Borders - A Very Short Introduction
Borders - A Very Short Introduction
Available soon:
Robotics Alan Winfield The Orchestra D. Kern Holoman
The Gothic Nick Groom Governance Mark Bevir
Civil Engineering
David Muir Wood
Borders
A Very Short Introduction
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this
same condition on any acquirer.
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Acknowledgments xiii
Websites 129
Index 131
This page intentionally left blank
List of illustrations and maps
1
Our daily routines provide a simple example. Typical mornings
involve spaces specifically designed to limit access, such as
bedrooms and bathrooms, as well as more open spaces like
kitchens and dining areas. A trip to work usually requires leaving
private property and passing through various public spaces,
neighborhoods, or municipalities. Workplaces are also divided
into spaces designated for specific purposes (offices, lunchrooms,
factory floors, etc). The borders that define these various spaces,
whether familial, social, economic, or political, address issues of
access, mobility, and belonging in different ways. For example,
a factory gate is intended to restrict access to certain people,
whereas the entrance of a retail store is designed to lure people
inside. This highlights the seemingly contradictory role of borders
as bridges, gateways, and meeting points or barriers, obstacles, and
points of separation.
3
Ultimately, the world has become crisscrossed with such a variety
of geographic boundaries that they often appear natural and
timeless. Yet reality is more complicated. Although the bounding
of space may be common in human social organization, borders
are not themselves strictly natural phenomena. Or put another
way, humans may be geographic beings predisposed to spatial
organization, but how we structure territory, and to what end,
has evolved quite radically over time reflecting changing political,
social, and economic contexts. The theoretical foundations of
bounded space encompass a wide range of scholarly perspectives.
Although the entirety of this vast and growing field cannot possibly
be covered here, we hope this broad survey of border history and
contemporary border research inspires greater awareness and
further study of these topics among scholars, students, and general
readers.
First, territorial control is not, nor has it ever been, the sole
means by which humans enact political power. Countless forms
of de-territorialized “authority” (the legitimate exercise of
power) have existed throughout history and continue to exist
today. Contemporary examples include various religious and
social movements, as well as nongovernmental organizations
relating to environmentalism, human rights, and feminism
that propagate their ideologies as universal and claim authority
across space, class, and various forms of identity. The global
influence of certain businesses, such as microprocessor giant
Intel, could also be considered a form of de-territorialized
authority since these technologies clearly transcend territorial
boundaries.
2. Israel has built massive walls and other barriers to seal off the
Palestinian West Bank.
9
Scholars from the past and present have explored the utility,
consequences, and contradictions inherent within the concept
of borders and bounded territories. Writers from Plato (Laws,
360 BCE) and Aristotle (Politics, 350 BCE) to Thomas Hobbes
(Leviathan, 1651 CE) and Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations,
1776 CE) to Thomas Friedman (The World Is Flat, 2005 CE) and
Harm de Blij (The Power of Place, 2008 CE) provide testimony
that geopolitical systems are neither completely closed (the ideal
of rigid territorial sovereignty) nor open (an “end of geography”
brought on by flows of globalization).
Borders require further study both from the top down and from
the bottom up, from the state scale and from the local scale, as
they are perhaps the most obvious political geographic entities
in our lives. Ultimately, the lived experience of borders reminds
us that their opacity is as important as their transparency. We
Borders
18
Chapter 2
Borders and territory in the
ancient world
Nomadic groups
Ancient nomadic groups may appear similar to prehistoric
hunter-gatherers, but such superficial similarities are misleading.
Borders
City-states
Borders
were then organized into parcels. The Maya did not buy or sell
land, so these parcels were passed down through familial lineages,
which maintained the borders of their farmlands through rituals
that combined physically walking the border with ancestor
worship.
32
succeeded in dominating the other city-states in central Mexico.
Aztec rulers did not directly annex these territories; rather they
generally allowed local kings to remain in place so long as they
provided military service and sufficient tribute to the central
government. Local kings retained considerable authority over
local matters and their positions were hereditary, unlike the
governorships in more centralized empires. Although they may
appear quite different, these forms of rule shared a great deal.
They were all intended to channel tribute and resources from the
provinces or subject kingdoms to support and benefit the imperial
government. The possibility that local kings or governors might
try to break free was also a constant problem for both and often
a more serious threat to the survival of the empire than hostile
neighbors.
