999. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.

| {{KGZ}}
{{ROC}}

| In an agreement signed in 1999, the Khan Tengri peak, the Boz-Tik site, the Bedel pass, and the Erkeshtam pass were ceded to the Kyrgyz government while the Uzongu-Kuush valley was ceded to the PRC. However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.

| {{ROC}}Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, Article 9, Section 2
{{flag|China}}Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Preamble

| The government of the People's Republic of China claims the entire island of Taiwan, as well as a number of minor islands, such as Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, that are controlled by the Republic of China. See also: Anti-Secession Law, Political status of Taiwan.

| {{flag|Kosovo}}
{{SRB}}

| Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia and the de facto independent Republic of Kosovo. The latter declared independence on 17 February 2008, while Serbia claims it as part of its own sovereign territory. Its independence is recognized by 108 UN member states.

| {{BTN}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{RUS}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{MYA}}
{{ROC}}

| Settled by Myanmar and the PRC in the Sino-Burmese Boundary Treaty in 1960 and officially ceded to Myanmar in 1961.{{cite web | url=https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/china-and-burma-not-only-pauk-phaw.html | title=China and Burma: Not Only Pauk-Phaw | date=5 June 2017 }} However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.

| {{MNG}}
{{ROC}}

| {{Main|Taiwan-Mongolia relations}}The Republic of China briefly recognized Mongolia's independence between 1945 and 1952, and from 2002 onwards; however, under the Constitution of the Republic of China, the ROC claim on Mongolia cannot be withdrawn without recourse to a referendum. This claim is expressed by the map of China which appears in the flag of the Republic of China Marine Corps since 1986, which comprises Mainland China, Jiangxinpo, Outer Mongolia, Pamir Mountains, Tannu Uriankhai, etc.Article 4 of the [https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=F0060005 Act of Ensign of the Armed Forces] first decreed on January 3, 1986

| {{TJK}}
{{ROC}}

| The Tajik Government ceded 1,158 km² to the PRC, while PRC relinquished its 73,000 km² claim over the remaining territory with final ratification of a treaty in January 2011.{{Cite news|title=Tajikistan cedes land to China|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567|date=13 January 2011|newspaper=BBC News}} However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China, which would claim its westernmost point to be at 71°E along the Panj.

| {{KOR}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{NPL}}
{{ROC}}

| Settled by Nepal and the PRC in 1960.{{cite web |url=http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS050.pdf |title=Archived copy |website=College of Law, Florida State University |access-date=30 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503141259/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS050.pdf |archive-date=3 May 2012 |url-status=dead}} However, the settlement is not recognized by the Republic of China.

| {{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}
{{PHL}}

| Controlled by the PRC since the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff.

| {{BTN}}
{{flag|China}}
{{ROC}}

|

| {{flag|Russia}}
{{ROC}}

| The People's Republic of China renounced the area in the 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement. Yet the Republic of China would claim the area per the 1858 Treaty of Aigun, affirmed as part of the 1860 Sino-Russian Convention of Peking.

| {{flag|South Ossetia

! Territory

! width=120|Country

! width=150|Internal claimants

! class=unsortable|Notes

| {{flag|Argentina}}

| {{flag|Entre Ríos}}
{{flag|Santa Fe}}

| Islands: Isla de los Mástiles/La Carlota, Isla Ingeniero Sabino Corsi Norte/Sur and Isla General Juan Pistarini.

| rowspan="2" | {{flag|Brazil}}

|{{flag|Ceará}}
{{flag|Piauí}}

|This dispute originated in an 1880 imperial decree. In 1920 a solution to the dispute was arbitrated but in practice it was never carried out. In 2008 there were new attempted negotiations, but they broke down in 2011, and as of 2013 it is pending either a supreme court decision, a referendum or a possible mutual agreement.{{cite web|url=http://g1.globo.com/ceara/noticia/2011/10/acao-no-stf-acirra-disputa-entre-ceara-e-piaui-por-area-de-divisa.html|title=G1 – Ação no STF acirra disputa entre Ceará e Piauí por área de divisa – notícias em Ceará|website=Ceará|date=22 October 2011|access-date=5 October 2014}}

|{{flag|Pernambuco}}
{{flag|Rio Grande do Norte}}

|The dispute dates from the colonial period.{{cite news |url=http://www.folhape.com.br/noticias/noticias/brasil/2017/03/18/NWS,21510,70,450,NOTICIAS,2190-FERNANDO-NORONHA-MEIO-UMA-QUEDA-BRACO.aspx |title=Fernando de Noronha em meio a uma queda de braço |website=Folha de Pernambuco |access-date=2017-07-31 |archive-date=2017-08-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821110054/http://www.folhape.com.br/noticias/noticias/brasil/2017/03/18/NWS,21510,70,450,NOTICIAS,2190-FERNANDO-NORONHA-MEIO-UMA-QUEDA-BRACO.aspx |url-status=dead }}

| {{flag|Colombia}}

| File:Flag of Antioquia Department.svg Antioquia
File:Flag of Chocó.svg Chocó

| Disputed since 2000, both Departments of Antioquia and Chocó have claimed the corregimiento as part of their own respective municipalities. In 2014, amidst a rise of tensions between the claimants, the National Government under the Geographic Institute Agustín Codazzi formally started a process to find a solution for the dispute.{{cite web|url=http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/regionales/antioquia-pide-respetar-reglas-en-proceso-de-deslinde-de-belen-de-bajira/20140818/nota/2373002.aspx|title=Antioquia pide respetar reglas en proceso de deslinde de Belén de Bajirá|access-date=5 October 2014|archive-date=6 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102313/http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/regionales/antioquia-pide-respetar-reglas-en-proceso-de-deslinde-de-belen-de-bajira/20140818/nota/2373002.aspx|url-status=dead}}

| {{flag|Ethiopia}}

| {{flag|Afar}}
{{flag|Somali Region}}

| {{main|Afar–Somali clashes}}The three towns have long been fought over by the Issa clan Somalis, backed by the Somali Region government, against the Afar Region and Afar-allied militants. In 2014, the border between the two regions was redrawn by the federal government, placing the three ethnic Somali towns inside the Afar region. In the same year, the presidents of the two regions signed an agreement recognizing the three kebeles as special kebeles within the Afar Region which was rejected by the local people.{{Cite news |date=2021-04-07 |title=At least 100 killed in border clashes between Ethiopia's Somali and Afar regions - official |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ethiopia-security-idUSKBN2BU0RA |access-date=2022-04-09}}{{Cite web |title=Ethiopia: Afar-Issa land dispute, Flash Update (As of 27 January 2021) - Ethiopia |url=https://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/ethiopia-afar-issa-land-dispute-flash-update-27-january-2021 |access-date=2022-04-09 |website=ReliefWeb |date=30 January 2021 |language=en}} Later in 2019, the Somali Region withdrew from the agreement, claiming the three areas again.{{Cite web |last1=St |first1=Addis |last2=ard |date=2020-11-02 |title=Clarification: Gadamaytu, Undufo and Adaytu are inside Afar, the regional state says in a letter |url=https://addisstandard.com/clarification-gadamaytu-undufo-and-adaytu-are-inside-afar-the-regional-state-says-in-a-letter/ |access-date=2022-04-09 |website=Addis Standard |language=en-US}} The conflict between the two people has also spilled over into Djibouti.{{Cite web |date=2022-04-09 |title=Djibouti: Officials likely to maintain heightened security in Djibouti city through mid-August following Aug. 1 ethnic clashes /update 2 {{!}} Crisis24 |url=https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2021/08/djibouti-officials-likely-to-maintain-heightened-security-in-djibouti-city-through-mid-august-following-aug-1-ethnic-clashes-update-2 |access-date=2022-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220409231725/https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/2021/08/djibouti-officials-likely-to-maintain-heightened-security-in-djibouti-city-through-mid-august-following-aug-1-ethnic-clashes-update-2 |archive-date=2022-04-09 }}

| rowspan="9" |{{flag|India}}

| {{flagicon image|border=no|Jharkhand Rajakiya Chihna.svg}} Jharkhand
{{flagicon image|border=no|Seal of Odisha.png}} Odisha

| {{cite web | url=https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/odisha-s-border-disputes | title=Odisha's Border Disputes }}

