Slide 1

Nation-states and the modern world system

KGA171 The Global Geography of ChangePresented by Associate Professor Elaine StratfordSemester 1Slide 1This module on Territories, Borders and Flows is concerned with how societies create, maintain and dispute territories which ties into other modules in a number of ways. First, territories are part of the geographical imagination and ways in which we organize natural, social and cultural space. Second, biogeochemical and ecosystem processes that have forged the landscapes onto which territories are inscribed make those territories more or less desirable for their resource base, capacity to support populations, and provide context for evolution and human flourishing. Third, the manner in which social groups come to organize themselves politically and economically as nations and states affects the manner in which territory is valued and treated, and may influence how we respond to environmental conditions and pressures. In turn that mix of factors may affect the sustainability of our human ecosystems, and how we react to a range of phenomena that make us more or less vulnerable to change.With that background in mind, this first lecture explores the relationship between power and space in the context of the nation state. The second lecture [Globalization: nationstates in global flows] reviews the twentieth century history of the nation-state, a period of rapid decolonization, and the rise of transnational organizations. In returning to previous sessions about demography and development, the last lecture [Australia in Global Flows] sketches some of the particular characteristics of the Australian nation-state. Because we are so close to the end of semester and we want you to have time to review the material presented to you, these three sessions may be shorter than some others in the collection; nevertheless you are expected to undertake a reasonable amount of reading for each.

Captain Cook takes formal possession of New South Wales, Possession Island, 22 August 1770 2Slide 2In this lecture, the question that we are asking is what is the role of the state and nation in a modern world system increasingly predicated on globalization and why are responses to that question so contested? My argument is that state and nation are idealized understandings we have of governing, of peoples, territories and their borders, of flows across those borders, and of the ways in which the units that comprise the modern world system have come to be representative of our apparent need to mark ourselves as belonging to particular groups, or distinguished from others. In relation to this issue, then, I want to place before you a fivefold argument as follows. First, the state is a relatively recent, modern, spatial organization of political power, a way of declaring borders and establishing territory. It originated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe and was deployed in other regions in the nineteenth century, and again deconstructed in a sense in the second half of the twentieth century. In short, the state arose via complex processes of imperialism, colonialism and decolonization, some of which we have examined in earlier sessions.Second, the political power of the state is closely linked to understandings of territoriality and of sovereignty, as well as being associated with our tendency to build shared identity around ethnic, religious, linguistic and regional traditions. Third, the geopolitics of the modern world system between about 1800 and about 1950 were defined by attempts among core states to exert colonial control over external territories, semi-peripheral and peripheral nations and states while protecting their own borders. At the same time, all parties sought to galvanize their own ideas of nationalism often by decrying others cultural positions and practices. Fourth, major realignments through armed conflict in the twentieth century contributed to a significant shift in world geopolitics, the post-war periods and processes of decolonization leading to the creation of an unprecedented number of independent nation-states. Last, the relationship between a world of states and nations and a modern world system that insists upon globalization is one marked by both productive and destructive tensions, which we will explore in the next lecture.Looking back, looking forwardPart 1Slide 3These preliminary observations in place, lets first deal with revision, learning objectives and readings. Revising Lecture 6.4

On the basis of insights from lectures 6.1 to 6.4 what is your understanding of the term vulnerability and its importance to geography and environmental studies?Describe and explain three phases or stages of armed conflict.How can the environment be used as a weapon in armed conflict? Provide examples from each of the stages of such conflict.What is eco-vandalism? What effects has it had in the Persian Gulf?Testing, training, separation, access and construction strategies have different effects on the environment. What are they and how do they arise?Describe and explain the differential effects of bombardment, despoliants and nuclear weapons on natural, social and cultural space. What is a key governance challenge in armed conflict and why is it a problem for environmental management?

