Visualizing Political Geography and Conflict over Time: A Framework for Interactive Cartography

Full report

On this page

Introduction

The transition from static, printed atlases to interactive, temporally aware digital globes represents a profound paradigm shift in cartographic design and geopolitical analysis. Historically, maps have served as instruments of statecraft, projecting absolute sovereignty and drawing hard, immutable boundaries across landscapes where ambiguity, overlapping claims, and shifting physical control often prevail. When attempting to build a publication-safe visual and interaction framework for representing conflicts, changing borders, and political transitions over time, the system must navigate a highly volatile intersection of spatial data science, cartographic theory, international law, and human psychology. International boundary lines are of immense significance to states; they define resource ownership and carry deep psychological weight, meaning inaccurately drawn maps have historically triggered diplomatic protests and even armed conflict1. Interactive temporal cartography requires vastly more sophistication than simply translating a vector line from one coordinate to another between two dates. Such a reductionist, linear approach creates the false impression that geopolitical shifts are smooth, instantaneous, and tactically precise2. In reality, borders are highly porous, control is heavily contested, and the evidence regarding territorial administration is often incomplete, contradictory, or polluted by state-sponsored propaganda. The digital globe must utilize advanced visual variables—such as crispness, transparency, and resolution—to communicate geographic and temporal uncertainty natively4. Furthermore, the system must seamlessly accommodate competing geopolitical worldviews, recognizing that the objective "ground truth" of a boundary often depends entirely on the observer's legal jurisdiction and political alignment7. This report establishes an exhaustive, expert-level framework for designing an interactive temporal globe. It delineates a rigorous taxonomy of political geography, constructs a visual encoding matrix based on advanced perceptual and cognitive principles, details interaction patterns for competing historical accounts, and presents twelve worked historical case studies spanning 1999 to 2026\. Finally, it outlines critical accessibility standards, a legal risk assessment, and a red-team analysis to prevent the platform from inadvertently serving as a vector for geopolitical propaganda or the cartographic erasure of vulnerable populations.

1. The Taxonomy of Political Geography

To accurately model the fluid and often contradictory nature of political geography, the underlying data architecture cannot rely on a simple binary classification of "sovereign" versus "non-sovereign." The database must support a highly granular spatial taxonomy that carefully differentiates between international legal recognition, physical on-the-ground control, and domestic legal claims. This taxonomy serves as the foundational data schema for the entire visualization engine, ensuring that every spatial polygon and polyline is correctly categorized before it is visually encoded. Internationally recognized borders represent the highest tier of legal certainty, defined as boundaries formally established by bilateral treaties and broadly recognized by the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of the international community. These de jure boundaries reflect legal reality, though they do not necessarily reflect the reality of physical control in conflict zones. Conversely, administrative boundaries dictate the internal divisions within a sovereign state, such as provinces, states, or oblasts. These internal demarcations are critical for historical tracking, as internal administrative lines frequently form the exact geometry of new international borders upon the sudden dissolution of a parent state, as witnessed during the breakup of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Claimed boundaries introduce a layer of geopolitical friction, representing territories officially claimed by a sovereign entity under domestic or international law, regardless of whether that entity exercises physical administrative or military control over the area7. A system must contrast these claims against de facto control, which denotes the actual physical, administrative, and military subjugation of a territory by an entity, irrespective of international legal recognition. De facto control is generally established by the administration of civil services, tax collection, and the sustained presence of armed forces7. Within the realm of physical control, occupied territory requires a distinct classification. International humanitarian law, including the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention, dictates specific operational rules for lands placed under the authority of a hostile army, and the map must visually distinguish temporary military occupation from outright, legally recognized annexation8. Where control and claims intersect without resolution, the system must map disputed territories. These are areas subject to active or "frozen" overlapping territorial claims by two or more political entities, often originating from historical grievances, ethnic divisions, or the presence of strategic natural resources8. To manage these disputes militarily, states frequently establish Demilitarized Zones (DMZs), which are highly specific geographic areas where military forces, operations, and installations are strictly prohibited by treaty, serving as a buffer between hostile states. Similarly, Ceasefire Lines and Lines of Control (LoC) represent de facto boundaries resulting from an armistice, freezing a conflict in place without legally resolving the underlying territorial dispute, such as the widely documented Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir10. Beyond defined boundaries, the taxonomy must account for transitions and ambiguity. Areas with incomplete or conflicting evidence represent zones where intense fighting, lack of independent media access, or widespread electronic warfare make it impossible to definitively attribute de facto control to any single faction. The platform must also track country-name changes that do not involve territorial changes, events where the geographic footprint of a state remains identical but the official nomenclature is altered for domestic or post-colonial reasons. More severely, state succession and dissolution events track the legal and geographic process by which a state ceases to exist and is replaced by one or more new sovereign states, transferring treaties, assets, and liabilities. Finally, the framework must classify transitional administrations and provisional governance, which are temporary administrative bodies, often backed by the United Nations, that govern a territory prior to a binding referendum or the establishment of a permanent constitutional government.

