Geopolitics, 10:606632, 2005 Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis, Inc. ISSN: 1465-0045 print DOI: 10.

1080/14650040500318415

Geopolitics Geopolitics, 0000-0000 1465-0045 Vol. 10, No. 04, September 2005: pp. 00 FGEO

THEORIZING BORDERS

Border Studies: Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

Vladimir Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches ChangingKolossov

VLADIMIR KOLOSSOV

Centre of Geopolitical Studies, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

The author considers the stages of development and the progress in theory of border studies from the early twentieth century to the present. He characterises the content of each stage, new ideas, the main achievements and practical applications. The essay is particularly focused on postmodern approaches that have emerged during the last 15 years.

INTRODUCTION
Border studies, also known as limology, have now been transformed into an interdisciplinary field developed in parallel by political scientists, sociologists, ethnologists, psychologists, anthropologists, lawyers, economists, physical geographers and even specialists in technical sciences. It is recognised that borders are a complicated social phenomenon related to the fundamental basis of the organisation of society and human psychology. The continuing differentiation of border studies is leading scholars to consider that it is time to create a theory overcoming narrow disciplinary confines, unifying various aspects of the world system of political and administrative boundaries, and explaining its evolution.1 Even common terminology and discourse raise a problem, because each discipline has its own objectives and priorities in border studies. Though a new interdisciplinary theory embracing all directions of border studies would be highly problematic to

Address correspondence to Vladimir Kolossov, Head of the Center of Geopolitical Studies, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetny per., 29, 119017, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: vladk@online.ru 606

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

607

formulate, this difficulty does not prevent the emergence of new theoretical frameworks or approaches that transcend the partitions between disciplines. Geography was probably the earliest discipline to study boundaries and borders. Problems of boundaries and their delimitation are fundamental to both of geographys main branches physical and human. It thus accumulated a rich theoretical heritage in the field of border studies. Geographers historically played a pioneering role in practical studies of political boundaries. The objective of this essay is to give an overview of contemporary theoretical approaches in border studies and their development, with an emphasis on new postmodern concepts that have appeared during the last 1015 years. The author will focus on the innovative elements of such new approaches and their contribution to the progress of border studies within the wider field of political geography. The history of humanity is the history of wars and most wars have had boundary change as at least one objective. La gographie, a sert dabord faire la guerre (Geography serves first to make war) this title of a wellknown book by French political geographer Yves Lacoste2 resounds with symbolism. To justify territorial claims and annexations, governments and politicians have usually needed a rationale. In addition, the redrawing of boundaries has always provoked a need in applied studies to delimit and demarcate borderlines. Geographers have been practically irreplaceable in carrying out this task. Nowadays, international organisations and governments still invite outstanding geographers to act as experts in questions of boundary delimitation. The so-called new political geography, renovated and more analytically rigorous than its predecessor, emerged in the mid-1970s3 and is closely related to other social sciences and, in particular, to political science and international relations.4 It is traditionally interested in an analysis of the influence of boundaries and their stability on international relations, as well as in the resolution of territorial disputes and conflicts, peacemaking and peacekeeping. In most cases, the leading experts on boundary issues are political scientists and specialists.

RICH TRADITIONS AND PREMISES FOR NEW APPROACHES

It is possible to distinguish several consecutive theoretical approaches in border studies (Table 1), which can be designated as traditional or postmodern. At each stage of their development, new approaches are applied together with, and not instead of, traditional, well-developed ones, which are not superseded and do not lose their value. Traditional approaches include historical mapping, typological, functional and political methods.5 The approach based on the historical mapping of the evolution of boundaries, their morphological features and an analysis of the human

TABLE 1 The Development of Border Studies, Stages 1-4 The content of a stage The main concept and achievements Allocation, delimitation and demarcation of post-war state borders in Europe; delimitation of colonial possessions in Africa and Asia Leading authors Practical applications

Stage/period

Dominant approaches and methods

1. Since the late nineteenth century

Historicalgeographical approach

Borders typology

608

J. Ancel (France); Representations on the Accumulation of I. Bowman (USA), evolution of borders empirical data, detailed R. Hartshorn (USA), and border areas in mapping of economic E. Banse (Germany) space and time; explaand social structures in nation of borders feaborder regions, numerous tures and morphology case studies by the balance of power between neighbouring states; rise and decline of theory of natural borders Numerous typologies and Concepts of border and Lord Curson, T. Holdich; C. Fawcett (all Great frontier; theories classifications of state Britain), S. Boggs explaining their evoluborders; study of relation and morphology (USA) tions between the barrier and the contact function of a border

2. Since the early 1950s

Functional approach

Studies of transboundary Models of transboundary J.R.V. Prescott; (Australia), J.W. House (Great flows of people, goods, interactions at differBritain), J. Minghi information, etc., and of ent spatial levels and (USA), M. Foucher mutual influence of bortypologies of trans(France), G.Blake ders and of different boundary flows; (Great Britain), elements of the natural understanding of O. Martinez (USA) and the social landborders as a multiscapes dimensional and highly dynamic social phenomenon; concepts of the border landscape and of the stages of border areas evolution

Geopolitical strategies, partition of the world into areas of major powers influence; overall application of the European concept of the border as a strictly fixed line Border negotiations, practice of border cooperation and management of social processes in border areas; delimitation and demarcation of new political borders (including sea borders)

3. Since the 1970s

Political science approaches

Studies of state borders role in international conflicts

4. Since the 1980s

A. World systems and territorial identities

B. Geopolitical approaches

609

Resolution of internaRelation between borders G. Goertz and P. Diehl, tional and border conT. Gurr, H.Starr, features and their role flicts, peace-making A.Kirby (all USA) and in the beginning, the and peace-keeping others. evolution and the resolution of border conflicts; borders are most often considered as a given reality Use of border problems A. Paasi (Finland); Border studies at different Modeling of relations and conflicts in nationbetween borders and D. Newman (Israel); inter-related levels and state-building; the hierarchy of territoJ. OLoughlin (USA); depending on the evoprinciples of border rial identities P. Taylor (Great lution of territorial idenpolicy and cooperaBritain);, T. Lunden tities and the role of a tion; creation and (Sweden); G. Waterburry border in the hierarchy strengthening of and J. Ackleson (Great of political borders as a euroregions and of Britain) and others whole other transboundary regions B1. Impact of globalization Representations about processes of de-terriand integration on torialisation and repolitical borders territorialisation (reditsribution of functions between borders of different levels and types) and about the evolution of the system of political and administrative borders Role of borders in securitiB2. Borders from the sation of countries and perspective of military, regions; separation of political etc. security traditional and postmodern representations about this role; studies of the influence of geopolitical culture on functions of borders in the field of security (Continued)

TABLE 1 (continued) The content of a stage The main concept and achievements Leading authors Practical applications

Stage/period

Dominant approaches and methods

C. Borders as social representations

610

Approaches to the study Borders as social of borders as an constructs and a mirror important element of of social relations in ethnic, national and past and present; borother territorial ders role as a social identities symbol and importance in political discourse Influence of border D. The practice Relations between the policy, practice and policyperception policy determining the perceptions on the approach transparency of a management of borborder, its perception der regions and border by people and the cooperation practice of activities related with this border Management of border H. van Houtum regions and border and O. Kramsch (The Netherlands); cooperation; regulation of international migraJ. Scott (Germany) tions and of other transboundary flows; regional policy E. Ecopolitical Relationships between Functions of natural and O. Young, G. White State of global and natural and political political borders as a (both USA); N. Kliot regional environmenborders integrated system and (Israel); S. Dalby tal problems;managemanagement of trans(Canada), S. Gorshkov ment of inetrnational boundary socio-enviand L. Korytny (Russia) river basins, etc. ronmental systems and many others

