Territorial Designs and International Politics

Inside-out and Outside-in

Boaz Atzili, Burak Kadercan, Boaz Atzili, Burak Kadercan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351262705
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Commerce Général

Territory is back with a vengeance. Although territorial politics never really went away, it was often perceived that way in public discussion and among scholars. The territorial conflicts of the last several years, however, have raised new academic and policy questions, revived old debates that were nearly forgotten, and forced us to rethink many of our common conceptions. Social scientists broadly agree that territory, as well as the boundaries that confine it and group identity that relates to it, are socially constructed rather than natural or primordial. But how and through which mechanisms is the meaning of territory constructed? By whom? For which purposes and by what tools? Which forces influence such "territorial designs"? How do different territorial designs affect state behavior in particular, and the dynamics of international politics in general? This book brings together political scientists and geographers—both disciplines in which scholars have long researched such questions—to create a mutually fertilizing dialogue, which will advance our understanding of territorial designs. The authors tackle core theoretical questions, institutions and ideas of territoriality, borders, space, place, and identity, as well as the methodologies used to study them. They utilize case studies as far apart as the Ottoman Empire, the colonization of Ireland, and current day Middle East; and they interrogate the characteristics of spaces as different as land, air, and water.

The chapters were originally published as a special issue of Territory, Politics, Governance.

INTRODUCTION

Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries

Boaz Atzili and Burak Kadercan

ABSTRACT

Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries. Territory, Politics, Governance. The debate about the role and direction of territory and territoriality – especially with respect to the politically and socially constructed nature of territory – has been evident within political geography and political science, as well as in other disciplines, for some time. Interdisciplinary interaction over the study of territory, however, has so far been less than impressive. Aiming to enhance our understanding of the place of territory in international relations, broadly defined, and to bridge disciplinary divides, this paper introduces the concept of ‘territorial designs’. Territorial designs pertain to the delineation of the external boundaries, to the constitution of the society within these boundaries, and to the interaction between delineation and constitution. It is a process by which elites, in interaction with their own society and their external environment, intentionally and systematically constitute and institutionalize territoriality, and hence also territory. Territorial designs framework, as the papers in this volume collectively highlight, sheds a light on four key areas: the strategic logic and interaction behind different territorial systems; the unintended consequences of such designs; the tensions between regional/local territorial arrangements and global ones; and the roles that technology and knowledge play in the emergence of different forms of territoriality.

RÉSUMÉ

L’esquisse territoriale et la politique: l’établissement divergent de l’espace et des frontières. Territory, Politics, Governance. Le débat au sujet du rôle et de l’orientation du territoire et de la territorialité – surtout par rapport au caractère du territoire qui est détermine sur le plan politique et au niveau social – est depuis longtemps évident au sein de la géographie et de la science politiques, ainsi que dans d’autres disciplines. Néanmoins, l’interaction interdisciplinaire sur l’étude du territoire est jusqu’ici loin d’être impressionnante. Dans le but de mieux comprendre la place du territoire dans les relations internationales, au sens large, et de colmater la brèche disciplinaire, ce présent article introduit la notion ‘d’esquisse territoriale’. L’esquisse territoriale se rapporte à la délimitation des frontières externes, à l’établissement de la société au sein de ces frontières, et à l’interaction entre la délimitation et l’établissement. C’est un processus par lequel les élites, en entrant en interaction avec leur propre société et leur milieu externe, établissent et institutionnalisent intentionnellement et systématiquement la territorialité, et donc également le territoire. Le cadre des esquisses territoriales, comme le soulignent collectivement les articles parus dans ce numéro, éclaircit quatre domaines prioritaires: la logique stratégique et l’interaction qui étayent divers systèmes territoriaux; les conséquences imprévues de telles esquisses; la tension entre les dispositions régionalo-locales et mondiales; et les rôles que jouent la technologie et la connaissance quant à l’émergence de différentes typologies de territorialité.

