«A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science and International Studies of the University of Birmingham for the degree of Doctor of ...»
235-252 4 Gerard Delanty, Chris Rumford, Rethinking Europe. Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization (London: Routledge, 2005); Chris Rumford, „Theorizing Borders‟, European Journal of Social Theory, 9: 2 (2006), pp. 155-169 20 resulted in an increase of the number of borders). This is a quantitative multiplication of borders. Secondly, the multiplication of spaces leads to multiple borders in a qualitative aspect, which means that in some particular cases the way borders operate has substantially altered in comparison to the way traditional nation-state borders work.
Examples of qualitative changes in borders are boundaries emerging as a result of
regionalisation and multilevel governance. The qualitative multiplication of borders:
“… requires new ways of thinking about the spatiality of politics” 5 and about the specific nature and functions of contemporary EU borders.
The literature that explores the issues related to the qualitative multiplication of borders is the second brand of studies on EU borders. They are important to this research because they provide different ways of thinking about how EU borders have changed in comparison to traditional Westphalian state borders. This brand of studies tackles the question of how the emerging EU order is best conceived of – as Westphalian, medieval, etc. These studies rest on the argument made by Albert, Jacobson and Lapid that borders and orders are intimately related and therefore should be studied in connection to each other.6 According to Albert et. al.: “… acts of bordering (i. e. the inscription, crossing, removal, transformation, multiplication and/or diversification of borders) invariably carry momentous ramifications for political
ordering at all levels of analysis.” 7 In a similar vein Kratochwil has argued that:
“Changes in the function of boundaries throughout history help to illuminate differences in the nature and patterns of interaction of different domestic and international systems.”8 The main contribution of this brand of studies to my research is twofold.
Firstly, some of these studies elaborate on the kind of political entity the Union is.
Secondly, they outline different categories of borders in various orders and from that perspective analyse EU borders.
5 Gerard Delanty, Chris Rumford, Rethinking Europe. Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 120 6 Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, Yosef Lapid (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders – Rethinking International Relations Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001) 7 Yosef Lapid, „Introduction: Identity, Borders, Orders: Nudging International Relations Theory in a New Direction‟ in Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, Yosef Lapid (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders – Rethinking International Relations Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), pp. 1- 20, p. 7 8 Friedrich Kratochwil, „Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System‟, World Politics, 39: 1 (1986), pp. 27-52, p. 27 21 Two of the important contributions that illustrate the debates on the definition of the EC/EU as a political entity are the studies by Caporaso, examining the institutional structure of the Union in light of three stylised forms of state (Westphalian, regulatory and post-modern),9 and Schmitter‟s concluding chapter in “Governance in the European 10 Union”, which presents four scenarios as an outcome of the formation of the EU polity, namely Stato/ Federatio, Confederatio, Consortio, and Condominio. According to Schmitter the emergent institutional structure of the EU is novel because it: “… opens the way for the institutionalization of diversity – for a multitude of relatively independent European arrangements with distinct statutes, functions, resources and memberships, not coordinated by a single central organization and operating under different decision rules.” 11 In a similar vein the three types of states examined by Caporaso are chosen because each of them captures some of the important features of the EU and therefore, is a partially accurate representation of it. 12 A very important conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of studies similar to Caporaso‟s and Schmitter‟s is that the traditional, also referred to as Westphalian, way of organising political life is not providing an adequate representation of the manner in which relations are organised in the EU. 13 This has been put most 9 James Caporaso, „The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian, Regulatory or Post-Modern?‟, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34: 1 (1996), pp. 29-52 10 Philippe Schmitter, „Imagining the Future of the Euro-Polity with the Help of New Concepts‟ in Gary Marks, Fritz W. Scharpf, Philippe Schmitter, Wolfgang Streeck, Governance in the European Union (London: Sage, 1998), pp. 121-150, especially pp. 135-136 11 Ibid., p. 127 12 James Caporaso, „The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian, Regulatory or Post-Modern?‟, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34: 1 (1996), pp. 29-52, p. 34 13 The following studies are particularly relevant for outlining some of the underlying features of the Westphalian order: Ron Johnston, „„Out of the „Moribund Backwater‟: Territory and Territoriality in Political Geography‟, Political Geography, 20: 6 (2001), pp. 677-693; Peter Taylor, „The State as Container: Territoriality in the Modern World System‟, Progress in Human Geography, 18: 2 (1994), pp.