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

611

geography of border regions emerged from numerous case studies and applied researches related to boundary allocation, delimitation and demarcation that took place after the First World War. Its main achievements consist, first, of the combined study of borders in space and time, focusing on the formation and stability of the border-line. Second, we have the relations between the functions of the boundary and the political regime and foreignpolicy orientations of neighbouring states, which were analysed in depth for the first time. As the well-known French geographer Jacques Ancel noticed in 1938, ce nest pas le cadre qui importe, mais ce qui est encadr (it is not the frame which matters but what is framed).6 Thus, it was then shown that border studies have an interdisciplinary nature. Third, it was proved that a deep relationship exists between the regime, the functions and sometimes even the morphology of the boundary, and the balance of the economic, political and military might of neighbouring countries. A stronger state often imposed the line and the functions of the boundary upon its weaker neighbour. Fourth, it was extremely important that experts came to the conclusion that it was not possible to establish or reach natural boundaries matching physical limits like mountain ranges, or large rivers, nor to set boundaries perfectly coinciding with ethnic delimitations. Fifth, geographers demonstrated the possible political implications and use of careful studies and the mapping of border regions. Sixth, the concepts of frontier and border were defined. Countless typologies of political boundaries have had as long history as their mapping. Geographers and politicians have distinguished numerous types of boundary by their morphology, natural features, origin, history and age, historical circumstances of allocation and delimitation (for example, post-war, colonial, imposed, etc.), and functions. They have also tried to combine various characteristics of boundaries and their classifications have led to useful generalisations. These have contributed to a better understanding of, on the one hand, the impact of the physical and social characteritics of a region and the history and politics of neighbouring states on the boundarys allocation and delimitation and, on the other, of the boundarys influence on human life and the physical and social landscape. Knowledge gained from the historical mapping and typologies of boundaries was widely applied to the allocation and the delimitation of the colonial possessions of the European powers and of international boundaries after the First World War. The European concept of the boundary as a strictly defined line was imposed on regions in Asia and Africa that had never known it before. Several generations of researchers began to develop the functional approach, mainly in the period after the Second World War. Special attention was paid to the functions of boundaries and to the political and territorial factors that determine them. The works of John House, who suggested an operational and efficient model for the study of trans-boundary flows,7 brought this approach to maturity. Usually it accepts the allocation of a

612

Vladimir Kolossov

boundary as a given reality and focuses on its permeability for various purposes and on its impact on economy and society. The main practical application of the functional approach was cross-boundary cooperation and the management of social processes in border areas. The political approach to border studies was created mainly by political scientists.8 In recent times they have studied the relationships between the main paradigms of international relations and the functions of state boundaries. In the realistic paradigm, the states are perceived as the most important actors on the international scene, and boundaries between them are interpreted as strict dividing lines protecting state sovereignty and national security. According to liberal views, states are not the only and sometimes not even the major political actors, and the principal function of state boundaries is to connect neighbours and to enable various international interactions. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate territorial disputes and border conflict and to develop cross-boundary communications and infrastructure. Finally, the global paradigm pays special attention to international networks connecting all kinds of economic and political actors state and non-state. Due to the development of networks, state boundaries are being gradually transformed into virtual lines and are being replaced by economic, cultural and other boundaries.9 Despite the accumulation of abundant information and important theoretical publications,10 border studies have, until recently, suffered from a lack of theoretical reflection. Traditional approaches explained the phenomenon of state borders first of all by political factors, interpreting them as a mirror of the neighbouring states military, economic and political power. The essence of states, their policy and their hierarchical relations at the global and macro-regional levels were seldom taken into account. States were considered as given realities, or natural regions, acting as an integral entity. Such a view of space is typical of traditional positivist positions. From the positivist perspective, space is analysed as an independent object that influences social phenomena through a system of causal links. In practice, a countrys borders and internal administrative boundaries have always been considered separately, corresponding to a strict separation of studies on international and domestic policy. Over time, it became clear that boundaries cannot be studied merely at the national level and the situation in the border zone cannot be explained only in terms of a boundary between two countries. On the one hand, supranational organisations play a more significant role than earlier. On the other, economic globalisation and unification of cultures are awakening regional consciousness, which often contributes to the development of separatist or irredentist movements disputing the existing system of political boundaries. In total, despite rich historical traditions, traditional approaches became unable to explain why, in some cases, even a small change in the state territory and its boundaries provokes a deep emotional reaction in the society,

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

613

leading to territorial conflict, while in other cases, new boundaries are perceived by public opinion as definitive and are not disputed. Traditional approaches could not find an answer to why some border areas, which for a long time have seemed to be peaceful, can be rapidly transformed into the foci of conflicts and provoke bloodshed, or why governments and public opinion are often so painfully sensitive toward all questions concerning political boundaries. The appearance of postmodern concepts was a natural reaction to the methodological and analytical problems of the recent decades. The postmodern trend in limology emerged around the late 1980s. It was based on a great number of concepts proposed by political scientists, philosophers, sociologists, social psychologists etc., and is a manifestation of the increasingly interdisciplinary character of contemporary social science. As with the case of political geography as a whole, border studies were influenced, first, by the theory of world systems developed by I. Wallerstein, P. Taylor and others, and especially by the idea of the interdependence and the role of spatial scales. Second in importance for border studies were the ideas of the structuralist theory in the interpretation of A. Giddens proposing that societal and global structures leave a certain freedom of actions within a system to each of the economic and political agents. Third, border studies now widely use the notions of discourse and the social construction of space. as defined by the postmodernist theory of M. Foucault and his followers. The postmodern tendency in border studies can be divided into separate approaches listed in Table 1 although, of course, in a rather conventional manner. Most often, elements of different approaches are applied together, and the matter is only one of focus.

WORLD SYSTEMS, IDENTITY AND BORDERS

A synthesis of the world system theory and the theory of territorial identities was the most remarkable achievement of the studies of state borders during the 1990s. It is based, first, on a combined analysis of the role of a given boundary in the whole system of world boundaries at different territorial levels from global to local.11 Many geographical studies focused on the newest objective trends in economic development such as the deepening international division of labour and the improvement of transport and telecommunications. These processes were interpreted as the creation of global networks based on hierarchical relations of domination between centre and periphery.12 At the same time, theories of integration stressed the leading role of subjective factors in this process, like political will and political institutions.13 Economic internationalisation and the rapid growth of transboundary flows of people, information, goods, energy (and pollutants) is accompanied by an increase in the influence of transboundary actors, delegating to international

614

Vladimir Kolossov

organisations more and more important capacities in different fields. As a result, the functions of state boundaries change, and they become more permeable. State boundaries are losing a part of their barrier functions. It is considered a manifestation of the general crisis of the Westphalian system of nation-states14 that the state passes its functions to regional and international organisations. Therefore, the external boundaries of their members acquire a new role. Economic and political groupings of states are being created along the dividing lines between civilisations and cultural areas. Besides, neighbouring countries usually have natural common interests. No country can now be absolutely isolated from its neighbour. Even if bilateral relations between two neighbouring countries are very cold, there are almost always particular common interests either related to transit and communications, or to border rivers and/or the assessment of natural risks and the struggle against natural hazards. As there are now no walls hermetically separating one country from another, there almost always exist local interactions between people living along the boundary. Second, one of the cornerstones of contemporary border studies is the study of the emergence and the evolution of territorial identities. The importance of the boundary in the everyday life of people cannot be understood without an analysis of its role in social consciousness and the peoples selfidentification with territories at various levels (countries, regions, localities). This approach was backed by achievements of other social sciences, and especially in the works of F. Barth in the field of cultural anthropology and ethnology. The works of Ansi Paasi (1996), devoted to the boundary between Finland and Russia (the USSR),15 contributed greatly to the development of this approach in limology. They were based on the hypothesis that nationalism, according to a happy expression of D. Harvey, is a form of territorial ideology and the basis of state-building. Nationalism always supposes the struggle for territory or the defence of rights to it. Paasi showed that social representations16 in an indigenous population, together with its culture, state security, perceived or real external threats, historical myths and stereotypes, influenced the attitude of people and of the political elite to the concrete boundary. Paasis studies distinguish among three views on the relationships between state and nation, which, in their turn, determine the view on the evolution of boundaries. All three relate the activity of the state to selfidentification of its people with it. Primordialists consider the state as a place where one of the principal human rights is realised the right of ethnic groups to self-determination, as well as being a means to achieve this objective. The primordial view is, in fact, at the basis of the concept of the nation-state. In such a state, the morphology and the functions of boundaries depend on the loyalty of citizens in other words, on the ethnic and political identity of the population on both sides of the boundary, because most countries of the world are multiethnic, and few ethnic groups have their own individual statehood.

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

615

According to the structuralist theory, in the interpretation of A. Giddens, the state is a container of power. Under the conditions of globalisation, it tries to widen its influence in order to control external factors relevant to its activity. These actions require legitimisation by citizens and the strengthening of their political identity. But no state can control powerful global factors; even the largest states are forced to respect international law, at least to some degree, and thus to relinquish some part of their sovereignty.17 Neoliberals also stress that the boundaries of any state are too limited to cope with global economic, environmental and other problems. Therefore, no state can reach or maintain a satisfactory level of its citizens well-being in isolation. Moreover, global and macro-regional challenges (depressions in world markets, environmental disasters, etc.), force many countries to use non-democratic methods of governance. This situation decreases the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of its citizens and accelerates the erosion of its political identity, especially in border regions.18 For instance, in the Sahel countries, droughts, desertification and famine often aggravate the social situation and generate waves of refugees crossing their boundaries. As most African countries are multi-ethnic, cross-boundary flows of environmental refugees complicate the relationships among different national and regional groups of population and between neighbouring countries. Natural and social disasters provoke among populations living in peripheral regions a discontent with central government, undermine a weak common (political) identity, and contribute to the creation of guerrilla movements. In their turn, guerrilla and political instability push the governments to attempt to re-establish their control over the periphery by military, non-democratic means, which destabilise the situation in border areas even more . This vicious circle had already been described many years ago by specialists in global environmental problems and African countries.19 So, the problem of identity is closely related to an analysis of the functions of the state defined as a political-territorial unit with strictly delimited boundaries recognised by the international community, and within which the population has a specific political identity. It is shaped, as a rule, by the state itself and by the nationalist political elite. Territorial boundaries are one of the major elements of ethnic and political identity. The result is a simple political formula: if there is no stable political identity, there are no stable boundaries, territory, no stable state, or political unit in general. For example, most post-Soviet states are multi-ethnic. Moreover, the identity of their titular peoples has a strong regional component and varies widely. Therefore, new independent states have, first, to try to cement their titular ethnic groups into single political nations and, second, to forge a new political identity common to the whole population. However, this identity cannot depend on the ethnic background and/or the region. Several countries have still failed to solve this problem. Important ethnic, cultural or

616

Vladimir Kolossov

regional strata of their populations do not share officially proclaimed values, symbols and representations about the origin of the country and its historical mission, its boundaries and place in the world, natural allies or threats to national security, etc. This dichotomy has provoked the de facto secession of a part of their territory and the creation of self-proclaimed republics such as the Transniestrian Moldovan Republic in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaidjan. The regime of their boundaries does not match their official status according to international law. Selfproclaimed states and territories that for decades have not been controlled by central governments exist in many regions of the world (a large part of Afghanistan, of Columbia, the Turcic Republic of Northern Cyprus, etc.) and have become an intrinsic element of the geopolitical world order.20 Therefore, political boundaries are now more often created first in social representations and only then are they delimited on the map. The world-system theory is based on a classical geographical triad centresemi-periphery periphery. In limology, this concept means, first, a need to study boundaries at three territorial levels the global, the national and the local. Second, it means that the notions of centre and periphery are relative. For instance, the German territory of Brandenburg is a part of the world centre. However, at the same time it is a periphery of Germany, because its GDP per capita is considerably below the national average and because it is situated far from the most developed regions of Germany and Western Europe. Later, these three levels were complemented with two more layers the macro-regional and regional layers.21 A good example of a macro-regional identity is the self-identification of millions of people in the post-Soviet space as Soviet. Hierarchical multiple identities are peculiar to many areas of the post-Soviet space. During Soviet times, the ethnic heterogeneity in many republics and regions was so high that the share of mixed marriages reached more than 20 per cent and in a number of large cities, even more than 30 per cent. Not surprisingly, the role of the territorial factor was clearly salient, as the content of the ethnic cocktail varied strongly between towns and the countryside, urbanised and rural areas, transitive cultural zones, and internal areas with a more homogeneous population. Specific regional territorial identities developed according to local conditions.22 A remarkable example is the activity of EU countries aimed at the creation or the strengthening of a common European political identity, though it is still relatively weak, and its content varies from country to country. Integration in Europe and in other parts of the world may lead to the strengthening of macro-regional (supra-national) identity and, respectively, to the weakening of the barrier functions of their external boundaries. However, national identity is exposed to erosion not only from above but especially from below from inside.23 The concept of nation-state, elaborated in the specific conditions of Western Europe in the nineteenth century,

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

617

meant the creation of a homogeneous nation united by a common language and culture, economic ties and a legal system, and acting within strictly defined and safe borders. This approach cannot be applied to most states of the world whose population is culturally very diverse. Often, national identity fails to match ethnic/regional identities. In many countries, especially in Africa and Asia, national identity is rather weak. As a rule, a state with a weak national identity cannot well defend its land and sea boundaries, or even fully control its territory. The attempts to strengthen national-identity in multi-ethnic states were hindered by new tendencies in economic and cultural development, such as, for instance, in the former Yugoslavia, in Czechoslovakia and the USSR, where ethnic/regional identities became stronger than political ones. National identity can be dramatically weakened even in highly developed and prosperous countries like Canada, Belgium and Spain. But in Europe, potential separatists cannot escape the common external boundaries of the EU, because the membership in this organisation became a necessary condition for the normal functioning of the economy of West- and Central European countries and because of their geographical location. Another achievement of the world-system approach in limology was a deeper understanding of the role of the local level. Many scholars proved that local territorial communities are not merely subservient to the influence of central authorities but have themselves a considerable impact on the real regime, the formation of identity, and on the character and the perception of the boundaries in neighbouring countries. A particular border identity, based on common interests and culture, is often created in local territorial communities. Sometimes it is transboundary, especially if the populations of a border area have similar languages and culture. For example, American historian P. Sahlins showed that the population of Cerdania valley in Catalonia, divided by the boundary between France and Spain, has for a long time inventively manipulated its citizenship in its own interests, considering itself neither French nor Spanish. Thus, during the First World War, Cerdanian men became Spanish to avoid mobilisation. Identity was based on self-identification with the local community, which successfully opposed itself to all others (wethey). Inhabitants of the valley played on differences between two notions of sovereignty legal and territorial.24 The concept of internationalist culture being shaped among populations of border areas that profit from transboundary contacts was worked out by the American scholar Oscar Martinez on the basis of long studies of the USMexico border. This culture is characterised by increased mobility and receptiveness to innovation. The inhabitants clearly understand what their interests are and are able to exist without conflict in several cultural worlds those of their nation-state and ethnic group, foreign cultures and the specific culture of the border area.25

