The naming of places, such as cities, regions, or territories, goes beyond a simple geographical formality. It carries political, cultural, and strategic meanings that can directly influence the defense and sovereignty of a country. When analyzed from the perspective of the Latin concept of “Casus Belli” —the reason or justification for declaring war—this practice reveals itself as a powerful tool in the realm of international relations and geopolitics. Three historical and contemporary examples illustrate this impact well.
The first example dates back to the colonial period, when European powers renamed conquered territories to assert their dominance and erase local identities. In Africa, for instance, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was named after Cecil Rhodes, a British colonizer. This renaming not only reinforced colonial control but also sparked resistance and conflicts, serving as an indirect Casus Belli for liberation movements that fought to restore the identity and sovereignty of native peoples.
A second example occurs in the context of modern territorial disputes. The region known as the Sea of Japan, for example, is referred to as the East Sea by South Korea. This divergence in nomenclature reflects and intensifies historical tensions between the two countries. For Japan, the name reinforces its claim over the area, while for South Korea, adopting an alternative name is a way to contest the Japanese narrative and assert its own historical perspective. This symbolic dispute can, in crisis situations, serve as a Casus Belli to justify defensive or even aggressive actions.
Finally, a third example can be observed in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The renaming of cities and regions, such as Jerusalem—called Al-Quds by Palestinians—is a central point in the dispute over historical and cultural legitimacy. When Israel declared Jerusalem as its “eternal and undivided capital,” this decision not only reinforced its political claims but also sparked international reactions and tensions that could be interpreted as a Casus Belli for future conflicts. In this case, nomenclature is both an assertion of sovereignty and a potential spark for escalations of violence.
The naming of places is an act loaded with symbolism and power, with profound implications for a country’s defense and sovereignty. When analyzed through the lens of Casus Belli, it becomes clear that nomenclature is not just a matter of identity but also a geopolitical strategy that can influence everything from diplomatic disputes to armed conflicts. Therefore, the choice of how to name a territory must be made cautiously, considering not only its historical and cultural roots but also the potential impacts on national security and international relations. Cultural diplomacy and military diplomacy go hand in hand.