151-162; James Caporaso, „Changes in the Westphalian Order: Territory, Public Authority, and Sovereignty‟, International Studies Review, 2: 2 (2000), p. 1-28; Stephen Krasner, „Westphalia and All That‟ in Judith Goldstein, Robert Keohane (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy (London: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 235-264; Stephen Krasner, „Rethinking the Sovereign State Model‟, Review of International Studies, 27: 5 (2001), pp. 17-42; Alexander Murphy, „The Sovereign State as PoliticalTerritorial Idea: Historical and Contemporary Considerations‟ in Thomas Biersteker, Cynthia Weber (eds), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 81-120;
John Gerard Ruggie, „Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Towards a Neorealist Syntheses‟, World Politics, 35: 2 (1983), pp. 261-285; Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, „Theorizing Borders: an
Interdisciplinary Perspective‟, Geopolitics, 10: 4 (2005), pp. 633-649; R. B. J. Walker, Inside/ Outside:
International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Tuomas Forseberg, „The Ground Without Foundation? Territory as a Social Construct‟, Geopolitics, 8: 2 (2003), pp. 7-24; A. Kemp, U. Ben-Eliezer, „Dramatizing Sovereignty: the Construction of Territorial Dispute in the Israeli-Egyptian Border at Taba‟, Political Geography, 19: 3 (2000), pp. 315-344; Daniel Philpott, 22 succinctly by Ruggie in his famous article “Territoriality and Beyond”. According to him, the EC/EU may be the first “„multiperspectival polity‟ to emerge since the advent of the modern era.”14 This is a result of the fact that: “… it is increasingly difficult to visualise the conduct of international politics among community members, and to a considerable measure even domestic politics, as though it took place from a starting point [at the time] of twelve separate, single, fixed viewpoints.” 15 Thus, the EU is compared instead to a medieval order in which a: “patchwork of overlapping and incomplete rights of government” existed. 16 What is of paramount importance for this research from the findings of the studies devoted to the fundamental features of the Westphalian order and the possible transformations in it we are witnessing today, is the fact that these two orders configure borders differently.
For the purposes of my analysis I have summarised these configurations as the construction of borders (characteristic of the Westphalian order, which is focused on the control of the central authority over a particular piece of land through delineating the limits of its reach) and the decreased significance of borders (characteristic of the Medieval and the post-modern orders, which are characterised by an overlap of authorities that blurs the distinction between inside and outside). 17 Thus, for me one criterion for classifying different configurations of borders most generally refers to the „Westphalia, Authority, and International Society‟, Political Studies, 67: 3 (1999), pp. 566-589. Some of the studies highlighting the main features of the contemporary world or of the EU that contribute to the erosion of the Westphalian model are: Christopher Rudolph, „Sovereignty and Territorial Borders in a Global Age‟, International Studies Review, 7: 7 (2005), pp. 1-20; James Anderson, Chris Brook, Allan Cochrane, A Global World? (Oxford: Open University Press, 1995); Alan James, „The Practice of Sovereign Statehood in Contemporary International Society‟, Political Studies, 47: 3 (1999), pp. 457-473;
William Wallace, „Europe after the Cold War: Interstate Order or Post-Sovereign Regional System?‟, Review of International Studies, 25: 5 (1999), pp. 201-223; William Wallace, „The Sharing of Sovereignty: the European Paradox‟, Political Studies, 47: 3 (1999), pp. 503-521.
14 John Gerard Ruggie, „Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations‟, International Organization, 47: 1 (1993), pp. 139-174, p. 172 15 Ibid.