2. Cartographic Precedents and Comparative Methodologies

Determining how to visualize these twelve complex taxonomical statuses requires analyzing how respected institutions have historically navigated the intersection of cartography and diplomacy. Different organizations adopt vastly different mapping philosophies depending on their mandates, legal constraints, and target audiences. The United Nations Geospatial Information Section, for instance, operates under strict diplomatic constraints and prioritizes de jure mapping, explicitly mandating that maps do not imply official endorsement of unratified territorial changes10. Conversely, open-source projects like OpenStreetMap prioritize the "on-the-ground" reality, mapping the world exactly as it is physically controlled by military or administrative forces, regardless of international legality9. Bridging this gap are platforms like Natural Earth and MapTiler, which provide flexible digital infrastructure that allows developers to toggle between de facto reality and specific national legal worldviews7. The following table synthesizes the visualization strategies and philosophical approaches of twenty leading organizations, which form the baseline for this report's visual encoding matrix.

3. Visual Encoding Matrix and the Cartography of Uncertainty

Translating the complex political taxonomy into a coherent visual language requires moving beyond basic hue and saturation. Cartographic theory, building upon Jacques Bertin's foundational visual variables and later extended by Alan MacEachren's clarity variables, provides a rigorous framework for communicating certainty and status without implying moral judgment or misleading the user5.

Mitigating Cognitive Bias in Color Selection

Color choices inherently carry immense psychological and cultural weight, functioning as a silent narrative overlay on any map. Historically, maps of global conflict have relied heavily on red to denote advancing troops, hostile control, or occupied territory16. To Western audiences, red is deeply associated with danger, blood, heat, and aggression, whereas green implies health, vegetation, and growth16. Utilizing red to depict territorial gains often subtly casts the controlling entity as an aggressive violator, assigning moral judgment via cartography and portraying the opposing state purely as a vulnerable victim16. To avoid implying military allegiance or moral judgment, the interactive globe must adopt a strictly neutral, categorical color palette. The system should avoid standard red/blue (enemy/friendly) dichotomies entirely. Instead, the renderer should utilize muted tertiary colors such as slate blues, ochres, olive greens, and deep purples. Furthermore, the visual value and saturation must be tied directly to the level of control. High saturation should be reserved exclusively for stable, internationally recognized, long-term control. Areas of contested, active, or shifting military control should utilize lower saturation, employing pastel or muted tones to visually signify a lack of permanence and institutional stability.

The Application of Visual Variables for Uncertainty

According to MacEachren (1995), geographic data uncertainty can be visualized using intrinsic variables, which modify the core appearance of the symbol itself, or extrinsic variables, which apply an additional visual overlay on top of the base map4. Because all mapped data in a conflict zone contains inherent uncertainty regarding positional accuracy and temporal validity, the interactive globe must utilize a sophisticated hybrid approach to visualizing clarity. The most critical variable is crispness, also referred to as fuzziness. Crispness represents the degree to which a boundary is drawn with a sharp or blurred edge19. Internationally recognized, physically demarcated borders feature maximum crispness, rendered as a hard, alias-free vector line. Conversely, disputed active frontlines, where actual tactical control is unknown, highly fluid, or unverified, must utilize low crispness4. Rendering a frontline as a fuzzy, blended gradient prevents the user from assuming the line represents a highly precise tactical front. Transparency and opacity serve as secondary intrinsic variables. Lower opacity inherently implies a lower degree of institutional control or a lack of data confidence. When multiple state claims overlap over a single geographic region, utilizing alpha-blending allows users to physically see the overlapping, contested nature of the dispute, effectively demonstrating that sovereignty is not monolithic5. For extrinsic variables, texture and resolution are paramount. Stippling, which consists of varying densities of dot patterns, and hatching, using diagonal lines, are highly legible visual variables for showing prediction or evidence uncertainty6. Stippling effectively denotes areas of incomplete evidence or low data confidence, while cross-hatching has become the industry standard for denoting formal, legal territorial disputes14.

