Advertisement

Repräsentationen von Territorialität und internationale Ungleichheit

  • Daniel LambachEmail author
Essay
  • 387 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Seit etwa zwei Jahrzehnten wird im Westen der Wert territorialer Kontrolle zunehmend kleingeredet, gleichzeitig fürchten die wohlhabenden Nationen wenig mehr als unregierte Räume als potenzielle Brutstätten für transnationalen Terrorismus. In dieser Diskrepanz verbirgt sich der Entwurf für ein differenziertes Regelwerk für Territorialität, das nach Arm und Reich unterscheidet. Durch die Versicherheitlichung mangelnder territorialer Kontrolle verlieren arme Staaten zwar nicht ihren Anspruch auf formale Souveränität, werden aber vom Subjekt in der global governance zum Objekt von global governance degradiert.

Schlüsselwörter

Territorialität Souveränität Unregierte Räume Globalisierung 

Representations of Territoriality and International Inequality

Abstract

In recent decades, Western states have downplayed the utility of territorial control while at the same time securitizing ungoverned spaces as potential breeding grounds of transnational terrorism. This discrepancy evidences a system of rules about territoriality which differentiates between the rich and the poor. By securitizing a lack of territorial control, poor countries are not being stripped of their formal sovereignty but their role is demoted from being a subject in global governance to being an object of global governance.