A Woman ThinkingSlide 4On this slide are seven questions for you to think about and which will help you consolidate your learning around Lecture 6.4. Pause the presentation now and spend some time looking at the questions. Learning ObjectivesModule 7 Lecture 1be able todescribe the key characteristics of the nation-state, including those related to territory, culture and the modern world systemexplain in broad terms the transition from colonial to post-colonial geopolitics over the period from c1700s to c1970sevaluate in basic terms the merits of the argument that we are now all part of a global villageKGA171demonstrate knowledge of geographical concepts, earth and social systems and spatial patterns of changecreate and interpret basic maps, graphs and field dataidentify and analyse different viewpoints to contribute to debates about global developmentcommunicate in reflective and academic writing, referencing literature when neededSlide 5Now, lets focus for a moment on the learning objectives for Lecture 7.1. Pause the presentation while you read over these objectives. Note, in particular, their link to the third dot point that relates to the unit as a whole, listed on the right hand side of the screen.

Textbook Reading Bergman and Renwick (2008) pp.438-461Extended reading to p.483 of this text encouraged.

Critical readingWhat is the authors purpose?What key questions or problems does the author raise?What information, data and evidence does the author present?What key concepts does the author use to organize this information, this evidence?What key conclusions is the author coming to? Are those conclusions justified? What are the authors primary assumptions?What viewpoints is the author writing from?What are the implications of the authors reasoning?[from Foundation for Critical Thinking]

Old Woman Reading a Lectionary, Gerard DouSlide 6The reading for this session is listed on the slide here. Chapter 11 of Bergman and Renwicks text is in four parts dealing with the development of the nation-state idea; efforts to achieve a world map of nation-states; how states demarcate and organize territory; and measuring and mapping individual rights. You are asked to read about the first two of these, and invited to complete the whole chapter and read about the last two topics as well. A united world?Part 2Slide 7This module is about territories, borders and flows. So let me begin to address this question about whether, how and to what extent we are a united world by reference to these three organizing ideas, noting that we also pursue these ideas with more vigour in second year human geography and in third year specialist units.According to the Stanford Universitys Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a people or a nation, and may in fact encompass several of these identities It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler Territoriality is now deeply taken for granted a feature of authority all across the globe. Even supranational and international institutions like the European Union and the United Nations are composed of states whose membership is in turn defined territorially [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/]. How, then, did the notion of a territory within borders ruled by a sovereign come to be?7Holy Roman Empire 1560

Slide 8In simple terms, under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire pictured here was geographically organized into diocese, districts under the jurisdiction of a bishop. Of course, the Church predates the Empire, which formed in the 960s, continued in various forms until 1806, and embraced vast and diverse territories over that time. At numerous points, the Holy Roman Empire was immensely powerful, especially before the protestant reformation, which began in the mid 1500s. The point I want to make here is one also made by Bergman and Renwick (2008, p.441), namely that before their conversion to Catholicism in the early centuries of Christianity, the kings of the peoples of Europe had not ruled over fixed territories, but over groups of followers Government over a group of people rather than a defined territory is called regnum. The Church taught the principle of rule over a defined territory, which is called dominium. But rule over defined territories is not easy. As I made clear in the last lecture on armed conflict, if ones territory seems insufficient to ones needs or desires, movement across borders into others territories by means of force if necessary can be justified to settle religious disputes, seize resources or secure other advantages. 8Ratification of the Peace of Mnster between Spain and the Dutch Republic in the town hall of Mnster, 15 May 1648

