Political Territoriality and De-Territorialization

Author(s): Hartmut Behr

Source: Area , Mar., 2007, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 112-115
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of
British Geographers)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20004592

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Area

This content downloaded from

183.83.154.206 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:48:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 11 2 Commentaries

Indeed, once the faddish 'global' interest in their Archibugi D, Held D and Kohler M eds Reimagining polit
particular identity movement has waned, it is not ical community Polity, Cambridge

clear that they are left with anything at all.
References
Bull H 1977 The anarchical society Macmillan, London
Devetak R and Higgot R 1999 Justice unbound? Globaliza
tion, states and the transformation of the social bond Inter
national Affairs 75 483-98
Falk R 1998 The UN and cosmopolitan democracy in
Falk R 2000 Global civil society and the democratic project
in Holden B ed Global democracy: key debates Routledge,
London
Kohler M 1998 From the national to the cosmopolitan public
sphere in Archibugi D, Held D and Kohler M eds Reimag
ining political community Polity, Cambridge
Linklater A 1998 The transformation of political community
Polity, Cambridge
Walker R B 1 1993 Inside/outside: international relations as
political theory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Political territoriality and de-territorialization

Hartmut Behr
Department of Politics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU

from a political-science perspective, an important

Introduction
Globalization is a blurred word. However, it can
be specified when we reflect on the principle of
territoriality as it underlies the modern conception
of the state. The article views the dissolving of
territoriality as one characteristic and consequence
of globalization. Since the modern principle of
territoriality was constructed by, and based on, four
sub-principles, it is by investigating into shifts of
these sub-principles that we can further identify and
concretize de-territorialization. These sub-principles
are: sovereignty, integration, border and security.
The transnationalization of world politics caused
a shift in the socio-political functions of territoriality
(see, amongst others, Ruggie 1993; Agnew 1994; Behr
2004). The most obvious phenomenon of this shift
is the changing significance of territorial borders
which no longer fulfil their traditional function of
defining, integrating and securing a political body.
They lost this function due to global and network
like organizations of political actors which do not
act within the territorial frameworks of the national
and international order. New patterns of political
order emerge which can be termed 'de-territorialized'.
These are widely discussed phenomena which
advance their empirical evidence foremost in the
realms of global economy (and which have been
observed already in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
for example, by Kaiser 1968; Rosenau 1969;
Mansbach et al. 1 976). Nevertheless, there appears,
theoretical problem: while the fact that global politics
are de-territorialized is widely recognized, the political
consequences of de-territorialization and the
question of how to conceptualize de-territorialized
politics seem to be less than clear. Consequently,
political science has to ask two questions and to
think more thoroughly, while referring to neighbour
disciplines like political geography and sociology,
about de-territorialization:
1 Which political concepts are influenced by and
shift through deterritorialization?
2 How must these concepts be re-conceptualized for
the analysis of global (i.e. deterritorial) politics?
I hypothesize that answers to both questions can be
found when applying an historical perspective which
asks for the traditional functions of territoriality in
political thought.
Such a perspective reveals four principles of
political territoriality which, too, provide the focus to
study de-territorialization, since it is these principles
according to which de-territorial politics manifests. Thus,
we can specify the meaning of de-territorialization
by, first, investigating the transformations of these
four principles and by, second, conceptualizing
new notions of de-territorial politics while keep
ing in mind the conceptual functions of the
'old' principles. The historical outlook on political
territoriality thus provides an heuristic tool to

ISSN 0004-0894 ? The Authors.

