The rise of linear borders in world politics
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066118760991 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | Kerry Goettlich |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118760991
European Journal of
International Relations
2019, Vol. 25(1) 203 –228
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066118760991
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
The rise of linear borders in
world politics
Kerry Goettlich
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Abstract
This article argues that the dominance of precise, linear borders as an ideal in the
demarcation of territory is an outcome of a relatively recent and ongoing historical
process, and that this process has had important effects on international politics
since circa 1900. Existing accounts of the origins of territorial sovereignty are in wide
disagreement largely because they fail to specify the relationship between territory and
borders, often conflating the two concepts. I outline a history of the linearization of
borders, which is separate from that of territorial sovereignty, having a very different
timeline and featuring different actors, and offer an explanation for the dominance of
this universalizing system of managing and demarcating space, based on the concept
of rationalization. Finally, I describe two broad ways in which linearizing borders has
affected international politics: by making space divisible in new ways; and underpinning
hierarchies by altering the distribution of geographical knowledge resources.
Keywords
Historical sociology, international history, rationality, sovereignty, territoriality,
territorial state
Introduction
If one overarching pattern has shaped the geopolitics of the last century and a half, it has
been the global linearization of borders. Unlike in previous eras, it is not considered
enough to vaguely indicate an area or a frontier zone of a certain width, or to name cer-
tain places or jurisdictions in establishing control over territories. Since the late 19th
century, it has been assumed that regardless of place or context, territories must have
Corresponding author:
Kerry Goettlich, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, UK.
Email: k.d.goettlich@lse.ac.uk
760991EJT0010.1177/1354066118760991European Journal of International RelationsGoettlich
research-article2018
Article
204 European Journal of International Relations 25(1)
linear borders, ideally consisting of precise one-dimensional points on the earth’s sur-
face, connected by straight lines. The linear ideal of borders and the practices of border
delimitation and demarcation that make it possible to imagine the ideal as an accom-
plished fact have fundamentally affected virtually all territorial politics, from post-war
peace settlements to territorial partitions. That a border can, in practice, be purely linear
is a fiction as borders are always multifaceted, uneven and ambiguous to some degree,
but it is a powerful fiction, and many polities have attempted to linearize borders.
Yet, there have been few efforts to explain the historical process that brought the ideal
of linear borders to dominate politics. Such concepts as ‘modern territoriality’ and
‘exclusive sovereignty’ are important for understanding the modern state, but they do not
address issues of precisely how territory is defined, how territories are distinguished
from each other and what consequences arise from a linear definition of territory (Sassen,
2006; Spruyt, 1994; Teschke, 2003; Tilly, 1992). These debates have tended to bundle
historical changes in the demarcation of borders into a ‘Westphalian’ package coming to
life concurrently along with state formation and sovereignty, going almost unnoticed as
an analytically distinct process in itself.
This article argues that the recent global consolidation of linear borders is not a politi-
cally neutral expression of territoriality, or simply territoriality taken to its logical con-
clusion. Instead, linear borders stem from a historically particular rationality and have
distinct causes and effects. I proceed in four sections. First, I posit the insufficiency of
existing International Relations (IR) approaches to the origins of territorial sovereignty
for explaining the advent of linear borders. Second, I elaborate on the theoretical and
historical distinction between territory and linear borders. Third, I outline an explanation
for the linearization of borders using the sociological concept of rationalization. Finally,
I describe two broad ways in which the linearization of borders has affected 20th- and
21st-century international politics: by enabling an acceleration and proliferation of ter-
ritorial partitions; and by empowering certain states best able to manipulate the specific
kind of geographical knowledge created through linear borders.
The trouble with ‘territorial sovereignty’
In IR, most discussions of the origins of modern geopolitics see ‘territorial sovereignty’
as the basic structure to be explained in terms of its origins and its spread to the rest of
the world. These are broadly divisible into historical materialist explanations of territori-
ality (Spruyt, 1994; Teschke, 2003; Tilly, 1992), and constructivist or discursive explana-
tions (Bartleson, 1995; Larkins, 2010; Philpott, 2001; Ruggie, 1993; Strandsbjerg, 2010).
Differences exist as to the precise terminology, including variants such as ‘exclusive
sovereignty’ or ‘modern territoriality’, but there seems to be broad agreement on what
needs explanation: the geographical compartmentalization of legitimate political author-
ity that is particular to the current historical era.
Yet, while explanations of the origins of territorial sovereignty abound, the historical
emergence of precise borderlines as a way of attempting to universally specify this com-
partmentalization of authority has received surprisingly little attention. This article, with
Robert Sack (1986), understands territoriality as consisting of at least three things: clas-
sification by area; social communication of this area; and an assertion of control over the
To continue reading
Request your trial