PNAS · 2021

Globalization Mitigates the Risk of Conflict Caused by Strategic Territory

An interactive exploration of the research by Quentin Gallea & Dominic Rohner

1.9M
Observations
30
Years (1989–2018)
64,818
Grid Cells (55 × 55 km each)

The Question

Since ancient times, controlling strategic trade routes has been both lucrative and violently contested — from the Strait of Salamis in 480 BC to the Strait of Kerch in 2018.

Does globalization make conflict near these strategic locations better or worse?

Two competing views have clashed for centuries:

Note🔴 Lenin’s View (1917)

Globalization makes strategic locations more valuable — and more worth fighting over. Trade and economic integration fuel conflict.

Note🟢 Montesquieu’s View (1748)

Trade creates mutual dependence — countries prefer cooperation to keep routes open. Economic integration curbs conflict.

This research puts both views to the test with 1.9 million observations across 30 years.

ImportantThe Finding

Being close to a maritime choke point — compared to locations farther away — is associated with higher conflict risk when global trade is low, but the association reverses when trade is high enough. The tipping point occurs at a world trade openness of about 0.534 (share of GDP). This is not about whether there is more or less conflict globally — it is about where conflict concentrates. When trade is high, major powers appear to intervene to keep strategic waterways secure, and the conflict premium near choke points disappears.

Explore the results yourself:

  • See the map — where are the world’s strategic choke points, and where does conflict cluster?
  • Move the slider — discover the tipping point where globalization flips from curse to cure.
  • Read the evidence — the regression results behind the findings.