Journal of Borderlands Studies

ISSN: 0886-5655 (Print) 2159-1229 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbs20

Introduction: The (Re)Building of the Wall in

International Relations

Élisabeth Vallet & Charles-Philippe David

To cite this article: Élisabeth Vallet & Charles-Philippe David (2012) Introduction: The (Re)Building
of the Wall in International Relations, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 27:2, 111-119, DOI:
10.1080/08865655.2012.687211

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2012.687211

Published online: 10 Sep 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8680

View related articles

Citing articles: 21 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbs20
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Introduction: The (Re)Building of the Wall in

International Relations
Élisabeth Vallet* and Charles-Philippe David

Abstract
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the emergence of a new international landscape ushered in an era of
globalization in which states appeared irrevocably condemned to obsolescence, a world without borders. The
advent of an international system in which the state was relegated to secondary importance in international
relations, coupled with the disappearance of physical borders, left little reason to expect a return of the wall.
However, borders, walls and barriers, symbols that were thought to have perished with decolonization and the
disappearance of the bipolar world, made a comeback in the aftermath of 9/11. The wall as object embraces a
heterogeneous range of structures built with diverse motivations on a variety of borders. Meanwhile, the wall as
phenomenon has proliferated over the past 10 years, encircling both democratic and authoritarian states, failed
states and healthy ones. This special issue investigates both the empirical and symbolic facets of the erection of
structures designed to keep away (and keep away from) the Other, from the “near abroad.”

Introduction
From the building of the Great Wall of China, begun in the 3rd century BCE , the construction of
Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall in Scotland by the Romans in the 2nd century CE as part of the
Roman Limes, along with the less hermetic fossatum Africae to the south, built over a period extending
from the 1st to the 2nd century CE , Offa’s Dyke in Wales and King Gudfred of Denmark’s Danevirke,
both built in the 7th century, the genko borui built by the Japanese in northern Kyushu Island to guard
against Mongol invasions, and feudal fortifications such as the Götavirke in Sweden and the Silesia walls,
up to more contemporary structures that have been developed into an art by experts in siege craft, such as
Vauban and Séré de Rivières, the “wall” has been a mainstay of international relations.

Indeed, the international system of the second half of the 20th century was defined by a border barrier and,
when the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago, observers thought the world had turned around. Today, it is clear
that the world has only come full circle (Paasi 2009, 216). The end of the Cold War made a deep
impression on the popular imagination: it seemed to mean the end of a world split into two camps, divided
between opposing loyalties, racked by conflict and border disputes (Badie 1999; 2000). The fall of the
Berlin Wall and the emergence of a new international landscape ushered in an era of globalization in which
states appeared irrevocably condemned to obsolescence, a world without borders (Ohmae 1990; Galli
2001; Zolo 2004; Schroer 2006). Neo-liberal and critical scholars alike sought to go beyond a state-centric
reading of international geopolitics (Paasi 1998: 70–1), now viewed as a “territorial trap” (Agnew 1994).
The advent of an international system in which the state was relegated to secondary importance in
international relations and mobility became a defining feature of the global environment (Balibar and
Badie 2006), coupled with the waning of the principle of sovereignty (Badie 1999) and the concomitant
disappearance of physical borders, left little reason to expect a return of the wall.

* Director of Geopolitical Research at the Raoul Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, and Adjunct
Professor of Geography, University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), PB 8888, Station DownTown, Montreal
QC H3C3P8, Canada | 514 987 6781 | vallet.elisabeth@uqam.ca
Charles-Philippe David, Professor of Political Science, Raoul Dandurand Chair, the University of Quebec at
Montreal (UQAM) | david.charles-philippe@uqam.ca

ISSN 0886-5655 (print)/ISSN 2159-1229 (online) # 2012 Journal of Borderlands Studies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2012.687211
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

However, borders, walls and barriers, symbols that were thought to have perished with decolonization and
the disappearance of the bipolar world (Lévy 2005, 40), made a comeback in the aftermath of 9/11 (Ballif
and Rosière 2009, 194; Brown 2009; David and Vallet 2009; Vallet and David 2012). After 2001, a
paradigm shift in the treatment of borders (Newman 2006) led to the (re)appearance of walls and barriers
as key instruments for the protection of state sovereignty. But the continuing dominance of “borderless”
discourse has led theoreticians to evade the issue of walls and wall-building during the past decade.
Furthermore, the concept involves a couple of difficulties: the definition of a “border wall” is complicated
and it is a fast-growing contemporary phenomenon that has not been subjected to general theoretical
investigation beyond its function as a border marker.