618

Vladimir Kolossov

As the hierarchy of human identities is related to territory and boundaries, one of the main problems faced by social scientists, including border scholars, is the obvious contradiction between the intrinsic right of peoples to self-determination with another key principle of international law the territorial integrity of sovereign states and inviolability of their boundaries. Nationalist movements remain a powerful force in many regions of the world. These important factors provoke strong doubts about the reality of the neoliberal scenario of the evolution of the world system of boundaries. According to this scenario, excesses of nationalism and of the inherent right of peoples to self-determination will be overcome by democratisation in depth and in large (the territorial diffusion of democracy to new countries).26 The rapid development of cross-boundary cooperation in most regions of the world utilising similar models also inspires optimism.27 Clearly, it is hardly possible to make the world borderless. The discourse about a borderless world concerns only peaceful, integrational, open and internationally recognised boundaries, which can be found mostly in Europe and North America. They make up no more than about five per cent of the total length of the land borders of states. The political boundary remains a considerable barrier, even in the regions where processes of integration are especially advanced. So, despite the high dependence of the Canadian economy on the United States, the total trade of an average Canadian province with other Canadian regions, weighted by size of population and per capita income, is 12 times larger than with neighbouring American states, while the exchange of services is 40 times greater. Migrations between Canadian provinces, weighted in the same way, are 100 times more intensive than with American states across the boundary.28 The same picture can be observed in the EU.29

GEOPOLITICAL APPROACHES The Impact of Globalisation and Integration on Political Boundaries

Postmodern concepts have allowed the gap in the study of international and domestic policy, boundaries between states and other boundaries to be overcome. Indeed, a state boundary or a municipal boundary is designed to separate the space controlled by members of a social group or a territorial community and to limit the rights to this territory of those who do not belong to the group. Re-phrasing an expression of Benedict Anderson, it is possible to say that any boundary looks outwards to reunite a social group, and inwards to separate it and its territory from neighbours. The problem is in redistribution of functions between boundaries of different types and levels under the impact of globalisation and integration, which are often called de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation.

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

619

Under new conditions and because of the growing mixing of different ethnic and other groups, identity is being deeply modified. More people have complicated identities, associating themselves with two or several ethnocultural groups. Cultural, linguistic, religious and socio-professional identities, which are not always clearly related to a territory, are being strengthened. Again, this process leads to a relative weakening of national (political) identity, because people often associate themselves with the concrete place where they live a settlement, a municipality or a region, and want to erect an administrative fence separating themselves from others (migrants, the poor, people of another persuasion or ethnicity, etc.). The increasing individualism acts in the same way. People do not want to deal with the problems of others. This attitude reinforces their alienation from large administrative and political units. The elite and now the middle class wish to live in isolated, socially homogenous communities, which can be strictly controlled (e.g., gated communities). To become a member of a prestigious small neighbourhood in a suburb is often more difficult than to obtain citizenship in a West European country or the United States. Some almost invisible and unofficial boundaries between neighbourhoods represent social barriers that are extremely difficult to overcome. Moreover, the identity of social groups living on the opposite sides of such boundaries is based on their separation from each other and control over their respective territories.30 In the mass consciousness, the perception of external threat gives rise to the aspiration to minimise or to cease all contacts with an undesirable or dangerous neighbour. If it is impossible to get rid of him, to subordinate, control, or resettle him, the best solution will be to build a fence as a protection against him. This was the strategy of states that built Great Walls the Chinese, the Romans, who built Hadrians Wall separating England and Scotland, the Berlin Wall and nowadays, Israel (between Israel and the Palestinians). The survey we conducted in 2001 in the Stavropol territory (Russia) showed that the population of its eastern districts neighbouring Chechnia saw the solution of the Chechenian problem in the same way: separating us from them.31 But in the main, great walls only aggravate conflicts. Isolation gives rise to ignorance, ignorance to fear and mistrust, and such perception of the neighbour becomes the strongest obstacle for reconciliation and a real and long-term resolution of a conflict. Therefore, political, administrative and cultural boundaries make up a single, integral and hierarchically organised social system.32 Bounding of different social and political communities of different hierarchical levels should be conceptualised as a single process.33 Elements of this system are very stable, despite frequent changes of borders. The French philosopher O. Marcard called political boundaries scars of history. Indeed, boundaries which existed in the remote past can usually be easily found in the cultural and political landscape, and sometimes even remain quite visible in the

620

Vladimir Kolossov

physical landscape. For instance, the small river of Zbruch served for many decades as a boundary between the Russian and the Austro-Hungarian empires. In the Soviet period, when the western regions of the Ukraine were joined to the USSR, it became an administrative boundary separating the Ternopol region and the Khmelnitsky regions. However, it has never been a simple administrative boundary, but a cultural divide between historical regions of Ukraine Podol and Galicia, clearly seen, for example, on electoral maps. It is enough to cross the Zbruch, and the cultural landscape changes dramatically: on the Galician side, one can see numerous chapels and crosses near the roads, temples belonging to Catholic and Greco-Catholic churches. Rural settlements most often look like small Central European towns and consist of two-story buildings sharing a wall. Such small towns were settled before the Second World War, but had a predominantly Polish and Jewish population. They are very different from traditional one-story white Ukrainian houses, built from clay mixed with manure and straw, and situated behind small front gardens and having vast kitchen-gardens. Naturally, cultural boundaries delimiting an area with a similar identity do not always match formal (de jure) borders. Cultural (de facto) boundaries have, first of all, external functions of contact between cultural areas, while de jure borders assume mainly internal functions, contributing to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the state, as well as to the social and ethnocultural integration of its population. Former state borders sometimes become administrative and/or cultural boundaries, and vice versa. New political boundaries at all hierarchical levels almost never emerge from zero and only seldom cross old boundaries. Most often, cultural boundaries are transformed into formal (de jure) borders. In their turn, former formal borders can, under certain historical circumstances, get their official status fully or partly back, becoming again the borders of the state or province.34 Some state borders coincide with ethnic, cultural and linguistic limits and have strong barrier functions. They can be termed frontal. Postmodern geopolitical approaches show an inconsistency in the interpretation of such borders as cleavages between the largest geocultural areas/civilisations.35 This situation leads to absolutisation and perpetuation of historically transient cultural and political limits as seemingly natural impermeable divides, predetermining foreign policy, separation and hostility between large military/political blocs and to the return to old geopolitics of force in the style of the 1920s1930s.

