TERRITORIAL BORDERS AS INSTITUTIONS

ABSTRACT

In sociological research on territorial borders, theoretical concepts prevail which identify borders with migration control and hence conclude from the contemporary trend to ex-territorialise such controls the dissolution between territories and borders. Such an understanding however prevents to distinguish between different instruments and logics of migration control. Departing from this perspective, the argument is developed that borders are more adequately understood as institutionalised rules about the spatial separation of the exercise of authority. Such a perspective provides first to analytically distinguish between borders in general on the one hand and the specific functions particular borders are designed to fulfil on the other hand. Second, such a concept enables us to address how political and societal actors discover the border as an instrument for realising their interests and hence engage in border politics. Third, the possibility emerges to analyse how processes of globalisation and regional integration change the political perception and thereby the political regulation of borders' functions.

Keywords:

• borders
• migration control
• functions
• territory
• institutions

Notes

¹ The views expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the opinion of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.

²This understanding of boundaries differs substantially from the one provided by Migdal (2004) who argues that the boundary limits the context within which a specific set of institutionalised rules claims validity. In this perspective conflicts around boundaries occur regularly, when in the same situation different institutions claim allegiance. Consequently, in Migdal's understanding the boundary does not necessarily serve as a solution for conflicting rules, as it does not indicate a reciprocal relation.

³A similar understanding can also found among anthropologists. Though here boundaries are not necessarily reciprocal relations, but specify the criteria for membership in an ethnic group, they constitute a reciprocal relation and coincide with territorial borders, once an ethnic group has managed to monopolise space (Barth, 1969).

⁴Also within federal states, the internal division of authority takes place not according to space, but it is based on criteria which assign authority according to the substance of a particular policy, and therefore does not defy the concept of territoriality.

⁵This holds for all modern states, irrespectively whether they are nation states or multi-national polities such as Belgium.