After Gerard ter Borch (II), 1648-70, Rijksmuseum, AmsterdamSlide 9In short, for a significant part of our modern history, the idea of dominium seemed to require territories, borders, defensive positions, aggressive postures and armed conflict. In this regard, one of the most remarkable periods during the Holy Roman Empire occurred between 1618 and 1648, and is known as the 30 Years War. Fought mainly on politico-religious grounds between Catholics and Protestants, the war was extremely destructive and engaged various European states. At the same time, the Eighty Years War had been waged between Spain and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands since 1568. Then, in 1648, two treaties forged in Osnabrck (15 May 1648) and Mnster (24 October 1648) were agreed among the emperor and princes of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, the Dutch Republic and its allies, and sovereigns of the 51 free imperial cities which paid homage to the Emperor. This Peace of Westphalia is the first recorded example of a modern diplomatic congress, and at its heart was the creation of a new political order in central Europe founded on the general principles of territorially sovereign states and of non-interference by rulers in states other than their own (Bergman and Renwick, 2008, p.441). Over time, and with much additional bloodshed, that new political order shook out into the nation-states of Europe, their colonies and ex-colonies, and the modern world system about which a lot has been said in other and earlier contexts.

910Slide 10That modern world is readily mapped indeed, as we know, mapping is an imperative for territorial claims, the exercise of the geographical imaginary, and conveying our understandings of the natural, social and cultural spaces in which we operate. Borders those black lines drawn on maps and often in arbitrary fashion are key to territoriality and to understanding what is in or Self and what is out or Other.Of course, many territorial borders have changed over time over very different contests about sovereignty.

Sovereignty

A Jack In OfficeSir Edwin Landseer, c.1830

The title "A Jack In Office" is a slang expression for a pompous government official. This painting of a Bull and Terrier positioned on the table, reflects the characteristic of the sovereignty of this dog as boss of the pack. The King enthroned over his submissive subjects, an expression of the supremacy of this dog breed during the 1800s.

Slide 11It is important to point out that sovereignty and territoriality are mutually constitutive. Sovereignty is the exercise of state power over people and territory an exercise recognized by the people themselves and by the heads and peoples of other states and which is now codified by international law; that is a really important proposition of sovereignty, which used to be vested in the body of the monarch for example the Queen of England. In relation to the British Commonwealth, the monarch no longer has sovereignty in the sense that she does not unilaterally make laws. Nevertheless, she remains head of state and delegates sovereignty to parliaments within that Commonwealth. The exercise of sovereignty requires territory, since we are organized in terms of the dominium and not in terms of the idea of regnum.

11The nation-statePart 3Slide 12Lets examine the idea of the nation-state in more detail by first scrutinizing each of its constituent terms. 12Statesindependent political units that claim exclusive jurisdiction over defined territories and over all of the people and activities within them (Bergman and Renwick, 2008, p.440).

13Slide 13Dominium, territory, sovereignty, the creation of states, nation-states, nations and nationalism these are interrelated ideas and realities. Lets deal with the state first. In Bergman and Renwicks (2008) definition of that term, quoted on this slide, note the idea that states claim certain jurisdictional rights and authorities over territory, populations and activities. Yet this claim by states is not always absolute, and many such entities are ineffectively organized, or their claims are only partially recognized by sub-populations that live in situ or by populations in other places. Sri Lanka is an example of this tension and one I elaborate on shortly.In the sense in which I am using the term, states generally refer to governments which have come to represent sovereign power. Australia is one example of such an entity.States are politicalSee Commonwealth Constitution Act, 1901

Slide 14The state is a political entity because it is a territory with created boundaries; those things dont just exist as a priori phenomena that is, before the fact. In Australia, for example, we have a federation of states whose boundaries you can see marked here. Federations are most often founded on an original agreement between a number of sovereign states based on a recognition of mutual concerns and interests. In 1901, Australia became a federation under one constitution, which you can access from this slide by clicking on the word commonwealth. Before federation, Australia comprised various colonies and at federation the constitution brought Australia into existence as a state able to govern via powers vested, in particular, in s.51 of the Constitution, but left various powers with the ex-colonies, and so, the state governments have sovereignty but so to does the Australian Government. The next slide lists the powers of the Australian Government under s.51.14trade; taxation; bounties; the post and telecommunications; defense; coastal navigation; astronomical and meteorological observations; quarantine; fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits; census and statistics; currency, coinage, and legal tender; banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money; insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned; weights and measures; bills of exchange and promissory notes; bankruptcy and insolvency; copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks; naturalization and aliens; foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; marriage; divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants; invalid and old-age pensions; the provision of maternity allowances, widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances; the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States; the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States; the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws; immigration and emigration; the influx of criminals; external affairs; the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific; the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth; the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State; railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State; conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State; matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides; matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law; the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia; matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth [s.51, Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901].

Slide 15Pause the presentation if you feel inclined, and scan the list of powers of this state, noting how the words the Commonwealth name into existence an entity, Australia the state, and vest it with a range of other powers materiality or tangibility, territory and sovereignty not least among them.But is Australia also riven through with different nations? Lets examine that question for a bit, first by reference to a definition provided by Bergman and Renwick (2008, p.605) that a nation is a group of people who want to have their own government and rule themselves.

15State/s and nation/s?Trowenna/Van Diemens Land/Tasmania?

16Slide 16Worldwide, for example, many indigenous groups seek self-determination; so too many ethnic groups who may or may not be indigenous to an area but who have longstanding customary rights over land. Take this map of Aboriginal clan areas in Tasmania, based on data from Lyndall Ryans book The Aboriginal Tasmanians (1996). Note that it suggests the existence of different nations in states such as Australia. Nations

Slide 17In short, some of the contestation around territorial, jurisdictional and other claims of the state arise because of clashes between those holding ideas of a unified state and those with different ideas of nation. This image is of one of the landscapes of Kurdistan, and this area which lies across a number of states illustrates the sorts of tensions to which I refer. Kurds are defined as an Iranian ethno-linguistic group; that is a group with a particular ethnicity and language. Various Kurdish dynasties ruled this territory from the tenth century, including the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin in the 1100s. The Kurds were allied and sometimes subservient to the Ottomans from the 1540s, and it was in the 1920s that Kurdish nationalism began to emerge strongly, particularly since an independent Kurdistan had been promised as part of the Treaty of Svres in 1920. That treaty formalized the end of hostilities between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies following the end of World War One. Various parts of Kurdistan have achieved partial autonomy since 1923, but it continues to be a hotspot claimed by different states and subject to aspirations for nationhood by the Kurds themselves.In short, it is possible to have a nation without a state; Palestine is another such example. It is also possible to have a state that may contain lots of different nations whose members have very different ideas about what is important or how life should be conducted. Where tolerance is hallmark, these diversities may be accommodated; where it is not, significant problems arise.

17Nations are cultural

Bergman and Renwick (2008) pp. 442 and 44618Slide 18Nations, then, are cultural entities, with shared material practices manifest in social space [architecture, clothing/adornment, agriculture, landscape, cuisine, medicine, money, transportation, tools, music, painting, literature, environmental management]. Nations also have shared symbolic practices in cultural space [language, religion, power, history, art, economics, and social roles (gender, adolescence, ageing, caste or class)]. These shared material and symbolic practices evoke sense of belonging, of a boundedness to a particular people. Perhaps these are the deep remnants of regnum rather than dominium, where national groups often lack opportunities to be self-governing because they may lack territory and statehood.Here is a second map of Kurdistan, alongside one of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which take in two distinct national groups, the Pathanistani and the Baluchistani. Their non-status as states is a product of the Second World War and processes of decolonization, and like many other groups around the world they must exist within boundaries that are not of their choosing.In Spain and France, too, Basque separatists have sought independence, as have the Tigre between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The large map of Africa shows some of the indigenous nations that existed prior to colonization by Europeans. The nation-state exists in natural, social and cultural spaces

Nation-state =Territory +Group IdentityGovernance of spaceNatural and social spaceCultural space19Slide 19At this point it is possible to posit that the nation-state exists in natural, social, and cultural spaces, and may be conceptualized as a series of relationships as shown here. Pause the presentation a minute and think through this formulation.The Nation-Statea state ruling over a territory containing all the people of a nation and no-others

