(CL) Why Is The World Divided Territorially?

"The word territory conveys the notion of an area around a place; it connotes an organization with an element of centrality, which ought to be the authority exercising sovereignty over the people occupying or using that place and the space around it." (Gottmann, Jean -- The Significance of Territory 1973)


Territory has been bounded for centuries by zones or, more in modern times, by lines. It has always been a measure of the power of a country to be able to claim a certain division of land for itself. These areas and the people that fall under them would be subject to the laws, taxes, military practices, and structuring imposed upon them by the ruling class. This ruling class, or governmental power, would have the territorial right of the practice of these things, given that the state is able to govern itself. The particular size of the state, though, is not definitive of the power that the state has. This element is more subject to strategic reason; that the territory of a state would be practically managable and securable.

After the colonialization period though, states focused more on managing land rather than claiming it, placing particular importance of the growth of its current cities and towns. This is also because with only 21% land on surface of the earth, it is considered "a scarce resource that cannot be produced, only redistributed." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)

The earth has been condemned to being distributed, owned, and borded by those who have enough control to do so. It is especially in these modern times, there is a significant increase in the perception of land as an asset, or even more so, a taxable asset which can be sold, bought, or exchanged.

In any case, bounded territory is supposed to be independent under the rule of the state that resides in it. By definition, an independent state should not be subject to another, only the citizens of the given state will be subject to the laws. But the chapter in the book raised a good question, "Why should geographical location dictate citizenship, rights and responsibilities?" It is a question I have no answer to because I have asked it myself recently. I mean, especially in modern times, where globalization is very prominent, does it really matter where a person is born? Citizenship seems so very arbitrary when from wherever you are, connections, through networks, can be formed to almost any place in the world.

Regarding this, the chapter proposed two terms that I think are quite appropriate. First is deterritorialization, which means that territory is no longer fixed, and second, supra-territorialization, which means that interaction can no longer be contained by the borders of states.

"Why should a state be limited by what it can do within its boundaries but those boundaries not be open to question?" (from the chapter also)

The increasing globalization that the world is subject to calls in other people to issues within a state that could be considered as questionable for the good of the people living in there. True, that sometimes these interventions are uncalled for simply for the sheer reason that those intervening do not understand the culture that governs those they thing have questionable practices or policies. But if people outside of a state can call into question the government of a state, what's to stop them from calling into question the right of the state to still retain the same boundaries that they have?

Especially in recent years, many situations have inspired supra-national involvement and therefore supra-territorial initiatives. Things like infectious diseases (AIDS/HIV among them), poverty (in Africa and elsewhere), global climate disasters as well as natural disasters (such as Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines and the devastating earthquake in Haiti) are among these. The increasing concern that humanity seems to have for those even outside their own spaces of residence are inspiring more and more global action to relieve suffering and subsequently, interfere, whether invited or not, with the independent state.

With these, I'm finding it hard to give an answer to the question "Why is the world divided territorially" and have it be relevant and sufficient. It seems more prudent to consider the world as a whole, especially in these times where humanity has to act together to survive and resolve those difficulties that we, ourselves, have created for the planet.

So, why is the world divided territorially? Does it even matter anymore? Is it merely a matter of practice that impacts little on actual living?