Google, Please See Palestine: Role of Digital Maps in Territorial Disputes and State Recognition

Sep 28

Sep 28 Google, Please See Palestine: Role of Digital Maps in Territorial Disputes and State Recognition

by Bharatt Goel

A month ago, Google Maps came under scrutiny over the purported deletion (or non-depiction) of Palestine on its map. However, this is not the first time Google has witnessed public or government outrage over its depiction of territorial contours. Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Crimea, South China Sea to name a few, have previously been contentious for web-mapping giants.

To err is map

Google Maps are not unequivocal or indisputable representations of the domestic or international order. Google has admitted that it tailors its maps for each state according to the respective state policies and how they perceive their official borders to be. One often sees different versions of maps and borders depending on where you are located. For example, when viewed from Russia, Google Maps reflects Crimea as a part of the Russian territory, and when viewed from anywhere else, it is shown as a disputed site. Owing to the domestic provisions enacted by various states which penalize a cartographic representation contrary to the official state position, the Geographic Information Systems are forced to tweak their digital maps, notwithstanding what the ground reality has ascertained from geospatial imagery, crowdsourcing, and international law. The burning question is: how justified is this practice? Do these digital cartographers have an international responsibility, if not obligation, to manifest realities which are not antithetical to the canons of international law viz. territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of states and, right to self-determination of peoples of such territories?

Value of maps in international law

At the outset, third party maps are not considered as primary evidence of a legal question or fact and thus, cannot fixate boundaries by themselves. However, notwithstanding, certain maps that enjoy wide publicity and circulation are deemed to have a relatively higher probative value or relevance than others (¶ 3.21). Further, they can also be deemed to constitute admission or acceptance (¶ 3.22) of a State’s existence, which is an essential precursor to statehood. Consequently, while they cannot create or impede the territoriality and sovereignty of states, they can contribute in the acknowledgement and propagandizing of a particular geographical position and claim of a State thereto. Therefore, they possess considerable diplomatic force, albeit not binding.

Diplomatic tool of international recognition

Google draws a caveat that its maps do not endorse or affirm any position asserted by the State. They assert that its maps provide “complete information” in a “dispassionate and accurate manner.” Tweaking maps contingent on State reaction might evince dispassion, but certainly mars the accuracy of the maps by not painting an unambiguous and fair picture. Admittedly, boundary and territorial disputes and, statehood claims are convoluted.

However, lines are not always grey, especially when it comes to the adroit evasion of international law by certain states. They violate international norms in numerous ways. They artificially enlarge their territory by asserting claims or annexing regions or curtail their peoples’ right to external self-determination. The international community has asserted in unmistakable terms that Crimea is a part of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and urged the Russian Federation to withdraw its military forces and put an end to its occupation of Crimea. Similarly, the United Nations acknowledged and elevated Palestine as a non-member observer State and refers to it as the “State of Palestine.” Palestinian Authority exercises ground control in Area A and civilian control in Area B, to the exclusion of a handful of Outstanding Issues. Further, its territorial integrity, has been recognized by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

In such circumstances, when the international community in unison crystallizes a particular legal and diplomatic standpoint, web-mapping applications have no reasons to shy from adhering to it. Interactions between different international State and non-State actors and organizations are crucial for constructing their identities, interests and behaviors. International recognition and participation from these actors thus, becomes necessary for survival in an anarchic international order. Google, Apple, Bing etc. don the hat of digital cartographers and possess the ability to shape and legitimize understandings of state territories, and impact human rights. Ensuring a lawful and non-personalized representation of all states and their territorial integrity is essential for realizing a level playing field. Striking a fair balance between the competing interests of different actors is akin to walking a tightrope. However, between “ground truth” and satisfying “local market expectations”, the balance tilts in favor of the former, warranting transparency. It is about time that web-mapping giants embrace their international responsibility, refrain from unlawful customization of maps and reflect the ground reality. Palestine, Crimea, and others deserve to be put on digital maps.