| {{flagicon image|border=no|Seal of Odisha.png}} Odisha
West Bengal

|

| {{flagicon image|border=no|Seal of Karnataka.svg}} Karnataka
{{flagicon image|border=no|Seal of Maharashtra.svg}} Maharashtra

|Belgaum district was made a part of the Karnataka state following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. However, Maharashtra claims the district and surrounding areas as predominantly Marathi-speaking and should be merged with Maharashtra.{{Cite web|last=Khapre|first=Shubhangi|date=2021-01-30|title=Explained: The Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute – the past and the present|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/maharashtra-karnataka-border-dispute-explained-7167316/|website=The Indian Express}}

| {{flagicon image|border=no|Emblem_of_India_(without_motto).svg}} Assam
{{flagicon image

|{{Flag|Ghana}}

{{Flag|Cote d'Ivoire}}

|2007

|2017

|Dispute over maritime border.{{Cite web |date=2017-09-23 |title=Court Ruling Favors Ghana in Ocean Border Dispute With Ivory Coast |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/court-favors-ghana-in-ocean-border-dispute-with-ivory-coast/4041616.html |access-date=2024-04-17 |website=Voice of America |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2017-09-23 |title=Ghana wins three-year maritime boundary dispute case against Ivory Coast |url=https://www.africanews.com/2017/09/23/ghana-wins-three-year-maritime-boundary-dispute-case-against-ivory-coast/ |access-date=2024-04-17 |website=Africanews |language=en}}

| {{BFA}}
{{MLI}}

| 1960

| 1986

| Following repeated military clashes between Burkina Faso and Mali over the Agacher Strip, the International Court of Justice resolved the conflict in 1986 by dividing the disputed area approximately equally between the two countries.{{cite web|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3802162.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150328142006/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3802162.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=2015-03-28|title=International Court settles West African land dispute|website=Chicago Sun-Times|date=1986|access-date=9 October 2014}}

| {{CHA}}
{{Flagicon|Libyan Arab Jamahiriya}} Libya

| 1973

| 1994

| In 1994 the International Court of Justice decision found in favour of Chad sovereignty over the Aouzou Strip and the Libya–Chad Borderlands, and ended the Libyan claim.

| {{ETH}}
{{ERI}}

| 1993

| 2018

| Basis of the Eritrean-Ethiopian War which began in 1998. The territory was handed over to Eritrea following a joint statement at the Eritrea–Ethiopia summit in 2018.

| {{CMR}}
{{NGA}}

| 1913

| 2006

| This area was handed over by Nigeria to Cameroon following an International Court of Justice ruling and the Greentree Agreement.

| {{ETH}}
{{ERI}}{{cite journal|first=J|last=ABBINK|title=Briefing: The Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Dispute|date=1 October 1998|journal=African Affairs|volume=97|issue=389|pages=551–565|doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a007970|hdl=1887/9481|hdl-access=free}}

| 2002

| 2008

|Eritrea has accepted the decision and no longer disputes this location.{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-01-16/eritrea-accepts-virtual-border-with-ethiopia/1014548|access-date=2016-05-05|title=Eritrea accepts 'virtual' border with Ethiopia|newspaper=ABC News|date=16 January 2008}}

| {{BFA}}
{{NER}}

| 1960

| 2013

| The International Court of Justice redefined the border between Burkina Faso and Niger in 2013. In 2015 the ruling was implemented by exchanging 18 towns between the two countries.{{cite news|title=International Court rules that main disputed island belongs to Niger not Benin |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/08/burkina-faso-niger-exchange-18-towns-settle-border-dispute |newspaper=The Guardian |date=8 May 2015 |access-date=27 July 2016}}

| {{TZA}}
{{UGA}}

| 1978

| 1979

| In October 1978 Uganda invaded the Kagera Salient in northern Tanzania, initiating the Uganda–Tanzania War. The Ugandans met light resistance and in November President Idi Amin of Uganda announced the annexation of all Tanzanian land north of the Kagera River. The Tanzanians organised a counter-offensive later in November and successfully ejected the Ugandan forces from their country.

| {{AGO}}
{{flag|Democratic Republic of Congo}}

| 2007

| 2007

| Following a March 2007 report on the disputed area on the joint border in the Kahemba region, the Congolese interior minister admitted the territory was in fact part of Angola and agreed to send a technical team to demarcate the border along colonial era lines.{{cite news|title=Congo Acknowledges Disputed Border Area Is In Angola Origin|url=http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07KINSHASA318|access-date=19 July 2012|newspaper=Embassy Kinshasa cable|date=March 16, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120627213122/http://cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07KINSHASA318|archive-date=27 June 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}} The countries agreed to end the dispute in July 2007.{{cite news|title=Angola, DR Congo end border row|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6924953.stm|access-date=19 July 2012|newspaper=BBC|date=31 Jul 2007}}

|{{KEN}}{{UGA}}

| 2008

| 2009

|In 2009, Migingo Island became a disputed territory when Uganda raised its national flag. The dispute is related to fishing rights in Lake Victoria. Before 2004 the island was uninhabited, but it is now home to Kenyan and Ugandan fishermen.{{Cite web |date=6 July 2020 |title=Kenya, Uganda to demarcate entire border |url=https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/kenya-uganda-to-demarcate-entire-border-1416154 |access-date=2021-06-03 |website=The East African |language=en}} A joint re-demarcation line of the border was launched on 2 June 2009 to recover and to place survey markers on land, making delineation of the boundary on the lake more precise, with results released in late July 2009 confirming that the island falls {{convert|510|m|ft}} on the Kenyan side of the line.{{cite web |date=2009-08-03 |title=New Vision Online : Ugandan surveyors return to Migingo |url=http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/690136 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605123821/http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/690136 |archive-date=5 June 2011 |accessdate=24 September 2011 |publisher=Newvision.co.ug |df=dmy-all}}

| {{NER}}
{{BEN}}

| 1960

| 2005

| In 2005 the International Court of Justice awarded Lété and 15 of the other disputed islands to Niger, and the remaining nine islands to Benin.{{cite news|title=International Court rules that main disputed island belongs to Niger not Benin |url=http://www.irinnews.org/report/55426/benin-niger-international-court-rules-main-disputed-island-belongs-niger-not-benin |newspaper=IRIN |location=Dakar |date=12 July 2005 |access-date=27 July 2016}}

| {{GAB}}
{{GNQ}}

| 2021

| 2025

|Contested islands in Corisco Bay, valuable for their oil.[http://www.senat.fr/ga/ga53/ga532.html Compte rendu du déplacement d'une délégation du groupe interparlementaire France-Afrique centrale au Gabon, en Guinée équatoriale et à Sao Tomé-et-Principe], parliamentary report of the Senate of France, 2003.{{Cite news|url=http://www.irinnews.org/news/2004/01/23/un-mediates-dispute-over-corisco-bay-islands|title=UN mediates dispute over Corisco Bay islands|date=2004-01-23|work=IRIN|access-date=2017-10-12|language=en}}

| {{BOT}}
{{NAM}}

| 1890

| 1999

| In 1999 the International Court of Justice awarded Sedudu to Botswana, ending the Namibian claim.{{cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=1(BOTSWANA/NAMIBIA)|title=Cases: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)|access-date=30 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605002744/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=1%28BOTSWANA%2FNAMIBIA%29|archive-date=2011-06-05|url-status=dead}}

|{{flag|Algeria}}{{flag|Morocco}}

| 1956

| 1970

|Morocco ( influenced by the Greater Morocco ideology ) claimed that both Tindouf and Béchar historically belong to Morocco after they were annexed by France for the French colony of Algeria. Algeria wasn't supporting the claims since one of the FLN's primary objectives was to prevent France from splitting the strategic Sahara regions from a future Algerian state. It was therefore disinclined to support Morocco's historical claims to Tindouf and Bechar or the concept of a Greater Morocco. King Hassan II of Morocco visited Algiers in March 1963 to discuss the undefined borders, but Algeria's President Ahmed Ben Bella believed the matter should be resolved at a later date. Ben Bella's fledgling administration was still attempting to rebuild the country after the enormous damage caused by the Algerian War. Algerian authorities suspected that Morocco was inciting the revolt, while Hassan was anxious about his own opposition's reverence for Algeria, escalating tensions between the nations. These factors prompted Hassan to begin moving troops towards Tindouf leading to the Sand war which ended with no territorial changes.{{citation |last=Touval | first=S. | year=1967| title= The Organization of African Unity and African borders | journal= International Organization | volume=21 | issue=1 | pages=102–127 | jstor= 2705705 | doi=10.1017/s0020818300013151| s2cid=154805054 }}. Link requires subscription to Jstor.{{cite book|last=Bidwell|first=Robin|title=Dictionary Of Modern Arab History|date=1998|publisher=Kegan Paul International|location=South Glamorgan|isbn=978-1138967670}}{{Cite book |last=Gleijeses|first=Piero|title= Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa, 1959–1976 |location= Chapel Hill, NC |publisher= University of North Carolina Press |year= 2002 |isbn= 978-0-807-82647-8 }}

| {{ETH}}
{{ERI}}

| 2002

| 2008

|Eritrea has accepted the decision and no longer disputes this location.

