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

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 territorialityespecially with respect to the politically and socially constructed nature of territoryhas 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.

Border Orientation in a Globalizing World

“…It is difficult to conceive of the territorial state without theorizing its borders as technologies to help legitimate its right to govern space. Territorial delineation, nation‐statehood, and the formation of the modern state system were largely co‐constitutive processes (Atzili and Kadercan 2017; Sahlins 1989). Indeed, territorial boundedness has become part of the definition of what it means to be a nation‐state.…”

Below the Belt? Territory and Development in China's International Rise

“…Moreover, much of the discussion of disaggregating the state rests on complexifying the Chinese state, whereas the relationality of projects and deals means elite‐based political settlements on the global South side are equally important (Hickey et al., 2015). While these elite actors ‘design’ territories to serve changing ideas and interests (Atzili and Kadercan, 2017), everyday interactions or subaltern resistance can circumvent these territorial designs (Wiig and Silver, 2019). Where much of this localized interaction takes place is around the porous boundaries of specific projects, which may appear enclaved but in practice are transgressed in numerous ways.…”

“…While the nation state has become the dominant mode of territory under modernity (Elden, 2013), it is by no means the only important form; moreover, other socio-spatial orders prevailed in pre-modern times. While International Relations theory deals with nation states as the territorial building blocks of the global system, it has done so relatively unreflexively and it has been human geographers that have problematized and theorized territory (Atzili and Kadercan, 2017).…”

“…In this way the Chinese state rationally ‘extends’ its reach in multiple ways. Recent framings of territory move us beyond this by focusing on ‘territorial systems’ that ‘emerge from the interaction of multiple actors with different capabilities, incentives, and design strategies, and at different levels of analysis, or scales’ (Atzili and Kadercan, 2017: 121). Additionally, I focus on the technologies of territory; those ‘material tools used to make territory real’ (Branch, 2017: 137).…”

Territoryincognita

“…The resulting impression is of a nation-state floating ‘in the air’ above its territory, with the latter either rendered abstract or vanquished altogether as a material reality. And certainly, the ‘ideational’ conceptualization continues to prevail as the dominant analytical lens in the humanities and social sciences, which conceives territory as principally ‘a political, social, and cultural construct’ (Atzili and Kadercan, 2017: 124). Even today in an era of rapid environmental change and ecological consciousness, the ‘physical components’ are acknowledged to be ‘a core feature of territory, [but] they are fairly straightforward’ (2017: 121).…”