The Approach to Borders from the Perspective of Security

Self-identification of peoples with a determined territory has endowed its different parts with a highly symbolic meaning. They become a part of national and ethnic identity. Sebastopol in Russia and Kosovo in Serbia, as

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

621

well as capitals of many countries, are such symbolic territories. As boundaries clearly divide neighbouring regions and are designed to be the barrier separating inhabitants of the given territory from others, mass representations about them are of contrast (eitheror). This was especially characteristic of totalitarian regimes. In the Stalin epoch, the outside world was pictured as a continuous territory of darkness, from whence originated the threat of war and of enslavement by imperialist countries. This representation was the reason for sanctification of the borders separating the socialist Motherland from the hostile environment (sacred limits of the Motherland).36 Concepts about boundaries are closely related to the notion of national security and the use of force by the state apparatus to ensure it. Border areas are considered the natural location for border guards and customs services, of a high concentration of military units, especially facing directions from which danger threatens in the eyes of public opinion. Security is a complicated notion, incorporating military, economic, political, environmental security aspects, and so on. In the most general sense, security is understood as the safety of life-support systems and the absence of threats to the life of the people and their activities. From the perspective of border studies, it is important to identify who is responsible for security and what is its subject a macro-region, the state, or one or more of its parts. The perception of security of a concrete boundary depends on its symbolic role, historical traditions, image and contemporary discourse. For instance, in Finland, despite past conflicts, social representations about the boundary with Sweden are rather positive, while the boundary with Russia is viewed as a source of illegal migrants, criminality, pollutants and other threats.37 To take another case, mutual perceptions of security are a considerable obstacle for cross-boundary cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan. In Russia, there is a tendency to consider the boundary with Kazakhstan as a source of such major threats to national and regional security, such as the traffic in drugs, Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism, illegal immigration from Afghanistan and all of Central Asia, etc. In Kazakhstan, fears of support for possible Russian irredentism in regions to the north of the Russian territory are shared by a large part of the political elite and the titular population.38 The traditional understanding of the role of state boundaries in national security is based, first, on the prevention of military threat. Thus, as noted above, border areas become militarised zones with a special regime, where the highest priority is the fighting efficiency of military units ready to repulse the aggression of a potential enemy. Second, the traditional securitisation of a border zone means the largest possible control over any transboundary flows. Karl Deutsch introduced the notion of security communities into the debate and considered the density of transactions as an indicator of an integration process leading to identity transformation,39 which can be interpreted as a threat. From this perspective,

622

Vladimir Kolossov

a boundary is understood as a front line destined to stop the penetration in depth of the state territory by undesirable individuals, goods, information, etc. The control of transboundary flows is easier if there are fewer inhabitants in the border zone and if economic activity there is weaker. Therefore, these zones sometimes became economically backward, not only because of their location at the periphery of their countries and of the structural disproportions it provokes, but because of deliberate limitations on investment in certain branches and of attempts to subordinate all social life to military needs. Third, one of the features of the traditional approach to the security of state boundaries is an attempt by state institutions to foresee and forestall any possible problems. Fourth, the concept of the border as security fence is based on securitisation of the state in general, which is supposed to be a major task of the state. It is also supposed that the security interests of border regions are similar to those of the state as a whole. Geoeconomy is subordinated to geopoltics. On the one hand, political leaders, who can initiate a political discourse, can transform a regional or local problem specific to a border area into a geopolitical problem and a threat to national security. For instance, they may interpret foreign private investments there as an attempt to stimulate a secessionist movement, to colonise new lands abroad, etc. Therefore, they create difficulties in solving the particular problem at the proper level and in context. On the other hand, they are tempted to explain social and economic problems by blaming an inadequate boundary regime (too permeable or, on the contrary, too rigid). For example, it is easier to explain a crisis in the textile industry of a border region by the inflow of cheap produce across a too open boundary, rather than by poor competitive ability or the lack of investment. In postmodern studies, the functions of borders are seen in a different way. It is stressed that the whole state territory is involved in intensive economic exchanges with other countries. Following this approach, border regions can become locomotives for economic growth and centres of innovation. Transboundary systems are being shaped: urban agglomerations, industrial plants, etc. Demographic and social conditions in such regions lead to an increase in the number of inter-ethnic marriages and the change of the ethnic structure of the population and its identity. Mutual trust deepens, negative secular stereotypes in the perception of the neighbouring country and its people, as, for example, at the border between France and Germany, begin to disappear. Under these conditions, postmodern theorists believe it worthwhile to simplify or abolish traditional boundary controls and to use modern technology as a means of remote control. For instance, the presence of drugs or the smuggling of other illicit cargo may be tested for, without even stopping a vehicle. The objective is to find a delicate balance among the needs of border security, the development of cross-boundary

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

623

cooperation, and the interests of the central governments and border regions. The perception of threats to national and regional security is also changing. It is based, first, on the assumption that it is impossible to cope with new challenges solely by the use of military, police, or paramilitary forces. Even the most powerful armies of the world cannot adequately counteract illegal migration, international terrorism, the traffic in drugs and weapons, the risk of epidemics, transboundary pollution, or global environmental disaster. Second, many experts are now convinced that attempts to keep growing transboundary flows under control by the same old methods, as in strengthening the barrier functions of boundaries, are not only inefficient but objectively harmful to society and the economy. On the contrary, only close cooperation with neighbouring states, based on mutual trust, demilitarisation of border areas and open boundaries (desecuritisation), can bring positive results. Third, according to the postmodern approach to boundary security, governments should contribute to the development of cross-boundary cooperation at the level of local authorities. The central power can no longer ignore the specific interests of border areas or create obstacles to their cooperation. Therefore, the notion of security acquires a considerable regional dimension.40 Fourth, a systematic approach to the defence of boundaries is being worked out. This approach requires national security to be defended throughout the territory of the country, and not only at its borders. The struggle against illegal immigration and drug trafficking cannot be reduced to defensive measures at the border. International experience shows that, at best, a mere 510 per cent of the traffic in drugs can be captured at the border, and almost all of it passes through official crossing points.41 Therefore, it is necessary to fight the sources of this traffic international criminal organisations. The fight also requires openness the transparency of information on transboundary flows, the possibility of their international scrutiny and remote control by the use of modern technologies.42 Therefore, the concept of border space43 now embraces not only the area along the boundary, but internal regions. The development of transport, international trade and communications creates boundaries deep within the state territory, for instance, around international airports, and special customs or free economic zones. The state boundary is now not merely the line marking the limits of the state territory and territorial waters. Contemporary boundaries are thus becoming more differentiated: their permeability is not the same for various flows, types or subjects of activity. The state establishes different limits for them, often following different lines. As a result, various social groups and kinds of activity received their own boundaries and border zones. For the economic elite or members of international

624

Vladimir Kolossov

criminal and terrorist groupings, the strictest visa and boundary regime is hardly a serious obstacle for penetrating and even living in any state they like. For large enterprises and especially for transnational companies, customs formalities and taxes rarely play a significant role, while for small and medium enterprises located in border areas, they become a serious obstacle stimulating them to re-orient their activity to the domestic or local market. It should be noted here that political boundaries in the worlds oceans also make up a complicated system including territorial waters and economic zones. In total, the world system of boundaries has evolved from single lines to multiple limits and from physical, strictly demarcated lines to cultural borders from high barriers to lines of interaction. Fifth, boundary security is now a matter not only of the state. It must take into account the interests of local and international organisations and actors. Sixth, a new view of boundary security involves not just an attempt to foresee or forestall all eventual situations (an impossibility), but the readiness to react to any challenge promptly and in an appropriate and flexible way. Naturally, it is difficult to follow postmodern recommendations in real life. They are obstructed by the inertia of traditional views, geopolitical culture44 and imperatives of nation- and state-building, which need the strengthening of the symbolical role of boundaries, the character of border space and other factors.

