Published: March 18, 2026

Guinea’s recent territorial disputes in the Mano River Union, specifically with Sierra Leone and Liberia is not by chance. Here’s why:

It is widely argued by International relations scholars that no state action is truly isolated. Instead, state decisions often follow strategic patterns, shaped by history, geopolitical realities of the time, political leadership, institutional culture, and theoretical traditions within the framework of international relations.

The realist theory, known to be one of the most influential frameworks in international relations stresses the anarchic nature of the international system where survival and power are the primary objectives of states. Consequently, governments tend to develop consistent strategic behaviors aimed at protecting national interests and maintaining security. (Jervis, 1978)These behaviors, overtime become institutionalized within their diplomatic traditions, military doctrines, and national strategic cultures. Hence, actions that may appear sudden or isolated often represent the continuation of some patterns in the international system. (Mearsheimer, 2001; Waltz, 1979).

Contemporary global developments demonstrates what may be depicted as the erosion of international norms and the diffusion of power politics. Major world powers such as the US, Russia and EU backed NATO have engaged in actions that challenge established principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, often with limited consequences from the  international bodies tasked with maintaining global order. These developments raise important questions about how such precedents influence political behavior in various regions across the globe. The emerging territorial tensions in West Africa involving Guinea and its neighbors within the Mano River Union particularly Liberia and Sierra Leone reflect broader systemic patterns rather than isolated incidents. (Mearsheimer, 2001; Waltz, 1979).  

The aftermath of world war II led to the creation of a grand international order built on foundational norms designed to regulate relations among states, which constituted respect for law and order in the international system, respect for sovereignty of states, territorial integrity and the peaceful settlement of disputes as articulated in the United Nations Charter. (United Nations,1945) Conversely, recent global conflicts have demon strated how powerful states challenge these principles whenever their strategic interests are perceived to be at stake. One prominent example is the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Russia directly challenged the long standing norms that defined territorial integrity and respect for the sovereignty of states by launching a full-scale military operation aimed at altering Ukraine’s territorial and political orientation. Although the international community responded with sanctions and diplomatic condemnation, the pe rsistence of the conflict highlights the limitations of global institutions in preventing or rev ersing such actions. 

In 2026 alone, we have witness some of the most dramatic and controversial events in the global order.  Several core United Nations Charter principles were violated during     the capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela in early January by the US governement, sparking debates about the boundaries of sovereignty and extraterritorial authority. The US-Israel war with Iran, the ongoing humanitarian violations in the IsraelGaza war and several strategic actions of world powers, some soft, others forceful. All of these developments reinforce a broader pattern: when powerful states challenge international norms without decisive enforcement mechanisms, the credibility of those n orms weakens; setting precedents that influence how other states perceive and interpret the limits of acceptable conduct.

The Mano River Sub-Region Territorial Dispute 

Contemporary geopolitical fragmentations in the international order answer the questions we fear to ask. The questions of “Why Guinea’s Territorial Disputes with Neighboring Sierra Leone and Liberia and Subsequent State Actions Are Not

Isolated Cases?”  And “where does it draw its inspiration and audacity from?” 

Having established that no state action is truly isolated in the international system, it follows that Guinea’s regional action replicates what we have witnessed in the broader global context with major world powers’ violation of international norms. The ongoing Mano River Sub-Region Territorial Dispute involving Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone reflects the diffusion of these broader global dynamics into regional politics. When the international system fails to hold powerful actors accountable for violations of international norms such as the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, other states may perceive that assertive behavior carries some meaningful consequences. Consequently encouraging governments to pursue unilateral actions in territorial and regional rivalries, particularly when dealing with neighbors that possess comparatively weaker military or economic capabilities. 

While the Mano River Union tensions are rooted in longstanding historical and geographic complexities, they can also be understood as part of this wider pattern in which global examples of power politics determine regional conduct. In this sense, the Guinea–Liberia–Sierra Leone situation depicts how local disputes may mirror broader transformations in the international system, reinforcing the idea that events in international relations rarely occur in isolation but are often shaped by evolving global precedents.

The way forward 

Resolving these longstanding historic territorial complexities and disputes require a cooperative and pragmatic strategy based on regional cooperation, technical clarity, and diplomacy. Without the necessary precaution, these seemingly meaningless territorial disputes could escalate into full scale invasion and territorial conflict. 

Liberia’s current position in the United Nations as a non-permanent member of the Security Council places her at the forefront of diplomacy in the African region. It is paramount that Liberia leverage its position on the Security Council to align its domestic actions with the global norms it is expected to uphold. This means, refraining from taking any unilateral actions and advocating for a rule-based dispute resolution. Diplomatic intervention and mediation is the key. Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, the three nations involve in the  Mano River Union Territorial Dispute can create permanent bilateral or trilateral border commissions, emphasize cooperative boundary demarcation using contemporary mapping technology, and involve regional organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to promote communication and mediation. 

Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone have the chance to set precedence in resolving longstanding complicated and historical colonial-territorial-demarcation disputes and strengthen stability and collaboration within the Mano River Union sub-region through persistent diplomatic engagement, Pan-African Solidarity and the effective use of regional and international mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of dispute. 

However, if initial diplomatic talks between the three states fail to provide a resolution to the dispute, Liberia should still prioritize lawful means instead of taking unilateral actions as they will escalate current disputes into a full scale territorial conflict. The failure of diplomatic agreements does not in any way justify force; instead, it should shift the process toward a more structured legal and multilateral solutions involving more powerful bodies responsible for international legal arbitration, such as the International Court of justice and arbitration panels under international law. The Cameroon-Nigeria dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula is a notable example. The dispute was resolved through a binding judgment of the International Court of Justice and later implemented through the Green Tree Agreement. The resolution of the Nigeria-Cameroon dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula demonstrates the viability of legal and negotiated resolutions in territorial conflicts. (International Court of Justice, 2002; United Nations, 2006). 

Current realities indicate that although Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea have held talks on territorial disputes, there are still signs that Guinea is not ready to withdraw and may return whenever an opportunity presents itself. Hence, Liberia must remain steadfast in upholding international law and in demonstrating that, even in a fragmented and shifting global order, smaller states can reinforce norms rather than erode them. As the resolution of this dispute will not only redefine regional stability but will also determine whether rulebased order can still prevail in a world of eroding international norms. 

References:

John J. Mearsheimer. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

International Court of Justice. (2002). Land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), judgment of 10 october 2002. 

Kenneth N. Waltz. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco, CA: United Nations. Hans J. Morgenthau. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York, NY: Knopf.

Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.