Visual Encoding Standard Matrix

The following table dictates the strict visual parameters for rendering the political taxonomy established in Section 1\.

4. The Chronological Engine and Day-by-Day Transitions

A core engineering and design challenge of the interactive timeline is handling the chronological flow of geographic data. When a user drags a timeline slider across a month of active conflict, the system must render the transition mathematically, but it must do so without generating a false visual narrative. If border polygons interpolate or morph smoothly from Point A on Day 1 to Point B on Day 5, the visual engine implies a slow, creeping wall of total control2. This interpolation creates a deeply flawed impression of tactical precision, likening real-world asymmetric conflict to a digital simulation where territory is physically and uniformly "consumed" by an advancing force16. In reality, military forces advance rapidly down paved highways and rail lines, often leaving vast tracts of rural space entirely contested, bypassed, or ungoverned. Therefore, very little contiguous territory is actually occupied beyond these primary axes of travel, and civilian populations frequently continue to resist within the so-called "captured" zones16. To prevent this cartographic distortion, the engine must distinguish between discrete legal changes and fluid military movements. Legal changes, such as the signing of a treaty or a declaration of independence, must happen as discrete, instantaneous visual transitions on the exact effective date. There is no logical interpolation of a treaty; it is either in effect or it is not. Conversely, when animating military frontlines, the system must never animate a solid vector line creeping across the landscape. Instead, the area of advance should appear as a low-crispness, stippled uncertainty band. As reports confirm institutional control over subsequent weeks, the stippled "unverified" zone gradually solidifies into a categorical color. Rather than showing expanding uniform polygons, the most accurate simulation will highlight transportation networks as lines of control that branch outward, more accurately reflecting the mechanical realities of modern territorial acquisition and the lack of absolute spatial dominance16. Furthermore, the system must heavily restrict the use of sweeping movement arrows. While arrows are a well-known graphical device for indicating the direction of advancing troops or fleeing refugees, they carry strong psychological connotations of aggressive, deliberate, and unstoppable movement, which often masks the nuances of local resistance16. If arrows are utilized, they must be tied strictly to verified, discrete troop movements on a specific day, and must fade out immediately, rather than lingering as permanent markers of territorial expansion. Similarly, the use of "explosion" icons to denote captured or attacked cities must be avoided, as such overly simplified symbology acts as a checklist of destroyed objects, dehumanizing the landscape and removing the civilian experience from the horrors of war16.

5. Source Attribution, Uncertainty, and Data Revisions

Data detailing historical political geography is inherently subjective and often relies on conflicting, biased, or delayed source materials21. Uncertainty in cartography stems not only from the imperfection of gathered data—which may be incomplete or inaccurate—but also from the subjectivity of the mapmaker who selects the spatial scales and graphic artifacts21. Therefore, the digital globe must structurally pair every vertex of a boundary and every metadata tag with rigorous source attribution. Temporal uncertainty poses a specific interactive challenge. If a historical event occurred "sometime in May 2023," the timeline interaction must lock or snap to a monthly aggregate view rather than allowing the user to select an arbitrary date like May 1422. Allowing the user to scrub to a specific day when the data only supports a monthly resolution implies false temporal precision, misleading the user about the fidelity of the historical record. When attribute uncertainty exists—for example, if a territory's status is debated between "Occupied" and "Transitional Administration"—the system utilizes an extrinsic visual variable, such as an info-glyph or a "disputed status" overlay pattern, to signal the ambiguity directly on the map5. For source citation, when a user clicks or hovers over any boundary line or territorial polygon, an interactive inspector panel must appear detailing the effective date of the status, the primary sources used to verify the geometry (e.g., UN Resolution 1244, ACLED Event Data, ISW Daily Assessment), and an algorithmic confidence level based on source consensus. Crucially, historical conflict data is routinely revised as the fog of war lifts. If a boundary record is later corrected by analysts, the visualization engine should not quietly overwrite the past, as this destroys the historical record of what was believed at the time. For highly scrutinized conflicts, the UI must offer a "Data Revision History" toggle within the inspector panel, allowing researchers to see how the mapping of a specific day evolved across different database versions as better intelligence became available to the cartographers.

6. Typographical Transitions and Label Management

Political geography often shifts dramatically without a single physical border moving. State succession, dissolution, unification, or simple renaming requires a robust typographical transition engine to manage the on-screen text without confusing the user during timeline scrubbing. When dragging the time slider past a non-territorial transition date, such as the renaming of Macedonia to North Macedonia in February 2019, the text label should smoothly cross-fade from the old nomenclature to the new, while the physical borders remain entirely static and solidly rendered. State dissolution requires a more complex typographical hierarchy shift. When a state dissolves, the parent label fades out entirely, and the underlying regional administrative labels must organically scale up in font weight, tracking, and point size to assume the Admin-0 (Country) cartographic hierarchy. This visually communicates that sub-national entities have ascended to sovereign status. In regions where the very name of a territory is the subject of intense international dispute, the system must utilize neutral, dual-labeling typography. For example, denoting the territory as Falkland Islands (Malvinas) matches the rigorous editorial and diplomatic guidelines set forth by the United Nations, ensuring the map does not take a unilateral stance on a legally contested nomenclature10.

7. Interaction Design for Competing Interpretations

Because maps are cultural and political artifacts, generating a single, purely "objective" map of the world is impossible20. A user sitting in New Delhi and a user sitting in Islamabad possess fundamentally different legal and educational realities regarding the borders of the Jammu and Kashmir region. To handle multiple competing geographic interpretations without fracturing the user base, the application must implement a "Worldview" Interaction Model, drawing heavily from the methodologies pioneered by Natural Earth and MapBox7. By default, the global view will represent the De Facto reality—physical, on-the-ground control—as this is the most practically useful metric for understanding the reality of humanitarian access and physical administration7. However, all disputed territories will be marked distinctly with cross-hatching to signify the lack of universal consensus. To accommodate specific legal constraints, a prominent user interface dropdown labeled "Perspective" will allow the user to switch the map's rendering engine to reflect specific de jure claims. For instance, selecting "United Nations" will render borders strictly according to UN Cartographic Section guidelines, stripping away unratified de facto control8. Selecting "India" will alter the geometry and rendering to remove disputed hatching from Kashmir, absorbing it fully into India's borders in strict compliance with Indian domestic mapping laws. For deep analytical use, users must be able to compare the "before," "during," and "after" states of conflicts, as well as competing worldviews. The UI will feature a "Split Globe" or "Swipe Tool," allowing the user to drag a vertical slider across the screen to directly overlay the De Facto reality against a specific De Jure claim, visually highlighting the physical delta between international law and military control.

8. Twelve Worked Historical Storyboards (1999–2026)

To demonstrate the practical application of this framework, twelve historical cases have been modeled. These cases represent diverse global regions and different typologies of political and territorial change, illustrating how the timeline, visual matrix, and data taxonomy interact in real-world scenarios.

9. Accessibility Standards for Interactive Cartography

The reliance on advanced visual variables such as color, crispness, and transparency poses significant challenges for users with visual and cognitive disabilities. The digital globe framework must guarantee equitable access to temporal geographic data without compromising cartographic integrity. For users with color-blindness (CVD), relying solely on hue to differentiate between a recognized state and an occupied territory is a critical failure. All categorical colors used on the globe must be verified against WCAG AAA contrast ratios and tested algorithmically for Protanopia, Deuteranopia, and Tritanopia. The heavy reliance on patterns, such as stippling and hatching, provides a vital secondary, non-color-dependent encoding channel for differentiating statuses, ensuring the map remains legible even in grayscale5. Low-vision users face specific challenges with the MacEachren variables. Blurry or low-crispness lines, intended to elegantly show locational uncertainty to a fully sighted user, may simply look like a rendering error or become completely invisible to a low-vision user. The user interface must include a highly visible "High Contrast Mode" toggle that disables opacity blending and replaces fuzzy lines with thick, high-contrast dashed lines accompanied by explicit text labels (e.g., \[APPROXIMATE FRONT\]). For users relying on keyboard navigation and screen readers, the timeline slider must be fully operable via keyboard arrow keys, with adjustable temporal step sizes. When a screen reader user drags the timeline across a transition date, it must trigger a dynamic ARIA live region that reads out the discrete changes. For example: "Date changed to July 9, 2011\. Event: South Sudan recognized as independent state. Border changed from Administrative to Internationally Recognized." Finally, for users with vestibular disorders, the operating system's prefers-reduced-motion media query must be respected. If detected, the application must immediately disable all smooth panning, globe spinning, and polygon morphing animations. Instead, dragging the timeline will trigger instant, discrete state updates, ensuring the user can analyze historical changes without suffering motion-induced nausea.

10. Legal, Ethical, and Red-Team Risk Assessment

Mapping contested spaces is not a neutral act; it carries profound legal liabilities and deep ethical responsibilities. An incorrectly drawn map or a poorly implemented interactive transition can trigger diplomatic protests, violate domestic laws, and serve as an unwitting tool of state propaganda. A rigorous red-team analysis is required to identify how the visualization framework could be weaponized.

Legal and Jurisdictional Liabilities

The United Nations strictly mandates that any map utilizing their data, or published by an entity seeking diplomatic neutrality, must include rigorous legal disclaimers11. To mitigate institutional risk, the interactive globe must feature a persistent, non-dismissible footer stating: "The boundaries, names, and designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance. Dashed lines represent undefined borders"10. Furthermore, mapping platforms face severe jurisdictional risks. Certain nations criminalize the digital depiction of their borders in ways that contradict their domestic claims, such as India's Criminal Law Amendment Act regarding the mapping of Kashmir, or China's strict regulations regarding Taiwan. By implementing the "Worldview" Interaction Model detailed in Section 7, the platform mitigates corporate legal risk. This architecture allows the platform to comply with local jurisdictions through IP-based default routing—serving the legally required geometry to users within those borders—while still offering the objective de facto truth to the broader global public7.

Red-Team Vulnerabilities: Propaganda and Implied Recognition

The most significant vulnerability of any map is its inherent tendency to "homogenize" territory. Coloring an entire province with a specific faction's color implies total, pacified administrative control16. State propagandists frequently weaponize such maps to project an aura of inevitability and absolute dominance, intentionally erasing the reality of local civilian resistance and asymmetric warfare16. To mitigate this, the visualization engine must default to highlighting road networks and urban centers, leaving rural areas transparent or heavily textured to indicate unverified or absent control16. Additionally, the map risks conferring implied recognition. Even if a border is explicitly labeled "De Facto," the mere act of a respected platform drawing a defined polygon grants a level of geopolitical legitimacy to a breakaway faction. To prevent validating illegal territorial seizures, breakaway regions lacking broad international recognition must always be rendered with dashed boundaries and distinct textual caveats to separate them visually from recognized sovereign states7.

Overstated Geographic Certainty and Population Erasure

Interactive timelines encourage users to view history as a series of definitive, mathematically precise geographic states. If a user clicks on an exact date in 2024 for an active conflict zone, the system will render a layout based on available intelligence. This is a severe vulnerability because the intelligence is likely patchy, biased, or delayed. The MacEachren "Crispness" variable is therefore not just an aesthetic choice; it is a mandatory security feature4. By forcing active conflict lines to render as blurry and unfocused, the system structurally prevents users and analysts from extracting false tactical certainty from the visualization. Finally, by focusing purely on macro-political boundaries and military frontlines, the map risks the cartographic erasure of populations. Small-scale, country-level thematic maps that only show the changing colors of states completely mask the true, devastating experiences of the human beings caught outside major cities16. To mitigate this ethical failure, the visualization engine should support an independent data overlay for humanitarian metrics, such as internally displaced person (IDP) camps or destroyed civilian infrastructure, utilizing distinct point symbology that scales independently of the political polygons.

Conclusion

Developing an interactive framework for visualizing temporal political geography requires delicately balancing the mathematical precision of digital GIS systems with the fluid, highly subjective, and often violent realities of human territoriality. By deliberately moving away from solid lines and homogenous polygons, and instead embracing advanced visual variables for uncertainty—namely crispness, transparency, and resolution—this system accurately models the actual limits of human knowledge. Through the implementation of strict neutral color palettes, discrete temporal transitions, worldview toggles, and rigorous source attribution, the interactive globe avoids becoming an unwitting amplifier of geopolitical propaganda. Ultimately, this comprehensive framework ensures that the digital map serves not as an authoritative, unquestionable arbiter of sovereign truth, but as a nuanced, highly transparent lens through which the immense complexities of global conflict and political evolution can be accurately and safely analyzed.