| {{SLE}}
{{GIN}}

| 1995

| 2013

| The two heads of state settled this dispute in 2013.{{cite news|title=Sierra Leone government takes media to disputed border with Guinea|url=http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643|work=News Kenya|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140305042448/http://newskenya.co.ke/news/latest/africareview/sierra-leone-government-takes-media-to-disputed-border-with-guinea/1dlnb.119643|archive-date=2014-03-05}}

| {{flag|United States|1896}}
{{flag|Canada|1868}}

| 1821

| 1903

| Disputed between the United States and Canada (then a British Dominion with its foreign affairs controlled from London). The dispute had been going on between the Russian and British Empires since 1821, and was inherited by the United States as a consequence of the Alaska Purchase in 1867. It was resolved by arbitration in 1903 with a delegation that included 3 Americans, 2 Canadians, and 1 British delegate that became the swing vote. By a 4 to 2 vote, the final resolution favored the American position. Canada did not get an outlet from the Yukon gold fields to the sea. The disappointment and anger in Canada was directed less at the United States, and more at the British government for betraying Canadian interests in pursuit of a friendly relationship between Britain and the United States.

| {{flag|United States|1896}}
{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} British North America

| 1838

| 1842

| Disputed border between the state of Maine and the provinces of New Brunswick and Lower Canada.

| {{VEN}}
{{DMA}}

| 1584

| 2007

| Dominica abandoned the claim to the island in 2007, but continues to claim the adjacent seas, as do some neighboring states.

| {{BOL}}
{{CHI}}

| 1879

| 1904

|

| {{BRA}}
{{PAR}}

| 1872

| 1982

| The disputed islands were submerged by the reservoir of Itaipú.

| {{flag|United States|1896}}
{{flag|Mexico|1893}}

| 1898

| 1963

| Disputed border within the El Paso/Ciudad Juárez region.

| {{flag|Maryland}}
{{flag|Pennsylvania}}

| 1730

| 1767

| Dispute over the northern border of the Province of Maryland and southern border of Province of Pennsylvania, particularly west of the Susquehanna River. Settled by the drawing of the Mason–Dixon line.

| New Hampshire
New York
Vermont

| 1749

| 1791

| In 1664 King Charles II decided the west bank of the Connecticut River was the eastern boundary of New York, so that that province included all of what later became the state of Vermont. During 1749–64, Governor Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire issued well over a hundred "grants", offering lands for sale west of the river in what would become Vermont. In 1764, King George III attempted to end the dispute by ruling that the region belonged to New York. But New York would not recognize the property claims of numerous settlers whose claims were based on Wentworth's grants, so local governments and militias resisted New York's rule. In 1777, the politicians of the disputed territory declared it independent of New York, Britain, and New Hampshire, calling it the State of Vermont. Vermont existed for 14 years as an unrecognized de facto independent country, considered by New York to be a district in rebellion. Negotiations between New York and Vermont in 1790 removed impediments to Vermont's admission to the Union in 1791.

| {{flag|Delaware}}
{{flag|Maryland}}
{{flag|Pennsylvania}}

| 1750s

| 1921

| A gore created when the borders of the colonies Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania were defined. Dispute over the borders between the three colonies dates to the foundation of each during the middle 17th century. A series of defined lines and arcs were laid out by statute to settle the disputes, the most famous of which was the Mason–Dixon line. The Wedge was left out of all three colonies (and later U.S. states), and remained a matter of dispute until it was formally resolved to assign the Wedge to Delaware in 1921.

| Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Plymouth Colony (to 1691)
Province of Massachusetts Bay (from 1691)

| 1636

| 1898

| Claimed by both Rhode Island and Plymouth Colony. Plymouth's claim was inherited by the newly created Province of Massachusetts Bay when the latter was created in 1691 from the merger of earlier Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth Colonies. A royal decree in 1746 assigned the land to Rhode Island, but Massachusetts continued to press its claim until 1898.

| {{flag|New York}}
{{flag|New Jersey}}

| 1701

| 1756

| Dispute over the southern border of Province of New York and the northern border of the Province of New Jersey. Raiding parties kidnapped and burned crops.

| {{ARG}}
{{URY}}

| 1879

| 1973

| After the Conquest of the Desert was launched in 1879, many indigenous leaders captured were confined there. The island was transferred to Argentine Navy jurisdiction in 1886. The island's distance from the Uruguayan territory is less than 3 km, and its jurisdictional status was formally established by the Treaty of Río de la Plata between Uruguay and Argentina on November 19, 1973.

| {{PER}}
{{ECU}}

| 1828

| 1998

|

| {{PER}}
{{COL}}

| 1821

| 1934

|

| {{PER}}
{{BOL}}

| 1825

| 1909

|

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| 1881

| 1902

| After the signature of the Boundary treaty of 1881 between Chile and Argentina differing interpretations on whether the highest Andean peaks (favouring Argentina) or the continental divide (favouring Chile) was to be considered the boundary.

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| 1889

| 1898

|

| {{flag|Mexico}}
{{flag|France}}

| 1897

| 1931

| Disputed between France and Mexico. On January 28, 1931, King Victor Emanuel, selected as a neutral arbitrator, finally declared Clipperton to be a French possession, and it has remained relatively undisputed ever since.

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| 1898

| 1982

|

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| 1913

| 1966

|

| {{flag|British Guiana}}
{{BRA}}

| 1842

| 1904

| {{see also|Brazil–Guyana border}} In 1842, a Brazilian ambassador went to London to suggest that the dispute be submitted to neutral arbitration. The United Kingdom and Brazil signed a treaty on November 6, 1901, agreeing to arbitration to establish the boundary between northern Brazil and British Guiana. A decision was taken by King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy to resolve the Pirara Question, in which {{convert|19,630|km²}} would be handed over to British Guiana, and {{convert|13,570|km²}} would be returned to Brazil, thus defining the limits of the border.Beatriz Garcia, The Amazon from an International Law Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2011) pp. 56-57

| {{ARG}}
{{CHL}}

| 1949

| 1994

|

| {{USA}}
{{Confederacy}}

| 1861

| 1865

| After the Missouri secession, the State of Missouri was claimed by both the United States and Confederate States until the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War

| {{USA}}
{{GBR}}

| 1783

| 1842

| Ill-defined terms of the Treaty of Paris at the end of the Revolutionary War left the boundary of the state of New Hampshire and Canada in doubt. The lack of a precise definition of the "northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River" as defined by the Treaty of Paris left the land that is now the town of Pittsburg, New Hampshire within the conflicting jurisdiction of both the United States and Great Britain. In 1832 residents of the area established the short-lived Republic of Indian Stream in the area; the minuscule population of the putative nation never exceeded about 300. The boundary was finally settled definitively by the Webster–Ashburton Treaty of 1842.

|{{flag|Canada}}

| {{flag|Newfoundland and Labrador}}
{{flag|Quebec}}

|1927

| This was formerly an international dispute between Canada, which includes Quebec, and the Dominion of Newfoundland, then an independent country. The case came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which in March 1927 delivered a win for Newfoundland and granted it the disputed land. The decision was further recognized by the governments of Canada and of Newfoundland when the latter joined Confederation in 1949 as the tenth province of Canada. Quebec has never accepted the border.