Journal compilation ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

This content downloaded from

183.83.154.206 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:48:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Commentaries 11 3

specify de-territorialization. Withal one has to note actors who are competing with state agents for
that territoriality is (has been) not only some arbitrary sovereignty within a state's institutional framework.
principle of politics, but the most fundamental With regard to transnational agents, neither is the
principle which was deemed to constitute and to case: they are neither sovereign in the sense of
enable the possibility of politics at all (see, amongst state agents, nor do they intend to achieve state's
others, Ardrey 1966; Kratochvil 1986; Agnew and sovereignty. James Rosenau characterizes them as
Corbridge 1995; Behr 2004). 'No politics without 'sovereign-free' agents (1997), and Mathias Herdegen
territory', the traditional notion can be paraphrased. speaks of 'quasi-sovereign' agents (1995). Both
characterizations are insufficient because they are
Rethinking political territoriality derivative, even if Rosenau and Herdegen make
Throughout modern politics, four principles of the right point.
territoriality can be reconstructed. Early authors for I want to go one step back and, by asking for the
this reconstruction are Jean Bodin (1979), Samuel pre-requisite of sovereignty, consider the concepts
von Pufendorf (1976) and Thomas Hobbes (1984). of 'power' and 'autonomy' to characterize the status
They can be called the founding fathers of what was of transnational agents. According to Robert Keohane
fixed in the Westphalian Peace Treaties 1648 about and Joseph Nye (1 977), transnational agents do
the territorial integrity of states. In the twentieth not challenge the sovereignty of states but their
century there are three key authors, as well as a autonomy. Insofar as autonomy is the condition for
basic concept in social sciences that connect the sovereignty, the state and transnational agents
principles of territoriality very closely to their early compete for autonomy from each another, not for
predecessors. These are Rudolf Smend (1955), Max sovereignty. And in this regard, transnational agents
Weber (1972), Georg Simmel (1992), as well as the are quite successful. However, there is one further
concept of 'national security'. The four principles of aspect to take into account: autonomy itself requires
territoriality I refer to are the concepts of sovereignty, power (understood in the traditional Weberian sense),
(national) integration, the function of borders and and consequently transnational agents are best
characterized as powerful.
national security. These concepts not only constitute
the (constructed) traditional territorial basis of politics, The traditional concept of power has to be
but their conceptualization genuinely depends on their expanded, however. Power in the traditional sense
territorial fixation. There is a mutual interdependency is perceived as a resource that exists to a certain
between territoriality and the concepts of sovereignty, limited amount, that can be measured (e.g. in neo
integration, the function of borders and national realist terms by counting weapons, GNPs, territory
security. and population), and about which only states fight.
According to this understanding, transnational agents
Sovereignty could never be 'power-full'. Thus a wider concept
Sovereignty has been defined as the state's claim for of power is required. The concept of power that
the highest political power within a given territory. was developed by Michel Foucault is very helpful
Within this territory, the sovereign power is not here. If we apply Foucault's concept to the study of
to be questioned, challenged or fought. Thus it is global politics (see, for example, Keely 1990), we are
exclusive both towards foreign powers as well as enabled to perceive power as a social relationship
towards domestic demands. At the same time, it is (and not as a territorially based resource; Foucault
integrative insofar as it provides the legal framework 1971 1972; also Ferguson and Mansbach 1999) which
for a political body or 'state'. To define the domestic describes the interactions between transnational
reach of sovereign power as well as to delineate its agents and states as well as among transnational
limits, a territorially bordered political unit is required. agents themselves. They all compete for autonomy
The modern redefinition of sovereignty from monarchic in very special issue areas, functionally pursuing
absolutism to republican people's sovereignty has their interests.
no impact on the described logic of the concept
itself. What changed is the subject of sovereignty, Integration
not its constructive logic. Integration is traditionally supposed to be the key
According to Max Weber, sovereignty does not element that holds a political society together. Integra
only relate to a state's claim for supreme authority tion is conceptualized with reference to three sub
within a given territory, but refers also to political principles that demonstrate its linkage to territoriality.

ISSN 0004-0894 ? The Authors.

Journal compilation ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

This content downloaded from

183.83.154.206 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:48:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
114 Commentaries

First, the state is meant to be the substance of borderless nature of transnational politics, survive?
integration. To build, to maintain and to strengthen This question has an ambiguous answer: while the
the state by integrating a society is the supreme ideological and the social-psychological functions
purpose of integration. Second, the individuals and are maintained, the security and the legal functions
social groups living in a state's territory are subord perish in transnational politics. Ideological and socio
inated to one supreme actor: the territorial state and psychological functions are, however, substituted by
its institutions. Third, all national actors are integrated functional borders insofar as networks and strategic
by common values, norms and political practices. alliances construct a 'corporate identity' to integrate
It is obvious that transnational agents are not and to identify, even if only temporarily, own network
nationally and territorially integrated in the traditional members against other network constellations.
sense. Thus, we have to ask how to conceptualize
their status as actors: What does 'transnationality' National and transnational security
mean in this regard? Samuel Huntington (1973) The fourth traditional principle of territoriality is
characterized transnational organizations as func security. The guarantee of security is, from the
tionally differentiated actors that build strategic founding of the modern state to the present, one
alliances in order to achieve their interests in the most of the key elements of state legitimization. The
effective way. Those alliances transcend national dominant concept of security, which was developed
borders as their members come from different states to meet this requirement, has been national security
and their operative strategies are not limited to states' (see, for instance, Kennan 1951; Waltz 1979 2000;
territories. 'Transnational' here means nationally cross Mearsheimer 1990). National security is based on
cutting patterns of action and alliance-formation by several territorial assumptions as can be seen, for
constructing networks that reach globally, transcend example, in its sub-concepts of 'containment' and
national spaces and territories. They come together 'deterrence'. In transnational security contexts the
functionally and fall apart again as soon as their traditional actor disappears, power is an incalculable
job is done. What was formerly described as social and political relation, and the security function
national integration is in transnational politics of borders breaks down. This leads to newly
cross-national, functional network-building, and structured security settings. When we compare these
hence the very opposite of integration, namely characteristics to the territorial assumptions of the
differentiation (see in this regard also Rosenau's (1997) national-security concept, we realize sizeable dif
term 'fragmegration'). ferences. In contrast to the traditional conceptualiza
tion of security (mainly construed as state-to-state
The function of borders security threats), transnational security is (perceived
Political territoriality can neither be thought nor as) much more complex, heterogeneous, unpredic
constituted without borders. The main purpose of table and unaccountable (Doran 1999). Insofar as
borders in the traditional sense is the demarcation the appearance of threats from unknown actors cannot
be anticipated, as power cannot be measured while
and protection of a state's territory. A state requires
borders to come into existence, and borders are there are asymmetric power relations, and because
traditionally supposed to be territorial. We can refer, there is no security protection by territorial borders
amongst others (see Prescott 1987; Ashley 1989; any more, transnational security threats can be termed
Anderson 1997), to the writings of Georg Simmel 'virtual'. This means that they are real, effective and
and elaborate four territorial functions of borders. powerful, while, at the same time, they are not
These are legal, security, social-psychological and permanently present and visible. They appear and
ideological functions which constitute what is comdisappear, they seem to have gone to nowhere,
monly called the political space. Politics and the when suddenly they reappear at different places - a
modern state, according to their imaginative and situation which is ideal-typically epitomized by
constructive principles which have been elaborated transnational terrorism.
and criticized by Simmel (1992), require a territorially
bordered and limited space (also Lefebvre 1994).
An examination of the function of borders under
Conclusion
the conditions of transnational politics has to start The previous discussions demonstrated that de
rethinking their traditional, territorially determined territorialization affects the principles which have
functions. Do some of those functions, despite the layered traditional understandings of politics and

ISSN 0004-0894 ? The Authors.

Journal compilation ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

This content downloaded from

183.83.154.206 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:48:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Commentaries 1 15

the state. For specifying the political meaning of Hobbes T 1984 Leviathan Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
de-territorialization, we have to search for trans Huntington S P 1973 Transnational organizations in world
formations in the context of sovereignty, integration, politics World Politics 25 333-68
Kaiser K 1968 Transnationale politik. Zu einer theorie der
borders and security. A re-conceptualization of
multinationaler politik in Czempiel E Q ed Die anachronistische
global politics has to focus on these principles and
souveranitat. Zum Verhaltnis von Innen- und Aussenpolitik
to ask for new analytical notions which heuristically
PVS Sonderheft 1, Opladen 80-109
fulfil the same functions, however, are not Keely J F 1 990 Toward a Foucaudian analysis of international
territorially bound and do not depend on territorial regimes lnternational Organizations 44 83-105
politics any more. Kennan G 1951 American diplomacy 1900-1950 Chicago
University Press, Chicago IL
Keohane R 0 and Nye J S 1977 Power and interdependence
References Little, Brown, Boston MA
Agnew 1 1994 The territorial trap. The geographical assump Kratochvil F 1986 Of systems boundaries and territoriality.
tions of international relations theory Review of Interna An inquiry into the formation of the state system World
tional Political Economy 1 53-80 Politics 39 27-52
Agnew J and Corbridge S 1995 Mastering space: hegemony, Lefebvre H 1994 La production de space Gallimard, Paris
territory and international economy Routledge, London Mansbach Y, Ferguson R W and Lampert D 1976 The web
Anderson M 1997 Frontiers. Territory and state formation in of world politics. Non-state actors in the global system
the modern world Polity Press, Malden, MA Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ
Ardrey R 1966 The territorial imperative Atheneum, New York Mearsheimer I 1990 Back to the future. Instability in Europe
Ashley R 1989 Living on border lines. Man, poststructuralism after the Cold War International Security 1 5 5-56
and war in Der Derian I and Shapiro M eds lnternational/ Prescott J R V 1987 Political frontiers and boundaries Allen
intertextual relations Lexington Books, Lexington MA 259 & Unwin, London
322 Pufendorf S 1976 Die Verfassung des deutschen Reiches
Behr H 2004 Entterritoriale politik. Von den internaKlett Verlag, Stuttgart
tionalen beziehungen zur netzwerkanalyse VS-Verlag,
Rosenau 1 1969 Linkage politics. Essays on the convergence
Wiesbaden of national and international systems Free Press, New
Bodin J 1979 Six books of a commonwealth Arno Press, New York York
Doran C F 1999 Why forecasts fail. The limits and potential Rosenau J 1997 Along domestic-foreign frontiers. Exploring
of forecasting in international relations and economics in governance in a turbulent world University of Cambridge
Bobrow D B ed Prospects of international relations: con Press, Cambridge MA
jectures about the next millennium International Studies Ruggie J G 1993 Territoriality and beyond. Problematizing
Review 1 11-42 modernity in international relations International Organi
Ferguson Y and Mansbach R W 1999 Global politics at the zation 47 1 39-74
turn of the millennium: changing bases of 'us' and 'them' Simmel G 1992 Soziologie. Untersuchungen uber die formen der
in Bobrow D B ed Prospects of international relations: con Vergesellschaftung Gesamtausgabevol 11 Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
jectures about the next millennium International Studies Smend R 1955 Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen und andere
Review 1 77-108 Aufsatze W. de Gruyter, Berlin
Foucault M 1971 L 'ordre du discours: lecon inaugurale au Waltz K N 1979 Theory of international politics Addison
College de France prononc6e le 2 decembre Gallimard, Paris Wesley, Reading MA
Foucault M 1972 The archaeology of knowledge Pantheon Waltz K N 2000 Structural realism after the Cold War
Books, New York International Security 25 5-41
Herdegen M 1995 Einffuhrung in das internationale wirt Weber M 1972 Wirtschaft und gesellschaft grundrisse der
schaftsrecht C Beck Verlag, Munchen verstehende soziologie Mohr, Tubingen

ISSN 0004-0894 ? The Authors.

Journal compilation ? Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

This content downloaded from

183.83.154.206 on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:48:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms