UN New World Map: Legal Effect of the Equal Earth Resolution
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 8 hours ago
- 13 min read
Introduction
On 4 September 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the “Correct the Map” resolution by 164 votes to one, with six abstentions. The measure had been submitted as draft resolution A/80/L.104 and promoted by Togo on behalf of the African Group. Describing the decision as a UN new world map captures the public interest surrounding the vote, but not its legal effect. The resolution does not redraw international borders, redistribute territory, or impose a binding world map on UN member states (United Nations General Assembly, 2026; African Union Commission, 2026).
The initiative responds to the distortion of relative area produced by the Mercator projection when it is used as a general-purpose world map. Mercator is a conformal projection that preserves local angles and renders constant-bearing routes as straight lines, properties that explain its historic value for navigation. Its scale distortion, however, increases toward the poles, making high-latitude regions appear disproportionately large compared with land areas closer to the Equator.
Equal Earth was developed as an equal-area projection for world maps and preserves the relative size of geographic areas rather than Mercator’s conformal properties (Šavrič, Patterson and Jenny, 2019). Its adoption does not eliminate cartographic distortion altogether. Every flat representation of the globe involves compromises among area, shape, distance, direction, and scale.
For international law, the distinction between projection and territory is fundamental. Changing the mathematical method used to represent the Earth on a flat surface does not alter sovereignty, territorial title, internationally recognized borders, or maritime delimitation. The European Union’s explanation of the vote expressly stated that the resolution does not affect sovereignty, territorial status, delimitation, or internationally recognized borders, and that implementation does not imply recognition, support, or acquiescence concerning disputed territorial claims (European Union, 2026).
The overwhelming majority in the General Assembly also does not make Equal Earth legally compulsory. Article 10 of the UN Charter empowers the Assembly to discuss matters within the scope of the Charter and to make recommendations to member states or the Security Council. A resolution of this character does not, by itself, create a treaty obligation requiring states to adopt a particular cartographic projection (United Nations, 1945).
Maps can acquire legal significance in other circumstances, particularly when they form part of an agreement, reflect state consent, or are used as evidence in territorial disputes. That is a separate legal question from the choice of a world-map projection. The “Correct the Map” resolution concerns how geographic area is represented; it does not change the legal geography of the world.
1. What the UN New World Map Resolution Actually Did
On 4 September 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the text circulated as draft resolution A/80/L.104, entitled “Correct the Map: Rebalancing global cartographic representation and promoting equitable representation of the world’s regions, particularly Africa.” The measure passed by 164 votes to one, with six abstentions. Togo introduced the initiative on behalf of the African Group, giving the campaign a clear institutional link to African concerns about the visual representation of the continent (United Nations General Assembly, 2026).
The resolution addresses cartographic representation rather than territorial organization. Its central objective is to encourage greater use of projections that represent the relative area of the world’s regions more faithfully, particularly where maps are used for education, public communication, and geographic literacy. The initiative responds to the widespread use of the Mercator projection in contexts for which accurate comparison of land area is important.
The vote did not abolish Mercator. Nor did the General Assembly enact a single political map that states and institutions are legally required to adopt. A map projection determines how the curved surface of the Earth is displayed on a plane; it does not determine which international boundaries, territorial claims, or political labels appear on that map.
Equal Earth has become closely associated with the campaign because it is an equal-area projection designed for world maps. Its prominence does not mean that every Equal Earth map has acquired official UN status, or that the projection has become compulsory for governments, schools, publishers, digital platforms, or international organizations.
The decision is more accurately understood as a strong international endorsement of equal-area cartographic representation where relative geographic size is relevant. Its immediate effect is institutional and political rather than territorial or legislative.
2. Mercator, Equal Earth, and the Problem of Area
Mercator should not be described simply as an inaccurate map. Developed by Gerardus Mercator in 1569, it is a conformal projection that preserves local angles and renders rhumb lines, or routes of constant compass bearing, as straight lines. Those properties explain its historical importance for marine navigation.
The difficulty arises from what Mercator does not preserve. Because the Earth cannot be transferred to a flat surface without distortion, the projection sacrifices accurate representation of area. Scale increases with latitude, progressively enlarging territories as they approach the poles.
On a world map, the effect is substantial. Greenland, Canada, Russia, and northern Europe appear disproportionately large when compared with Africa and other regions closer to the Equator. Africa is not literally reduced by the projection; rather, higher-latitude territories are enlarged far more dramatically. For readers comparing continental size, the resulting visual impression can be seriously misleading.
Equal Earth was developed in 2018 by Bojan Šavrič, Tom Patterson, and Bernhard Jenny as an equal-area world map projection. It preserves the proportional area of geographic regions, so territories occupy the same relative share of the map that they occupy on the Earth’s surface (Šavrič, Patterson and Jenny, 2019).
That does not make Equal Earth distortion-free. Shape, direction, distance, and scale cannot all be preserved simultaneously on a flat world map. The relevant distinction is one of cartographic purpose: Mercator preserves conformal properties, while Equal Earth is designed for situations in which accurate comparison of area takes priority.
3. The Resolution’s Legal Effect Under the UN Charter
The legal effect of the decision follows from the powers exercised by the General Assembly. Article 10 of the UN Charter authorizes the Assembly to discuss matters within the scope of the Charter and to make recommendations to member states or to the Security Council, subject to the Charter’s other provisions (United Nations, 1945).
The “Correct the Map” resolution does not constitute a treaty and does not create an international legislative rule requiring states to adopt Equal Earth. Its adoption cannot, by itself, impose a new cartographic obligation on UN members. The legal status of the text must be distinguished from the scale of political support it received.
A vote of 164 states nevertheless gives the initiative considerable diplomatic and institutional weight. Governments, international organizations, educational institutions, publishers, and mapping services may respond to the resolution even in the absence of a binding duty. General Assembly recommendations can influence standards of conduct and institutional practice without becoming legally compulsory.
A further question is whether the resolution could contribute to the development of customary international law. The International Court of Justice has recognized that General Assembly resolutions may, in appropriate circumstances, provide evidence relevant to the existence of a customary rule or to opinio juris. Their significance depends on their content, the conditions of adoption, and whether they reveal a belief that the conduct concerned is required by law (ICJ, 1996).
That evidentiary threshold has not been met here. Broad support for equitable cartographic representation does not establish a general practice accepted as law requiring states to use Equal Earth or another equal-area projection. The resolution may encourage future practice, but no customary international-law rule presently obliges states to adopt a particular world-map projection.
4. Why Borders and Maritime Zones Do Not Change
A cartographic projection cannot alter territorial sovereignty. Projection concerns the mathematical representation of geographic space, whereas territorial title and international boundaries depend on applicable legal instruments, established title, state consent, legally relevant conduct, and, where disputes arise, authoritative processes for determining the parties’ rights.
A state may appear wider, narrower, larger, or differently shaped when the same territory is displayed through Mercator, Equal Earth, or another projection. Those visual differences do not alter the geographic location of the territory or the legal boundary separating one state from another.
The same principle applies to disputed territories. Using an Equal Earth projection does not itself recognize a territorial claim, accept a disputed boundary, or change the legal status of contested territory. The European Union expressly stated in its explanation of the vote that implementation of the resolution does not imply recognition, support, or acquiescence concerning territorial claims or changes in territorial status (European Union, 2026).
Maritime entitlements are also independent of the projection used to display them. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state may establish a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles from the applicable baselines, while the exclusive economic zone may extend up to 200 nautical miles from those baselines, subject to the Convention’s rules and to delimitation where states have overlapping entitlements (UNCLOS, 1982).
Continental shelf entitlement is governed by a different legal framework. Article 76 of UNCLOS provides that the continental shelf extends to the outer edge of the continental margin where that margin reaches beyond 200 nautical miles, subject to the Convention’s detailed rules on outer limits; where it does not, the coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf extending to 200 nautical miles from the relevant baselines (UNCLOS, 1982).
Maritime boundaries may be established by agreement or determined through judicial or arbitral settlement where the relevant jurisdiction exists. Their legal position depends on the applicable law, geographic facts, and the instruments or decisions governing the particular boundary. Reprojecting the same geographic coordinates changes only their appearance on a flat map. It does not enlarge an exclusive economic zone, reduce a territorial sea, relocate a continental shelf limit, or resolve a disputed maritime claim.
5. Does the UN Now Have a New Official World Map?
The General Assembly vote does not establish that the United Nations has replaced all of its existing cartography with a single mandatory Equal Earth world map. The UN Secretariat already maintains procedures for the preparation, review, and dissemination of cartographic material, including rules concerning political boundaries, territorial status, disclaimers, and map clearance. These functions are currently supported by the UN Geospatial Information Section (United Nations, 2026).
Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.25/Rev.1 forms part of that institutional framework. It requires cartographic material issued under Secretariat responsibility to undergo appropriate review and to carry disclaimers where necessary (United Nations Secretariat, 1997). Current UN geospatial guidance continues to distinguish technical cartographic production from questions concerning the representation of international boundaries and disputed territories.
Those Secretariat procedures should not be treated as a single clearance regime automatically binding every specialized agency or entity across the entire UN system. Different organizations operate under their own mandates and administrative arrangements, although they may rely on UN geospatial services and authorized cartographic references where applicable.
Equal Earth itself does not contain a predetermined political map. It is a mathematical projection for representing the Earth’s surface. The same projection can be used to display different boundary lines, territorial claims, place names, disputed areas, and political labels, depending on the cartographer and the institutional rules governing the map.
This distinction was preserved during consideration of the “Correct the Map” resolution. The European Union stated that existing UN policies and authorized cartographic references concerning international boundaries and territorial status remain applicable. It also made clear that support for the resolution did not amount to endorsement of every political map published through platforms using the Equal Earth projection (European Union, 2026).
The more precise conclusion is that the General Assembly endorsed greater use of cartographic representations that preserve relative area. Implementation within particular UN bodies, departments, publications, or services remains an administrative matter governed by the relevant institutional rules. The resolution itself did not create one universally binding official UN political map.
6. When Maps Have Legal Weight in Territorial Disputes
International courts do not ordinarily treat maps as territorial title in themselves. In Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), the International Court of Justice characterized maps as extrinsic evidence whose value depends on their reliability and on the circumstances in which they were produced. A boundary drawn on a map does not acquire legal force merely because it appears in cartographic form (ICJ, 1986).
The evidentiary weight of a map may depend on its technical accuracy, authorship, date, official status, neutrality, relationship to other materials, and acceptance by the states concerned. A map produced by an independent technical body may have substantial evidentiary value, while a unilateral political map may carry little weight in establishing title.
The Court applied similar caution in Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia). Numerous maps depicted the disputed boundary differently, but none was shown to constitute an official expression of the intentions of Germany and Great Britain under the 1890 Treaty. The inconsistencies among the maps prevented them from displacing the interpretation derived from the treaty and other relevant evidence (ICJ, 1999).
In Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), most of the cartographic material likewise failed to establish the meaning of the 1891 Convention conclusively. The Court ultimately awarded sovereignty to Malaysia on the basis of effectivités after rejecting the competing claims of conventional title. The maps formed part of the evidentiary record, but they did not independently determine sovereignty (ICJ, 2002).
A map can occupy a different legal position when states themselves have endowed it with authority. In Frontier Dispute, the Court recognized that cartographic material may acquire legal force where it constitutes a physical expression of the will of the states concerned, including when a map forms an integral part of an official agreement (ICJ, 1986). Article 31(2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties likewise includes a treaty’s annexes within the context relevant to interpretation (VCLT, 1969).
The decisive factor is state consent rather than projection. A boundary map annexed to a treaty may carry legal significance because the parties accepted it as part of their agreement. Equal Earth, Mercator, or any other projection can serve as the visual framework for such a map; the legal authority derives from the instrument and the parties’ acceptance of its content.
7. Africa, Decolonization, and Cartographic Representation
The African Union has linked the “Correct the Map” campaign to concerns about how Mercator affects perceptions of Africa’s relative geographic size. Because Mercator enlarges territories at higher latitudes, its widespread use as a general-purpose world map can make Africa appear smaller in relation to Europe, North America, and northern Eurasia than it does on an equal-area projection (African Union, 2026).
At its 39th Ordinary Session in February 2026, the Assembly of the African Union adopted the Equal Earth projection and encouraged member states to revise national curricula accordingly. The decision framed the initiative through concepts including equitable representation, cognitive justice, reparations, and the legacy of colonial cartography (African Union, 2026).
These arguments belong primarily to the political, educational, and decolonial rationale of the campaign. They do not establish new territorial rights, modify the rules governing international boundaries, or create an independent legal obligation to use Equal Earth. Their significance lies in explaining why cartographic representation has become an issue of diplomatic concern for African states.
Historical precision is especially important. Gerardus Mercator developed his projection in 1569 for purposes closely associated with navigation. The mathematical distortion of area is indisputable, but this does not establish that Mercator designed the projection with the intention of diminishing Africa.
The contemporary criticism is stronger when directed at the later use of Mercator as a general representation of the world. A projection created for navigational purposes can shape perceptions differently when it becomes a familiar educational, political, or institutional image. The African Union’s campaign challenges that inherited convention rather than relying on an unverified claim about Mercator’s personal motives.
8. What the Resolution Could Change in Practice
The resolution may have substantial practical effects even without binding force. Governments, international organizations, educational institutions, publishers, media organizations, and digital mapping services may increasingly choose Equal Earth or other equal-area projections when proportional geographic representation is important.
The African Union has already pursued engagement with technology companies, mapping providers, publishers, educational institutions, and international organizations to encourage broader adoption of equal-area cartography (African Union Commission, 2026). If those efforts succeed, the most visible change may occur in classrooms, atlases, news graphics, institutional publications, and digital platforms rather than in legal instruments.
Such practice can become influential without acquiring the status of international law. A broadly accepted technical or educational convention may shape institutional expectations while remaining legally voluntary.
The longer-term significance of “Correct the Map” is consequently likely to concern the representation of international space. It may alter which projections institutions regard as appropriate for general world maps and how audiences perceive the relative geographic scale of Africa and other regions. The legal geography of sovereignty, however, remains governed by separate rules.
Also read
Conclusion
The UN new world map debate concerns a significant change in international cartographic policy, but not a redrawing of the world in law. The General Assembly’s “Correct the Map” resolution gives substantial political support to equal-area representation and strengthens efforts to reduce the distortions produced when Mercator is used to compare the relative size of continents.
International law assigns maps different weight according to their legal context. Ordinary cartographic depictions usually function as evidence, while maps incorporated into agreements or otherwise accepted by states may carry greater authority because of the consent attached to them. The projection itself does not determine territorial title.
Equal Earth changes the visual representation of geographic area. International borders, sovereignty, maritime entitlements, and disputed territorial claims continue to depend on treaties, applicable rules of international law, state consent, legally relevant conduct, and authoritative adjudication where jurisdiction exists. The principal effect of the resolution is likely to be seen in education, institutional practice, and the politics of geographic representation rather than in any alteration of the legal map of the world.
References
African Union (2026) Decision on “Correcting the Map of Africa on the Globe” (Item Proposed by the Republic of Togo), Assembly/AU/Dec.959(XXXIX), Doc. EX.CL/1680(XLVIII), 14–15 February 2026, Addis Ababa.
African Union Commission (2026a) AU leaders adopt historic initiative to correct the Map of Africa, advancing implementation and global repositioning of the Continent [online]. Available at: https://au.int/en/node/46520 (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
African Union Commission (2026b) Communiqué of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission on the Adoption of the “Correct The Map” Resolution [online]. Available at: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20260904/communique-auc-chairperson-adoption-correct-map-resolution (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
Associated Press (2026) ‘UN General Assembly endorses a new world map that shows more accurately Africa’s size’ [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/un-africa-map-mercator-equal-earth-projection-b138fe9f76d7ff54cc7d5c9b1ddfa983 (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
European Union (2026) EU Explanation of Vote – UN General Assembly: Resolution on “Correct the map”: rebalancing global cartographic representation and promoting equitable representation of the world’s regions, particularly Africa [online]. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-explanation-vote-un-general-assembly-resolution-correct-map-rebalancing-global-cartographic_en (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, 22 December 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554.
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
International Court of Justice (1999) Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, 13 December 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 1045.
International Court of Justice (2002) Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, 17 December 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 625.
PROJ contributors (n.d.) Mercator [online]. Available at: https://proj.org/en/stable/operations/projections/merc.html (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
Šavrič, B., Patterson, T. and Jenny, B. (2019) ‘The Equal Earth map projection’, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 33(3), pp. 454–465. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2018.1504949.
United Nations (n.d.) Leadership: Geospatial, location data for a better world [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/geospatial/mandates/leadership (Accessed: 5 September 2026).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3.
United Nations General Assembly (2026) “Correct the map”: Rebalancing global cartographic representation and promoting equitable representation of the world’s regions, particularly Africa, A/80/L.104, 4 August 2026.
United Nations Secretariat (1997) Regulations for the Control and Limitation of Documentation: Guidelines for the Publication of Maps, ST/AI/189/Add.25/Rev.1, 20 January 1997.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) adopted 22 May 1969, opened for signature 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.