| {{NOR}}
{{GBR}}

| 1928

| 1930

| In 1928 Norway asserted its claim of sovereignty over the Sverdrup Islands. The islands are named after Norwegian explorer Otto Sverdrup, who explored and mapped them from 1898 to 1902 with the vessel Fram, although some were previously inhabited by Inuit. Sverdrup claimed the islands for Norway, but the Norwegian government did not pursue the claim until 1928. At that point, the Norwegian government raised the claim, primarily to use the islands as bargaining chips in negotiations with the United Kingdom over the status of the Arctic island Jan Mayen and the Antarctic Bouvet Island. On November 11, 1930, Norway ceded the Sverdrup Islands to Canada, in exchange for British recognition of Norway's sovereignty over Jan Mayen.{{cite book|first=Pierre|last=Berton|title=The Arctic Grail: the Quest for the North West Passage and the North Pole, 1818–1909|year=1988|publisher=Viking|isbn=978-0-670-82491-5|page=629}}

| {{COL}}
{{NIC}}
{{JAM}}

| 1886

| 2012{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/124/17162.pdf |title=Territorial and maritime dispute (Nicaragua vs Colombia) |access-date=23 November 2012 |author=Fallo de 2012 de la Corte Internacional de Justicia }}

|Jamaica implicitly withdrew its claim by accepting the nautical chart affixed to a 1993 treaty that established a Joint Regime Area with Colombia, excluding Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank.{{cite book |last1=Charney |first1=Jonathan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XkgfZJjh3BUC |title=International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. 2–3 |author2=American Society of International Law |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |year=2004 |isbn=978-90-411-0345-1 |location=Boston, United States |pages=2616 |id=p2179-2192 |author-link2=American Society of International Law}} Honduras and the United States continue to dispute sovereignty over both banks.

| {{CHI}}
{{PER}}

| 1883

| 1929

|

| {{CHL}}
{{PER}}

| 1985

| 2014{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |title=Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) |access-date=2014-01-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202143900/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |archive-date=2014-02-02 }}

| Part of the broader territorial dispute.

| {{DEN}}
{{NOR}}
{{ICE}}{{cite web|url= https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/33005/1/Grænlandsdraumurinn%20BA-Ritgerð.pdf|title= Grænlandsdraumurinn: Hugmyndir um tilkall Íslendinga til Grænlands á 20. öld|website=Skemman|date=May 2019}}

| 1931

| 1933{{cite web |url=http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1933.04.05_greenland.htm |title=Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Denmark v. Norway, Judgment, 5 September 1933, Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) |publisher=Worldcourts.com |access-date=2015-11-11 |archive-date=2020-11-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112023805/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1933.04.05_greenland.htm |url-status=dead }}

|

|{{CRC}}
{{NIC}}

| 2010

| 2018

| On 2 Feb 2018, the ICJ rendered a decision in a border dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica regarding {{ill|Isla Portillos|es}}. Nicaragua was left with just the Laguna Los Portillos and its short strip of beach. The court also decided that the sea just outside of the lagoon would be Costa Rican waters. The ICJ concluded that the whole beach is Costa Rican except for the part directly between the lagoon and the Caribbean Sea – now a tiny enclave of Nicaraguan territory separated from the rest of the country.{{cite web|url=http://www.polgeonow.com/2018/02/nicaragua-costa-rica-border-dispute-ruling-icj-2018.html|title=Costa Rica & Nicaragua Settle Border Dispute in Court|work=Political Geography Now|date=3 Feb 2018|access-date=2018-02-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180205072738/http://www.polgeonow.com/2018/02/nicaragua-costa-rica-border-dispute-ruling-icj-2018.html|archive-date=5 February 2018|url-status=live}}

| {{CAN}}
{{Flagicon|DEN}} Denmark ({{GRL}})

| 1972

| 2022

| Claimed by both Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark (on behalf of Greenland). Resolved by treaty splitting the island between Canada and Greenland.{{cite news |last1=Chase |first1=Steven |title=Canada and Denmark reach settlement over disputed Arctic island, sources say |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-and-denmark-reach-settlement-over-disputed-arctic-island/ |website=The Globe and Mail |date=10 June 2022 |access-date=11 June 2022}}

| {{NLD}}
{{FRA}}

| 2016

| 2023

| Claimed by both The Kingdom of the Netherlands (on behalf of Sint Maarten) and France (on behalf of Saint Martin).{{cite news |url=https://nos.nl/artikel/2142774-nederland-en-frankrijk-ruzien-over-grens-sint-maarten.html |title=Nederland en Frankrijk ruziën over grens Sint Maarten | date= November 12, 2016 | access-date= April 10, 2020 | language= nl}}{{cite news |url=http://www.soualigapost.com/en/news/6397/coop%C3%A9ration/border-oyster-pond-reason-behind-another-conflict |title=The border at Oyster Pond, the reason behind another conflict | date= November 2, 2016 | access-date= April 10, 2020}}{{cite news |url=http://www.dclportal.dreamhosters.com/news/latest-news/9228-negotiations-on-oyster-pond-border-to-commence-late-2019 |title=Negotiations on Oyster Pond border to commence late 2019 |date=August 15, 2019 |access-date=April 10, 2020 |archive-date=February 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224231215/http://www.dclportal.dreamhosters.com/news/latest-news/9228-negotiations-on-oyster-pond-border-to-commence-late-2019 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=https://antilliaansdagblad.com/sint-maarten/20126-frankrijk-belemmert-herbouw-oyster-pond |title=Frankrijk belemmert herbouw Oyster Pond | date= September 15, 2019 | access-date= April 10, 2020 | language= nl}} Resolved by agreement splitting the bay in the middle.{{cite news |last1=Bénis |first1=Olivier |title=La France a une nouvelle frontière avec les Pays-Bas (dans les Antilles) |url=https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/la-france-a-une-nouvelle-frontiere-avec-les-pays-bas-dans-les-antilles-4596309 |work=France Inter |date=27 May 2023 |language=fr}}

| {{NOR}}
{{GBR}}

| 1927

| 1929

|The United Kingdom claimed this Antarctic island as Lindsay/Liverpool Island based on sightings going back to 1808, but Norway landed there in 1927. In November 1929, Britain renounced its claim to the island.{{cite book |last=Barr |first=Susan |year=1987 |title=Norway's Polar Territories |location=Oslo |publisher=Aschehoug |page=63 |isbn=978-82-03-15689-2}}

| {{flag|Israel}}
{{flag|Lebanon}}

|2010

|2022

|

| {{flag|Sri Lanka}}
{{IND}}

| 1921

| 1974

| The dispute on the status of the island of Kachatheevu was settled in 1974 by an agreement between both countries.{{Cite news|last=|first=|date=2013-08-31|title=Kachchatheevu was not ceded to Sri Lanka, Centre tells court|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kachchatheevu-was-not-ceded-to-sri-lanka-centre-tells-court/article5076961.ece|access-date=2021-09-26|issn=0971-751X}} But still some cases are ongoing in High Court of Madras which are filed earlier regarding this dispute stating as illegally issued to Sri Lanka.{{Cite news|last=Correspondent|first=Legal|date=2018-08-22|title=HC wants to know status of case filed by Jayalalithaa to retrieve Katchatheevu|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/hc-wants-to-know-status-of-case-filed-by-jayalalithaa-to-retrieve-katchatheevu/article24748091.ece|access-date=2021-05-31|issn=0971-751X}} Several actions were still taken by the union government of India to retrieve that island back to Indian territory once again.{{Cite news |date=2021-02-08 |title=Centre making sincere efforts to retrieve Katchatheevu: V.K. Singh |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/centre-making-sincere-efforts-to-retrieve-katchatheevu/article33775766.ece |access-date=2022-04-16 |issn=0971-751X}}

|{{IND}}
{{PAK}}

| 1965

| 1968

| In January 1965, Pakistan claimed the area of the Great Rann of Kutch on the basis of the Sindh province,{{Citation |title=Triumph and tragedy:: the Rann of Kutch and the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War |date=2013 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cold-war-in-south-asia/triumph-and-tragedy/910E410121641DFE773BC5126C326892 |work=The Cold War in South Asia: Britain, the United States and the Indian Subcontinent, 1945–1965 |pages=301–344 |editor-last=McGarr |editor-first=Paul M. |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139022071.013 |isbn=978-1-107-00815-1 |access-date=2022-05-14|url-access=subscription }} eventually launching an operation in the area in April 1965. Later the same year, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Harold Wilson persuaded the combatants to end hostilities and establish a tribunal to resolve the dispute. A verdict was reached in 1968 which saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of {{convert|9100|km2|sqmi

|{{KSA}}
{{EGY}}
{{ISR}}

|1906

|2017

|These islands were transferred to Saudi Arabia in 2017.