Manifest Destiny [creating the United States], John Gast, 1872

20Slide 20With these various comments about state and nation in mind, lets now turn to another notion posited by Bergman and Renwick (2008, p.447) that the nation-state is an ideal alignment between a nation (the shared culture of a people) and the state (territory): when a people bound together culturally exist only within their territory of the state or country over which their government has jurisdiction. America is one such invention of the geographical imaginary; witness the sentiments in the United States Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1774.When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Witness, too, the ways in which ideals involve slippage in the ethics of how we apply power. In other words, it is clear that for many sovereigns, their sense of what is the nation may exceed the sense of belonging that others feel, and may justify expansionist tendencies and colonial impulses such as those which resulted in the decimation of Amer-Indian cultures and environments during the creation of the United States, or required the enslavement of large numbers of Africans. In other words, the United States Declaration of Independence was one for white men, not other nations. The fact that the US became the multicultural nation par excellence is another discussion.

The myth of the nation-state: most modern states are multinational

21Slide 21Given the powerful idealism that underpins the notion of the nation-state, Bergman and Renwick (2008) suggest that todays world political map is not a map of nations that have achieved statehood. It is a vestige of colonialism, through which dominating forces attempted to push their versions of nation onto others, as part of a larger agenda of cooption, coercion and conquest. Tactics of alignmentto redraw the international political map;to expel people from any country in which they are not content or to exterminate them; andto forge nations in the countries that exist now Bergman and Renwick (2008) p.450

Sri Lanka showing area claimed asTamil homeland (Bergman and Renwick (2008) p.44722Slide 22Today, at least in principle, the international community frowns upon conquest and seeks to uphold the ideas enshrined in the Peace of Westphalia witness the United Nations but in many places, attempts are nevertheless made to ensure that states are forged as nation-states through various socio-spatial and cultural practices. In Australia, for example, we have more or less explicit strategies of multiculturalism intended to suggest we value unity in diversity. Sometimes, as Sydneys Cronulla race riots evinced, multiculturalism falls short of the nation-state ideal. Other strategies include redrawing maps to accommodate nations East Timors independence from Indonesia exemplifies this move, Israel too. Yugoslavia is another complex example of a number of nations unified under one state under strong leadership from President Tito, which then collapsed into several nation-states in a bloody civil war in the 1990s. Or think of German reunification in 1990. What of the potential redrawing of the map for a homeland for Palestine or one that reunifies South and North Korea, or deals with the divisions in Cyprus. These examples suggest that the creation of the nation-state involves tactics of alignment. Take the state of Ski Lanka, pictured here, where 75% of the population is Sinhalese and 18% Tamil and Hindu. Now, the Tamils had their own national identity, a homeland, Ilam, their own flag, their own national anthem, police, army, taxes and courts. However, in the 1950s legislation was introduced which forced the Tamils to speak the language of the Sinhalese majority. For this and various other reasons related to social and cultural clashes, territorial disputes and related geopolitical tensions, approximately 75,000 people have been killed in a civil war complicated by Indias occasional interventions in that civil war. Be that as it may, in mid 2009, the military of Sri Lanka announced that the 15,000 square kilometres of territory formally held by the Tamil Tiger rebels had been liberated and all top rebel leaders had been killed, marking the end of the current phase of this civil war. The imagined community of the stateSeated Arab, Tangiers, Eugene Delacroix, 1832

