Map does not change the land, what changes is the way the world sees it
The map does not change the geography of the Earth through coercive decisions. Instead, it can open the way toward reshaping how geographical knowledge is established and represented in the digital sphere and, ultimately, how the world understands itself.
By Tareq Yousef Alshumaimry
Former Secretary-General of the Commercial Arbitration Centre
of the Gulf Cooperation Council
There are decisions adopted by the United Nations that may initially appear to be nothing more than technical details. Yet, over time, some reveal themselves as the starting point for profound transformations in the way the world is governed and knowledge is shaped.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution under the title “Correcting the Map to Restore Balance to Global Cartographic Representation.” On the surface, the resolution addresses the transition from traditional maps, such as the Mercator projection, which exaggerates the size of countries in the northern regions, to more accurate forms of representation.
Yet its deeper significance extends beyond geography into a fundamental legal and humanitarian question: Are the official tools through which the world presents itself to its peoples accurate and neutral, or do they carry historical legacies that require reconsideration?
Who Stands Behind the Resolution?
The initiative was driven diplomatically by Togo, on behalf of the African Group, with the support of the African Union. It secured the support of 164 countries, while one country, the United States, voted against it and six countries abstained.
The key to the resolution’s broad success lies in the soundness of its procedural framework and its respect for national sovereignty. The resolution did not redraw borders, transfer territory or undermine sovereign rights.
Instead, it focused on the cognitive and educational dimension by encouraging schools and digital platforms to use maps that represent geographical areas more accurately and fairly. This approach paved the way for broad international consensus.
How Can a “Non-Binding” Resolution Become an International Standard?
Although the General Assembly resolutions do not possess the same binding force as the Security Council resolutions, the history of international law demonstrates that international rules can evolve through gradual accumulation.
An international resolution may not immediately alter reality, but it can change the “normative language” through which the world discusses and understands that reality.
The next challenge lies in mapping in the age of artificial intelligence. The map that was once displayed on a classroom wall has now become embedded in navigation applications such as GPS, search engines and artificial intelligence models.
Therefore, the coming challenge is no longer simply, “How do we draw a paper map?” but rather, “How do we ensure that digital systems and artificial intelligence present the world accurately and impartially, without distortion or misleading representations?”
Why Do States Turn to the General Assembly or the Security Council?
The choice between the two forums depends on the legal nature of the issue and the strategic objective pursued by the state initiating the process.
First: Resorting to the General Assembly
The General Assembly may be described as the “international parliament,” bringing together all United Nations Member States on an equal basis. States may turn to the General Assembly in order to avoid the constraints imposed by the veto, thereby seeking to build broad international consensus that reflects the collective global conscience.
This is achieved primarily through the adoption of recommendations that are not legally binding, but which may nevertheless carry significant political and moral influence.
Over the long term, such resolutions can contribute to the formation of opinio juris, the belief that a particular practice is legally required, which may, through sustained state practice and acceptance, contribute to the development of customary international law and provide material for consideration by courts and states.
Second: Resorting to the Security Council
The Security Council represents the path of enforcement and binding international action. It bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
States may turn to the Security Council when they seek binding measures under Chapter VII, including sanctions and, where legally authorized, the use of force. The Council may also address regional and military disputes when there is a direct threat to international peace and security or an act of aggression.
Security Council decisions adopted within its binding authority are obligatory for UN Member States. However, this route is inherently more confrontational and remains vulnerable to paralysis because of the veto.
It would therefore not normally be the appropriate mechanism for establishing primarily educational or epistemic principles, such as the choice of cartographic projections.
A Strategic and Legal Choice
The decision by the African Group to pursue the issue of “correcting the map” through the General Assembly was a legally sound and strategically calculated choice. The objective was not to impose sanctions or exercise coercive power, but rather to change global perception and establish a new normative standard for geographical representation.
The map does not change the geography of the Earth through coercive decisions. Instead, it can open the way toward reshaping how geographical knowledge is established and represented in the digital sphere and, ultimately, how the world understands itself.
In the age of artificial intelligence, the map is no longer merely a physical representation of territory. It has become part of the infrastructure through which information is produced, interpreted and disseminated.
Tareq Yousef AlShumaimry,
served as Chairman of the Finance Committee and Chairman of the General Budget Committee of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (PCA) and an observer in the Administrative Council of the Court and the Consular at International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Embassy of the State of Kuwait in the Netherlands during this period from 2013 to 2020.
Email: tareq@alshumaimry.com