|{{flag|Iran|1964}}
{{KSA}}

|1968

|1968

|These islands were disputed between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In 1968 Iran and Saudi Arabia had an agreement that Farsi island be given to Iran and Arabi island be given to Saudi Arabia.

| {{IND}}
{{BGD}}

| 1974

| 2014

| India and Bangladesh had engaged in eight rounds of bilateral negotiations starting 1974 but it remained inconclusive until 2009. In October 2009, Bangladesh served India with notice of arbitration proceedings under the UNCLOS.{{pb}}The Arbitration Tribunal delivered the ruling on 7 July 2014 and settled the dispute.{{Cite web |title=Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India |url=https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/18/ |access-date=2022-06-12 |website=pca-cpa.org}}

| {{IND}}
{{BGD}}

| 1947

| 2015

| Following Partition of Bengal (1947), the issues of adverse possessions, enclaves and unmarked boundary arose. Inside the main part of Bangladesh, there were 111 Indian enclaves (69.45 km²), while inside the main part of India, there were 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (28.77 km²). In 1974 Bangladesh approved a proposed treaty, Land Boundary Agreement, to exchange all enclaves within each other's territories, but India did not ratify it. Another agreement was agreed upon in 2011 to exchange enclaves and adverse possessions. With respect to adverse possessions, India received 7,110.2 acres of land and transferred 17,160.63 acres to Bangladesh. India ratified the agreement by constitutional amendment in May 2015.{{cite web | author=India | title=Everything you need to know: Land swap in offing with Bangladesh to end disputes | website=The Indian Express | date=2 December 2014 | url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/explained-land-swap-in-offing/ | access-date=29 May 2015}}

| {{IND}}
{{BGD}}

| 1974

| 2011

| Historically controlled by India but claimed by Bangladesh, disputed from approximately 1974.{{Cite news |date=2016-11-17 |title=India, Bangladesh inspect disputed land in Tripura |language=en-IN |work=The Hindu |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/India-Bangladesh-inspect-disputed-land-in-Tripura/article16666703.ece |access-date=2022-06-12 |issn=0971-751X}} An agreement was reached on the demarcation of the border in the area in 2011,{{cite web|url=https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/bangladesh/document/papers/lba2011.pdf |title=Protocol to the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Concerning the Demarcation of the Land Boundary Between India and Bangladesh and Related Matters |website=South Asia Terrorism Portal}} and in 2019 the Indian government confirmed that it no longer had any outstanding boundary dispute with Bangladesh.{{Cite news|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/strip-maps-covering-98-pc-of-indo-nepal-boundary-jointly-finalised-by-two-countries-govt-119062601295_1.html|title = Strip maps covering 98% of Indo-Nepal boundary jointly finalised by two countries: Govt|newspaper = Business Standard India|date = 26 June 2019|agency = Press Trust of India}}

| {{IND}}
{{BGD}}

| 1975

| 2010

| This former dispute over a small island never more than two meters above sea level was contested from the island's appearance in the 1970s to its disappearance, likely due to climate change,{{cite web |url=http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-sea-level-settles-border-dispute-20100324-qwum.html |title=Rising sea level settles border dispute |last1=Wade |first1=Matt |date=March 25, 2010 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=April 4, 2010}} in the first decade of the 2000s. Though land disputes no longer exist, the maritime boundary was not settled until 2014.{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8584665.stm | work=BBC News | title=Bay of Bengal island 'disappears' | date=2010-03-24}}{{cite web|url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170730.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010908035225/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170730.htm|title=Of Indo-Bangladesh distrust|author=A. G. Noorani|url-status=usurped|archive-date=2001-09-08}}{{cite news|url=http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/disputed-isle-in-bay-of-bengal-vanishes-20100324-qwy0.html|title=Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal vanishes|first=Nirmala|last=George|date=March 24, 2010}}

| {{flag|Russian Empire|1858}}
{{flag|Empire of Japan}}

| 1845

| 1875

| Japan unilaterally proclaimed sovereignty over the whole island in 1845, but its claims were ignored by the Russian Empire. The 1855 Treaty of Shimoda acknowledged that both Russia and Japan had joint rights of occupation to Sakhalin, without setting a definite territorial demarcation. As the island became settled in the 1860s and 1870s, this ambiguity led to increasing friction between settlers. Attempts by the Tokugawa shogunate to purchase the entire island from the Russian Empire failed, and the new Meiji government was unable to negotiate a partition of the island into separate territories.{{pb}}In 1875 by the Treaty of Saint Petersburg, Japan agreed to give up its claims on Sakhalin in exchange for undisputed ownership of the Kuril Islands. In 1905 under the Treaty of Portsmouth Japan gained Sakhalin to the 50th parallel, but lost it again in 1945.

| {{flag|Philippines|1919}}
{{flag|Dutch East Indies}}

| 1906

| 1928

| Dispute between the United States and the Netherlands over the Palmas island located south of the Philippines, which was then American territory. The Netherlands believed that the islands were part of the Dutch East Indies. The territorial dispute was solved through the Island of Palmas case which decided that the Palmas Island belongs to the Netherlands. Palmas Island, now Miangas Island, is a part of modern Indonesia.

| {{PAK}}
(still claimed by:
{{IND}}
{{PRC}}
{{ROC}})

| 1947

| 1963

| Pakistan relinquished its claim to the People's Republic of China; India did not.

| {{flag|Israel}}
{{flag|Egypt|1972}}

| 1967

| 1982

| During the Six-Day War Israel claimed Sinai. It was returned in 1982 under the terms of the 1979 Egypt–Israel peace treaty.

| {{flag|Israel}}
{{flag|Egypt|1972}}

| 1979

| 1989

| When Egypt and Israel were negotiating the exact position of the border in preparation for the 1979 peace treaty, Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906 and had, therefore, been in error in its two previous agreements. Although most of Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1982, Taba was the last portion to be returned. The issue was submitted to an international commission. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favour, and Israel returned Taba to Egypt in 1989.

| {{VIE}}
{{KHM}}

| 1939

| 1982

| In 1939, Governor General of Indochina, Jules Brévié, sent a letter to the Governor of Cochinchina about “the issue of the islands in the Gulf of Siam whose is a matter of controversy between Cambodia and Cochin-China”. In this letter,“for administrative purposes”, he drew a line which defined the border between the waters of Cambodia and Cochin-China: all the islands north of the line are under Cambodian sovereignty, all the islands south of the line are ruled by Cochin-China. As a result, Phú Quốc was under Cochinchina administration. In 1949, Cochin-China became part of Vietnam, an Associated State in the French Union within the Indochinese Federation. After the Geneva Accords, in 1954, its sovereignty was handed over to the State of Vietnam. In 1964, then Head of State Prince Norodom Sihanouk proposed to the Vietnamese a map aimed at settling the issue. Cambodia offered to accept the colonial “Brévié Line” as the maritime boundary, thus abandoning its claim. That position of Cambodia was confirmed by maps given to the mission sent by the UN Security Council after the Chantrea incidents. On June 8, 1967, the Vietnamese issued a declaration that accepted the “Brévié Line” as the maritime border. On May 1, 1975, a squad of Khmer Rouge soldiers raided and took Phú Quốc, but Vietnam soon recaptured it. This was to be the first of a series of incursions and counter-incursions that would escalate to the Cambodian–Vietnamese War in 1979. Cambodia dropped its claims to Phú Quốc in 1976.Hanns Jürgen Buchholz. [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KZEEuaS6RIC&dq=phu+quoc&pg=PA41 Law of the Sea Zones in the Pacific Ocean]. Retrieved 2015-10-09. p.41 But the bone of contention involving the island between the governments of the two countries continued, as both have a historical claim to it and the surrounding waters. A July 1982 agreement between Vietnam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea ostensibly settled the dispute; however, it is still the object of irredentist sentiments.