BOUNDARIES AS SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS

As it has been already noted, the functions of boundaries and sometimes their very delineation are determined by the formation of discourse and mass representations, which have become in recent years an autonomous subject of border studies.45 The discursive nature of boundaries is especially important when they are disputed and provoke international conflict. Often political discourse perpetuating negative stereotypes causes the lack of communication between the sides involved in such a conflict. Discourse about borders has several different layers that never completely fit. In the theory of critical geopolitics worked out by G. Toal46 and other authors, they distinguish high and low geopolitics. The former is a field of politicians and experts creating the concepts that they need in order to ground and justify the actions of the state at the international level. High geopolitics is subdivided into the theoretical and the practical and deals first of all with studies of strategic, general questions (the world order, the structure of international relations, etc.). Its discourse concerns the place of the country in the world, the system of international boundaries and especially frontal boundaries. Low geopolitics is a set of geopolitical concepts,

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

625

symbols and images in the media, advertising, cinema, cartoons, etc. It is one basis of the world geopolitical vision a necessary element of ethnic and political identity, and a tool of state-building. This world geopolitical vision consists of representations of the relationship between different elements of political space, national security and threats to it, advantages and shortcomings of a certain strategy in foreign relations, and so on. The world geopolitical vision also includes representations about the territory of the ethnic group or political nation, its boundaries, preferable models of the state, historical mission and forces preventing its realisation.47 This vision is a product of national history and culture, a synthesis of views professed by different strata of the political elite, academic experts, the creative intelligentsia and public opinion as a whole.48 To legitimate its activity, the government needs high and low geopolitics to match, to the largest possible extent. Geopolitical discourse is formed by both politicians and media, and by the system of education and mass culture. The functions and importance of boundaries in the life of the state and society are a subject of discussion and compromise, the role of boundaries being differently interpreted by various social groups. Social representations about boundaries constitute an element of ethnic and political identity. For example, for the post-Communist governments of Central and East-Europe, it was important to represent their boundaries as limits between the West and the East; first, at the global level, as boundaries of Europe; next, at the macro-regional level, as the historical, native boundaries of their ethnic groups; and finally, by way of contrast, at the local level,49 the result of wise though painful compromises in the name of international stability. An analysis of geopolitical discourse also helps to identify the limits of the so-called informal regions existing in representations by political leaders and public opinion (for instance, Northern Europe, Central Europe, the Muslim World, etc.).50

THE POLICYPRACTICEPERCEPTION (PPP) APPROACH

The PPP approach appeared only recently and represents an attempt to synthesise the latest theoretical achievements with traditional approaches that have not lost their practical value in particular, the functional approach. From this perspective, the boundary is not simply a legal institution designed to ensure the integrity of state territory, but a product of social practice (in the terms of H. Lefebvre), the result of a long historical and geopolitical development, and an important symbolical marker of ethnic and political identity. This approach integrates analyses at different spatial levels, first, of the practice related to transboundary flows and developed under the influence

626

Vladimir Kolossov

of the border. The focus is on informal transboundary networks in business, local authorities, NGOs, etc. The scale, form and objectives of this activity depend on the understanding, by the state, supra-national and regional actors, of national security and of the role played by the given boundary. Border activity is determined by the boundary regime, which, in its turn, has an influence on it. Second, border policy is considered at different levels, such as the state, international, institutional and legal infrastructures ensuring transboundary flows and determining the relationship between the barrier and contact functions of the boundary in other words, the degree of its permeability. This infrastructure is usually a mirror of the strategies of the state, the border regions and local authorities and includes the tools designed to stimulate and to limit border activities, and to regulate processes of external (transboundary) and internal territorial integration. Third, PPP researchers study the perception of the boundary, i.e., the character, the evolution and the channels of influence of social representations on the boundary/border regions, on relations between neighbouring states and regions, cross-boundary cooperation and high and low geopolitical discourse.51 Border activities and the perception of the boundary and border institutional and legal infrastructures are thus seen as interdependent: the primacy of any of these three elements of the analysis is a chicken or egg question. The theory of human behaviour in border areas is close to the PPPapproach.52 It is also related to the functional theory of John House53 and to postmodern approaches. According to this theory, the boundary limits the freedom of peoples movements according to rationale and conditions. As a result, the area of human life cycles also changes. In the ideal case, it has the shape of concentric circles reflecting the weakening of an individuals contacts as the distance from his home increases. The shape and size of this area also depends on sex, age, education, socio-professional status, the development of transport, political and legal factors, etc. In border areas, under the influence of the boundarys barrier functions, this area appears to be quite different from its perception in centre of the state territory. The impact of the boundary depends strongly on the level of education. Intellectuals, or white collar workers (teachers, journalists, professionals, functionaries, etc.) are closer related to jobs in the state apparatus and depend on public authorities. The pattern of their life cycle changes more under the influence of a political boundary, as compared to less educated people. External factors include socio-economic conditions (economic development, prices in the markets of labour, goods and capital, the state of transportation, the diffusion of media, etc.), as well as administrative and legal restrictions. Territorial restrictions, mental maps and values of people shared by an individual and by his socio-territorial group as a whole, can be classified

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

627

as internal factors. An important place among them is held by ethnic and national identity, i.e., the self-association of people with interests of their ethnic group, citizens of their state and inhabitants of their region or neighbourhood.

ECOPOLITICAL APPROACH
It is well known that natural processes do not recognise socio-political boundaries. Mountains, river basins, areas of birds or fish, monuments of nature, internal seas and other natural regions are very often divided by political and administrative boundaries. Mineral deposits are also often shared by two or several political units. At the same time, integrated natural regions create paths for the diffusion of pollutants in air and water. The awareness of global and regional environmental problems strongly stimulates international cooperation, including cross-boundary cooperation.54 There is a powerful branch of social science studying transboundary environmental/political problems, which is being developed mainly by political scientists, specialists in international relations and physical geographers (only few names from a long possible list are quoted in Table 1). Discussion of these problems is far beyond the limits of this paper. Let us indicate only one direction the river basins approach. It allows socioand physical-geographical analyses to be integrated, in order to contribute to the solution of many international conflicts and to work out new principles for environmental management. River basins represent closely integrated natural regions, while at the same time, they constitute a basis of settlement and transportation systems, and often determine boundaries between historically created territorial and cultural communities.55 But problems of the use of their waters, energy and biological resources are a classic reason for international and border conflicts.

CONCLUSION
Border studies are a rapidly expanding interdisciplinary field facing new challenges. First, from the quantitative perspective, the number of boundaries has recently increased because of disintegration of the Soviet Union and of some other countries, and the partition of part of the worlds oceans. The collapse of the Soviet empire removed important ideological and geopolitical obstacles to the involvement of a large part of the world in international economy. Dozens of territorial (boundary) claims continue to poison international relations, even if they are often in a latent form and not yet brought to the official level.

