The Territorial Trap of the Territorial Trap: Global Transformation and the Problem of the State’s Two Territories1

Abstract

Shah, Nisha. (2011) The Territorial Trap of the Territorial Trap: Global Transformation and the Problem of the State’s Two Territories. International Political Sociology, doi: 10.1111/j.1749‐5687.2011.00144.x © 2011 International Studies Association This paper argues that attempts by theories of globalization to overcome the “territorial trap” have failed. Describing how the modern state emerged with two interrelated territories—a political concept about bounded jurisdiction and public good that over time is effaced but reinforced as territory is defined as brute, physical terrain—it shows that the assumption in globalization theories that territory is the state’s physical area entrenches the normative defense of the territorial state as the framework of political order. The consequence is that overcoming the territorial trap not only requires uncovering how and why territory becomes an assumed political ideal, but also how and why this trap produces the subsequent trap of understanding territory primarily as the “physical substratum” of the sovereign state. Globalization theories’ analysis of political transformation must therefore focus not only on the “permeability” of territorial borders, but whether and how evolving notions of global space might be providing a different political theory. A preliminary discussion of efforts to uncover how an alternative global spatial principle is reassembling political authority suggests a possible means of escape and way forward.

Geographical knowledge at work: Human rights litigation and transnational territoriality

“…Although several important steps have been made, as in the acknowledgement of a spatial 'everyday practice' (Brenner and Elden, 2009: 366), historical contingency in the making of territory (Shah, 2012) or the differentiation of 'dimensions of state space' (Brenner et al, 2003: 6-11), the transnational moment of geographical knowledge can still be considered a research desideratum. In order to establish a critical perspective on state and non-state territoriality, study needs to account for the social processes during which geography makes a real difference in people's lives, as well as for the multiplicity of actors involved in corresponding spatial struggles (Weizman, 2012).…”

“…With respect to the role that territory plays in such processes, it is insightful to rely on the work of French philosopher Henri Lefebvre, who has recently been introduced to IR (Brenner and Elden, 2009;Mitchell, 2011;Shah, 2012):…”

Non-State Actors in International Law: A Rejoinder to Professor Thirlway

“…2 Shah (2012), pp. 57-58 (the territorial trap 'is reproduced through the assumption that territory is the physical substratum of the state').…”

Interpreting mega-development projects as territorial traps: the case of irrigation schemes on the shores of Lake Chad (Borno State, Nigeria)

“…"Territorial trap" was defined in 1994 by Agnew in a seminal article that has left its mark on contemporary political geography debates (Agnew, 1994(Agnew, , 2010(Agnew, , 2015Brenner and Elden, 2009;Reid-Henry, 2010;Newman, 2010;Elden, 2010Elden, , 2013Shah, 2012). According to Agnew, the advent of the modern territorial state involves three geographical assumptions: sovereignty is defined in territorial terms (the state is understood as a unitary stable sovereign space); political space is polarized between internal and external (between the internal policy of the state and the international); and the state becomes a uniform container of the society.…”