| {{flagicon|Philippines|1919}} Philippine Islands
{{flag|North Borneo}}

| 1930

| 1930

| Dispute between the United States and the United Kingdom over the Turtle Islands located south of the Philippines, which was then American territory. In a 1930 treaty the United Kingdom acknowledged American sovereignty over the islands and was agreed upon that the British would remain administering the island until the United States express interest to take over control over the islands after a one-year notice. When the Philippines gained full independence from the United States in 1946, the Philippines invoked the treaty and the British turned over the islands to the Philippines in 1947.

| {{flag|Israel}}
{{flag|Jordan}}

| 1967

| 1988

| During the Six-Day War, Israel conquered these territories from Jordan. Jordan later renounced the claim on the territory, supporting instead its inclusion in a future Palestine.

| {{MYS}}
{{IDN}}

|1969

|2002

| The 2002 International Court of Justice ruling awarded both islands to Malaysia, but left unsettled the maritime boundary immediately southwest and west of the islands between Malaysia and Indonesia.

| {{flag|Qatar}}
{{flag|Bahrain|1972}}

| 1971

| 2001

| Formerly disputed between Qatar and Bahrain, it was settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. In the June 2001 decision, Bahrain kept the Hawar Islands and Qit'at Jaradah but dropped claims to Janan Island and Zubarah on mainland Qatar, while Qatar retained significant maritime areas and their resources. The agreement has furthered the goal of definitively establishing the border with Saudi Arabia and Saudi-led mediation efforts continue.

| {{IDN}}
{{TLS}}

| 2002

| 2004

| Ceded by Timor-Leste to Indonesia in August 2004.

| {{PAK}}
(still claimed by:
{{flag|India}}
{{PRC}}
{{ROC}})

| 1947

| 1963

| Claimed as part of the princely state of Kashmir.

| {{SAU}}
{{YEM}}

| 1934

| 2000

| Settled by the Treaty of Jeddah (2000).

|{{Flag|Malaysia}}
{{Flag|Brunei}}

| 1967

| 2010

|Limbang District was part of Brunei until it was forced to cede it to the Raj of Sarawak in 1890. Since then Brunei is divided territorially into two. It was claimed by Brunei in 1967 in order to reconnect the country. It forms the main part of the Brunei–Malaysia border#Disputes. Malaysia claimed to settle the issue in 2009, however this was disputed by Brunei. Malaysia in 2010 ceded two hydrocarbon concession blocks to Brunei in exchange for Brunei dropping claims to Limbang.

|{{Flag|Yemen}}
{{Flag|Eritrea}}

| 1995

| 1999

|In December 1995, Eritrea entered into a dispute with Yemen over claims to the Hanish Islands and fishing rights in the Red Sea. This dispute was resolved in 1999 when the islands were awarded to Yemen through international arbitration, and the Eritreans complied with the verdict.

|{{IRN}}
{{IRQ}}

|1936

|1988

|Settled by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. Reneged on by Iraq in 1980, but re-agreed to in 1988.

|Taguig
20px Makati
{{flagicon image|Flag of Pateros.svg}} Pateros

|1983

|2023

|Taguig claimed more than {{convert|7.29|km2}} of land in Fort Bonifacio, an area formerly administered by Makati. On August 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals Sixth Division ruled that Makati had legal jurisdiction over the area, thus invalidating Taguig's claim.{{cite web |date=6 August 2013 |title=CA rules Makati City, not Taguig, has jurisdiction over Fort Bonifacio |url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/459431/ca-rules-makati-city-not-taguig-has-jurisdiction-over-fort-bonifacio |access-date=5 October 2014}} Taguig did not abandon its claims and petitioned the Court of Appeals to have the decision revoked.{{cite web |date=6 August 2013 |title=Taguig to appeal CA decision on Fort Boni dispute |url=http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/320790/news/nation/taguig-to-appeal-ca-decision-on-fort-boni-dispute |access-date=5 October 2014 |website=GMA News Online}} Pateros also claimed the area and filed a petition before the Taguig Regional Court Branch 271 in 2012 concerning its claim. Pateros reiterated its claims in 2013 following the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding Makati jurisdiction over the area.{{cite web |date=7 August 2013 |title=Pateros: Fort Bonifacio is ours |url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/08/07/13/pateros-fort-bonifacio-ours |access-date=22 October 2014 |website=ABS-CBN News}}{{cite web |date=7 August 2013 |title=Pateros joins the fray: 'Fort Bonifacio is ours' |url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/460115/pateros-joins-the-fray-fort-bonifacio-is-ours |access-date=5 October 2014}} The Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of Taguig in 2023,{{Cite web |last=Cruz |first=James |date=2023-06-29 |title=Supreme Court denies Makati's motion to file 2nd appeal on territory dispute vs Taguig |url=https://www.rappler.com/nation/metro-manila/supreme-court-denies-makati-motion-file-appeal-territory-dispute-taguig/ |access-date=2023-11-04 |website=RAPPLER |language=en-US}} and the ruling began to be implemented in that year's elections.

|{{BGD}}
{{MYA}}

|1971

|2019

|The dispute dates back to the independence of Bangladesh. The two countries agreed on Bangladeshi sovereignty over St. Martin's Island in 1974, but a maritime dispute continued. Marked by sporadic border violence, including the Tatmadaw shooting Bangladeshi fishermen, the maritime dispute was solved in 2012 by an ITLOS ruling. Then, in 2018, a diplomatic incident occurred when the Burmese government released an official map depicting St. Martin's Island as Burmese territory.{{Cite web |title=Myanmar's Claim to St. Martin's Island Irks Bangladesh |url=https://thewire.in/south-asia/myanmar-bangladesh-saint-martins-island}} Myanmar subsequently acknowledged Bangladeshi sovereignty over St. Martin's Island and finally removed it from its official map by 2019.{{Cite web |date=2019-09-05 |title=Country Map Administrative |url=https://documents.themimu.info/browse/villagemaps/fileagreement.php?url=https://documents.themimu.info/downloads/swl68LO/Country_Map_Administrative_MIMU1509v01_05Sep19_A4_MMR.pdf |access-date=2023-11-18 |website=Myanmar Information Management Unit}}

|20pxAssam
Arunachal Pradesh

|1951

|2023

|The dispute between the two Indian states spanned 1,200 points{{Cite web |date=13 August 2021 |title=Assam-Arunachal's boundary dispute |url=https://arunachal24.in/assam-arunachals-boundary-dispute-at-1200-places-himanta-biswa-sarma/ |access-date=2022-06-12 |language=en-US}} and contained 123 villages, dating as far back as a 1951 single-member commission land transfer recommendation when Arunachal Pradesh was the North-East Frontier Agency. In April 2023, both states signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly demarcate their border. By September 2023, 115 villages went to Arunachal Pradesh and 8 villages went to Assam.{{Cite news |last= |date=2023-09-06 |title=MoU on Assam-Arunachal border issue implemented in right earnest: Khandu |url=https://assamtribune.com/north-east/mou-on-assam-arunachal-border-issue-implemented-in-right-earnest-khandu-1493430 |access-date=2023-12-01 |website=The Assam Tribune |language=en}}

|{{KWT}}
{{SAU}}
{{IRQ}}
{{flag|United Kingdom}}

|1913

|2019

|The dispute dates as far back as when the United Kingdom and Ottoman Empire signed the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, defining the border in two phases: a formal boundary as well as a British "sphere of influence". This agreement was never ratified due to major complications: the Ottoman Empire had no de facto control over any of the area, because the Sheikhdom of Kuwait was effectively a British protectorate, Najd Sanjak was occupied by the Emirate of Nejd and Hasa, and the signatories proceeded to fight against each other in World War I, which ended in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. From 1919-1920, the Saudis attempted to annex Kuwait in the Kuwait-Najd War, which ended in the Uqair Protocol of 1922. The Protocol defined a "neutral zone" between the Sheikhdom of Kuwait and Sultanate of Nejd. The State of Kuwait inherited the United Kingdom's territorial claim when it gained independence in 1961. In 1965, a separation line was drawn halfway through the neutral zone; Qaruh and Umm al Maradim are north of the line. Kuwait interpreted as the de jure border but Saudi Arabia recognized it only as de facto, leaving the sovereignty of the northern half of the "neutral zone" in question. In 1990, Ba'athist Iraq invaded Kuwait; the Republic of Kuwait was declared and annexed into Iraq, causing the Gulf War. Kuwaiti and Coalition forces recaptured Qaruh and Umm al-Maradim in one of the first battles of the war, which ended in total Iraqi defeat and withdrawal of Iraq's territorial claim. Finally, in 2019, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding in which Saudi Arabia recognized the separation line as a permanent international border.{{Cite web |last=Al-Saif |first=Bader |date=2021-03-31 |title=Along the Kuwaiti-Saudi Border, Stability Is Built on Flexibility |url=https://carnegie-mec.org/2021/03/31/along-kuwaiti-saudi-border-stability-is-built-on-flexibility-pub-84131 |access-date=2023-12-01 |website=Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center}}