23Slide 23Other tactics of alignment exist both explicit and implicit, deliberate and subconscious. So too do challenges to them.During the 1800s, for example, at the full expanse of colonial imperialism when nationalistic fervour was high and attempts to align or mould or coerce subalterns and subordinates to conform to a conquering majority, the modern world system a globalized system was also forged in at least four ways. First, it was a response to exploitation and prompted the advent of liberation and civil movements. Second, we in the west were already fascinated with and by the Orient and the modern world systems tendencies to cross-cultural interaction and new transportation technologies (for example, as fostered by mercantile and then industrial capitalism) only strengthened a desire to know if not fully understand or sympathize with the Other. Third, the modern world system was directly cultivated by shifts in the state towards increasingly sophisticated models of democracy, in which conquest and dominating alignment strategies were to be seen as irrational and unreasonable [despite evidence to the contrary in the form of ongoing armed conflict, as noted in last lecture]. Fourth, the system was a result of urbanization and industrialization, especially via new communication technologies, such as print; ideas that were not aligned to a particular nationalistic view were able to be circulated and learned from. The paradoxes are clear. On the one hand are a whole series of tactics of alignment that try to ensure the production and reproduction of imagined communities like us that are based on nationalistic fervour and distinguished utterly from the Other. On the other hand are other tactics of alignment to an increasingly globalized world the modern world system and we will deal with those in the next lecture. The end of the nation-state?Part 4Slide 24In the meantime, recall my fivefold argument from the start of this session and let me now refine it further. First, I proposed that the state epitomizes the spatial organization of political power using borders and establishing territory, and arose via complex processes of imperialism, colonialism and decolonization.Second, I suggested that the political power of the state is closely linked to understandings of territoriality and of sovereignty, as well as being associated with our tendency to build shared identity around ethnic, religious, linguistic and regional traditions. Third, by oblique reference to a number of examples Australia, Kurdistan and Sri Lanka among them I insinuated that geopolitics involves attempts among certain [and often core] states to exert colonial control over less powerful entities while protecting their own borders and, that these struggles are often productive of various national sentiments and cultural practices.

24An imperial colonial world in the nineteenth centuryBergman and Renwick (2008) p.535

25Slide 25Now, let me turn to the last two elements of the argument: fourth, that major realignments through armed conflict in the twentieth century contributed to a significant shift in world geopolitics, the post-war periods and processes of decolonization leading to the creation of an unprecedented number of independent nation-states; and fifth that the relationship between a world of states and nations and a modern world system that insists upon globalization is one marked by both productive and destructive tensions, which we will explore in the next lecture.Here is a map of the world of empires and colonies in the nineteenth century. What stories this map has to convey: stories of conquest, coercion and conversion; of assimilation, annihilation, and aggression; and of fascinating geopolitical, socio-natural and spatial negotiations we have made as we come into contact with each other across the globe. Think of the complex narratives we have created around nationalities, ethnicities, states, regions, and the natural, social and cultural spaces that comprise them. Think, too, of the ways in which this snapshot of Earth as territory, state and nation is no more; of how the imperial colonial world came to be unstitched or unhinged.

Twentieth century decolonizationBergman and Renwick {2008), p.535

26Slide 26Here, for contrast, is a map of that postcolonial world. Examine Africa as one example of change over relatively short time. Or look at how Australias status has shifted from colony to nation-state in the Commonwealth. Think about how South Africa had been lost to the British in the Boer War, or about how India would be partitioned in 1947. These are stories, written over and over, of colonization and decolonization and illumine struggles of identity in place related to territory and sovereignty. If one feels optimistic, these may be symptoms of a widespread democratization of politics; however, given the incidence of armed struggle and mal-development, one might be uncertain how to read these trends.

The end of the nation-state?Photograph by Michael Boran

27Slide 27So we finish with a puzzle: one that emerges from the complex interplay of territory, boundary and flow in relation to nation-states and the modern world system, and one focused on the question will globalization mean the end of the nation-state? Well, according to Knox and Marsden (2004, p.373), The state is one of the most powerful institutions if not the most powerful cultivating the process of globalization [yet some] globalization scholars believe that the impact of globalization on politics has been so profound that it is leading to the diminution of the powers of the modern state, if not its ultimate disappearance [but they conclude that] the state is less a container of political or economic power and more a site of flows and connections.We will consider this matter in more detail in the next session.