Summary
Iraq’s disputed territories, located between the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and federal Iraq, remain a major obstacle to long-term stability, governance and economic recovery. Based on 41 semi-structured interviews conducted in Erbil and Sulaymaniyah, this research examines how frontier dynamics, rather than ethnicity or oil competition alone, shape governance, security, resource management and property relations in these contested areas. The territories are characterised by overlapping authorities, weak state penetration, competing political and military actors, and entrenched patronage networks. These conditions create a durable form of instability that benefits many of the actors with the greatest influence over local affairs. The findings highlight how international engagement, including development, infrastructure and security initiatives, can unintentionally reinforce these dynamics if local power structures are not adequately understood. Resolving the disputed status of these territories remains central to achieving lasting stability across Iraq.
Key Findings
- Iraq’s disputed territories function as a frontier where incomplete state authority creates a security vacuum and enables competing claims to power from state institutions, political parties, militias, tribal actors and other local authorities.
- The disputed status of these territories has empowered local elites, militias and patronage networks, while reducing space for independent civil society and critical voices.
- Security, governance and economic life are shaped by overlapping formal and informal structures, requiring residents and businesses to navigate competing authorities and often contradictory systems of control.
- Competition over resources, particularly oil and gas, reinforces patronage, bureaucratic capture and rivalry among political and armed actors, encouraging short-term extraction rather than long-term institution-building.
- Intra-Kurdish political competition plays an important role in sustaining tensions around the disputed territories, with rival parties using nationalist narratives and territorial claims to advance political interests.
- Independent civil society organisations can help represent local interests and challenge predatory practices, but shrinking civic space, reduced funding and the emergence of party-linked organisations are limiting their influence.
Policy Implications
- Efforts to address the disputed territories are unlikely to succeed through constitutional mechanisms alone. International engagement may need to complement formal processes with measures that reduce mistrust, incentivise cooperation and involve local stakeholders directly.
- Stabilisation, security and development initiatives should be informed by detailed analysis of local frontier dynamics, recognising how micro-level political relationships can shape or undermine broader policy objectives.
- Development and infrastructure investments in contested and resource-rich areas require rigorous risk assessments to avoid unintentionally strengthening patronage networks, militia influence or existing power imbalances.
- International actors should carefully assess whether local partners are genuinely independent, as support channelled through party-created organisations may reinforce existing systems of political control and exclusion.
- Supporting independent civil society organisations that can engage across ethnic, sectarian and political divides may help strengthen accountability and broaden participation in governance processes.
- International security cooperation and state-building initiatives should account for the deep mistrust and competing interests that continue to shape relations between Baghdad, Erbil and local actors in the disputed territories.
This policy brief is a part of the Contested Borderlands Elite Trajectories (CBET) project