Keywords

Territoriality Sovereignty Ungoverned spaces Globalization 

Literatur

  1. Abrahamsen, R. (2005). Blair’s Africa: The politics of securitization and fear. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 30(1), 55–80.Google Scholar
  2. Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of international political economy, 1(1), 53–80.Google Scholar
  3. Agnew, J. (1998). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Agnew, J. (2005). Sovereignty regimes: Territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 437–461.Google Scholar
  5. Agnew, J. (2009). Globalization and sovereignty. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Agnew, J., & Corbridge, S. (1995). Mastering space: Hegemony, territory and international political economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Akude, J. E., Daun, A., Egner, D., & Lambach, D. (Hrsg.). (2011). Politische Herrschaft jenseits des Staates. Zur Transformation von Legitimität in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Albert, M., & Brock, L. (1995). Debordering the world of states. New spaces of International Relations. World Society Research Group Working Paper, 2.Google Scholar
  9. Albert, M., & Brock, L. (2001). What keeps Westphalia together? Normative differentiation in the modern system of states. In M. Albert, D. Jacobson, & Y. Lapid (Hrsg.), Identities, borders, orders: Rethinking International Relations (S. 29–49). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Anstis, S. C., & Zacher, M. W. (2010). The normative bases of the global territorial order. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(2), 306–323.Google Scholar
  11. Aradau, C., & van Munster, R. (2009). Post-structuralism, continental philosophy and the remaking of security studies. In M. Dunn Cavelty & V. Mauer (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (S. 73–83). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Austin, J. L. (1962). Zur Theorie der Sprechakte (How to do things with words). Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  13. Bachmann-Medick, D. (2006). Cultural turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  14. Balzacq, T. (2009). Constructivism and securitization studies. In M. Dunn Cavelty & V. Mauer (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (S. 56–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Barthwal-Datta, M. (2009). Securitising threats without the state: A case study of misgovernance as a security threat in Bangladesh. Review of International Studies, 35(02), 277–300.Google Scholar
  16. Benecke, G., Branovic, Z., & Draude, A. (2008). Governance und Raum. SFB-Governance Working Paper, 13.Google Scholar
  17. Bigo, D. (2008). International political sociology. In P. D. Williams (Hrsg.), Security studies. An introduction (S. 116–129). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Blacksell, M. (2006). Political geography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English school theory and social structure of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  21. Caplan, R. (2007). From collapsing states to neo-trusteeship: The limits to solving the problem of ‚Precarious Statehood‘ in the twenty-first century. Third World Quarterly, 28(2), 231–244.Google Scholar
  22. Clapton, W. (2009). Managing risk within international society: Hierarchical governance in the Asia-Pacific. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 63(3), 416–429.Google Scholar
  23. Clements, K. P., Boege, V., Brown, A., Foley, W., & Nolan, A. (2007). State building reconsidered: The role of hybridity in the formation of political order. Political Science, 59(1), 45–56.Google Scholar
  24. Conzelmann, T., & Faust, J. (2009). „Nord“ und „Süd“ im globalen Regieren. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 50(2), 203–225.Google Scholar
  25. Cox, K. R. (2002). Political geography: Territory, state, and society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. van Creveld, M. (1999). Aufstieg und Untergang des Staates. München: Gerling.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, C. (2009). AFRICOM’s relationship to oil, terrorism and China. Orbis, 53(1), 122–136.Google Scholar
  28. Debiel, T., & Lambach, D. (2009). Fragile Staaten. Ursachen und sicherheitspolitische Auswirkungen. In Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik (Hrsg.), Sicherheitspolitik in neuen Dimensionen (S. 363–387). Hamburg: E.S. Mittler und Sohn.Google Scholar
  29. Deutsch, K. W. (1966). Nationalism and social communication: An inquiry into the foundations of nationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dicke, K. (2002). Raumbezogene Leitbilder in der politischen Ideengeschichte. In K. Schmitt (Hrsg.), Politik und Raum (S. 11–27). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  31. Dittgen, H. (2009). Globalisierung und die Grenzen des Nationalstaats. In J. Kessler & C. Steiner (Hrsg.), Facetten der Globalisierung. Zwischen Ökonomie, Politik und Kultur (S. 160–171). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  32. Doty, R. L. (1996). Imperial encounters: The politics of representation in north/south relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  33. Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  34. Eigmüller, M., & Roos, C. (2010). Von Migrationsvermeidung zu selektiver Grenzöffnung. WeltTrends, 18(71), 25–34.Google Scholar
  35. Elden, S. (2005). Missing the point: Globalization, deterritorialization and the space of the world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(1), 8–19.Google Scholar
  36. Elden, S. (2007). Blair, neo-conservatism and the war on territorial integrity. International Politics, 44(1), 37–57.Google Scholar
  37. Elkins, D. J. (1995). Beyond sovereignty: Territory and political economy in the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Eppler, E. (2005). Auslaufmodell Staat? Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  39. Fazal, T. M. (2007). State death: The politics and geography of conquest, occupation and annexation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2004). Neotrusteeship and the problem of weak states. International Security, 28(4), 5–43.Google Scholar
  41. Ferguson, Y. H., & Jones, R. J. B. (2002). Political space and global politics. In Y. H. Ferguson & R. J. B. Jones (Hrsg.), Political space: Frontiers of change and governance in a globalizing world (S. 1–20). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ferguson, Y. H., & Mansbach, R. (2002). Remapping political space: Issues and nonissues in analyzing global politics in the twenty-first century. In Y. H. Ferguson & R. J. B. Jones (Hrsg.), Political space: frontiers of change and governance in a globalizing world (S. 87–111). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Finnemores, M., & Sikkinks, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.Google Scholar
  44. Fischer, J. (2002). Speech at the celebration marking the 50th anniversary of the German United Nations Association, 19. März 2002.Google Scholar
  45. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  46. Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  47. Gottmann, J. (1973). The significance of territory. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  48. Götze, C. (2008). Global Governance und die asymmetrische Verwirklichung von global citizenship: Die Humanitarisierung des Flüchtlingsregimes. In G. F. Schuppert & M. Zürn (Hrsg.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt (S. 531–549). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  49. Græger, N. (2011). „Home and away“? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  50. Grande, E., & Pauly, L. W. (2005). Complex sovereignty and the emergence of transnational authority. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Hrsg.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century (S. 285–299). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  51. Grovogui, S. N. (2002). Regimes of sovereignty: International morality and the African condition. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), 315–338.Google Scholar
  52. Habermas, J. (1998). Die postnationale Konstellation und die Zukunft der Demokratie. In J. Habermas (Hrsg.), Die postnationale Konstellation. Politische Essays (S. 91–169). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  53. Hagmann, T., & Hoehne, M. V. (2009). Failures of the state failure debate: Evidence from the Somali territories. Journal of International Development, 21(1), 42–57.Google Scholar
  54. Hale, G. (2011). Politics, people and passports: Contesting security, travel and trade on the US-Canadian border. Geopolitics, 16(1), 27–69.Google Scholar
  55. Hanafi, S., & Long, T. (2010).Governance, governmentalities, and the state of exception in the Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(2), 134–159.Google Scholar
  56. Hehir, A. (2007). The myth of the failed states and the war on terror: A challenge to the conventional wisdom. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1(3), 307–332.Google Scholar
  57. Hein, W., & Mutter, T. (2011). Die Kontrolle nicht-beherrschter Räume. Widersprüche neoliberaler Globalisierung und die Rolle der Entwicklungspolitik. Peripherie, 31(122–123), 318–345.Google Scholar
  58. Helleiner, E. (1999). Sovereignty, territoriality and the globalization of finance. In D. A. Smith, D. J. Solinger, & S. C. Topik (Hrsg.), States and sovereignty in the global economy (S. 138–157). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Herz, J. H. (1957). Rise and demise of the territorial state. World Politics, 9(4), 473–493.Google Scholar
  60. Hirst, C. (2007). The paradigm shift: 11 September and Australia’s strategic reformation. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 61(2), 175–192.Google Scholar
  61. van Houtum, H. (2010). Human blacklisting: The global apartheid of the EU’s external border regime. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(6), 957–976.Google Scholar
  62. Hughes, C., & Pupavac, V. (2005). Framing post-conflict societies: International pathologisation of Cambodia and the Post-Yugoslav States. Third World Quarterly, 26(6), 873–889.Google Scholar
  63. Ikenberry, G. J. (2003). What states can do now. In T. V. Paul, G. J. Ikenberry, & J. A. Hall (Hrsg.), The nation-state in question (S. 350–371). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Immerfall, S. (1998). Territory and territoriality in the globalizing society: An introduction. In S. Immerfall (Hrsg.), Territoriality in the globalizing society: One place or none? (S. 1–13). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Innes, A. J. (2010). When the threatened become the threat: The construction of asylum seekers in British media narratives. International Relations, 24(4), 456–477.Google Scholar
  66. Jackson, R. H. (1990). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, international relations and the third world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Jacobson, D. (1997). New frontiers: Territory, social spaces, and the state. Sociological Forum, 12(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  68. Jonas, A. (2010). Zwischen Prestige und Pragmatismus: Militärische Fähigkeiten und ihre Weiterentwicklung. In A. Jonas & N. von Ondarza (Hrsg.), Chancen und Hindernisse für die europäische Streitkräfteintegration (S. 93–112). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  69. Kahler, M. (2006). Territoriality and conflict in an era of globalization. In M. Kahler & B. F. Walter (Hrsg.), Territoriality and conflict in an era of globalization (S. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Kessler, J. (2009). Der Mythos vom globalen Dorf: Zur räumlichen Differenzierung des Globalisierungsniveaus. In J. Kessler & C. Steiner (Hrsg.), Facetten der Globalisierung: Zwischen Ökonomie, Politik und Kultur (S. 28–79). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  71. Kessler, O., & Daase, C. (2008). From insecurity to uncertainty: Risk and the paradox of security politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 33(2), 211–232.Google Scholar
  72. Krasner, S. D. (1999). Globalization and sovereignty. In D. A. Smith, D. J. Solinger, & S. C. Topik (Hrsg.), States and sovereignty in the global economy (S. 34–52). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Krasner, S. D. (2007). Alternativen zur Souveränität: Neue Institutionen für kollabierte und scheiternde Staaten. In M. Beisheim & G. F. Schuppert (Hrsg.), Staatszerfall und Governance (S. 163–173). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  74. Kratochwil, F. (1986). Of systems, boundaries, and territoriality: An inquiry into the formation of the state system. World Politics, 39(1), 27–52.Google Scholar
  75. Lambach, D. (2004). The perils of weakness. Failed states and perceptions of threat in Europe and Australia. https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/politik/debiel/lambach_london_2004.pdf. Zugegriffen: 14. Jan. 2015.
  76. Lambach, D. (2006). Security, development and the Australian security discourse. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 407–418.Google Scholar
  77. Laube, L. (2010). Systematisch und punktuell. Grenzkontrollen in und um Österreich. WeltTrends, 18(71), 35–46.Google Scholar
  78. Levitsky, M. (2008). Dealing with black spots of crime and terror: Conclusions and recommendations. International Studies Review, 10(2), 392–396.Google Scholar
  79. Leyshon, A. (1995). Annihilating space? The speed-up of communications. In J. Allen & C. Hamnett (Hrsg.), A shrinking world? Global Unevenness and Inequality (S. 11–46). Oxford: Open University.Google Scholar
  80. Luutz, W. (2007). Vom „Containerraum“ zur „entgrenzten Welt“. Raumbilder als sozialwissenschaftliche Leitbilder. Social Geography, 2(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  81. Mann, M. (1997). Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the State? Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 472–496.Google Scholar
  82. Mau, S. (2010). Grenzen als Sortiermaschinen. WeltTrends, 18(71), 57–66.Google Scholar
  83. Mathews, J. T. (1997). Power shift. Foreign Affairs, 76(1), 50–67.Google Scholar
  84. McMichael, P. (1996). Globalization: Myths and reality. Rural Sociology, 61(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
  85. McSweeney, B. (1996). Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School. Review of International Studies, 22(1), 81–93.Google Scholar
  86. Mendel, J. (2010). Afghanistan, networks and connectivity. Geopolitics, 15(4), 726–751.Google Scholar
  87. Messner, D. (1998). Die Transformation von Staat und Politik im Globalisierungsprozess. In D. Messner (Hrsg.), Die Zukunft des Staates und der Politik. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen politischer Steuerung in der Weltgesellschaft (S. 14–43). Bonn: Dietz.Google Scholar
  88. Mitchell, K. (2010). Ungoverned space: Global security and the geopolitics of broken windows. Political Geography, 29(5), 289–297.Google Scholar
  89. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370.Google Scholar
  90. Müller, H. (2009). Staatlichkeit ohne Staat – ein Irrtum aus der europäischen Provinz? Limitierende Bedingungen von Global Governance in einer fragmentierten Welt. In N. Deitelhoff & J. Steffek (Hrsg.), Was bleibt vom Staat? Demokratie, Recht und Verfassung im globalen Zeitalter (S. 221–258). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  91. Neocleous, M. (2003). Imagining the state. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Newman, D. (2001). Boundaries, borders, and barriers: Changing geographic perspectives on territorial lines. In M. Albert, D. Jacobson, & Y. Lapid (Hrsg.), Identities, borders, orders: Rethinking international relations (S. 137–159). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  93. Newman, D. (2006). Borders and bordering: Towards an interdisciplinary dialogue. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 171–186.Google Scholar
  94. Newman, D., & Paasi, A. (1998). Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: Boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 186–207.Google Scholar
  95. Ó Tuathail, G. (1999). Borderless worlds? Problematising discourses of deterritorialisation. Geopolitics, 4(2), 139–154.Google Scholar