The “Border Wall” Concept

A variety of terms are used to describe the concept. Depending on the speaker’s political stance, ideology
and universe of discourse, walled borders are variously referred to as security, separation, apartheid or anti-
terror walls, obstacles, partitions, fences, barriers, barricades or borders (Sivan 2006, 98). The most
striking illustration of the semantic range is the terminological quarrel over Israel’s barrier/border/wall,
noted by Belize’s representative in his comments before the International Court of Justice in 2004.1 We
will use the term “wall” to describe border barriers with fixed masonry foundations (Gheslin, in Sorel
2010).

Typically, however, those walls consist of much more than a barrier built on masonry foundations. They
are flanked by boundary roads, topped by barbed wire, laden with sensors, dotted with guard posts,
infrared cameras and spotlights, and accompanied by an arsenal of laws and regulations (right of asylum,
right of residence, visas). We understand the word “wall” in the broadest sense, as a political divider that
comprises complex technologies, control methods, legislative provisions and “securing the border”
discourse.

In the post-modern period of international relations, walls constitute a specific border issue for states
(David and Vallet 2009). They must be regarded not only as physical barriers but also as gateways, for they
are punctured by official and unofficial openings through which people can cross from one side to the
other (Zolberg 1989, 406; Andreas 2000, 2) and apparatus, such as checkpoints, by which states can
control their movements (Ritaine 2009).

A wall is not necessarily synonymous with a border and a border is not necessarily hermetically sealed: it
is a point of contact, an interface (Konrad and Nicol 2008, 8). In principle, a borderline is bilateral, its
course defined by the bordering states and governed by agreements, while the location of a wall is—with
few exceptions (Sajjad 2006)—a unilateral matter decided exclusively by one side. If we take it that a
border wall marks a boundary that can also be regarded as a zone (Gottmann 1952, 123), then the
wall must be understood not only in terms of its consequences for contemporary international relations
but also its tangible impact on society, for the steadily growing trend to build border walls has
implications for state sovereignty, international security and human security (Crépeau and Nakache
2007, 311).

The Growth of the Wall

A quantitative analysis suggests that walls are, indeed, a global phenomenon that merits further attention
(see Figure 1). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Cold War border structures, such as the wall in the
demilitarized zone between the two Koreas and Morocco’s wall around Western Sahara, have been joined
by some 30 structures, built or announced. If all are completed, their length could total, according to
different estimates, from 18,000 km (Foucher 2007) to more than 41,000 km (Rosière 2009), depending
on the calculation method. As of 2010, there were nearly 45 border walls (soon to be 48) totaling more
than 29,000 km.2

112
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Figure 1. More Walls in a Globalizing International System (1945–2010). Data Compiled

by the Authors.

Between 1945 and 1991, 19 walls and barriers were built. Those between East and West Berlin, the Inner
German Border, in Bavaria between Czechoslovakia and Germany, in Panama around the US enclave,
around the Gibraltar enclave, in Algeria (the Morice, Challe and Pedron lines) and between the two
Vietnams have all been dismantled. The walls between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe,
between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, China and Hong Kong, China and Macao, Rhodesia,
Mozambique and Zambia, Cuba and the Guantanamo zone, the first phase of the wall between India and
Pakistan, the wall in the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, the separation line on Cyprus, and
Morocco’s wall in Western Sahara have all survived the end of the Cold War.

