WHEN THE MAP LIES: HOW DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHY SHAPES TERRITORIAL CLAIMS

By  Jahanvi Verma, a third year law student at Institute of Law, Nirma University

---

In November 2010, a seemingly mundane technological glitch triggered an international incident. A Nicaraguan military commander, conducting operations near the San Juan River, relied on Google Maps to identify the boundary between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Due to a misalignment in the platform’s data, Google Maps shifted the border several kilometres into Costa Rican territory. Acting upon this error, the Nicaraguan unit crossed into Costa Rica and set up camp. The diplomatic uproar that followed forced Google to correct the boundary and issue a clarification. Yet the damage was done: a private company’s cartographic error had directly altered military behaviour and diplomatic relations between sovereign states.

This episode shows a larger reality; as maps move from paper to digital platforms, they stop being passive representations of space and start actively shaping how people interpret, dispute, and manage it. Today, platforms like Google Maps, Apple Maps, Baidu Maps, and OpenStreetMap function as global authorities on what counts as spatial truth. The way they draw borders affects territorial claims, public opinion, and even diplomatic responses during crises. This blog argues that digital cartography has evolved into a subtle but powerful tool of foreign policy, capable of reinforcing or undermining sovereignty in ways international law has yet to fully address.

I. The Legal Power of Maps

International courts have long recognised that maps, while not binding, can wield considerable influence in territorial disputes. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly examined the evidentiary status of maps, offering insights that resonate powerfully in the age of digital cartography.

In Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) (1986), the Court held that maps are “only illustrative,” lacking independent legal force unless clearly accepted by the parties. Yet even in downplaying their formal status, the Court acknowledged that maps can reflect patterns of state behaviour and administrative control.

This relationship between maps and state practice gains clarity in Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (1962). Here, Thailand’s long silence in the face of a French-drawn map, which placed the disputed temple in Cambodia, was interpreted as acquiescence. The map’s power lay not in its accuracy but in its endurance and visibility. Over decades, it shaped expectations so profoundly that it influenced the Court’s decision.

Similarly, in Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) (1999), the ICJ relied on competing colonial maps to interpret the main navigable channel of the Chobe River. Although the Court prioritised physical evidence, the maps provided context and historical depth, revealing how earlier authorities conceptualised the territory.

Further, in Nicaragua v Colombia (2012), the Court rejected numerous maps submitted by both sides but emphasised that public representations of territory (including maps) play a role in shaping diplomatic expectations and national narratives.

Across these cases, maps influence state conduct, shape diplomatic positions and condition the public imagination. If paper maps held such power, the influence of digital maps being dynamic, globally visible, algorithmically generated is exponentially greater. Unlike static cartographic artefacts, digital maps are repeatedly encountered, operationally relied upon, and seamlessly integrated into governmental, military, and civilian decision-making. Their authority thus derives not from formal legal status but from habitual use and infrastructural embeddedness, enabling them to shape territorial expectations and state practice on a far wider and more immediate scale.

II. The Rise of Digital Map Sovereignty

The shift to digital mapping has created a new layer of geopolitical contestation. States increasingly recognise how borders appear on a global platform can influence international legitimacy. As a result, they have begun to assert digital map sovereignty.

China offers the clearest example. Under the 2017 National Map Law, all digital maps must be approved by state authorities. Depictions that violate China’s territorial claims, like showing Taiwan as separate or omitting the nine-dash line in the South China Sea are prohibited. China also enforces a mandatory “offset” system that intentionally skews unlicensed GIS data, preventing unauthorised actors from producing accurate maps.

India has similarly attempted to assert control. The 2016 Geospatial Information Regulation Bill proposed criminal penalties for publishing inaccurate maps of India without government approval. While the bill was never enacted, the government continues to issue strong advisories on how Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh must appear on global platforms. These pressures have resulted in separate map layers for Indian users on major platforms.

Since 2019, Russia has required digital platforms inside its borders to show Crimea as part of Russia. Apple and Google complied, resulting in an unusual phenomenon: the same territory appears Russian when viewed in Moscow and Ukrainian when viewed from most of the world.

However, the influence of digital cartography is not limited to state control as corporations themselves exercise significant geopolitical power. Google Maps, Apple Maps and Bing Maps manage multiple versions of the same border depending on the user’s location, legal risks and political sensitivities. In effect, these companies conduct a form of private diplomacy that is, negotiating borders not through treaties, but through interface design.

III. Digital Cartography as Soft Power

Digital platforms have become de facto territorial gatekeepers. Their choices shape global perceptions of sovereignty, often with significant consequences.

The Nicaragua-Costa Rica incident is a striking example, but far from the only one. Along the India-China Line of Actual Control (LAC), digital maps often obscure the precise boundary, reflecting geopolitical sensitivities rather than geographical clarity. This ambiguity affects how the public interprets clashes like the 2017 Doklam standoff or the 2020 Galwan Valley conflict. When map users cannot clearly see the boundary, public pressure on governments evolves differently.

In the South China Sea, Chinese platforms such as Baidu Maps and DJI Fly routinely display the nine-dash line as an unequivocal boundary of Chinese sovereignty. These depictions shape domestic political expectations and give Chinese users the impression that the claims are universally accepted even though international tribunals have rejected them.

The result is a form of cartographic soft power as mapping platforms visually normalise territorial claims, making them appear self-evident. A boundary that appears firm and brightly coloured on a map becomes, in the viewer’s mind, a matter of settled fact rather than dispute.

Yet platforms are not bound by the UN Charter, diplomatic protocols or international legal obligations on territorial integrity. Unlike states, they have no duty of neutrality. Their choices, however, can influence diplomatic tensions, public opinion and even military actions. This shift in authority from states to private actors creates an accountability gap that international law does not currently address.

IV. Influencing Opinio Juris: Do Digital Maps Shape Customary International Law?

A more subtle but profound impact of digital cartography lies in its ability to influence opinio juris, the sense of legal obligation that contributes to the formation of customary international law. When a platform consistently depicts a disputed territory in a certain way, states may opportunistically cite these depictions as evidence of emerging international acceptance.

For example, when Google created a China-specific map layer that showed all of Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory, Chinese state media hailed this as confirmation of the world’s recognition of its claims. The fact that this was a mere market-driven corporate decision did not prevent its political exploitation.

Repeated visualisation can also shape political expectations. Territorial nationalism often fuelled by school atlases and state propaganda now grows through digital interfaces. Scholars like Thongchai Winichakul (Siam Mapped) and Jordan Branch (The Cartographic State) have shown how modern national identities were constructed through cartography. Digital maps extend that logic by constantly presenting certain boundaries as “normal,” they cultivate public belief in those boundaries.

Over time, such beliefs can influence state practice, protests, official statements, legislative actions and diplomacy. These behaviours, in turn, feed into customary law formation. While digital maps may not directly create customary law, they shape the social foundations on which custom develops.

V. Towards Global Governance of Digital Cartography

Given the deep and often unacknowledged influence of digital maps on international order, there is a compelling case for a governance framework.

The United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) is well placed to lead such an effort. It coordinates technical standards for geospatial data and must extend this role to guidelines for border depiction.

Possible elements of a governance framework include:

• A uniform “disputed boundary” symbol used across platforms.

• Transparency requirements requiring platforms to explain the basis of border decisions.

• A shared public notice system when platforms change boundary depictions.

• Encouraging the use of neutral overlays for contested regions.

Such measures may not resolve territorial disputes, but they would promote consistency, accountability and transparency. Most importantly, they would prevent private actors from inadvertently conducting foreign policy.

Conclusion

The digital map has become a geopolitical instrument. As platforms depict borders for billions of users, they influence how territory is understood, claimed and defended. International law has long recognised the evidentiary and symbolic power of maps. In the digital age, that power has multiplied.

When the map lies or even when it merely simplifies the consequences can be diplomatic, military and legal. Without a coherent governance framework, digital cartography will continue to shape territorial claims in unpredictable ways. Recognising this reality is the first step toward ensuring that the borders shown on our screens reflect more than algorithmic convenience or political pressure. In a world where maps make territory visible, their accuracy, neutrality and accountability are matters of international order.urance policies, all while maintaining a right of recourse against manufacturers for technology failures.