  96. Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  97. Ohmae, K. (1999). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  98. Österud, Ö. (1997). The narrow gate: Entry to the club of sovereign states. Review of International Studies, 23(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  99. Oßenbrügge, J. (2004). Transstaatliche, plurilokale und glokale soziale Räume. Grundbegriffe zur Untersuchung transnationaler Beziehungen und Praktiken. In J. Oßenbrügge & M. Reh (Hrsg.), Social spaces of African societies: Applications and critique of concepts about „transnational social spaces“ (S. 15–34). Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
  100. Paasi, A. (2003). Territory. In J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, & G. Ó Tuathail (Hrsg.), A companion to political geography (S. 109–122). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. Pauly, L. W., & Grande, E. (2005). Reconstituting political authority: Sovereignty, effectiveness, and legitimacy in a transnational order. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Hrsg.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century (S. 3–21). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  102. Peoples, C. (2011). The securitization of outer space: Challenges for arms control. Contemporary Security Policy, 32(1), 76–98.Google Scholar
  103. Rabasa, A., Boraz, S., Chalk, P., Cragin, K., Karasik, T. W., Moroney, J. D. P., O’Brien, K. A., & Peters, J. E. (2007). Ungoverned territories: Understanding and reducing terrorism risks. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  104. Rosecrances, R. (2001). Das globale Dorf. New economy und das Ende des Nationalstaats. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  105. Rothwell, D. R. (1996). The Polar regions and the development of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139–174.Google Scholar
  107. Sack, R. D. (1986). Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Sassen, S. (1995). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Sassen, S. (1999). Embedding the global in the national: Implications for the role of the state. In D. A. Smith, D. J. Solinger, & S. C. Topik (Hrsg.), States and sovereignty in the global economy (S. 158–171). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  110. Schetter, C. (2010). Ungoverned territories. Eine konzeptionelle Innovation im „War on Terror“. Geographica Helvetica: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geographie, 65(3), 181–188.Google Scholar
  111. Schirm, S. (2002). Raum, Globalisierung und Theorien internationaler Beziehungen. In K. Schmitt (Hrsg.), Politik und Raum (S. 43–58). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  112. Schlichte, K. (2006). Staatsbildung und Staatszerfall. Zur politischen Soziologie der Weltgesellschaft. In C. Weller & T. Bonacker (Hrsg.), Konflikte der Weltgesellschaft. Akteure. Strukturen. Dynamiken (S. 197–220). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  113. Schmittchen, D., & Stritzel, H. (2008). Unterschiedliche „Sprachen“ in Deutschland und den USA? Ein Vergleich transatlantischer Sicherheitdiskurse am Beispiel der „Rogue States“. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 2008(1), 52–67.Google Scholar
  114. Schneckener, U. (2004). Transnationale Terroristen als Profiteure fragiler Staatlichkeit. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.Google Scholar
  115. Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  116. Shamir, R. (2005). Without Border? Notes on globalization as a mobility regime. Sociological Theory, 23(2), 197–217.Google Scholar
  117. Simmons, B. A. (2006). Trade and territorial conflict in Latin America: International borders as institutions. In M. Kahler & B. F. Walter (Hrsg.), Territoriality and conflict in an era of globalization (S. 251–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Simons, A., & Tucker, D. (2007). The misleading problem of failed states: A „socio-geography“ of terrorism in the post-9/11 era. Third World Quarterly, 28(2), 387–401.Google Scholar
  119. Spruyt, H. (2002). The origins, development, and possible decline of the modern state. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 127–149.Google Scholar
  120. Stanislawski, B. H. (2008). Para-states, quasi-states, and black spots: Perhaps not states, but not „ungoverned territories“, either. International Studies Review, 10(2), 366–370.Google Scholar
  121. Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Vaughan-Williams, N. (2009). Border politics: The limits of sovereign power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipshutz (Hrsg.), On security (S. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Wæver, O. (1996). European security identities. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 103–132.Google Scholar
  125. Yeung, H. W. (1998). Capital, state and space: Contesting the borderless world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23(3), 291–309.Google Scholar
  126. Zacher, M. W. (2001). The territorial integrity norm: International boundaries and the use of force. International Organization, 55(2), 215–250.Google Scholar
  127. Zürn, M. (1998). Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. Denationalisierung und Globalisierung als Chance. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  128. Zürn, M., & Leibfried, S. (2005). Reconfiguring the national constellation. In S. Leibfried & M. Zürn (Hrsg.), Transformations of the state? (S. 1–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Institut für Entwicklung und FriedenUniversität Duisburg-EssenDuisburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations