TRANSCENDING BORDERS : STIMULATING INTERTERRITORIAL COOPERATION
The discussion surrounding the question of interterritoriality and international borders raises the more fundamental question of what a boundary is. Aristotle, building upon Euclid’s definition, stated that a boundary is “the first point beyond which it is not possible to find any part [of a given object], and the first point within which every part [of that given object] is” (Metaphysics V, 17, 1022a4–5). Aristotle’s definition thus asserts that boundaries are exact lines along which one thing ends and another one starts, without overlapping. It should be said, however, “that belief in [the objectivity of boundaries] epitomizes a form of metaphysical realism that cries for justification” (Varzi). This justification, in reference to artificial boundaries between countries demarcating the end of the legal jurisdiction and cultural values of one and the beginning of another, does not exist. It does not exist, not when one considers the myriad overlapping border disputes between UN Member States, not when one observes the endless border skirmishes between Sudan and South Sudan, not when one is reminded of the conflict between Norway and the Russian Federation over the island of Svalbard, and certainly not when one thinks about the human rights abuses that occur daily, from the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti to that between Israel and Palestine.
Boundaries, in regards to international borders, can never be exact. They shift and adapt to historical conditions, physical and topographical features, sociological and cultural factors, and are, often forcibly, shifted by colonization and conflict to culminate in what we colloquially call “borders” today. These borders, especially those between formerly colonized countries, are often drawn up arbitrarily, ploughing through communities otherwise connected by language, culture, religion, or tribal affiliation. Closed borders isolate communities, cripple economic growth and cultural interaction, and physically obstruct the practice of fundamental human rights (Draft Committee art. 13-14). Whether it be the heavily militarized borders between India and Pakistan or North and South Korea that divide culturally interdependent nations, the guarded borders between MENA and Europe that so viciously deny the right to asylum from conflict and war, or the de facto boundaries between unrecognised entities in the Southern Caucasus region that result from the destructive nationalism and foreign interference of regional powers, these borders create problems that often exceed the reach of national governments. The lack of regional and international cooperation in solving the myriad issues, regardless of how minuscule or destructive, caused by closed borders and overlapping territorial claims, has been evident time and again in the last few decades. In that regard, it is time for United Nations Member States and non-member territories alike to pursue interterritorial cooperation, and to transcend borders, in order to ensure the realization of fundamental human rights and to “maintain international peace and security” (Preparatory Commission, art. 1). By transcending borders, one begins to understand what issues these unnatural geographical limits induce and to identify possible ways for more cooperative diplomatic relations. In order to understand how important it is for diplomatic philosophies to begin transcending borders, let us identify the various issues that are induced through the current geopolitical divisions of our world.
Borders induce territorial disputes. The desire to reach exact borders, not realizing their shifting nature, makes the protection and extension of borders crucial topics for many states. Though the overextension of borders has occasionally been considered dangerous for states and empires throughout history, many attributed increases in land area to increases in the power possessed by the state. An Italian Renaissance political philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli even suggested that “the wish to acquire more [territory] is admittedly a very natural and common thing, and when [people] succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned” (Burghardt). Therefore, extending borders and expanding the state have been treated as organic processes, and this so-called natural tendency raises questions, or more specifically, causes territorial disputes within states and nations. These disagreements in turn lead to territorial claims in many different parts of the world. For such instances, international law lists four modes for the acquisition of a territory: occupation, in other words “establishing control over a territory that was unadministered (terra nullius) at the time of the claim”; prescription, defined as “the maintenance of effective control for a sufficiently long period of time”; cession, or transfer by treaty; and accretion, in other words growth of territory through acts of nature (Burghardt). An additional mode, conquest, is outlawed by Article 2 of the United Nations Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State“ (Preparatory Commission, art. 2). However, the laws set by the United Nations or any authority of international law such as the International Court of Justice rarely come into action, and the hypothetical scenarios are rarely observed. A perfect example of such statements is the heated topic of territorial claims between Israel and Palestine. This is not a mere territorial claim, rather a catastrophic process for the civilians due to the restricted use of common resources across the Jordan River Basin and a strong political incoherence across the region which reflects onto the daily lives of civilians on a major scale. Therefore, recognizing that territorial claims possess deeper meanings than mere territory acquisition requests is the key to comprehending the resultant political incoherence, the extreme nationalism in conflicted regions, and human rights violations.
Borders induce political incoherence. When it comes to territorial disputes around the globe, the list is long and ever-changing. However, there are some that have persisted for decades, e.g. the Israel-Palestine conflict. As it is addressed previously, the dispute is far greater than claiming the region as one’s own. It is a matter of who gets to utilize the land and natural resources, as well as the right to govern all Palestinians and Israelis residing in the region. The United Nations, for the past 26 years, has been in support of a two-state solution in order to end the ongoing conflict, and even though both parties did indeed agree to the implementation of such a solution, the conflict is still present due to the seemingly never-ending dissension between the parties. The conflict does not only affect the two states which are actively involved but also brings severe tension and political incoherence to the Middle East as a whole. Neighboring states find it difficult to stay impartial in the conflict due to the nature of their geopolitical status and their ideological stances on the matter. For example, Egypt is under a 1978 peace treaty with Israel which prevents Egypt from stationing troops in some regions. This forces Egypt to stay close to Israel, and thereby their claim, and prevents them from utilizing their military force to enforce their stance on the matter. However, Egypt is one of the few states which preserve some level of impartiality. To the detriment of the region, many states share a different approach to the conflict and radically support one side of the conflict while condemning the other. Perhaps the best example of this is the Islamic Republic of Iran. “The Iranian government believes Israel is fundamentally illegitimate and supports the most hard-line anti-Israeli Arab factions” (Beauchamp). An actor also taking a decisive stance on the matter is the United States. Even though they are more than 10 thousand kilometers away from the region, the US has always actively supported the Isreali claim. In 2017, the Trump administration went as far as to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As can be seen from these, the international community is divided regarding the conflict and the proper method to solve it. This divided nature of states occupying the Middle East hinders international cooperation in the region and creates an environment where mutual understanding, diplomacy, and solution-seeking is not fostered, therefore contributing to the political incoherence of the region.
Borders induce polarization. First of all, the concepts of demarcations and territorial divisions are potent propellants of the concept of identity. The effects of political divisions and borders blossom in the nation itself. Ergo, the actions of the state, as the representative of the authorial sovereignty of the region, are mirrored in the cultural unification of its people. In other words, collective responses from the nation in forms of nationalist and patriotic acts could accentuate the ramifications of diplomatic initiatives. Such nationalist forms of insurgency or support are often thought of as a rooted phenomenon, however, nationalism is actually an emerging movement in our world, gradually becoming an issue in various conflicts and often misconstrued. In this case, both patriotic and nationalist movements refer to protecting a common origin, culture, language or ethnicity, thereby their identity. In addition to the formulation of a national identity through definitive demarcations and diplomatic differences, it is important to keep in mind the difference between a fanatic division and a sense of self-determination in order to understand the collective behaviors of conflicts. Through the course of history, the inherited traditions from generation to generation, set in a particular soil, led to the establishment of authorities in these regions in order to not lose their enriched native land. However, this does not encompass what fanatic nationalism has emerged to. From the end of the 18th century, distinguishing and marginalizing another nation has started to ingrain itself into the modern history of the world. Most African countries gained their independence alongside their right to express their cultures, traditions and sovereign authorities in the late 20th century. However, border conflicts and cultural disputes between the formerly oppressed nations of Africa perpetuate themselves in our day. The national and distinct identities of the Sudanese and South Sudanese people are intertwined in an ongoing conflict, resulting in political corruption and uncountable numbers of refugees. In the case of cultural conflicts, it is important to ask: Is it necessary to oppress and obliterate one identity to solidify another? Parallel with this statement, nationalism through the lens of politicians and non-state organizations has become a way of luring people into their case. For instance, the Middle East, occupied by numerous authorities and organizations still stands by the differences of their identities, and ideologies. The translucent borders in the Middle East make it harder to determine a boundary between all the parties, which is often taken for granted with historical backgrounds and hegemonic acts of some states. However, what makes one stand so vehemently for the cause of their people? In such a promptly globalized world, boundaries and differences are amplified and minimized simultaneously; ergo, nationalism and divisions are not only diplomatic matters but societal and individualistic problems that push communities further apart.
Borders induce the dehumanization of immigrants. Political inconsistencies and their effects on the collective cognition of the people are correlated with the implementation of human rights. In this day and age, nativists who stand in opposition to immigration to preserve culture and demographic homogeneity are becoming increasingly appealing to the masses. By limiting immigration policy and promoting a brand of social conservatism, the idea that the well-being of a nation and her people is derived from the makeup of a people of certain destiny is being constantly weaponized against marginalized communities. Reactionaries make the argument that immigrant populations represent a burden on the economy, that their contribution to taxes is dwarfed by the assistance they receive in welfare, that a flood of immigrants into any economy would destabilize employment and wages. However, this argument falls apart at the slightest hint of scrutiny. Immigrants are so alienated that it’s often overlooked how they also represent a growth in the supply of consumers and create demand for goods. Migrants, under nationalistic rhetoric, are presented as occupants of two opposing ideas simultaneously: welfare-dependent and employment seeking. But this reasoning depends on the convenience of the person arguing against immigration. Migrants are isolated as if diversity and, by extension, immigration erodes social cohesion. Culture indeed is what every person individually appropriates to manufacture their identity to find a place within a community where they communicate their preferences and manifest a sense of belonging. But people are amalgams of lived experiences, one is not born but becomes a subject, not as an isolated entity but immersed in a greater system, like culture.
The effects of borders on different contexts have prevailed throughout history and will continue to be a relevant issue for years to come. Nevertheless, the existence of borders should not act as a hindrance to cooperation, and this has been proven over the years by the very formation of the United Nations. Established in accordance with the formation of the United Nations and with the aim of creating an environment in which different views and histories can come together and address common concerns, our conference warrants its mission on perpetuating this togetherness in differences. Issues like environmental degradation, lack of educational opportunities, poverty, and insurance of equality are perpetual and topical problems that require long term solutions that are reinforced by global cooperation which requires the acknowledgement of a layered diplomatic reality. As a result, it is important to keep in mind that borders amalgamate physical demarcations within political frameworks and the social identification of a nation, helping to understand the background of major conflicts. Therefore RCIMUN 2020 encourages all participants to contemplate the various connotations that borders possess while keeping in mind that interterritorial cooperation is the key to transcending borders.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Compiled by Jonathan Barnes, Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1984. 12 vols. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Balibar, Etienne. "Racism and nationalism." Nations and nationalism: A reader (1991): 163-72.
Beauchamp, Zack. “How Are Other Middle Eastern Countries Handling the Conflict?” Vox, Vox, 14 May 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080074/israeli-palestinian-conflict-saudi-arabia-iran-turkey-egypt-jordan-syria-lebanon.
Burghardt, Andrew F. “The Bases of Territorial Claims.” Geographical Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 1973, pp. 225–245. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/213412.
Draft Committee, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 10 Dec. 1948,
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Preparatory Commission, Charter of the United Nations, United Nations, 24 Oct. 1945, https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Varzi, Achille. "Boundary." Edited by Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 9 Feb. 2004, plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/boundary/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
The discussion surrounding the question of interterritoriality and international borders raises the more fundamental question of what a boundary is. Aristotle, building upon Euclid’s definition, stated that a boundary is “the first point beyond which it is not possible to find any part [of a given object], and the first point within which every part [of that given object] is” (Metaphysics V, 17, 1022a4–5). Aristotle’s definition thus asserts that boundaries are exact lines along which one thing ends and another one starts, without overlapping. It should be said, however, “that belief in [the objectivity of boundaries] epitomizes a form of metaphysical realism that cries for justification” (Varzi). This justification, in reference to artificial boundaries between countries demarcating the end of the legal jurisdiction and cultural values of one and the beginning of another, does not exist. It does not exist, not when one considers the myriad overlapping border disputes between UN Member States, not when one observes the endless border skirmishes between Sudan and South Sudan, not when one is reminded of the conflict between Norway and the Russian Federation over the island of Svalbard, and certainly not when one thinks about the human rights abuses that occur daily, from the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti to that between Israel and Palestine.
Boundaries, in regards to international borders, can never be exact. They shift and adapt to historical conditions, physical and topographical features, sociological and cultural factors, and are, often forcibly, shifted by colonization and conflict to culminate in what we colloquially call “borders” today. These borders, especially those between formerly colonized countries, are often drawn up arbitrarily, ploughing through communities otherwise connected by language, culture, religion, or tribal affiliation. Closed borders isolate communities, cripple economic growth and cultural interaction, and physically obstruct the practice of fundamental human rights (Draft Committee art. 13-14). Whether it be the heavily militarized borders between India and Pakistan or North and South Korea that divide culturally interdependent nations, the guarded borders between MENA and Europe that so viciously deny the right to asylum from conflict and war, or the de facto boundaries between unrecognised entities in the Southern Caucasus region that result from the destructive nationalism and foreign interference of regional powers, these borders create problems that often exceed the reach of national governments. The lack of regional and international cooperation in solving the myriad issues, regardless of how minuscule or destructive, caused by closed borders and overlapping territorial claims, has been evident time and again in the last few decades. In that regard, it is time for United Nations Member States and non-member territories alike to pursue interterritorial cooperation, and to transcend borders, in order to ensure the realization of fundamental human rights and to “maintain international peace and security” (Preparatory Commission, art. 1). By transcending borders, one begins to understand what issues these unnatural geographical limits induce and to identify possible ways for more cooperative diplomatic relations. In order to understand how important it is for diplomatic philosophies to begin transcending borders, let us identify the various issues that are induced through the current geopolitical divisions of our world.