628

Vladimir Kolossov

Second, under the influence of globalisation and integration, the functions of boundaries and borders are being rapidly changed, creating a situation that demands careful analysis. The impacts of these factors are so complicated and diversified that they are far from sufficiently clear. Globalisation and liberalisation of economies, the development of new technologies and communications, the growing well-being and the awareness of cross-boundary and global environmental problems, are all stimulating a gradual evolution of state boundaries from alienating to open, integrational forms. This evolutionary trend is also explained by the increasing international awareness of global environmental, energy and other problems, and of the importance of international cooperation. Under these conditions, it may become easier to find solutions to border conflicts on the basis of international law. A number of contradictions could be overcome as a result of the separation of the economic and ideological functions of boundaries. The improvements in international transport and in the quality and density of telecommunications networks are modifying economic space, increasing the importance of hubs like world cities, maritime gateways and logistic centres. On the one hand, they often deepen territorial contrasts within countries, provoke the growth of the barrier functions of internal boundaries and blur the difference between political (international) and administrative (internal) dividing lines. However, on the other hand, they also contribute to cross-boundary cooperation, which is at the same time a result and a reason for the growing permeability of political boundaries. The study of new directions and technologies under various geographical, social and political conditions, including economic, cultural and psychological aspects, spatial planning etc., may become a separate interdisciplinary field. New postmodern approaches successfully complement traditional methods of border study, considering boundaries and cross-boundary interactions at different levels (from the global to the local) and as a single system. Moreover, recent publications show that the scale of analysis is not naturally determined, but represents a social construct and can be used to define the object and the scope of a conflict.56 Postmodern approaches help us to understand how a political discourse can define the position and role of particular boundaries and borders in foreign and domestic politics and thus enable critical thinking about political choices. However, the dynamics of the world system of boundaries are far from linear, nor do they simplify combinations of geographical situations. On the contrary, de-territorialisation and re-territorialisation sharply multiply the variety of neighbouring countries and regions and, as a result, create countless new types of boundaries. Of course, globalisation does not guarantee a peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America. For instance, in Africa the potential for border conflicts is characterised by the fact that about 42 per cent of the total length of land boundaries are drawn by parallels, meridians and equidistant lines, without any

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

629

consideration of social realities. Thirty-seven percent of land boundaries were imposed on African countries by British and French colonial powers, who cared only about dividing lines between them.57 Postmodern approaches reveal new dimensions of globalisation. Their use helps the analysis of the relationships among globalisation of economic exchanges, international migrations and a rapid transformation of territorial identities, and of peoples concepts of boundaries, border areas and national security. New methods have demonstrated that the same processes are viewed differently in different countries and regions, and perceptions can play a major role in economic and political decision-making concerning boundaries and borders. Globalisation often provokes a defensive reaction and strengthens ethnic and national or regional identities, which, in turn, contribute to the reinforcement of border regimes. One of the main methodological challenges remains the separation of the impact of general problems on a boundary from specific border issues. Indeed, are the physical line, the regime and the importance of particular state boundary for society a mere reflection of national or geopolitical problems such as the struggle of an ethnic group for self-determination, or the rivalry between major international and regional powers? Obviously, space modifies the influence of political processes on border areas and boundaries, but its mechanisms are still not very well understood.

NOTES
1. E. Brunet-Jailly, Toward a Model of Border Studies, Journal of Borderland Studies, Special Number, The Canadian Border: A transparent border?, 19/1 (spring 2004) pp.1-18. 2. Y. Lacoste, La gographie, a sert dabord faire la guerre (Paris: Maspro 1976). 3. See, for instance, D.B. Knight, Humanistic Political Geography?, in S. Mackenzie (ed.), Humanism and Geography (Ottawa: University of Carleton Press 1986), pp.22-9; C. Flint, Changing Times, Changing Scales: World Politics and Political Geography since 1890, in G. Demko and W.B. Wood (eds), Reordering the World, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press 2001). 4. On the relations between political geography and political science, see D. Newman, guest editor, Forging a Cross-boundary Discourse: Political Geography and Political Science, Special Issue, Political Geography 18/8 (November 1999). 5. For a characteristic view of traditional approaches, see V. Kolossov and J. OLoughlin, New Borders for New World Orders: Territorialities at the Fin-de-sicle, GeoJournal 44/3 (1998, pp.259-73; V.A. Kolossov and R.F. Turovsky, Sovremennye gosudarstvennye granitsy: novye funktsii v usloviakh integratsii i progranichnoe sotrudnichestvo (Contemporary state borders: new functions under the conditions of integration and border cooperation), Izvestia RAN, geographical series, 1998, No.1, pp.97-107 (in Russian); V. Kolossov and N. Mironenko, Politicheskaya geografia i geopolitika (Political Geography and Geopolitics) (Moscow: Aspekt-Press 2001) (in Russian). 6. Quoted from J.R.V. Prescott, The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company 1965), p.3. 7. J. House, Frontier on the Rio Grande: A Political Geogrpahy of Development and Social Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1982). 8. See, for instance, G. Goertz and P.F. Diehl, Territorial Changes and International Conflicts (New York: Routledge 1992) and H. Starr and B. Most, Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1989).

630

Vladimir Kolossov

9. A. Moraczewska, The Changing Interpretation of Border Functions in International Relations, Geopolitic, 10 (2005) (forthco ming). 10. See, for instance, L. Kristoff, The Nature of Borders and Boundaries, Annals of the Association of American Geographer, 49 (1959, pp.269-82; J. Minghi, Boundary Studies in Political Geography, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53 (1963) pp.407-28; Dennis Rumley and Julian Minghi (eds), The Geography of Border Landscapes (Routledge: London 1991). 11. J. Ackleson, Metaphors and Community on the US-Mexican Border: Identity, Exclusion, Inclusion and Operation Hold the Line, Geopolitics 4/2 (1999), pp.155-79; J. Agnew, Bordering Europe and Bounding States: the Civilizational Roots of European National Boundaries, in D. Kaplan and J. Hakli (eds), Borderlands and Place (Boston: Rowman and Allenheld 2001); V. Kolossov and J. OLoughlin, New Borders for New World Orders (note 5); D. Newman, Into the Millennium: the Study of International Boundaries in an Era of Global and Technological Change, Boundary and Security Bulletin 7/4 (1999) pp.63-71. 12. P.J. Taylor and C. Flint, Political Geography, World-economy, Nation-State and Locality, 4th ed. (Harlow: Prentice Hall-Longman 2000). 13. M. Anderson, Territory and State Formation in the Modern World (Cambridge: Polity Press 1996); J. Macmillan and A. Linklater (eds), Boundaries in Question: New Directions in International Relations (London and New York: Frances Pinter 1995). 14. M. Albert, On Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity, Geopolitics 3/1 (1998) pp.53-68; G.H. Blake, Borderlands under Stress: some Global Perspectives, in M. Pratt and J. Brown (eds), Borderlands Under Stress (London: Kluwer Law International 2000), pp.1-160; S. Brunn, A Treaty of Silicon for the Treaty of Westphalia? New Territorial Dimensions of Modern Statehood, Geopolitics 3/1 (1998) pp.106-31; D. Newman, The Lines that Separate: Boundaries and Borders in Political Geography, in J. Agnew and G. Toal (eds), A Companion to Political Geography (Oxford: Blackwell 2002). 15. A. Paasi, Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: The Changing Geographies of the FinnishRussian Border (New York: John Wiley 1996). 16. Social representations are a set of concepts, statements and explanations originating in daily life in the course of inter-individual communications (Moscovici, quoted from Paasi (note 15)). 17. A. Giddens, The Nation State and Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1981); P.J. Taylor, The State as Container: Territoriality in the Modern World-System, Progress in Human Geography 18 (1994) pp.151-62. 18. M. Pratt and J. Brown (eds), Borderlands Under Stress (London: Kluwer Law Academic 2000); J. Prescott, Borders in a Borderless World: Review Essay, Geopolitics 4/2 (1999). 19. See, for example, Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 1987); World Resources 1987 (New York: Basic Books 1987). 20. V. Kolossov and J. OLoughlin, Pseudo-states as Harbingers of a New Geopolitics: the Example of the Trans-Dniestr Moldovan Republic, in D. Newman (ed.), Boundaries, Territory and PostModernity (London: Frank Cass 1998), pp.151-76. 21. Ibid.; D.Newman and A. Paasi, Fences and Neigbours in the Post-modern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography, Progress in Human Geography 22/2 (1998) pp.186-207. 22. V. Kolossov, Ethnic and Political Identities and Territorialities in the post-Soviet Space, GeoJournal 48 (2000) pp.71-81. 23. D. Delamaide, The New Superregions of Europe (Harmoondsworth: Penguin Books 1994). 24. P. Sahlins, Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1989). 25. O.Martinez, Border People: Life and Society in U.S.-Mexico Borderlands (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press 1994). 26. K. Ohmae, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (New York: Free Press 1995); Prescott (note 18). 27. Wu Chung-Tong, Cross-border Development in Europe and Asia, Geojournal 44/3 (1998) pp.189-201; H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen and J. Oksa, Curtains of Iron and Gold, Reconstructing Borders and Scales of Interaction (Aldershot: Ashgate 1999); H. Knippenberg and J. Markusse, Nationalising and Denationalising European Border Regions, 18002000 Views from Geography and History (Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999); M. Perkmann and N.L. Sum, Globalization, Regionalization and Cross-border Regions (London: Mac Millan 2002). 28. J. Helliwell, How Much Do National Borders Matter? (New York: Brookings Institution Press 1998).

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical Approaches

631

29. N. Cattan, Une image du rseau des mtropoles europennes par le trafic arien, Espace gographique 2 (1991) pp.105-12; N. Cattan, Effets de barrires en Europe: le cas des changes ariens et ferroviaires, Communications, gographie politique et changement global (Paris: CNRS 1993), pp.24-40. 30. D. Newman, Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity: towards Shared or Separate Spaces?, in M. Pratt and J. Brown (eds), Borderlands Under Stress (London: Kluwer Law International 2001), pp.17-34. 31. V. Kolossov, T. Glakina and A. Krindatch, Territorial Identity and Inter-ethnic Relations (The Case of Eastern Districts of Stavrpopol Territory), Polis (Political Studies) 11 (2001) pp.61-78. 32. V. Kolossov and J. OLoughlin, New Borders for New World Orders (note 5). 33. Newman, The Lines that Separate (note 14). 34. V. Kolossov and N. Mironenko (note 5). 35. J. Galtung, Coexistence in Spite of Borders: On the Borders in the Mind, in W. Galluser (ed.), Political Boundaries and Coexistence (Bern: Peter Lang 1994), pp.5-14. 36. V.A. Kolossov (ed.), Mir Glazami Rossian: Mify i Vneshniaya Politika (The World in the Eyes of Russian Citizens: Myths and Foreign Policy) (Moscow: FOM 2003). 37. Paasi (note 15); P. Aalto, A European Geopolitical Subject in the Making? EU, Russia and the Kaliningrad Question, Geopolitics 7/3 (2002) pp.143-74; Heikki Eskelinen, Cooperation across the Line of Exclusion: the 1990s Experience at the Finnish-Russian Border, European Research in Regional Science (Borders, Regions and People) 10 (2000) pp.137-50; V. Harle, The Enemy with a Thousand Faces: The Tradition of the Other in Western Political Thought and History (Westport, CT: Praeger 2000). 38. S.V. Golunov, Rossiisko-Kazakhstanskaia Granitsa: Problemy Bezopasnosti i Mezhdunarodnogo Sotrudnichestva (The Russian-Kazkhstani Boundary: Problems of Security and International Cooperation) (Volgograd: University of Volgograd Press 2005). 39. K.W. Deutsch, Nationalism and its Alternatives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univeristy Press 1969); K.W. Deutsch, Political Community of the International Level: Problems of Defintion and Measurement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1970). 40. K. Laitinen, Post-Cold War Security Borders: a Conceptual Approach, in E. Berg and H. Van Houtum (eds), Routing Borders Between Territories, Discourse and Practices (Aldershote: Ashgate 2003), pp.13-34. 41. L.B. Vardomsky and S.V. Golunov (eds), Prozrachnye Granitsy: Bezopasnost i Sotrudnichetsvo V Poyase Novykh Grnits Rossii (Transparent Borders: Security and Cooperation in the Belt of New Borders of Russia) (Moscow: NOFMO 2002). 42. K. Laitinen, The Northern Dimension in the Context of the Security Border, in S. Moisio, EU Eligibility, Central Europe, and the Invention of Applicant State Narrative, Geopolitics 7/3 (2002) pp.89 116; P. Joenniemi and J. Viktorova (eds), Regional Dimensions of Security in Border Areas and Eastern Europe (Tartu University Press: Tartu 2001). 43. Border space is a socio-geographical area of the most active interactions and conflicts between economic, cultural, legal and political systems of neigbouring countries. 44. Geopolitical culture represents traditions of interpretation of international events according to national identity and the strategy of interaction with other states. Russian geopolitical culture includes, for example, geopolitical traditions of westernismand eurasianism in their numerous versions. See G. Tuathail,Geopolitical Structures and Geopolitical Cultures: towards Conceptual Clarity in the Critical Study of Geopolitics, in L. Tchantouridze (ed.), Geopolitical Perspectives on World Politic, Bison Paper 4 (Winnipeg, ON: Centre for Defence and Security Studies 2003); J. OLoughlin, G. Tuathail and V. Kolossov, Russian Geopolitical Storylines and Ordinary Russians in the Wake of 9-11, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 37 (2004) pp.281-318. 45. See, for instance, E. Berg and H. Van Houtum (eds), Routing Borders Between Territories, Discourse and Practices (Aldershote: Ashgate 2003). 46. G. Toal, Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press 1996). 47. G. Dijkink, National Identity and Geopolitical Visions: Maps of Pride and Pain (London: Routledge 1996); Taylor and Flint (note 12). 48. V.A. Kolossov, Traditsionnye geopoliticheskie kontseptsii i sovremennye vyzovy Rossii (Traditional geopolitical concepts and contemporary challenges to Russia), Obchshestvennye nauki i sovremennost (Social Sciences and Modernity) 3 (1996) pp.57-69.

632

Vladimir Kolossov

49. E. Berg and S. Oras, Writing Post-Soviet Estonia on to the World Map, Political Geography, 19 (2000) pp.601-25; Moisio (note 42). 50. S. Medvedev, North and the Politics of Emptiness, paper submitted to the workshop Identity Politics, Security and the Making of Geopolitical Order in the Baltic, Kuusamo, Finland, June 2001. 51. J.W. Scott, Euroregions, Governance and Transborder Co-operation within the EU, European Research in Regional Science, 10 (2000), pp.104-15; H. Van Houtum, Internationalisation and Mental Borders, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90/3 (1999), pp.329-35. 52. T. Lunden, The Domain of Time Geography. A Focus on Political Geography?, in M. Antonsich, V. Kolossov, M.-P. Pagnini (eds), Europe Betwen Political Geography and Geopolitcs, vol. 1 (Roma: Societa Geografica Italiana 2001), pp.269-78; T. Lunden and D. Zalamans, Boundary Towns. Studies of Communication and Boundaries in Estonia and Its Neighbours (Stockholm: Stockholm University 2000). 53. House (note 7). 54. See, for instance, O. Young (ed.).Global Governance. Towards a Theory of Decentralized Workd Order, in O.D. Young (ed.), Global Governance. Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press 1997), pp.273-99; P. Ganster (ed.), Cooperation, Environment, and Sustainability in Border Regions (San Diego: San Diego State University Press 2001) and many other works. 55. L. Korytny, Basseinovaya kontseptsia prirodiopolzovania (The River Basins Concept of Ressource Use) (Irkutsk: Institute of Geography of Siberia 2001). 56. Flint (note 3). 57. M. Foucher Fronts et Frontires: Un tour du monde gopolitique (Paris, France: Fayard 1991); p. 691.