34
of agricultural colonists to newly conquered regions increased the
area’s productivity and ensured a more loyal populace. In areas
deemed less important, the Assyrians seemed content to maintain
neutral zones occupied by village-level chiefdoms, which posed no
security threat. It also appears that Assyrian control in its outer
provinces was patchy, with imperial control clearly evident in
some areas but largely absent in others. Instead of a contiguous
territory, the Assyrian Empire is better described as a network
of dispersed pockets of imperial control interspersed with areas
lacking significant political organization. Similar variation has
been found in the frontier policies of the Aztec and Sassanid
empires. Depending on differences in the natural terrain, strength
of opposing forces, and economic importance, some frontiers were
administered indirectly through local rulers who pledged loyalty
37
their modern successors. Instead of distinct sovereign states,
medieval Europe was organized around what became known as
the feudal system. Feudalism was a form of political organization
involving a complex system of privileges and responsibilities
between lord and vassal. As the Carolingian Empire declined
during the ninth century, Frankish rulers found it increasingly
difficult to pay their military subordinates. Instead of monetary
payment, the kings appointed their commanders as vassals
with the right to use a portion of the king’s land and control its
economic production. In return, the vassals promised loyalty
and military service to the king. As a result, feudalism was based
more on personal oaths and obligations than on rigid territorial
organization. Kings and vassals were bound by their personal
commitments regardless of their territorial location.
French cities were the weakest and could not defend themselves
as city-states or even in city-leagues. The French kings of the
Capetian line were also relatively weak and controlled a limited
area. As a result, the French kings and urban merchant class
banded together against their common threat, the nobles. The
cities supported increased central control under the king, and
in return, the king protected the cities against the nobles. The
king and cities also had a shared interest in fostering favorable
Borders
49
4. This map shows European colonial territories in Africa, 1710.
50
51
government. After continuous European encroachment into
their territory, the Siamese government adopted Western notions
of borders and negotiated clear boundaries for their sovereign
territory. This created a “geo-body,” or territorial outline of a
homeland, that fostered the formation of a Thai state and nation.
The form and function of the fifty U.S. states offers an interesting
example. The formation of the original thirteen colonies
reflected varied political considerations of the British monarch
when granting colonial charters. As a result, the territories and
populations of the colonies varied significantly. In response, the
U.S. Constitution ensured some measure of equal representation
among the states by creating a senate with two senators per
state. The U.S. government also endeavored to create roughly
equal-sized states based on geometric ideals in its newer western
territories. The result is that eastern states feature irregular shapes
and greater variation in size compared with western states.
54
The United States also adopted a federal system of government,
meaning that sovereignty is shared between the central
government and member states. The U.S. Constitution,
for example, limits the power of the central government to
certain functions like diplomacy and defense, while states
retain sovereignty over other functions like education and law
enforcement. Many other countries have adopted federal systems
granting substate governments varying degrees of responsibility,
authority, and representation. In contrast to federalism, unitary
states feature the concentration of sovereignty in a single
governmental unit. In unitary states, substate entities merely enact
policies emanating from the central government, and these lower-
level jurisdictions have little or no authority to make independent
policy decisions.
57
religious regions, linguistic communities, and gay/lesbian areas.
Although lacking official sanction by the state and rarely found
on official maps, these borders are based on the same principles
of territoriality as international borders. They are designed to
distinguish spaces controlled by members of a specific social
group, symbolize the limiting of access to others, and compel
certain norms of behavior. The numerous “Chinatowns” across
North America, Asia, and Europe, for example, often feature
arched entranceways and bilingual signs that associate these
specific neighborhoods with a particular ethnic community. These
types of ethnic enclaves are common features of cities with large
immigrant populations and often show up on city maps and in
guidebooks such as “Little India” in Singapore or “Japantown” in
São Paulo.
58
Chapter 4
The practice of bordering
60
around the world and their constituents have sought greater
control over their external borders. In addition to enhanced
searches at airports, international travelers face stricter visa
requirements, document examinations, and immigration
procedures. Even the borders themselves are changing as new
walls, fences, and observation towers seem to emerge daily.
61
The prospect of “weak globalization” is more common among
geographers, other social scientists, and international lawyers.
These scholars emphasize the long-term variance and reversal in
border creation and control. Some borders continue to function
mainly as barriers, while other borders are being transformed
into permeable sites of interaction, exchange, and cooperation.
Harm de Blij’s The Power of Place (2009), for example, highlights
how standards of living for the vast majority of people correspond
closely to the level of development within their country of birth.
This approach recognizes the continuing capacity of borders to
shape contemporary economies, societies, and politics as both
barriers and bridges.
67
and the “inter-” or “trans-” state are seen as increasingly flexible
and interlinked. These process-orientated approaches to bordering
reveal the very idea of sovereignty as flexible and fluid, and once
again highlight the multifunctionality of borders as barriers,
bridges, and filters.
Contingent sovereignty
The notion of “contingent sovereignty” illustrates the evolving
nature of the nation-state system. Among border scholars,
contingent sovereignty refers to the idea that territorial sovereignty,
traditionally equated with the inviolable authority of the state, is
being challenged by numerous groups arguing that violations of
human rights or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
compel international action. For proponents of contingent
sovereignty, states in serious violation of global norms forfeit
their territorial sovereignty. The international community is then
Borders
Emerging borderlands
Conventionally depicted on maps as solid black lines, borders
convey the impression of finality and permanence. Yet significant
portions of the approximately 308 land boundaries separating
roughly 190 states remain undetermined. Vast new borderlands
emerge if air and water are also considered. Fresh thinking is
required as states and other actors negotiate sovereign control
over these new realms. About 160 maritime borders are currently
demarcated, but some 270 of these borders remain in question.
The fact that only one-third of potential water borders have been
firmly established reflects centuries of debate concerning the extent
to which states may claim exclusive sovereignty over the seas.
Borders
81
Chapter 5
Border crossers and border
crossings
85
Such social and legal distinctions between citizen and noncitizen,
immigrant and refugee, and voluntary and involuntary migrant
constitute geographic categories of belonging, between those
“in place” and those “out of place.” Borders play central roles
in institutionalizing these differences and their corresponding
geographic expressions. Yet, identities are never completely
contained by borders.
89
support from the Kurdish diaspora community and has trained
its combatants in camps in northern Iraq and Iran. The U.S.-
imposed no-fly-zone over northern Iraq inadvertently provided
sanctuary for PKK bases and developed into a major source of
tension. In response, Turkey refused to allow the United States
to use Turkish territory during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Turkey
has subsequently violated Iraqi airspace on several occasions to
interdict the PKK threat and even invaded Iraq for eight days in
February 2008. This example demonstrates the importance of
understanding contemporary “civil” conflicts within a broader
international context. Modern insurgent, revolutionary, and
secessionist movements are rarely fully domestic projects. Most
directly involve some type of cross-border activity, thereby blurring
the line between civil and international conflict.
97
late 1980s, foreign intervention in the early 1990s, indigenous
insurgencies bolstered by global ideologies of radical Islam during
the 2000s, Ethiopia’s invasion in 2006, and finally the appearance
of postmodern piracy on the high seas. Somalia retains its status
as a sovereign state, but the government is basically impotent.
Indeed, many categorize Somalia as a “failed state” whose territory
is actually controlled by various insurgent movements, clan militias,
or pirate groups. The notion of a failed state has practical and moral
implications for the role of borders as containers of sovereignty, when
the government is incapable of exercising that sovereignty. Coupled
with drought, grinding poverty, and food shortages, Somalia’s
borders seem more like a prison than expressions of state sovereignty.
100
Chapter 6
Cross-border institutions
and systems
121
some, globalization is creating a “flat world,” or a world of flows
and networks gradually replacing a bounded world of places.
Still others discount such dramatic predictions, instead arguing
that traditional nation-states will remain the dominant actors
domestically and internationally for the foreseeable future.
124
Further reading
Goldsmith, Jack, and Tim Wu. Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of
a Borderless World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Hastings, Donnan, and Thomas Wilson. Borders: Frontiers of Identity,
Nation and State. Oxford: Berg, 1999.
Houtum, Henk van, Olivier Kramsch, and Wolfgang Zierhofer, eds.
B/Ordering Space. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Kolers, Avery. Land, Conflict, and Justice: A Political Theory of
Territory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Kütting, Gabriela. The Global Political Economy of the Environment
and Tourism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Levitt, Peggy. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2001.
Mann, Michael. The Sources of Social Power: A History of Power from
the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Press, 1986.
Migdal, Joel, ed. Boundaries and Belonging: States and Societies in
the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Morris, Ian, and Walter Scheidel, eds. The Dynamics of Ancient
Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
126
Newman, David, ed. Boundaries, Territory, and Postmodernity.
London: Frank Cass, 1999.
Nicol, Heather, and Ian Townsend-Gault, eds. Holding the Line:
Borders in a Global World. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.
O’Leary, Brendan, Ian S. Lustick, and Thomas Callaghy, eds. Right-
sizing the State: The Politics of Moving Borders. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship
and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
Pécoud, Antoine, and Paul de Guchteneire, eds. Migration without
Borders: Essays on the Free Movement of People. New York:
Berghahn Books, 2009.
Popescu, Gabriel. Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-first Century:
Understanding Borders. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
2012.
Power, Daniel, and Naomi Standen, eds. Frontiers in Question:
Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1999.
Rajaram, Prem Kumar, and Carl Grundy-Warr, eds. Borderscapes:
Further reading
Hidden Geographies and Politics at Territory’s Edge. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2007.
Robertson, Craig. The Passport in America: The History of a
Document. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Sack, Robert. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Sadowski-Smith, Claudia. Border Fictions: Globalization, Empire,
and Writing at the Boundaries of the United States. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2008.
Salehyan, Idean. Rebels Without Borders: Transnational Insurgencies
in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.
Sassen, Saskia. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global
Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Spruyt, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis
of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1996.
Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian
Books/Collins, 2008.
Torpey, John. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship
and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Trigger, Bruce. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative
Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
127
Wastl-Walter, Doris, ed. Ashgate Research Companion to Border
Studies. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011.
Weaver, John. The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern
World, 1650–1900. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,
2003.
Winichakul, Thongchai. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a
Nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.
Borders
128
Websites
Borderbase
www.nicolette.dk/borderbase/index.php
Includes links to assorted news reports and pictures concerning
international borders.
129
This page intentionally left blank
Index
132
and state formation, 3, 10, 16, Gulf War, 89
37–45, 122 Gutians, 25
See also colonialism
European Union, 8, 11, 15, 16, 60,
62, 81, 84, 109–11
H
EUROPOL, 92 Hadrian’s Wall, 33–34, 99
exclave, 11, 71, 79 Haiti, 115
exclusive economic zones, 76–77 health, 83, 95–96, 101, 106, 114–16
extradition, 85, 93 disease, 65, 96, 111, 113, 115
Hobbes, Thomas, 10
F Holy Roman Empire. See Germany
human rights, 5, 63, 67, 68–69,
Falklands War, 89 83, 91, 92, 103, 104, 106, 111,
federalism, 55, 71–72. See also 112, 120
supranationalism violations of, 75, 117–19
feminism, 5, 106, 107, 120 Hungary, 44
Fertile Crescent, 21, 24 Huns, 26
feudalism, 38–40, 45, 123 hunter-gatherers, 19–21
Finland, 99 Hyksos, 26
Flanders, 110
France, 19, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 79,
87, 105, 108, 110
I
Index
and colonialism, 49, 52–53 identity, 5, 7, 12, 13–15, 17–18,
Friedman, Thomas, 10, 61 45, 55, 58, 67, 84, 86–88,
frontiers, 2–3, 6, 13, 23, 33–36, 41, 99, 102–3, 110, 122. See also
49, 70, 76–80 nationalism
Inca Empire, 32
India, 8, 21, 48, 52, 53–54, 73, 77,
G 81, 88, 119, 120
Gaddafi, Muammar, 69 indigenous groups, 10, 46, 48,
gambling, 72, 100 70–73, 115, 123, 124
gang territories, 3, 57 industry, 8, 13, 73–74, 111
gated communities, 3, 56–57 International Campaign to Ban
Gaza. See Palestine Landmines, 120
gender, 3, 105–7 International Civil Aviation
Georgia, 16, 72 Organization, 79
Geneva Convention, 75, 117 International Committee of the
Germany, 38, 39, 43, 65, 87, 118 Red Cross, 102
Global Positioning System, 80–81 International Criminal Court, 118–19
globalization, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 37, Internet, 17, 80, 90, 96–97, 101–5
58, 60–62, 73, 115, 121–22, 124 censorship of, 96, 102, 103–5
Great Britain. See United Kingdom INTERPOL, 92
Greece, 9, 25, 29–30, 31 investment, 17, 48, 73–74
Greenpeace, 102 Iran, 9, 19, 25, 89, 90
Guantanamo Bay, 74–75 Iran-Iraq War, 89
133
Iraq, 21, 89, 90, 94 media, 80, 101, 102, 120. See also
Israel, 7, 9, 56, 114 Internet
Italy, 39, 44, 71, 110 Mesopotamia, 24–25
Mexico, 3, 8, 33, 66, 94, 113
J microfinance, 106, 107
mobility/movement, 2, 4, 8, 13, 15,
Japan, 84, 118 23, 34, 35, 56, 59, 65, 83, 99,
Jordan, 114 113, 114, 115, 121
jurisdiction, 4, 7, 11, 38–39, 46, freedom of, 11, 66, 67, 84, 100, 109
52, 54–55, 72, 74–75, 83, 92, migration, 1, 17, 19, 61, 72, 83–84,
107–108, 114, 119, 124. See also 86–88, 112, 119
sovereignty circular/cyclical, 65, 86
illegal, 11, 64, 65, 83–84, 95, 110
K labor, 11, 57, 66, 67, 74, 83, 87,
88, 95
!Kung, 20–21 return, 65, 86–88
Kaliningrad, 79 minority groups, 16, 45, 56, 70, 71,
Karakalpaks, 71 105, 115
Kashmir, 53 monarchy, 13, 24, 32, 39, 40–43,
Kazaks, 26, 86, 87 45, 49, 108
kinship, 20, 21, 26 Mongolia, 26, 27, 28, 103
Kosovo, 16 Morocco, 9, 11, 84
Borders
134
neoliberalism, 15, 17, 67, 73, 111, 123 Portugal, 47
Neolithic Revolution, 21–22 property rights, 1, 2, 20, 70, 88,
neutral zones, 29–30, 31, 35 95–97, 117
nomads. See hunter-gatherers; prostitution, 95, 100
pastoralists
nongovernmental organizations, 5,
87, 102, 103, 106, 112, 116, 118,
R
119–20, 123 Reformation, 3, 41
North America, 20, 58, 94 refugees, 74, 82, 84, 85–86, 119
North American Free Trade regionalism, 108, 110
Agreement, 8, 60 religion, 3, 5, 6, 14, 16, 41, 53, 56,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 58, 72, 88, 91, 98, 102–3, 105,
62, 69, 89, 91 116–17
North Korea, 69, 93–94 in antiquity, 20, 21, 23–24,
Northern Ireland, 68 29–30, 32
Norway, 77, 99 divine right, 32, 40
Nubia, 23 freedom of, 85, 100, 105
Reporters Without Borders, 103
residential segregation, 56–57, 116
O Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Obama, Barack, 75, 77 Colombia, 94
Olmec, 23 rivers, 12, 22, 23, 30–31, 41–42, 72,
Index
Organization of Islamic 93, 111, 113–14
Cooperation, 62 Roman Empire, 25, 32, 33–34
Ottoman Empire, 44 Russia, 16, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84,
outer space, 79–81 87, 119, 120. See also Soviet
Outer Space Treaty, 80 Union
Rwanda, 69, 118
P
Pakistan, 8–9, 53, 88, 91
S
Palestine, 7, 9, 56, 114 San Marino, 71
Panama, 112 Sassanid Empire, 35
Paraguay, 99 satellites, 79–81, 102, 103, 106
passports/visas, 11, 61, 83, 84, 99, Saudi Arabia, 9, 57, 69, 75
109 Scotland, 45, 110
pastoralists, 25–28, 35–36, 103 self-determination, 16, 42, 45–46,
Persian Empire, 25, 32 54
Philippines, 78 Senusret III, 23
Philistines, 25 Serbia, 90
Phoenicians, 25 sexuality, 67, 100, 106, 114
Pinochet, Augusto, 75 Siam. See Thailand
Plato, 10 Sierra Leone, 118
Poland, 44, 45 Silk Road, 27
pollution, 8, 76, 109, 111, 112, 115 Smith, Adam, 10
135
smuggling. See crime
Somalia, 92, 97–98
T
South Africa, 112 Tajikistan, 114
South America, 47, 94 Taliban, 91, 106–7
South China Sea, 78 Tartars, 72
South Ossetia, 16, 72 Taylor, Charles, 75
South Sudan, 63 taxes, 22, 25, 32, 38, 40, 52, 74
sovereignty, 4, 7–8, 10–11, 14, 15, 16, technology, 5, 9, 10, 26, 60, 79–81, 86,
36, 45–46, 54–55, 59, 66–68, 99, 101, 105. See also Internet
83, 86, 92, 94, 97–98, 101, 102, territorial integrity, 44, 45, 53–54,
106, 108–9, 111, 114, 115–16, 62, 110, 117
121, 123 territorial trap, 14, 62
over air and space, 79–81 territoriality, 4–6, 7, 10, 12, 15,
in antiquity, 22, 23, 24, 36 16–17, 19–21, 23, 27, 28, 36,
and colonialism, 46–53 46, 57–58, 59, 63, 111, 122–23.
contingent, 68–69 See also sovereignty
and divine right monarchy, 32, terrorism, 8, 11, 15, 17, 60, 63, 64, 66,
40, 42–43 67, 72, 89–91, 93, 99, 103, 107
extraterritorial/detached, 6, 11, Thailand, 9, 49, 52, 85
74–77 Tibet, 16, 46, 72, 104
formation of, 37–41 Tordesillas, Treaty of, 47
and globalization, 11, 61–63 tourism, 11, 66, 72, 73, 83, 98–100
Borders
graduated, 73–74, 123 trade, 1, 8, 17, 26, 27, 31, 39, 48, 60,
and human rights, 117–18 73, 94–95, 108, 111, 113
indigenous, 70–73 transnational corporations, 5, 8,
maritime, 76–79, 93–94, 97–98 11, 60, 73–74, 77, 95–96, 102,
national, 42–46, 67 104–5, 123
Soviet Union, 15, 16, 45, 60, 63, transnational social fields, 86–88
64, 71–72, 80, 87. See also Truman, Harry, 76
Russia Tsimshian, 20
Spain, 9, 11, 16, 45, 47, 77, 84, 110 Tunisia, 75, 104
spatiality, 6–7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 123 Turkey, 44, 46, 89–90
special economic zones, 73 Turkmenistan, 114
speech, freedom of, 96, 100, 104
Sri Lanka, 20, 120
state system, 7, 36, 37–41, 43, 47,
U
53, 90, 119. See also Uighurs, 16, 72
nation-state Union of South American Nations,
Sudan, 68, 69, 90 111
Sumer, 22–24, 25, 28, unitary states, 55
supranationalism, 8, 15, 16, 67, 73, United Arab Emirates, 9
79, 108–11, 123 United Kingdom, 33, 37, 42, 45,
Sweden, 99 88, 89
Syria, 21, 69, 114 and colonialism, 48, 49, 52–53,
Scythians, 26 54, 88
136
United Nations, 45–46, 62, 68, 69, insurgency, 67, 89–90, 91,
85, 89, 108, 117, 118 94–95, 98
United Nations Convention on the West Bank. See Palestine
Law of the Sea, 76–77, 79 Westphalia, Peace of, 3, 10,
United States, 42, 54–55, 56, 68, 72, 41
74, 76–77, 84, 87, 92, 93, 96–97, Wilson, Woodrow, 44
99, 102, 108, 112, 113, 119, 120 World Health Organization,
border with Mexico, 3, 8, 66 116
military of, 69, 74–75, 79, 80–81, World Trade Organization,
89, 90–92, 97 108
Universal Declaration of Human World Wildlife Fund, 112
Rights, 117, 119 World War I, 14, 16, 44
Uzbekistan, 9, 11, 114 World War II, 14, 16, 45, 52–53,
75, 117, 118
V
Veddah, 20
Y
Venezuela, 77 Yemen, 92, 93
Vietnam, 77, 78 Yoruba, 28
Yugoslavia, 16, 45, 63, 118
W
Z
Index
war/conflict, 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 23–24,
29–30, 41, 44–46, 49, 52–53, Zambia, 99
62–62, 69, 70–71, 75, 88–92, Zaragoza, Treaty of, 47
97–98, 117–19 Zimbabwe, 99
137