Borders induce territorial disputes. The desire to reach exact borders, not realizing their shifting nature, makes the protection and extension of borders crucial topics for many states. Though the overextension of borders has occasionally been considered dangerous for states and empires throughout history, many attributed increases in land area to increases in the power possessed by the state. An Italian Renaissance political philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli even suggested that “the wish to acquire more [territory] is admittedly a very natural and common thing, and when [people] succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned” (Burghardt). Therefore, extending borders and expanding the state have been treated as organic processes, and this so-called natural tendency raises questions, or more specifically, causes territorial disputes within states and nations. These disagreements in turn lead to territorial claims in many different parts of the world. For such instances, international law lists four modes for the acquisition of a territory: occupation, in other words “establishing control over a territory that was unadministered (terra nullius) at the time of the claim”; prescription, defined as “the maintenance of effective control for a sufficiently long period of time”; cession, or transfer by treaty; and accretion, in other words growth of territory through acts of nature (Burghardt). An additional mode, conquest, is outlawed by Article 2 of the United Nations Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State“ (Preparatory Commission, art. 2). However, the laws set by the United Nations or any authority of international law such as the International Court of Justice rarely come into action, and the hypothetical scenarios are rarely observed. A perfect example of such statements is the heated topic of territorial claims between Israel and Palestine. This is not a mere territorial claim, rather a catastrophic process for the civilians due to the restricted use of common resources across the Jordan River Basin and a strong political incoherence across the region which reflects onto the daily lives of civilians on a major scale. Therefore, recognizing that territorial claims possess deeper meanings than mere territory acquisition requests is the key to comprehending the resultant political incoherence, the extreme nationalism in conflicted regions, and human rights violations.
Borders induce political incoherence. When it comes to territorial disputes around the globe, the list is long and ever-changing. However, there are some that have persisted for decades, e.g. the Israel-Palestine conflict. As it is addressed previously, the dispute is far greater than claiming the region as one’s own. It is a matter of who gets to utilize the land and natural resources, as well as the right to govern all Palestinians and Israelis residing in the region. The United Nations, for the past 26 years, has been in support of a two-state solution in order to end the ongoing conflict, and even though both parties did indeed agree to the implementation of such a solution, the conflict is still present due to the seemingly never-ending dissension between the parties. The conflict does not only affect the two states which are actively involved but also brings severe tension and political incoherence to the Middle East as a whole. Neighboring states find it difficult to stay impartial in the conflict due to the nature of their geopolitical status and their ideological stances on the matter. For example, Egypt is under a 1978 peace treaty with Israel which prevents Egypt from stationing troops in some regions. This forces Egypt to stay close to Israel, and thereby their claim, and prevents them from utilizing their military force to enforce their stance on the matter. However, Egypt is one of the few states which preserve some level of impartiality. To the detriment of the region, many states share a different approach to the conflict and radically support one side of the conflict while condemning the other. Perhaps the best example of this is the Islamic Republic of Iran. “The Iranian government believes Israel is fundamentally illegitimate and supports the most hard-line anti-Israeli Arab factions” (Beauchamp). An actor also taking a decisive stance on the matter is the United States. Even though they are more than 10 thousand kilometers away from the region, the US has always actively supported the Isreali claim. In 2017, the Trump administration went as far as to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As can be seen from these, the international community is divided regarding the conflict and the proper method to solve it. This divided nature of states occupying the Middle East hinders international cooperation in the region and creates an environment where mutual understanding, diplomacy, and solution-seeking is not fostered, therefore contributing to the political incoherence of the region.
Borders induce polarization. First of all, the concepts of demarcations and territorial divisions are potent propellants of the concept of identity. The effects of political divisions and borders blossom in the nation itself. Ergo, the actions of the state, as the representative of the authorial sovereignty of the region, are mirrored in the cultural unification of its people. In other words, collective responses from the nation in forms of nationalist and patriotic acts could accentuate the ramifications of diplomatic initiatives. Such nationalist forms of insurgency or support are often thought of as a rooted phenomenon, however, nationalism is actually an emerging movement in our world, gradually becoming an issue in various conflicts and often misconstrued. In this case, both patriotic and nationalist movements refer to protecting a common origin, culture, language or ethnicity, thereby their identity. In addition to the formulation of a national identity through definitive demarcations and diplomatic differences, it is important to keep in mind the difference between a fanatic division and a sense of self-determination in order to understand the collective behaviors of conflicts. Through the course of history, the inherited traditions from generation to generation, set in a particular soil, led to the establishment of authorities in these regions in order to not lose their enriched native land. However, this does not encompass what fanatic nationalism has emerged to. From the end of the 18th century, distinguishing and marginalizing another nation has started to ingrain itself into the modern history of the world. Most African countries gained their independence alongside their right to express their cultures, traditions and sovereign authorities in the late 20th century. However, border conflicts and cultural disputes between the formerly oppressed nations of Africa perpetuate themselves in our day. The national and distinct identities of the Sudanese and South Sudanese people are intertwined in an ongoing conflict, resulting in political corruption and uncountable numbers of refugees. In the case of cultural conflicts, it is important to ask: Is it necessary to oppress and obliterate one identity to solidify another? Parallel with this statement, nationalism through the lens of politicians and non-state organizations has become a way of luring people into their case. For instance, the Middle East, occupied by numerous authorities and organizations still stands by the differences of their identities, and ideologies. The translucent borders in the Middle East make it harder to determine a boundary between all the parties, which is often taken for granted with historical backgrounds and hegemonic acts of some states. However, what makes one stand so vehemently for the cause of their people? In such a promptly globalized world, boundaries and differences are amplified and minimized simultaneously; ergo, nationalism and divisions are not only diplomatic matters but societal and individualistic problems that push communities further apart.
Borders induce the dehumanization of immigrants. Political inconsistencies and their effects on the collective cognition of the people are correlated with the implementation of human rights. In this day and age, nativists who stand in opposition to immigration to preserve culture and demographic homogeneity are becoming increasingly appealing to the masses. By limiting immigration policy and promoting a brand of social conservatism, the idea that the well-being of a nation and her people is derived from the makeup of a people of certain destiny is being constantly weaponized against marginalized communities. Reactionaries make the argument that immigrant populations represent a burden on the economy, that their contribution to taxes is dwarfed by the assistance they receive in welfare, that a flood of immigrants into any economy would destabilize employment and wages. However, this argument falls apart at the slightest hint of scrutiny. Immigrants are so alienated that it’s often overlooked how they also represent a growth in the supply of consumers and create demand for goods. Migrants, under nationalistic rhetoric, are presented as occupants of two opposing ideas simultaneously: welfare-dependent and employment seeking. But this reasoning depends on the convenience of the person arguing against immigration. Migrants are isolated as if diversity and, by extension, immigration erodes social cohesion. Culture indeed is what every person individually appropriates to manufacture their identity to find a place within a community where they communicate their preferences and manifest a sense of belonging. But people are amalgams of lived experiences, one is not born but becomes a subject, not as an isolated entity but immersed in a greater system, like culture.
The effects of borders on different contexts have prevailed throughout history and will continue to be a relevant issue for years to come. Nevertheless, the existence of borders should not act as a hindrance to cooperation, and this has been proven over the years by the very formation of the United Nations. Established in accordance with the formation of the United Nations and with the aim of creating an environment in which different views and histories can come together and address common concerns, our conference warrants its mission on perpetuating this togetherness in differences. Issues like environmental degradation, lack of educational opportunities, poverty, and insurance of equality are perpetual and topical problems that require long term solutions that are reinforced by global cooperation which requires the acknowledgement of a layered diplomatic reality. As a result, it is important to keep in mind that borders amalgamate physical demarcations within political frameworks and the social identification of a nation, helping to understand the background of major conflicts. Therefore RCIMUN 2020 encourages all participants to contemplate the various connotations that borders possess while keeping in mind that interterritorial cooperation is the key to transcending borders.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Compiled by Jonathan Barnes, Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1984. 12 vols. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Balibar, Etienne. "Racism and nationalism." Nations and nationalism: A reader (1991): 163-72.
Beauchamp, Zack. “How Are Other Middle Eastern Countries Handling the Conflict?” Vox, Vox, 14 May 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080074/israeli-palestinian-conflict-saudi-arabia-iran-turkey-egypt-jordan-syria-lebanon.
Burghardt, Andrew F. “The Bases of Territorial Claims.” Geographical Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 1973, pp. 225–245. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/213412.
Draft Committee, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 10 Dec. 1948,
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Preparatory Commission, Charter of the United Nations, United Nations, 24 Oct. 1945, https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Varzi, Achille. "Boundary." Edited by Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 9 Feb. 2004, plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/boundary/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
