Terminological dispute around the hydronym of the Gulf: international experience in finding a solution to the conflict

Abstract

The article considers the terminological dispute over the name of the Gulf, which the Iranians call Persian, and the Arab countries Arabic. The debate between the parties in terms of history began not so long ago, however, each side actively appeals with historical data. The Iranians claim that it is a historical fact to call the reservoir the Persian Gulf, while the Arab version says a historical mistake. Moreover, the Arab countries say that many historical sources called the Gulf in different historical periods in different ways. It was the Low Sea, and the Gorky, and the Sea of Katif, etc. Therefore, the name «Persian Gulf» is characteristic only for one of the periods of history and has subjective reasons.Studying this terminological dispute around the hydronym, we asked ourselves what are the causes of this dispute, if it has a solution, and what are its future prospects It should be noted that the controversy in recent times has intensified since the conflict between Iran and neighboring Arab countries, since the 1980s. Therefore,it is not a secret for anyone that this terminological debate has in many respects political aspects caused by geopolitical games in the region. At the same time, an active return to this topic occurs at the time of aggravation of relations. For each of the parties, this issue has become more than a debate; it has become a matter of national interest, and even identity. The world community, trying to find a way out of this situation, began to use and promote the term “Gulf” more without tying it to one of the parties. But this approach does not fully suit either the Iranian side or the Arab side. Therefore, we have to admit that this hydronym has become a hostage to the antagonism of two parties. The growth of their confrontation only complicates the opportunity to find an acceptable consensus in the future, since each side will consider any concessions as a strategic loss.