Conquest involves theannexation or control of another entity's territory throughwar orcoercion.[1] Historically, conquests occurred frequently in the international system, and there were limited normative or legal prohibitions against conquest.[2]
The onset and diffusion ofnationalism (the belief that nation and state should be congruent), especially in the 19th century, made the idea of conquest increasingly unacceptable to popular opinion. Prohibitions against conquest were codified with the establishment of theLeague of Nations followingWorld War I and of theUnited Nations at the end ofWorld War II.[2]
Scholars have debated the strength of anorm against conquest since 1945.[3][4] Conquest of large swaths of territory has been rare since the end of World War II.[4] However, states have continued to pursue annexation of small territories.[4]
Military history provides many examples of conquest: theRoman conquest of Britain, theMauryan conquest of Afghanistan and of vast areas of theIndian subcontinent, theSpanish conquest of the Aztec Empire and variousMuslim conquests, to mention just a few.
TheNorman conquest of England led to the subjugation of theKingdom of England to Norman control and broughtWilliam the Conqueror to theEnglish throne in 1066. Conquest may link in some ways withcolonialism. England, for example, experienced phases and areas of Anglo-Saxon,Viking andFranco-Norman colonisation and conquest.
The ancient civilized peoples conductedwars on a large scale that were, in effect, conquests.[5] InEgypt the effects of invasion and conquest are to be seen in different racial types represented in paintings and sculptures.[6]
Improvedagriculture production was not conducive topeace; it allowed forspecialization which included the formation of ever-larger militaries and improvedweapontechnology. This, combined with growth ofpopulation andpolitical control, meant war became more widespread and destructive.[7] Thus, theAztecs;Incas; the African KingdomsDahomey andBenin; and the ancient civilizations ofEgypt,Babylonia,Assyria andPersia all stand out as moremilitaristic than the less organized societies around them. Military adventures were on a larger scale and effective conquest for the first time became feasible.
TheOttomans used a method of gradual, non-military conquest in which they establishedsuzerainty over their neighbours and then displaced their rulingdynasties. This concept was first systematized byHalil İnalcık.[8] Conquests of this sort did not involve violent revolution but were a process of slowassimilation, established by bureaucratic means such asregisters of population and resources as part of the feudaltimar system.[9]
Scholars have debated the existence of a norm against conquest since 1945.[3][4] Conquest of large swaths of territory has been rare, but states have since 1945 continued to pursue annexation of small swaths of territory.[4]
TheRusso-Ukrainian War can be considered a contemporary example of a war of conquest, taking into account that during the conflict there was, even if illegally in the eyes of international law, theRussian annexation of Crimea andparts of four southeast Ukrainian oblasts in 2014 and 2022, respectively.[10] On the Russian precedent, Tanisha Fazal writes,
Norms die slowly. Attempted land grabs as big and brazen as Russia’s in 2022 are likely to remain rare, at least for now. But as aggressors go more or less unpunished, states may increasingly act on territorial claims in murky jurisdictions—those least likely to trigger a significant international response. These small-scale attacks may prove most damaging to the norm against territorial conquest. As violence ticks up, the larger web of rules and institutions that make up the international system could begin to come undone. Although far from inevitable, the norm’s demise would leave the world in dangerous terrain.[11]
Military conquest has been one of the most persistent causes of humanmigrations.[12] There is a significant influence of migration and conquest on political development and state formation. Conquest leading to migration has contributed to race mixture and cultural exchange. The latter points influence on conquest has been of far greater significance in the evolution of society. Conquest brings humans into contact, even though it is a hostile contact.
Looting by a victorious army during war has been a common practice throughout recorded history.[13] In the wake of theNapoleonic Wars and particularly afterWorld War II, norms against wartime plunder became widely accepted.[13] In modernarmed conflicts, looting is prohibited byinternational law, and constitutes awar crime.[14][15]
In the formation of the modern state, the conspicuous immediate causes are the closely related facts ofmigration and conquest.[16] The state has increased civilization and allowed increased cultural contact allowing for a cultural exchange and stimulus; frequently the conquerors have taken over the culture of their subjects.[17]
With subjugation, further class distinctions arise. The conquered people are enslaved; thus the widest possible social classes are produced: theenslaved and the free. The slaves are put to work to support the upper classes, who regard war as their chief business.[18] The state is in origin a product of war and exists primarily as an enforced peace between conquerors and conquered.[19] From slavery and from conquest, another result of war, sprang differentiation of classes and occupations termed thedivision of labour.[20] Through conquest, society became divided into a ruling militant class and a subject industrial class. The regulative function devolved upon the conquering soldiers and operations side to theserfs and slaves.
Theright of countries to engage in self-defence against awar of aggression is enshrined in the Article 51 of theUN Charter.[21]Military occupation can be seen as a continued attack against theself-determination of the occupied country. Some argue the right to armed recapture of illegally occupied territories increases with the passage of time.[21]