RESUMEN

Diseños territoriales y política internacional: la constitución divergente del espacio y las fronteras. Territory, Politics, Governance. Desde hace tiempo el debate sobre el papel y la dirección de territorio y territorialidad –especialmente con respecto a la naturaleza de territorio construida política y socialmente– es evidente en la geografía política y la ciencia política, así como en otras disciplines. Sin embargo, hasta ahora la interacción interdisciplinaria sobre el estudio de territorio no ha sido especialmente impresionante. Con el objetivo de comprender mejor el lugar de territorio definido ampliamente en las relaciones internacionales y superar las divisiones que existen entre las disciplinas, en este artículo introducimos el concepto de ‘diseños territoriales’. Los diseños territoriales pertenecen a la delineación de las fronteras externas, a la constitución de la sociedad en estas fronteras y a la interacción entre delineación y constitución. Es un proceso en el que las élites, en interacción con su propia sociedad y su entorno externo, constituyen e institucionalizan intencionada y sistemáticamente la territorialidad, y por tanto también el territorio. El marco de los diseños territoriales, tal como se destaca colectivamente en los artículos de este volumen, clarifica cuatro áreas clave: la lógica estratégica y la interacción detrás de los diferentes sistemas territoriales; las consecuencias no intencionadas de tales diseños; las tensiones entre los acuerdos territoriales regionales y locales, y los acuerdos internacionales; y los papeles que desempeñan la tecnología y el conocimiento en el surgimiento de diferentes formas de territorialidad.

Territory is back with a vengeance. Although territorial politics never really went away, it was often perceived that way in public discussion and among scholars (Sassen, 1996, 1998; Strange, 1998; Friedman, 2000, 2007). The territorial conflicts of the last several years, however, have raised new academic and policy questions, revived old debates that were nearly forgotten, and forced us to rethink many of our common conceptions. China’s creation of artificial territory in the South China Sea defies conventional understandings of territorial waters.¹ Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its exploits in eastern Ukraine challenge stable international norms of international boundaries. The ‘Islamic State’ conquests in Syria and Iraq, and its aspirations to re-establish an Islamic Caliphate require reconsideration of the territorial conception of the nation-state, and provocatively suggest an alternative. Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum, although unsuccessful this time around, suggests that even long-established strong nation-states such as the UK lack true guarantees of territorial integrity.

The debate about the role and direction of territory and territoriality has been evident within Political Geography and Political Science, as well as in other disciplines, for some time. The articles in this volume aim to enhance our understanding of the place of territory in international relations, broadly defined, and to bridge disciplinary divides, by introducing the concept of ‘territorial designs’. We start this introductory article with a broad discussion of the divergent conceptualizations of territory and territoriality in political science and political geography. We then define the concept of ‘territorial designs’, and explain the ways in which we believe it can address and advance debate on these issues. We propose a framework for understanding territorial designs as the constitution of both boundaries and the space within these boundaries. Lastly, we summarize the main focus and arguments of the articles in this volume.

The abundance and saliency of contemporary international territorial issues counter the expectations that many scholars espoused in the 1980s and 1990s. In his seminal work on the changing nature of international politics, Rosecrance (1986) famously declared that the so-called ‘territorial state’ that had been the key actor in world politics for three centuries was becoming an archaic entity for one simple reason: territory. The control of territory, Rosecrance argued, had been the territorial state’s key source of wealth and military power, but it was losing importance and relevance in the face of globalization, as the ‘trading’ (and, later, the ‘virtual’) state rose in its place. Rosecrance was not alone in his assertions about the fading relevance of territory in world politics. The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the rise of arguments about the ‘end of geography’ (Greig, 2002) and the coming of a ‘borderless world’ (Ohmae, 1999). Mary Kaldor noted that ‘new wars’ are typically not fought over territory (Kaldor, 1999). As the above examples highlight, however, territory remains not only relevant but also salient in world politics. This argument, though, does not necessarily contradict or undermine the network-based process of globalization and the impact of increasing flow of goods, services, and people across these borders (Agnew, 2009; Kahler & Walter, 2006). ‘In reality’, as David Newman suggests, ‘we have a world where the constant power and reconfiguration of fixed territories, through a system of ordering, takes place at one and the same time as the dynamics of cross-border flows and networks’ (Newman, 2010, 775).²

Until the end of the Cold War, with few notable exceptions, such as Herz (1957) and Kratochwil (1986), IR scholars paid little attention to territory, mostly taking it for granted. IR literature rediscovered territory as a subject of interest in the early-1990s. Spearheaded by the works of scholars such as Goertz and Diehl (1992), Vasquez (1993), Ruggie (1993), Huth (1996), and Starr (2005), empirical and theoretical inquiries into the relationship between territory and conflict have grown into a very robust research programme.

Two main reasons undergird the increased interest in this line of research in IR. First, both qualitative and quantitative research into the origins of interstate wars revealed that territory is the single most salient issue over which humans go to war (Goertz & Diehl, 1992; Vasquez, 1993; Vasquez & Henehan, 2001; Huth, 1996; Kahler & Walter, 2006; Holsti, 1991). Second, some territorial ‘issues’ are more readily ‘quantifiable’ and thus allow scholars inclined to use quantitative methods to more readily operationalize and include territorial indicators in their research models. These include issues that Newman (2006) referred to as ‘tangible’ features of territory, such as the size and location of political units, or their proximity and contiguity to one another. This makes it possible for scholars who lean towards quantitative methods to operationalize territory, broadly defined, in their research. While quantitative research on territory has made considerable contributions to our understanding of territory’s place in world politics, since it takes the ‘character’ of territory as rather constant (and/or homogeneously distributed), it remains insufficient for a full understanding. Quantitative research of territory in IR too often ignores the politically and socially constructed nature of territory.³ Yet, current territorial issues such as the China, Ukraine, and Scotland cases noted above reveal that the global territorial order is – and in fact has always been – remarkably heterogeneous.

Parallel to the increased volume of quantitative works about territory, the malleable socially and politically constructed nature of territories has also attracted interest from IR scholars who, while mostly constructivists, also adhere to positivism and hypothesis testing. The notion of ‘indivisible territory’, which is commonly accepted as a ‘variable’ that is affected by domestic, cultural, and strategic considerations, has been studied in depth by scholars such as Lustick (1993), Toft (2003), Hassner (2009), and Goddard (2010). Similarly, Shelef (2016) has explored the construction of notions of ‘homeland’ and how such constructions affect patterns of conflict between states, while Mylonas and Shelef (2014) have explained variation in territorial claims made by stateless nationalist movements. By contrast, scholars such as Zacher (2001), Fazal (2007), and Atzili (2012) emphasized the construction of the territorial order at the interstate level, pointing towards the impacts of the so-called territorial integrity (or border fixity) norm on patterns of interstate and intrastate conflict. Branch (2014) and Larkins (2010), in turn, explored the European and colonial history of territoriality.

Some IR works on territory deserve special attention for engaging with deeper conceptual questions of territory and territoriality. John Herz’s World Politics article on the origins and demise of the territorial state (1957) emphasized the interaction between ideational and material factors, such as the rise of nationalism and nuclear weapons, respectively, with respect to their influence on the relationship between states and the territories they control. Kratochwil (1986) suggests the contingent and changing nature of boundaries in world history. Ruggie’s (1993) interpretation of the evolution of territory and territoriality reflects IR debates about the nature of world politics, especially in the immediate post-Cold War era. As mentioned above, an extended debate arose in the 1990s between those who argued that both the territorial Westphalian state form and territory itself were losing their salience in world politics and others, most prominently realists, who argued that the so-called territorial state remained robust. In this context, Ruggie, following a dominant view in political geography, argued that, from a theoretical and historical perspective, the notions of territory and territoriality were not static. He then used this argument to discredit state-centric accounts in IR, suggesting that world politics was entering a post-territorial phase.

Ruggie’s argument ultimately also ascribes to a territorial/a-territorial dichotomy. Put simply, Ruggie’s framework assumes – roughly – three phases in world politics: a pre-territorial phase, the age of Westphalian territoriality, and the advent of a post-territorial and network-oriented political landscape.⁴ While most political geographers would adhere to Ruggie’s positio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries
• 2. Territory as an institution: spatial ideas, practices, and technologies
• 3. Methodological challenges in the study of stateless nationalist territorial claims
• 4. Admission to the sovereignty club: the past, present, and future of the international recognition regime
• 5. Territorial design and grand strategy in the ottoman empire
• 6. The territory of colonialism
• 7. Drone strikes, ephemeral sovereignty, and changing conceptions of territory
• 8. Between land and sea: spaces and conflict intensity
• Index