It is telling that, between 1991 and 2001, only 7 walls were added to the 13 that survived the Cold War:
the barriers between Kuwait and Iraq, the US and Mexico, Malaysia and Thailand, India and Pakistan
(phase 1), Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kirgizstan, and around the Spanish enclaves of
Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco. While walls have been an historic constant, particularly in the second half
of the 20th century, the end of the Cold War did mark the end of an era, the downgrading of the wall as a
political institution. Conversely, the contemporary post-9/11 period has seen the return of the wall as
object and political instrument. Contrary to what many expected during the immediate post-Cold War
period, new strategies of separation have developed and borders have been renewed and transformed
(Cuttitta 2007).

9/11 marked a watershed in international relations. One of the results has been the growing fortification of
borders (see Figure 1), with the construction (completed or planned) of 28 walls: Turkmenistan/
Uzbekistan; Israel/Palestine; Botswana/Zimbabwe; Pakistan/Afghanistan; China/North Korea; Saudi
Arabia/Yemen; Saudi Arabia/Iraq; Saudi Arabia/Oman; Saudi Arabia/Qatar; Saudi Arabia/United Arab
Emirates; India/Bangladesh; India/Pakistan (phase 2); Egypt/Gaza Strip; Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan; Israel/
Lebanon; Israel/Jordan; Jordan/Iraq; India/Burma; Burma/Bangladesh; Thailand/Malaysia (phase 2);
United Arab Emirates/Oman; Brunei/eastern Malaysia (Limbang); Russia (Abkhazia)/Georgia; Iran/

113
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Pakistan; Iran/Afghanistan; Greece/Turkey. We are, therefore, witnessing a veritable proliferation of built

structures along borders (David and Vallet 2009).

Walled In or Walled Out?

September 2001 sparked not only a quantitative surge in wall-building but also a qualitative break. It is
not just that 9/11 appears to have ratified the return of the wall as a physical object and political
instrument (Jones 2010); it is also noteworthy that, since that date, wall-building has been undertaken (or
stepped up) by democratic governments (Foucher 2007) in order to demonstrate their ability to regain
control of their borders (Foucher 2009, 6). “Democratic” walls include everything from the fences around
the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco and the barrier India is currently building along its
border with Bangladesh to what some have referred to as the “Schengen wall” (Sanguin 2007). A parallel is
often drawn between two symbols of the resurgence of the wall, largely because of their semantic and
chronological proximity (Clochard 2003; Le Boedec 2007). While the two cases are actually quite
different, they do attest to the force of what has become a phenomenon in international relations. First,
the US is extending the existing 930 km barrier on its border with Mexico, even though President Obama
announced in March 2010 that the building of the expensive “virtual border” would be suspended.
Meanwhile, Israel continues building its separation wall in the West Bank on both sides of the 1967 Green
Line. It is now 500 km long and will eventually extend to over 800 km—and Israel has just announced
that a barrier is to be built all along the Egyptian border. Like the US–Mexico wall, Israel’s fence boasts
sophisticated electronic detection equipment, purported to be highly effective by the Israeli defense
ministry (Israel Ministry of Defence 2003). This list of “democratic” walls would not be complete without
noting the announcements by Greece and then Bulgaria in 2011 that they intend to build a security
barrier along their borders with Turkey, the former to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and the latter for
sanitary reasons: countries are both walling themselves in and walling undesirables out.

Of the walls standing today, six were built to freeze a de facto border and maintain a fragile peace. The
others were built to stem illegal immigration and/or, in the most recent cases, to fight terrorism. Since
2001 (Jones 2009), the purpose of new walls has been not so much to convert a front line into a de facto
border as to address two threats: migrants and terrorists (the two sometimes overlap or blend together in
the pro-wall discourse). Walls, therefore, serve a dual function, providing protection against the outside
and enclosure for the inside (Novosseloff and Neisse 2007, 15).