16 Joseph S. Strayer and Dana C. Munro, cited in Ibid, p. 149 17 In the literature this different configuration of borders is also often referred to as hard and soft borders.
For definition and different usages of the terms hard and soft borders see Jan Zielonka, „How New Enlarged Borders will Reshape the European Union‟, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39: 3 (2001), pp. 507-536, p. 509; Jan Zielonka, Europe as an Empire – the Nature of the Enlarged European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Jan Zielonka (ed.), Europe Unbound – Enlarging and Reshaping the Boundaries of the European Union (London: Routledge, 2002); John Gerard Ruggie, „Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations‟, International Organization, 47: 1 (1993), pp. 139-174; Heather Grabbe, „The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards‟, International Affairs, 76: 3 (2000), pp. 519-536, p. 527; Klaus Eder, „Europe‟s
Borders: the Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe‟, European Journal of Social Theory, 9:
2 (2006), pp. 255-271, p. 256 (however, his distinction between hard and soft borders is on the ground of their legal formalisation, not on the relative easiness for their crossing) 23 relative ease of crossing the border and to its salience. Therefore, when borders are constructed, it becomes more difficult to penetrate them, while on the contrary when borders‟ significance diminishes it becomes easier to penetrate them. 18 Another way for classifying borders is the distinction by Geddes between territorial, organisational (functional) and conceptual borders. He defines territorial borders as the sites (sea, land, air) of entry at which the sovereign powers of the state to exclude are exercised. This territorial border is a particular instance of a more general type of borders that Cuttutta terms material borders. According to him, they: “… can be marked and physically reproduced on the earth surface”. 19 The second type of borders identified by Geddes is organisational (functional), which are the sites where conditions for the membership into the labour market, the welfare state and the national citizenship are specified. The third type, conceptual borders, encompasses a set of concerns centered on notions of belonging and identity to various communities (trans-national, national or sub-national). 20 Cuttitta refers to this last type of borders as non-material ones that manifest differences between various kinds of non-material entities, such as dividing lines between ethnic and linguistic groups, cultures or classes. 21 These distinctions are important because as will be demonstrated below, the debates on EU borders evolve around issues closely related to these basic types of borders.
If one tries to classify EU borders along the distinction of border construction or diminished significance of borders, it is most likely that one will find it highly problematical, if not impossible to pigeon-hole them straightforwardly as either of the two categories. While the Union does indeed display some of the features characteristic of a post-modern/ or Medieval order, as the studies of Caporaso and Schmitter, referred to above, have indicated, it does at the same time possess some of the features of the traditional Westphalian order.
A study that has captured this duality well is Smith‟s investigation into the interrelationship between the politics of inclusion and exclusion in the EU and the 18 no desab si noitaitnereffid sihT Heather Grabbe, „The Sharp Edges of Europe: Extending Schengen Eastwards‟, International Affairs, 76: 3 (2000), pp. 519-536, p. 527 19 Paolo Cuttitta „Points and Lines: a Topography of Borders in the Global Space‟, Ephemera, 6: 1 (2006), pp. 27-39, p. 29 20 Geddes‟ classification and definitions of borders is from Andrew Geddes, „Europe‟s Border Relationships and International Migration Relations‟, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43: 4 (2005), pp. 787-806, pp. 789-790 21 Paolo Cuttitta, „Points and Lines: a Topography of Borders in the Global Space‟, Ephemera, 6: 1 (2006), pp. 27-39, p. 29 24 changing European order.22 What is of particular importance is the fact that this article demonstrates how these two tendencies occur simultaneously as a result of the different policies adopted on various levels in the Union. Despite this, a closer look into the studies devoted to the contemporary EU borders reveals that they in general concentrate on either the dynamics of inclusion, which is consistent with the advent of a postmodern order and decreasing importance of borders, or the dynamics of exclusion that are in synch with the more traditional Westphalian order and its border construction.
Below I discuss the major studies related to both trends – decreasing significance of borders and construction of territorial and identity EU borders (see also Table 2.1).