| {{flag|Abkhazia|name=Republic of Abkhazia}}
{{RUS}}
{{GEO}}

|2011

|2011

| During the existence of the Soviet Union, the village of Aibga was divided into two; the southern part belonged to Georgia and the northern part to Russia. In March 2011 Russia laid claim to the southern area of Aibga. After the Abkhaz side proved that the southern part of Aibga belonged to the Georgian SSR, the claim on the village was dropped by Russia.{{cite web |url=http://css.ge/files/books/papers/Nika_Samkharadze,Georgian_State_Border_%E2%80%93_Past_and_Present,__Sept.__2012_eng.pdf |title=Georgian State Border – Past and Present |publisher=Center for Social Sciences |date=August 2012 |access-date=24 August 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823163741/http://css.ge/files/books/papers/Nika_Samkharadze,Georgian_State_Border_%E2%80%93_Past_and_Present,__Sept.__2012_eng.pdf |archive-date=23 August 2014 |url-status=dead }}

| {{flag|Finland}}
{{flag|Sweden}}

| 1917

| 1921

| Sweden and Finland argued over the control of the Åland Islands (located between Sweden and Finland). The Åland movement (Ålandsrörelsen) wanted Åland to reunite with its old mother country Sweden (Finland and Åland belonged to Sweden before 1809). The movement gathered signatures from over 7000 inhabitants of legal age at the Åland Islands in 1917 (that was about 96% of the population) - they all supported a union with Sweden. When Finland became independent (December 6, 1917) Sweden wanted a plebiscite about the future of the Åland Islands to solve the problem. Finland refused and argued that the Åland Islands had always been a natural part of Finland - even when Finland was under Swedish rule. Sweden appealed to the League of Nations referring to the right of the population to determine which country they should belong to. After studying the matter closely the League of Nations decided Finland should retain sovereignty over the province but that the Åland Islands should be made an autonomous territory. The Swedish Prime Minister said he didn't accept the verdict but he also said that Sweden was not going to use military force to get their claims.{{cite web|url = http://www.macgregorishistory.com/english/ib/League%20of%20Nations/lon1920.html|website = MacGregor is History |title = Disputes in the League of Nations in the 1920's|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120616144657/http://www.macgregorishistory.com/english/ib/League%20of%20Nations/lon1920.html|archive-date = 16 June 2012}}

| {{flag|Poland}}
{{flag|Denmark}}

| 1978

| 2018

| Poland has decided to cede to Denmark 80 percent of the disputed territory{{Cite news|title=Poland and Denmark sign agreement on maritime boundary in the Baltic Sea|url=https://www.msp-platform.eu/events/poland-and-denmark-sign-agreement-maritime-boundary-baltic-sea |date=28 November 2018}}

| {{flag|Soviet Union}}
{{flag|Socialist Republic of Romania}}

| 1940

| 1989

| On 13 November 1989, Nicolae Ceauşescu demanded the annulment of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, pursuant to which Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were occupied by the Soviet Union, and the return of these territories to Romania. This demand was officially adopted as party policy by 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Romania, held later the same month. Ceauşescu was overthrown in the Romanian Revolution in December 1989 before the claim could be seriously pursued, and the post-revolutionary National Salvation Front abandoned it.

| {{Flag|Bulgaria}}
{{Flag|Turkey}}

| 1990

| 1990

| The border at the Rezovo's mouth was the subject of a minor territorial dispute between Bulgaria and Turkey, which was settled in the 1990s. As a result of an agreement between the two countries of 6 May 1992 (ratified by Bulgaria in 1998), Bulgaria received a small land area of several square kilometres in the Rezovo Bay in return for water area in the continental shelf.

| {{flag|Two Sicilies}}
{{flagicon|Malta|1814}} Malta
{{flag|France}}
{{flag|Spain|1785}}

| 1831

| 1831

|A dispute between the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the British Crown Colony of Malta, the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain occurred after the volcanic island appeared in 1831. The British were the first to claim the island as part of Malta, and they were followed by the Two Sicilies and France, while Spain expressed their ambitions to control the island. The island disappeared by December 1831 and the dispute stopped. A Sicilian flag was lowered over the now submerged island in 2000 to show Italian claims to the area. It is no longer disputed by Britain, France, Spain or Malta.

| {{flag|Kingdom of Sicily}}
{{flagicon|Malta|1814}} Malta

| 1800

| 1814

|The island was controlled by British troops as a de facto part of the Malta Protectorate from 1800 onwards. After a British royal commission was sent there in 1812, the new Governor of Malta Sir Thomas Maitland withdrew British troops and the island was returned to Sicily.

| {{TUR}}
{{flag|Greece|old}}

| 1920

| 1923

| On 11 August 1920, following World War I, the Treaty of Sèvres with the defeated Ottoman Empire granted the island to Greece, who joined the war in Allies' side in May 1917. The new Turkish Government of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, based in Ankara, which was not party to the treaty, overthrew the Ottoman government, which signed but did not ratify the treaty. After the Turkish War of Independence ended in Greek defeat in Anatolia, and the fall of David Lloyd George and his Middle Eastern policies after the Carlton Club meeting, the western powers agreed to the Treaty of Lausanne with the new Turkish Republic, in 1923. This treaty made Tenedos/Bozcaada and Imbros part of Turkey, and it guaranteed a special autonomous administrative status there to accommodate the Greeks.

| {{flag|United Kingdom}}
{{flag|Irish Republic|name=Revolutionary Irish Republic}}

| 1919

| 1922

| On 21 January 1919, the 69 Sinn Féin MPs elected in the 1918 United Kingdom general election in Ireland to the British House of Commons refused to take their seats in the British Parliament and instead assembled in a separate parliament in Ireland, which proclaimed Irish independence under a revolutionary Irish Republic, leading to the Irish War of Independence. In 1920, following the collapse of the British administration, the revolutionary republic established control over 21 of Ireland's 32 counties,M.E. Collins, Ireland, p. 252. with only urban areas and what would later become Northern Ireland remaining under British control; however, by the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, which ended the war of independence, the revolutionary republic was replaced by the Irish Free State—a semi-independent Dominion of the British Empire albeit separate from the United Kingdom itself—on 6 December 1922. A day later, Northern Ireland opted out of inclusion in the Irish Free State and returned to the UK, thus de facto effecting the partition of Ireland into two regions, established de jure by the British Parliament's Government of Ireland Act 1920 on 23 December 1920. On 1 July 1937, the Irish Free State adopted a new constitution, by which it declared itself a fully independent state simply called "Ireland"; this Constitution also declared a claim to Northern Ireland until 1998.

| {{flag|United Kingdom}}
{{flag|Ireland}}

| 1937

| 1998

| Formerly disputed between Ireland and the United Kingdom since the Adoption of the Constitution of Ireland on 29 December 1937, it was settled by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, when Ireland amended its constitution to withdraw its constitutional claim. Both countries acknowledged that the territory can join the rest of Ireland if separate referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland approve of the former's cession.

| {{flag|Russia}}
{{flag|Latvia}}

| 1991

| 2007

| Pytalovo was a village in the parish of Vyshgorogok, the westernmost part of the Ostrov uyezd, Governorate of Pskov that was ceded from RSFSR to Latvia under the Treaty of Riga (1920) along with parishes of Kachanovo and Tonkovo. In 1940 Latvian Republic was annexed by the Soviet Union and Latvian SSR was established, encompassing the above named territories until 1944 when they were transferred to the district of Ostrov, Pskov Oblast, RSFSR.{{Cite web|url=http://www.bestpravo.com/sssr/eh-praktika/o4w.htm|title=Указ Президиума ВС СССР от 23.08.1944 Об образовании Псковской области в составе РСФСР (Decree of the Supreme Council of USSR on establishing the Pskov Oblast within the RSFSR)|website=BestPravo|access-date=2018-12-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229033553/http://www.bestpravo.com/sssr/eh-praktika/o4w.htm|archive-date=2016-12-29|url-status=dead}} Since 1991 reestablished Republic of Latvia disputed Russian jurisdiction over the region until the border treaty with Russia was signed in 2007.{{Cite web|url=https://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/bilateral-relations/relation-profile/relations-between-latvia-and-russia/the-republic-of-latvia-and-the-russian-federation-treaty-on-the-state-border-of-latvia-and-russia |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Latvia|title = The Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation Treaty On the State Border of Latvia and Russia|date= 4 April 2007}}

| {{flag|Ukraine}}
{{flag|Romania}}

| 2004

| 2009

| In 2004 Romania filed a case to International Court of Justice claiming that Ukraine's Snake Island was an uninhabitable rock under UNCLOS standards and thus not eligible to carry influence over determination of the maritime boundary between the two states. During the Soviet times the island was a small naval station with a lighthouse. In 2007 the Ukrainian parliament approved an establishment of a small settlement there, Bile, as part of the Odesa Oblast. The maritime boundary issue was settled by the International Court of Justice in 2009, awarding Romania 80% of the disputed area.

| {{flag|Lithuania}}
{{flag|Poland}}

| 1920

| 1945

| During the Polish–Soviet War Polish armies entered the Vilnius Region which was at the time part of the Soviet Lithuanian–Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1920, Polish General Lucjan Żeligowski led a coup and established the Republic of Central Lithuania which was annexed to the Second Polish Republic after the war as part of the historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and due to ethnic Poles in the region. Lithuania moved its capital to Kaunas while never giving up its claim to Vilnius. The Lithuanians found support in the Soviet Union for their cause signing the Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty in 1939. Following the Soviet invasion of Poland, the region came under Soviet control and became part of the Lithuanian SSR after World War II which was followed by a large number of ethnic Poles being deported two times. Following the fall of the Soviet Union and Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania the Vilnius region became part of Lithuania again.

| {{ITA}}
{{flag|Holy See}}

| 1870

| 1991

|Pope John Paul II recognized the sovereignty of Italy over the Passetto on May 18, 1991.{{cite web|url=http://hemeroteca.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/madrid/abc/1991/08/06/051.html|title=ABC (Madrid) - 06/08/1991, p. 51 - ABC.es Hemeroteca|website=hemeroteca.abc.es|access-date=30 June 2017}}{{cite web|url=http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/7th-september-1990/1/papal-passage-ceded|title=Catholic Herald|website=CatholicHerald.co.uk|access-date=5 October 2014}}

| {{flag|Norway}}
{{flag|Iceland}}

| 1979

| 1980

| Norway and Iceland argued over sovereignty of Jan Mayen from the period of 1979 to 1980. The island had been annexed by Norway in 1926, and was home of a Norwegian meteorological station. During a delegation to Iceland in April 1980, Icelandic foreign minister Ólafur Jóhannesson cited statements from the late 1920s to point out how Iceland never officially recognised Norway’s annexation of the island. He also indicated that, historically, the island had much closer ties to Iceland than it did to Norway. The Icelandic government never intended to seriously dispute the sovereignty of the island, but used these points in order to gain a bargaining position over the waters surrounding the island. On the 28th of May 1980, Iceland and Norway signed a treaty which gave Iceland most of what it wanted, including a recognition of the 200 nautical mile Exclusive economic zone around Iceland.{{cite web|url= http://gudnith.is/efni/jan_mayen_dispute_24_jan_2013|title= The Jan Mayen dispute between Iceland and Norway, 1979-1981|website=Guðni Th. Jóhannesson|date=24 January 2013}}

| {{PRC}}
{{ROC}}
{{IDN}}

| The People's Republic of China claims the water off the Natuna Islands that fall under the nine-dash line claim are traditional Chinese fishing grounds. The Republic of China on Taiwan also claims the area.{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CNVf9R_L5FAC&q=taiwan+claim+on+natuna+waters&pg=PA36|title=War Or Peace in the South China Sea?|first=Timo|last=Kivimäki|date=30 June 2017|publisher=NIAS Press|access-date=30 June 2017|via=Google Books|isbn=9788791114014}}

| rowspan="5" | {{flag|Canada}}
{{flag|USA}}

|

|

|

| U.S. claims navigation rights

|

| {{COL}}
{{VEN}}

| Dispute regarding the undefined sea border between both countries.{{cite web|url=http://www.coha.org/colombia-and-venezuela-the-border-dispute-over-the-gulf/|title=Colombia and Venezuela: The Border Dispute Over the Gulf|date=13 August 2015 |publisher=Council on Hemispheric Affairs|access-date=18 April 2018}}

| {{GRC}}
{{TUR}}

| Broad number of delimitation disputes about a.o. national airspace, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones.

| {{IRL}}
{{UK}}

| Lough Foyle divides County Donegal, Republic of Ireland, and County Londonderry, Northern Ireland. Carlingford Lough divides County Louth, Republic of Ireland, and County Down, Northern Ireland.{{cite book|first1=Dimitry |last1=Kochenov |first2= Elena|last2= Basheska|chapter =Introduction: Good Neighbourliness Inside and Outside the Union|title = Good Neighbourliness in the European Legal Context|publisher = Brill Nijhoff|date= 2005|page = 4|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kSdACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA4 |isbn = 9789004299788}}"Ireland-United Kingdom: Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough" in Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (ed. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, ABC-CLIO, 2015).

| {{DEU}}
{{NED}}

| The exact course of the border through this bay is disputed,{{cite web |url=http://www.geodaten.niedersachsen.de/viewer_dienste/layerstruktur/layer-nordsee---ems-dollart-vertrag-25327.html |title=Layer Nordsee - Ems-Dollart-Vertrag |language=de |publisher=State of Lower Saxony |access-date=3 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180104073144/http://www.geodaten.niedersachsen.de/viewer_dienste/layerstruktur/layer-nordsee---ems-dollart-vertrag-25327.html |archive-date=2018-01-04 |url-status=dead }} yet the countries have agreed to disagree by signing a treaty in 1960.{{cite web |url=http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBV0005343/1978-07-01 |title=Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland tot [...] van de samenwerking in de Eemsmonding (Eems-Dollardverdrag), 's-Gravenhage, 08-04-1960 |language=nl |publisher=Government of the Netherlands |date=1 July 1978 |access-date=3 January 2018}}

| {{DEU}}
{{AUT}}
{{CHE}}

| Switzerland holds the view that the border runs through the middle of the lake.{{pb}}Austria is of the opinion that the contentious area belongs to all the states on its banks.{{pb}}Germany holds an ambiguous opinion.

| {{flag|Slovenia}}
{{HRV}}

| An agreement was signed (and ratified by Croatia's parliament on 20 November 2009) to pursue binding arbitration to both the land and maritime portions of this continuing dispute. {{pb}}In 2015 collusion between the Slovenian judge on the arbitration panel and a representative from the Slovenian government was uncovered. The Croatian Sabor voted to withdraw from the arbitration, citing allegations of significant breaches of arbitration rules by Slovenia as the reason.{{pb}}Despite this the arbitration tribunal continued its work, issuing a ruling in 2017.{{cite web|url=https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2175|title= Arbitration Between The Republic of Croatia and The Republic of Slovenia |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration|date = 29 June 2017}}

| {{flag|Algeria}}
{{flag|Spain}}
{{flag|Italy}}

| In order to benefit from the exclusive economic zone resources, especially the offshore hydrocarbons, Algeria decided to announce the later in March 2018 by Presidential Decree N° 18-96. But the differing viewpoints of the States with opposite coasts on the bases and rules used to draw the border line led to the overlap of the Algerian exclusive economic zone with the Spanish exclusive economic zone and the Italian ecological protection zone, which spawned a double border dispute. On the one hand, a dispute between Algeria and Spain. On the other hand, a dispute between Algeria and Italy.