The security barriers that shield the rich economies from the rest of the world have been described as a
great wall of globalization (Davis 2007, 172). In this respect, they are not dissimilar to some internal
walls.3 Societies that are no longer capable of recognizing the Other attempt to throw up impenetrable
partitions (Chamoiseau 2007). This logic leads inexorably to the implementation of sophisticated control
mechanisms and the building of physical barriers, walls and enclosures designed to create an absolutely
watertight separation (Bennafla and Peraldi 2008). Ultimately, it destroys ecosystems and shatters social
structures (Lasky, Jetz, and Keitt 2011). The fragmentation of space effected by walls creates protected
sanctuaries (Rekacewicz 2009) and enshrines the opposition between soft borders, defined as open, porous
and inclusive, and hard borders, which are closed, impermeable and exclusionary (DeBardeleben and
Neuwalh 2005, 11 and 23; Zielonka 2002, 11–12.).

So borders are not disappearing but transmuting. The process of transformation is partial because while
walls may seem sophisticated (we need only think of the Great Wall of China, the Maginot and Siegfried
lines, the Roman Limes, the wall between Mexico and the US, the walls around Ceuta and Melilla), they
are not truly impregnable (Lecumberri 2006, although this argument is disputed: Staniland 2005–2006,
31–4).

Walls serve to maintain both security and sense of identity (Ritaine 2009, 161). They are reassuring
because they provide tangible evidence that governments are doing something; they “have turned out to be

114
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

as much about public relations as anything else” (The Economist 2006). In the wake of 9/11, walls have
assumed a cosmetic, ostentatious and decidedly political function (Foucher 2009: 3). Walls may also
signal the precedence of domestic politics (and appearances) over foreign policy (and diplomatic
necessities), the image of a fortified border being considered more important than its actual effectiveness.
In this age of risk management, the wall, its various functions (protection, pacification, separation and
even segregation) and accompanying security mechanisms (El Maslouhi 2009, 6; Beck 1999) are all
regarded as devices that can serve that goal. The wall is emblematic of the interconnected surveillance
processes, as the most visible component and most important functional element of the apparatus (Ritaine
2009).

The wall as object embraces a heterogeneous range of structures built with diverse motivations on a variety
of borders. Meanwhile, the wall as phenomenon has proliferated over the past 10 years, encircling both
democratic and authoritarian states, failed states and healthy ones. With a few exceptions (such as studies
by the geographers Newman and Paasi (1998), Rosière and Ballif (2009) and Foucher (2007); the
philosopher Brown (2009)), the scholarly literature on walls consists of case studies—i.e. analysis of “a”
wall (e.g. Parizot and Latte Abadallah 2011; Kahan 2004; Su et al. 2003). There is, therefore, a gulf
between the theoretical studies produced by disciplines such as geography, which have addressed walls
directly or in passing, and other disciplines that have contributed ad hoc studies of specific cases, such as
history (Martinez 2009; Sterling 2009), sociology (Medina 2007) and law (Araujo 2004). This special
issue of JBS attempts to bridge that gulf.

The following articles investigate both the empirical and symbolic facets of the erection of structures
designed to keep away (and keep away from) the Other, from the “near abroad.” Pusterla and Piccin
discuss the wall’s sovereignty-defining and preserving functions. They situate the wall in a broader context
and analyze it through the lens of state utilization. Is the wall necessary? Is it virtually consubstantial with
the state? They question the relevance of the wall in a post-Westphalian world and conclude that it is at
once the ultimate mark of sovereignty for states under pressure from external stresses, and their swan song.
Heather Nicol applies Ulrich Beck’s theories to analyze the impact of real and virtual border walls on the
wall-building state’s neighbors. She suggests that, with growing attention to security in states that belong
to larger groupings, such as North America, a “clique effect” is produced and the appearance of walls and
tighter security helps fuel a resurgence of reflexive nationalism in the affected states. Similarly, in a case
study of Sortavala, Izotov investigates the mental walls delineated by the border and shows that the wall
metaphor goes to the core of the very definition of local identity, while at the same time noting the
constant interplay between national identity and that of the border regime. Along the same lines, Falke’s
paper addresses the role of the separation fence as a metaphorical reflection of Israeli society and political
history: the building of a physical demarcation/fence (re)generated a national unity deeply related to the
origins of the state and the construction of its identity over the last century. Mattioli looks at some of the
same issues in his case study of the new US embassy in Skopje, Macedonia, analyzing how local citizens
use it as a performative device for positioning themselves in a personal and complex social landscape.
Saddiki also discusses the Western Sahara wall with attention to issues of identity. Morocco’s walls are vital
to the affirmation of the Kingdom’s sovereignty and the wall in the Western Sahara, which reflects random
post-colonial borders, is embedded in the protagonists’ identity-seeking aims. Removal of the wall,
therefore, depends on a comprehensive resolution of the conflict in which the wall plays a symbolic
function. Amilhat-Szary studies the artistic works surrounding the wall the US has erected along its border
with Mexico and considers the ways in which artistic interpretation of the border landscape redefines
geographic perceptions of the region and informs political decision making. Contemporary border art,
viewed through the prism of the US–Mexico wall, therefore, exerts an influence not only within the
artistic realm but also in the political domain and hence on the identity of the state enclosed within the
borders.

Some walls are illusory, some are mental constructs. But it remains that these structures are enmeshed in
social processes and the construction of border identities, often breeding their own cultural iconography,

115
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

as shall be seen in the broad collection of articles in this issue of JBS, ranging from comprehensive analyses
of borderland walls to case studies of the barriers on the US–Mexican border, the West Bank, Western
Sahara, local walls and the mental walls that societies build around their perimeters or within themselves.

Endnotes
1
He observed that Israel uses the word “fence” and is opposed to the use of the word “wall” by the United
Nations General Assembly among others. In his report, the Secretary General of the UN used the term
“barrier” on the grounds that it is more generic. The International Court of Justice ultimately decided to
use “wall” (IJC 2004, 15 and 20).
2
Our count includes not only completed walls but also those in the advanced planning stage. The
numbers are based on the figures announced by governments (making it possible to include cases in which
the border is not walled continuously along its entire length, such as the US–Mexican border).
3
Internal walls have been used to separate wealthy and poor neighborhoods. Padua was for several years
an iconic example. Walls of this type, which exist today in locations ranging from Caldeira, Brazil to
France (Dryef 2008), serve to quarantine the “lepers” outside the city gates (Foucault 1999, 229–64,
40–6).

References
Agnew, John. 1994. The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations
Theory. Review of International Political Economy 1: 53–80.

Andreas, Peter. 2000. The Wall after the Wall. In The Wall around the West. State Borders and
Immigrations Controls in North America and Europe, eds. Peter Andreas and Timothy Snyder, 1–11.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Araujo, Fr., and J. Robert. 2004. Implementation of the ICJ Advisory Opinion—Legal Consequences of
the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Fences [Do Not] Make Good
Neighbors? Boston University International Law Journal 22: 349–85.

Badie, Bertrand. 1999. Un monde sans souveraineté. Paris: Fayard.

Badie, Bertrand. 2000. La Fin des territoires. Essai sur le désordre international et sur l’utilité sociale du
respect. Paris: Fayard.

Balibar, Étienne, and Bertrand Badie. 2006. , L’étranger comme ennemi. Sur la citoyenneté
transnationale. CERI, Projets transversaux. http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/cerifr/transversaux.php
(accessed May 22, 2012).

Ballif, Florine, and Stéphane Rosière. 2009. Le défi des teichopolitiques. Analyser la fermeture
contemporaine des territoires. L’Espace Géographique 38 (3): 193–206.

Beck, Ulrich. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bennafla, Karine, and Michel Peraldi. 2008. Introduction. Frontières et logiques de passage: l’ordinaire
des transgressions. Cultures & Conflits 72 (winter), May 19, 2009. http://www.conflits.org/index17383.
html (accessed July 27, 2011).

Brown, Wendy. 2009. Murs—Les murs de séparation et le déclin de la souveraineté étatique. Paris: Les
prairies ordinaires.

116
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Chamoiseau, Patrick, and Édouard Glissant. 2007. Quand les murs tombent—L’identité nationale hors la
loi? Paris: Galaade.

Clochard, Olivier. 2003. La Méditerranée: dernière frontière avant l’Europe. Les Cahiers d’Outre-Mer 222
(April–June), http://com.revues.org/index862.html (accessed July 30, 2011).

Crépeau, François, Delphine Nakache, and Idil Atak. 2007. International Migration: Security Concerns
and Human Rights Standards. Transcultural Psychiatry 44 (3): 311–37.

Cuttitta, Paolo. 2007. Le monde-frontière. Le contrôle de l’immigration dans l’espace globalisé. Cultures &
Conflits 68: 61–84.

David, Charles-Philippe, and Élisabeth Vallet. 2009. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall—Why Is there a Wall
after All? The Return of the Wall in IR. Paper presented at the conference of the International Political
Science Association, Santiago de Chile.

Davis, Mike. 2007. In Praise of Barbarians: Essays against Empire. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Debardebelen, Joan, and Nanette Neuwahl. 2005. Soft Or Hard Borders?: Managing The Divide In An
Enlarged Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dryef, Zineb. 2008. Rueil: autour de la cité, le mur de la honte … ou du renouveau? Rue89, August 6,
2008.

El Maslouhi, Abderrahim. 2009. Murs et reterritorialisation des relations internationales post-Guerre

froide. Paper presented at the “Border Walls in International Relations” conference, Raoul-Dandurand
Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, UQAM, Montreal, April 1, 2009.

Foucault, Michel. 1999. Les Anormaux. Paris, Gallimard.

Foucher, Michel. 2004. Fronts et frontières, un tour du monde géopolitique. Paris: Fayard, [1st ed. 1989].

Foucher, Michel. 2007. L’Obsession des frontières. Paris: Librairie Académique Perrin.

Foucher, Michel. 2009. Le retour des frontières. Géopolitique 104: 3–9.

Galli, Carlo. 2001. Spazi politici—L’età moderna e l’età globale. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Gottmann, Jean. 1952. La politique des États et leur géographie. Paris: Armand Colin.

IJC—International Court of Justice. 2004. Public sitting held on Monday 23 February, at 10 a.m., at the
Peace Palace, President Shi presiding, on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations): Verbatim Record, online.

Israel Ministry of Defence. 2003. Israel’s Security Fence. http://www.seamzone.mod.gov.il/pages/eng/

default.htm (accessed July 24, 2007).

Jones, Reece. 2009. Geopolitical Boundary Narratives, the Global War on Terror, and Border Fencing in
India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 34 (3): 290–304.

Jones, Reece. 2010. The Border Enclaves of India and Bangladesh: The Forgotten Lands. In Borderlines
and Borderlands—Political Oddities at the Edge of the Nation-State, eds. Alexander C. Diener and Joshua
Hagen, 15–32. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

117
Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Kahan, Rebecca. 2004. Building a Protective Wall Around Terrorists—How the International Court of
Justice’s Ruling in the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory Made The World Safer for Terrorists and More Dangerous For Member States of the United
Nations. Fordham International Journal of Law 28 (2004–2005): 827–878.

Konrad, Viktor, and Heather Nicol. 2008. Beyond Walls: Re-inventing the Canada-United States
Borderlands. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lasky, Jesse R., Walter Jetz, and Timothy H. Keitt. 2011. Conservation Biogeography of the US–Mexico
Border: A Transcontinental Risk Assessment of Barriers to Animal Dispersal. Diversity and Distributions
17: 673–87.

Le Boedec, Guillaume. 2007. Le détroit de Gibraltar. EchoGéo, no. 2 (February 22, 2008). http://echogeo.
revues.org/index1488.html (accessed July 30, 2010).

Lecumberri, Beatriz. 2006. Los muros, una estrategia geopolítica que alimenta la violencia—Entrevista:
Yves Lacoste, Geopolítico Frances. La Republica, October 28, 2006.

Lévy, Albert. 2005. Des murs, remparts contre la réalité. Libération, October 20, 2005.

Oskar Martinez. 2009. Border Conflict, Border Fences, and the “Tortilla Curtain” Incident of 1978–1979.
Journal of the Southwest, 30 July, 2009.

Medina, Isabel. 2007. At the Border: What Tres Mujeres Tell Us About Walls and Fences. Journal of
Gender, Race & Justice 10: 245.

Newman, David. 2006. The Lines that Continue to Separate Us: Borders in our Borderless World.
Progress in Human Geography 30: 1–19.

Newman, David, and Paasi Anssi. 1998. Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary
Narratives in Political Geography. Progress in Human Geography 22 (2): 186–207.

Novosseloff, Alexandra, and Neisse Franck. 2007. Des murs entre les homes. Paris: La Documentation
française.

Ohmae, Kenichi. 1990. The Borderless World. New York: Harper Business.

Paasi, Anssi. 1998. Boundaries as Social Processes: Territoriality in the World of Flows. Geopolitics 3 (1):
69–88.

Paasi, Anssi. 2009. Bounded Spaces in a ‘Borderless World’: Border Studies, Power and the Anatomy of
Territory. Journal of Power 2 (2): 213–34.

Parizot, Cédric, and Stéphanie Latte Abdallah, eds. 2011. À l’ombre du mur—Israéliens et palestiniens entre
séparation et occupation, Paris: Actes Sud, MMSH, coll. Études méditerranéennes.

Rekacewicz, Philippe. 2009. Vers la sanctuarisation des pays riches. Un monde interdit. In Frontières,
migrants et réfugiés, Cartographier le présent, Études cartographiques, December: 11. http://www.
cartografareilpresente.org/article418.html (accessed September 15, 2010).

Ritaine, Évelyne. 2009. La barrière et le ?checkpoint:? mise en politique de l’asymétrie. Cultures & Conflits
73 (Frontières, marquages et disputes): 13–33.

118
 Journal of Borderlands Studies | 27.2 - 2012

Rosière, Stéphane. 2009. La prolifération des murs, symptôme d’une mondialisation «fermée»? Paper
presented at the “Walls and Fences in International Relations” conference, Raoul-Dandurand Chair of
Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, UQAM, Montreal, October 29–30, 2009.

Sajjad, Ali Syed. 2006. Fencing the Porous Bangladesh Border. Worldpress.org, 14 December, 2006.

Sanguin, André-Louis. 2007. Les nouvelles perspectives frontalières de l’union européenne après
l’élargissement de 2004. L’Espace Politique 1 (2007–1), http://espacepolitique.revues.org/index437.html
(accessed July 30, 2009).

Schroer, Markus. 2006. Räume, Orte, GrenzenAuf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raums. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.

Sivan, Eyal. 2006. À propos du mur en Israël, dans Michel Foucher, Henri Dorion. In Frontières—Images
de vies entre les lignes, 116. Paris: Glénat et Muséum.

Sorel, Jean-Marc, ed. 2010. Les murs et le droit international, Paris: Éditions Pédone.

Staniland, Paul. 2005–2006. Defeating Transnational Insurgencies: The Best Offense is a Good Fence.
The Washington Quarterly 2005–2006: 31–4.

Sterling, Brent L. 2009. Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.

Su, H., L-J. Qu, K. He, Z. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Chen, and H. Gu. 2003. The Great Wall of China: a
Physical Barrier to Gene Flow? Heredity 90: 212–19.

The Economist. 2006. Walls and Fences From Sea to Shining Sea. The Economist, 12 January, 2006.

Vallet, Élisabeth, David, Charles-Philippe. 2012. Introduction: Du retour des murs frontaliers en relations
internationales. Études internationales. XLIII (1): 5–25.

Zielonka, Jan. 2002. Introduction: Boundary Making by the European Union. In Europe Unbound—
Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union, ed. Jan Zielonka, 1–16. London:
Routledge.

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1989. The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World. International
Migration Review 23 (3): 403–30.

Zolo, Danilo. 2004. Globalizzazione. Una mappa dei problemi. Rome-Bari: Laterza.

119