1
Frank R. Pfetsch
Borders: Obstacle or Facilitator for Peace? Cause of Conflict or Catalyst
for Peace?
First Draft, not to be quoted
Frank R. Pfetsch, Institute of Political Science of the Ruprecht-Karls University of
Heidelberg
Address: Institut für Politische Wissenschaft
Marstallstrasse 6
D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany
Tel. ++ 49 6221 542872
e-mail: frank.pfetsch@urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Seminar
“From Kaliningrad to the Black Sea
Intercultural Dialogue and the New Interpretation of the Frontier”
Oradea, June 5.-9. 2007
1
2
Frank R. Pfetsch: Borders: Obstacle or Facilitator for Peace? Cause of
Conflict or Catalyst for Peace?
Introduction
Territories and their boundaries belong to the primary goods which are the foundations
of possession, greed and claims to power among tribes and states. Territory is according to
Jean-Jacques Rousseau the foundation of the civil society: “Le premier qui ayant enclos un
terrain s’avisa de dire, Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le
vrai fondateur de la société civile » (Rousseau 1962 : 169). Such an archaic delimitation of
territories seems to be an anthropological and socio-psychological constant that requires a line
between the self and the other, between the own group identity and the other group, between
the “friend and the enemy” (C. Schmitt). Conflicts about territories are among the classical
conflicts between pre-states and governmental entities. Politically the possession of land or
oceanic territory or the control over territories implies an increase of national pride and
political power. With the formation of the territorial state, territory since absolutistic times
became the base of dynastic domination and later on of ethnic or cultural identity. This
territorially defined rule is protected by the principle of state sovereignty; international law
has codified this principle in almost all statutes of International Organisations, especially in
the UN-Charter.
Territory and borders in political history
Since the Westphalia state system territories and their borders belong to the sovereign
right of non-interference. Territory was considered as a resource on which the power of the
state was based. The desire to posses a certain territory is determined by national prestige as
well as by factors like the fertility of the land, climate, natural resources and geo-strategical
position; the external importance for third states is determined by their economic and military
relevance that makes the territory attractive to others. Natural resources in particular as well
as general economic goods were important reasons for territorial conquests. The history of
states is at the same time a history of their economic and geo-strategically importance that can
be based on other factors like the degree of industrialisation or qualified workers in addition
to natural resources. Nationalism and Imperialism focused on territories and their borders in
order to determine what belongs to us and what to others. The conquest of territories was
driven by the desire to increase the power of the state. Not necessarily does foreign territory
2
3
need to become integrated into or joint to the territory of the aggressor. Controlling territory
politically fulfils the same purpose. Whereas the war between Iran and Iraq in the eighties as
well as the war between Iraq and Kuwait in 1991were mainly based on territorial claims, the
recent war between the US and Iraq was about political and economic control. Carl Schmitt
states in “Nomos der Erde”: “The territorial status of the state in question is not altered to the
effect that its territory will be incorporated into the intervening state. However, the state
territory will be integrated into the spatial sphere of the controlling state and its special
interest that is integrated into its spatial sovereignty… Political control or leadership is based
on interventions whereas the territorial status quo is guaranteed.” State borders need not be
altered with reference to claims of political domination. The Soviet Union did not change the
physical borders of its satellite states, and the US carried out their influence without territorial
alteration. However, the victorious states in the First and Second World War changed
arbitrarily the occupied territories which explain a great deal of later warlike conflicts in the
second half of the twentieth century.
The geographic location also may have an impact on the conflict behaviour of riparian
states. According to Whittemore Boggs, boundaries can be assessed firstly according to
whether they are geometric or morphologic, and, secondly according to their genetic nature
(Boggs 1940: 22-28). One would expect geometric boundaries to have a high conflict
potential, because they may be artificially drawn by political considerations in some instances
by foreign powers. Religious, ethnic, and/or economic groups are likely to be separated by
such lines. Morphological boundaries are related to the nature of earth’s surface. Lord Curzon
(1907) emphasized the superiority of natural” boundaries being dependent on physical
geographic features, over “artificial” boundaries of latitude and longitude (Prescott 1965:13).
One would, therefore, expect a boundary following the crest of a rugged mountain range to
have a lower conflict potential than one following a line of hills, and lower yet than one
drawn across a low-lying plain. Furthermore one would expect river boundaries to possess a
lower conflict potential because rivers are more likely to follow natural morphological
situations and they unite rather than separate. But as the river Rhine shows it united riparian
states like Germany and Switzerland but separated Germany and France.
A more meaningful approach to boundary classification is the generic one, that is, the relation
of the boundary to the cultural pattern existing at the time the boundary was delimited. Here,
three types of boundaries can be distinguished in order of increasing conflict potential:
antecedent, subsequent, and superimposed. The first predates settlement, so that the evolution
of cultural patterns, if any, is related to the established boundary. The second is preceded by
3
4
settlement, and tends to take that settlement into account. The third is independent of the
existing cultural pattern, and in fact may be forced upon them, as the case of truce and
armistice lines, or superimposed boundaries in the event of political division of a territory
between two independent states.
The role of the state
The state can be defined by three characteristics: territory, rule, and population.
Among the various functions of the state belong: internal and external security and peace,
national frame for integration and identification, sense of belonging together, borderline
between the self and the other, securing territorial integrity, resources for economic
development, wealth and social welfare, historically grown self identification, securing the
‘individuality’ of peoples, providing the legitimacy of the rulers. The world as a state world is
based on the assumption that modern nation states possess these functions internally as well
as externally and is able to implement its laws authoritatively and effectively. In these
capacities the state has become indispensable and on the whole was not substituted by another
agent. In cases the state could not fulfil these functions disastrous warlike conflicts erupted
and led to the dissolution of the state altogether. A Hobbesian state of war is the result.
Changes in the territorially based state monopoly
After the end of World War II the territorial based state system eroded. The classical
meaning of territory and border lost their original meaning. The end of nationalistic power
politics brought about a differentiation between the OECD world of industrialized countries
and the world outside to which two thirds of the states belong. Whereas in the OECD world
the state remained more or less the agent of rule, security and welfare; in the periphery and
outside the OECD world a multitude of states lost their function of controlling the national
defined territory and protecting borders.
In the so called failing states in various parts of the third world the central government
lost control over the nationally defined territory. In these cases two developments can occur:
either the national territory fell apart as in the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia and led to
new independent states, or the territorial state was divided and separated into new states as in
Pakistan or Czechoslovakia; in the so called weak states with restricted state rule civil wars
broke out and led to a multitude of separate territorial rules by the so called warlords.
But also in the OECD world changes happened as regards the state: Parallel to the
process of national territorial delimitations an overarching non-governmental process of
4
5
market opening has taken place (“globalization”). The state is territorially bound, capital is
fluid and has crossed borders and made national boundaries permeable. The control of such
sub-governmental fluxes has become a new preoccupation of state rule. Due to global
challenges like terror, humanitarian catastrophes, drug smuggling, environmental disasters
etc. states are no more able to cope with these challenges alone. International cooperation
between states, International, Non-governmental and regional Organizations have to deal with
such global problems.
A second new development occurred when in Western Europe regional integration became
the practice of originally six later 27 countries. This system of supranationality is based on the
assumption that the territorial based state gives up national competences and transfers some of
its sovereign rights to a common to all agent. By doing this some of the state functions have
become a common enterprise to all the member states. Especially in the economic field
through the liberalization policies the Economic and Currency Union have made frontiers
practically non existent.
Conflicts about borders
Since World War II conflicts have escalated more frequently about territories and
boundaries; in fact, they have been the most controversial issues in the post-war period.
Border conflicts are about physical boundaries on land or on the sea. Especially in
international disputes conflicts about territory and borders are by far the most frequent. It goes
without saying that internal conflicts are dominated not by territorial claims but by conflicts
over power positions. The same holds with violent conflicts, whereas non-violent conflicts are
mostly over territorial issues (Pfetsch/Rohloff 2000: 130-131). Compared to conflicts about
ethnic, religious or regional autonomy; and about ideology, national and international power
or resources, territory and its border has been the most contended issue on nearly all
continents. Out of the 661 conflicts that were observed between 1945 and 1995, conflicts
about borders were involved in 223. However, as mentioned, these border conflicts possess a
considerably less violent potential than, for instance, ideological conflicts.
The hypothesis stating that the higher the number of neighbouring countries, i.e. the
number of boundaries, the higher is the probability of conflicts, was empirically tested. It
seems plausible to assume that the more borders a state has, the more conflicts emerge.
However, there was only a weak statistical relationship (see graph 1). Borders are therefore
not automatically causing conflicts and especially not violent ones. Germany as a central
continental power with its high number of borders is a good example for the change of
5
6
significance of boundaries: The unification of the “Reich” under Bismarck was achieved by
fighting three wars, and World War I and II lead to wars both with Eastern and Western
countries. For the first time in German history the Federal Republic of Germany exists within
safe borders, which are accepted by her and its neighbours.
Graph 1: Non-violent conflicts and the number of state borders
10
Non-violent conflicts
8
6
4
2
R Sq Linear = 0,034
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Borders
Regression Statistics
Multiple Correlation Coefficient 0,1830735
Observation93
From this follows that physical borders remain important for the preservation and the security
of national societies. Border protection must be considered an important mission of
governments. If central governments cannot secure their borders, the state collapses and the
so-called “war lords” control parts of the territory as in Somalia, Peru, in former Afghanistan,
or in numerous states on the African continent. In such cases protecting state borders and
preserving their integrity is peace preserving or peace making. However, this is not true in all
cases. If the will to separate through self-determination is high, giving up borders and
therefore the separation can be a remedy of securing the peace. The division of Pakistan, of
Czechoslovakia, of Ethiopia, and even of Yugoslavia can be judged as peacemaking.
Also the geography of states can determine external threats: Central locations are
threatened more than peripheral regions, states with many neighbouring states show a higher
6
7
conflict potential than states without any borderlines, islands are safer than central continental
locations, but geography also determines the degree of controllability.
Mental maps: a constructivist approach
Space becomes a conflict factor also outside the national territory: in foreign policy
doctrines of leading states air, sea and land are declared national zones of interest that have to
be respected by other states. They are no neutral geographical dimensions. So-called “mental
maps” divide territory according to spheres of interest. Since the time of President Monroe,
who declared the “American continent” as US American spheres of influence, to most of the
Presidents after World War II regions or states (China, Santo Domingo, Greece and Turkey,
Middle East region, the gulf region, the Dominican Republic, etc.) have been claimed to
belong to American’s “spheres of interest” or “spheres of influence”. At times of the
superpower rivalry the Soviet Union under Stalin and his followers claimed their spheres of
influence (“Two Worlds”, “Two Camps”) in Eastern Europe and tried to get a foot down in
South East Asia, Africa or even in Central America (see Pfetsch 1995: 60-76). Territory is
also evaluated according to the range of military capabilities. During the Cold War the super
powers tacitly acknowledged the respective influence sphere of one another. Neither the US
nor the “West” intervened in East Germany in 1953, in Hungary and Poland in 1956 or in
Prague in 1968, nor did the Soviet Union interfere in the Central American backyard with the
exception of Cuba. Where it was attempted (US intelligence in Eastern Europe, positioning of
Soviet missiles in Cuba), it was stroked back by political threat or violence.
After the conquest and settlement of territories outside of Europe (colonialism,
imperialism), the sea has become more important recently due to the mineral resources as well
as the waterways and the fishing zones. The 1994 UN-Maritime Convention divides the sea
into different zones: The territorial water base of 12 sea miles falls under the sovereignty of
the coastal state, an area of 200 sea miles is reserved for exploitation by the coastal state. Only
then begins the “liberty” of the high sea, the “common heritage of humanity” and the area
which is regulated by the International Sea Bed Agency as to the exploitation of resources.
This convention, however, has resulted in numerous conflicts between neighbouring states on
all continents due to overlapping sea territories. Between 1945 and 1995 we counted 15 of
these sea conflicts in Europe, particularly in the North and Baltic Sea as well as in the Aegean
Sea. Where sea borders of neighbouring countries overlap, conflicts emerge about fishing or
drilling rights as well as about other resources on the sea bed.
7
8
After all land has been distributed among states, only sea and space still offer room for
manoeuvre. Further processes of nation state-building result in a distribution instead of a gain
problem. Interstate relations become more frequent and closer due to their density and can
lead to conflicts or to regional integration. Especially in Western states, borders have become
more transparent, modern communication technology transcends space and time, relates
peoples closer to another and makes events in different parts of the world synchronic
experiences. In the age of CNN there does not exist stable and isolated space and a diachronic
sequence concerning the perception of events. What counts is the way in which political
events are set in scene and which kind of information is transported.
Conditions for peace promoting borders
There are two main strategies to promote peace within and among states: through
strengthening governance of individual states and through political integration. Whereas the
former secures identity and promotes security by effective state control (national state
function to be observed), the latter solves the so called security dilemma – which consists of
the fear to become attacked by another state – by bringing states closer to each other through
regional arrangements forming an integrated political system such as today’s European
Union. In both cases by giving up national power politics states can gain more than they
would gain if they played a zero-sum game.
Along with the changes of state functions in Western societies, state borders have attained a
new quality. The European integration model reduced the fear of war and made borders
permeable. The same holds for territorial based ethnic groups that according to the four
freedoms can move freely between states. The will to unify Europe resulted in the ratification
of numerous border treaties i. e. between Germany and the Netherlands (concerning Elten,
Tuddern and Dinxperlo), between Germany and France (concerning the “Saarland”), between
Poland and Germany (“Oder/Neiße”), between Belgium and the Netherlands (concerning
Baerle-Duc) which either implied the acceptance of respective territories or a territorial
compensation. The voluntary integration of states into a regional alliance made such
agreements about borders possible. Furthermore, the East-West-conflict has neutralized the
arbitrary borders created by former power politics. German unification, the peaceful
separation of Czechoslovakia, the formation of independent nation states after the fall of the
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia would not have been possible without such changes after 1989.
Conclusion
8
9
In conclusion, borders can be both, an obstacle or facilitator of peace. The role of the
geographic attributes of a boundary or territory can be both, an opportunity for cooperation
and a cause of conflict. Both positions are possible: boundary-as-barrier and boundary-asinducer-to-peace. Conflicts over borders arise when national sovereignty rights of riparian
states are questioned, where borders are arbitrarily dictated from outside or where borders are
not defined unambiguously. Peace is promoted by borders if they function as a demarcation
between the inside and the outside, between us and the others and therefore reinforcing
identity and peace. With strong governance capacities the state can fulfil the functions of
securing peace inside and outside its territory. The Western states cum grano salis possess
these capacities more or less, whereas in the world of weak or failed states this peace
promoting function is not fulfilled.
In some cases the reduction of tensions within states can be achieved by building new
entities through separation or division. Such processes, if they occur peacefully, are based on
the principle of self-determination. The peaceful division between Slovakia and the Czech
Republic is a good example for such a demarcation. Other cases of state division have been
violent, though, like the division between East and West Pakistan or between Eritrea and
Ethiopia. The separation of territories by building a wall is not a solution (at least not in the
long run) to a peace process. Such ‘demarcations’ miss the main essential, namely the agreed
consensus by the parties involved. The Berlin wall was only a temporary ‘solution’ to the
imposed separation of a nation and the walls that separate parts of Israel and Palestine
nowadays will not be a ‘solution’ to the conflict between the two nations.
The other strategy consists of integrating states into a regional or organisational arrangement.
Such arrangements can reduce conflicts or even solve them as the examples of the European
integration shows. Border conflicts have been solved and minority conflicts reduced. The
enlargement of the European Union towards Eastern Europe can help overcoming the
numerous minority conflicts in that area. Borders promote peace if they become integrated
into an agreed and mutually accepted agreement. In contrast, imposing borders by external
force potentially results in warlike conflicts as European history of the 20th century teaches.
Bibliography
Pfetsch, F.R. and Christoph Rohloff (2000): National and International Conflicts. New Theoretical and Empirical
Approaches. London et al.: Routledge
9
10
Pfetsch Frank R. (1995): Dimensionen des Politischen: Handlung und Reflexion. Theoretische Dimensionen des
Politischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Prescott, J. (1965): The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries. Chicago: Aldine
Schmitt, Carl (1950): Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Euopaeum. Berlin
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1962). Introduction by C.E. Vaughan.
Oxford : Basil Blackwell
Whittemore Boggs ((1949): International boundaries: A Study of Boundary Frontiers and Problems. N.Y.:
Columbia UP
10