Works cited

1. The Depiction of International Boundaries on Topographic Maps \- Durham University, https://www.durham.ac.uk/media/durham-university/research-/research-centres/ibru-centre-for-borders-research/maps-and-databases/publications-database/boundary-amp-security-bulletins/bsb3-1\_blake.pdf

2. VILNIUS ACADEMY OF ARTS OPEN HISTORY: DESIGNING THE, https://gs.elaba.lt/object/elaba:28891534/28891534.pdf

3. Designing advanced GIS visualisations using cognitive ergonomics theories, models and procedures, https://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC\_proceedings/ICC1993/icc1993\_volume1\_part3.pdf

4. The Visualization of Uncertainty | GEOG 486 \- EMS Online Courses, https://courses.ems.psu.edu/geog486/node/906

5. The Visualization of Uncertainty – Digital Cartography \- Open Books, https://wustl.pressbooks.pub/digitalcartography/chapter/the-visualization-of-uncertainty/

6. How Do Texture and Color Communicate Uncertainty in Climate Change Map Displays? \- DROPS, https://drops.dagstuhl.de/storage/00lipics/lipics-vol114-giscience2018/LIPIcs.GISCIENCE.2018.37/LIPIcs.GISCIENCE.2018.37.pdf

7. Disputed boundaries policy \- Free vector and raster map data at 1:10m, 1:50m, and 1:110m scales \- Natural Earth, https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/disputed-boundaries-policy/

8. Disputed borders on your maps | Guides | Map design \- MapTiler documentation, https://docs.maptiler.com/guides/map-design/disputed-borders-on-your-maps/

9. Disputed territories \- OpenStreetMap Wiki, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputed\_territories

10. Map disclaimer | UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), https://unctad.org/map-disclaimer

11. Guidelines for Maps Produced in Fi \- FAO Knowledge Repository, https://openknowledge.fao.org/bitstreams/09b6ac3e-4d47-488b-846f-5d068c65c1f8/download

12. Maps and figures, including photographs | Department for General Assembly and Conference Management \- Welcome to the United Nations, https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/editorial-manual/maps

13. UNHCR Mapping Guidelines, https://dataviz.unhcr.org/download/UNHCR\_Mapping\_Guidelines\_2024.pdf

14. NYT says Crimea marked as "disputed territory" consistent approach \- UNIAN, https://www.unian.info/politics/2245874-nyt-says-crimea-marked-as-disputed-territory-consistent-approach.html

15. Mapping Modern Conflict: Inside ISW's Geospatial Work \- YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu4b-p69iko

16. How maps tell the story of war in Ukraine \- Geographical Magazine, https://geographical.co.uk/geopolitics/how-maps-tell-the-story-of-war-in-ukraine

17. 2.7.1. Sool \- EUAA, https://www.euaa.europa.eu/print/pdf/node/26903

18. 2.1. Map: areas of control and influence \- EUAA, https://www.euaa.europa.eu/print/pdf/node/27351

19. Visual variable \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual\_variable

20. Visualising boundary disputes on the map objectively? \- UU Student Theses Repository, https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/41511/Final\_Thesis\_GuidoMosch\_GIMA\_PDF%20%282%29.pdf?sequence=1\&isAllowed=y

21. Full article: Introducing the special issue: 'cartographic uncertainties' \- Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23729333.2025.2532126

22. VISUALIZING UNCERTAIN INFORMATION \- Semantic Scholar, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f89c/70913c39be1b56445ccb5e11785eea010ec3.pdf

23. North East State of Somalia \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North\_East\_State\_of\_Somalia

24. From Las Anood to the North Eastern State (NES): Implications for Somalia–Somaliland Mediation and Regional Stability \- Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies, https://chs-doha.org/en/Publications/Documents/Implications%20for%20Somalia%E2%80%93Somaliland%20Mediation%20and.pdf

25. Mapping the Armed Actors in the Sudan Conflict \- Africa Center for Strategic Studies, https://africacenter.org/spotlight/sudan-conflict-armed-actors/

26. Full article: Visual narratives and political instability: a case study of visual media prior to the Russia-Ukraine conflict \- Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2492577