The whole rational of a nation-state is traditionally defined territorial. The borders of nation-states are not etched into the earth nor are they immutable. These borders are the process of several centuries of war, negotiation, and migration.
Nations are a specific population of people, irrespective of geographic location, who share common historical, cultural, and linguistic traits. Nations, therefore, are defined as people and not the space they occupy. For example, any talk of the Romanian nation must by definition include the large diaspora of Romanians scattered throughout Europe regardless of where they reside.
States are defined as the entity with a certain territorial boundary that exercises sovereignty over that specific geographic area. Therefore, the concept of a state is very much bound to the element of physical space, where as a nation is not. In order to define which nation exercises legitimacy over a geographic area, the concept of boundaries is indispensable.
The question is, how is the physical space a certain group of people can claim right to govern allocated amongst nations and how much of this is a political process? It is my view that boundaries between states represents a monopoly of violence by the states themselves. The very concept of a boundary implies separation between two self-distinguished groups of people who cannot occupy the same space under the same set of laws. In carving out these boundaries, it is necessary for a state to use violence to maintain its right to rule the land it sees as its own.
Borders are made to keep others out and to keep some in. Any attempt to breach this nearly universally recognized right is met with detention, prosecution, and often physical violence. Borders serve to delineate the difference between "us" and "them". Any cross border action, even should it be beneficial and compassionate, can only take place with the consent of the states. It is possible, therefore, for a state to perpetrate extreme crimes against humanity within its own borders and legitimately claim that other states have no right to intervene.
In the realist narrative, nation-states are the fundamental building blocks of the international system. What happens within the borders of a state is its own affair according to Westphalian theory. In a liberal institutionalist point of view, however, the state itself is not as important as the nation(s) within it and the political legitimacy the state has to rule them. Liberal institutionalists are much more likely to support transnational and supranational entities that in some aspects partially deconstruct state borders.
Not all borders are created equal, and the openness of borders shows the exact degree to which people who inhabit one region are considered to be irreconcilable with those living in another. For example, the US-Canadian border is extremely porous, while the US-Mexico border is heavily militarized. The clearly shows the mentality that an American and a Canadian are much closer in identity that an American and a Mexican. Any attempt by a Mexican to cross into a the US unsanctioned will be met with violence. In this way, the state legitimately claims a monopoly on violence and a right to use it against human beings who live just a few miles beyond its borders.
Another example is that of Europe. The so-called Schengen zone, which consists of most countries within the eurozone, is made up of borders that are practically non-existant. One can freely travel between states with absolutely no violence involved in the process. The boundary between Europe and Africa, however, is very heavily guarded against penetration.
Clearly, there is a political aspect to the demarcation of boundaries between nation-states and the right of individuals to move themselves into certain physical locations. Many people in the world are free to move as they wish to all corners of the globe with no fear of violence in the process. Others are not able to move even outside of their cities without fear of persecution. Boundaries exist to maintain a status quo between nations politically, economically, and socially. In order to build a truly progressive global society, the nation-state must become less relevant and boundaries must be at least partially dissolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment