Liminality and the diplomacy of the British Overseas Territories: An assemblage approach

Abstract

This paper examines diplomatic processes that compose our geopolitical world as dynamic and yet also seemingly affirm the status quo. It turns attention to the entrepreneurial creativity of individual diplomats, the transformations occurring at threshold moments, spaces and practices, and the materiality of diplomacy that exceeds human agency.

Spaces of concern: Parliamentary discourse on Britain's overseas territories

“…The argument that non‐sovereign island jurisdictions often thrive from constitutional association with a metropolitan state is also contested, as Androus and Greymorning () argue that it fails to explore differences between indigenous and other populations in non‐sovereign islands and privileges economic development over other values. Scholars have also highlighted the tensions between metropolitan and local governments (e.g., Hintjens & Hodge, ) and noted the risks (and creative potential) pertaining to their liminal position in the international system (McConnell & Dittmer, ). Furthermore, the negative consequences, such as lost tax revenues and the erosion of democracy, of some offshoring activities have also been explored (Shaxson, ; Urry, ).…”

“…This is connected to increasing interest in spaces and places outside, or contingent to, the state (McConnell, ; Mountz, ; Urry, ), including offshore detention facilities, refugee camps, governments in exile, and non‐self‐governing territories (Berg & Kuusk, ; McConnell, ). McConnell (, p. 1904) summarises these as “contemporary geopolitical anomalies: non‐state entities, which in diverse ways challenge, disrupt or reconfigure the relationship between sovereignty and territory.” As liminal spaces (McConnell, ; McConnell & Dittmer, ), where sovereignty, as traditionally conceptualised, is either compromised within, or extended beyond, state boundaries, they subvert the Westphalian notion of state, sovereignty and territory as aligned, and allow for alternative understandings and configurations of the organisation of political community over space (McConnell, ). Sometimes “offshore,” they may also present governance challenges to states through erosion of national tax bases, evasion of regulations or lack of accountability (Urry, ).…”

“…reconfigure the relationship between sovereignty and territory." As liminal spaces (McConnell, 2017;McConnell & Dittmer, 2017), where sovereignty, as traditionally conceptualised, is either compromised within, or extended beyond, state boundaries, they subvert the Westphalian notion of state, sovereignty and territory as aligned, and allow for alternative understandings and configurations of the organisation of political community over space (McConnell, 2009). Sometimes "offshore," they may also present governance challenges to states through erosion of national tax bases, evasion of regulations or lack of accountability (Urry, 2014).…”

“…One category of "geopolitical anomaly" which has received increasing scholarly attention is the non-independent territories of former colonial powers (for example, Adler-Nissen & Gad, 2013;Clegg & Killingray, 2012;Clegg & Pantojas-García, 2009;McConnell & Dittmer, 2017;Ramos & Rivera, 2001). Not recognised as states by the United Nations, these entities problematise state-based conceptions of the international system.…”

Volcanoes on borders: a scientific and (geo)political challenge

“…Thus, while we consider border volcanoes most generally as those that are close to an international border for the purposes of our global survey, we also consider special cases in which there are vertical borders (between levels of governance in a colonial system or between a centralised institution and observatories, as in the French case). Colonial or remote governance is a particular case in which large geographical distances may be involved, but politics are proximal: decisions are made at great distance from their intensely local implications and that distance may be cultural and political as well as geographical (Bulkeley 2005;Delaney and Leitner 1997; Editorial responsibility: R. Cioni Marston et al 2005;McConnell and Dittmer 2018). We have therefore included a case study that allows us to draw some conclusions about such complex cases (referred to as Bexternally governed^) in which there is a degree of vertical governance (in this case, the UK governance of Montserrat, with input from the Montserratian government but in a hierarchical relationship).…”