THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF BORDERS

“In early days there were no boundaries, and men desired none. In these later days the world is full of boundaries…” (Holdich, 1916)

When we think of borders with disappreciation, we always refer to the well-known “glorious time” of natural life, before societies were formed, cities were built, humans were corrupted, dictators ruled people, and States appeared to prevent them from being free, natural and happy. And of course, there was no need for borders back to the time where everything was fine and humans lived happy in the nature. We actually know very few about these “times”.  

Borders derive from property. Borders extend to a community the property of a land. We’ve all heard Proudhon’s quote : property is theft. Indeed, back to the natural times, the man who takes an apple from the tree in order to feed himself is stealing it from the community of all of those who need it. Proudhon believes legitimate property derives from labour : the apple belongs to the man only if he has planted and cultivated the tree with is patience and efforts. If labour is the only way not to steal property from humanity, it requires to settle down on a land and cultivate it. Nomadism have been replaced by settling, and borders have emerged between families or communities.

Borders naturally delimitate an economical community, since back to the “post-natural times”, they delimitated a cultivated land belonging to those eating from this culture. Then come exchanges between these communities, one community will grow potatoes, and the other one will grow salad. Borders eventually are moved between these communities, and a new, larger border, contains these two communities. And so on. The division of work allows progress : each community, focusing on one task, can develop efficiency in this specific field. Progress , in history, has gone with enlarging the community. Indeed, the definition of borders have changed : borders tend to be removed internally to an economical exchange community (as today, European Union increasingly functions like a State, since it is an integrated economic community).

Through history of civilisations, human-size communities have enlarged to become imagined communities. In a human-size community, each individual is known by each individual, whereas in today’s nations, we don’t know who is part of the community we belong to. Tribes or cities have extended the scope of their power through war and Empires have emerged : from Rome to the Roman Empire, from the Quraych tribe to the Ummayad Caliphate, from feudal autonomous seignories to France. From a few British migrants to the USA. Borders have extended.

Enlarged communities contain people with different ideas about politics (how they want to live together) and even, different cultures, traditions and habits. This leads to the need for a narrative to link these people so that they accept the administrative and regulation control that becomes needed for such a wide community. The imagined community is born.

Borders evolve according to State’s evolution.

The brief following history of borders will focus on Europe, as the concept of nation-state that has been hegemonic until today in world politics was born in Europe, with 1864’s Treaty of Westphalia.

History of borders roughly divides civilisation’s history between pre-modern (before the 15th century), modern (15th to 19th century), contemporary times (19th-20th century) and post-modern times (after the fall of communism).

The Treaty of Westphalia states that nation-states should be granted “free exercise on their sovereign land”. Before that, it seems that power was more about the people and belongings than about the territory. Europe was divided within an uncountable number of kingdoms, and the borders between these kingdoms were usually not fixed on the land. A king could take over the working strength of another king’s people, and nothing would change but who these people will pay obedience to. No line on the ground defined borders ; Kings knew who was ruling over which people but did not know geographically where would it start and where would it stop.

The border between Portugal and Spain is considered one of the oldest borders on Earth, and it was defined in 1297’s Alcanices Treaty. But it is only after 1864’s Treaty of Limits that teams were sent on the land and started to define geographically the border.

Along medieval times, some kingdoms increased their power, creating cities, who rose (and fought) until they have a monopoly over several kingdoms. This is a simplified way to explain the development of what we know as nation-states. In France for instance, many different languages were spoken, but the rise of Paris and its power over other kingdoms lead to a unification of notables’ languages, in order to unify the land and legitimize the State by making it a nation-State.

Throughout the 19th century, borders became solid, physical, precise. Nation-States made borders more than an economical division ; a cultural division. The border-making process appeared lately, and treaties on territories started to be followed by geographical and social researches in order to decide where to put the border exactly. Between Spain and France, the Basque country has always been claiming independence : it was important for the sake of the two nation-states to clearly define their borders in order to avoid an uncontrolled and un-national population to rise. The increasing economic integration of the world also made it important to clearly define what states are, and what is the scope of their power. Through colonisation, european nation-states exported their concept of borders ; but obviously they did not really try to make borders correspond to a social reality (just look at the northern algerian borders) neither to cultural realities (look at the Hutu and Tutsi mutual genocide).

Since the industrial ages, communication and transports have become faster and easier, allowing wide cultural exchanges and the development of soft power, especially since the Cold War. We could argue that these cultural and ideological exchanges allowed italian citizens to define themselves as pro-russian communists or pro-american liberals more than italian. Borders as cultural limits have started to withdraw, as they have started to withdraw as economical limits ; free-trade laws have worked to reduce the border’s role of economic protectionism by taxes. This process went as far as the application of the Schengen Area : a Europe without restrictions in freedom of movement nor customs ; a Europe without borders, where physical borders will only distinguish between one administration and another. And as borders withdrew, administration withdrew as national economies were no more protected and people no more restricted, depending on their own administration.

This phenomenon must be understood along to the radical change in the role of States. These are, in a way, losing power over their population and territory, as their population is exposed to ideas othering the state on the internet, and as their territory is becoming less useful in developed countries because production has been removed from these countries. Indeed, states need to attract investments, capitals and intellectual development businesses in order to be strong. We could even point a “de-territorialization” of States, regarding the Emirates for example, who are becoming a model state in terms of economical success and have no territory, but get their success from their ability to attract companies and matters of finance. A State wants to be the center of the world’s politics. And to be the center of the world, today it is better to be where decisions are taken and not where materials are produced : and these two no more correspond. If the territory is less and less important, borders are less and less necessary.

Paradoxically, the world is becoming less open and global than we would like to see it - in terms of liberalism, universal rights and territories imperialism. Economic protectionism is more and more popular (think about the Brexit, about nationalist parties in Europe, about Trump’s USA…) and tends to less free trade, more customs and more borders. Immigration law deny the idea that borders are unnecessary in our “global village”, and prove that strong inequalities in access to territories (and the administrative privilege they mean) remain ; borders remain. Lastly, the example of Crimea has shown us that territory is still very important in assuring one State’s power : Russia, by taking over a land, is assessing its power over Ukraine.

Iva Maria Miranda Piresb and Emily Langea, in a comprehensive paper on the history of borders, have had a witty word to describe their evolution : “from sensed, to solid, to liquid, to complex borders”.

It is still up to you to define today’s borders and their legitimacy.