« Borders in international politics » : différence entre les versions
| Ligne 13 : | Ligne 13 : | ||
For Charles Tilly, the military focus is linked to the long process of forming the modern state as a war machine. It is the idea that the State is a war machine, over several centuries, the modern State has been built on the practice of war which had a transformative value. The idea of a border is clearly defined around an affinity with the military concept. | For Charles Tilly, the military focus is linked to the long process of forming the modern state as a war machine. It is the idea that the State is a war machine, over several centuries, the modern State has been built on the practice of war which had a transformative value. The idea of a border is clearly defined around an affinity with the military concept. | ||
For some time now, it has been observed that borders are less and less a military issue. There is a decrease in inter-state conflicts, which is one of the consequences of the end of bipolarity. Transnational issues are emerging that are becoming increasingly important from the point of view of globalization, which is increasingly permeable between them since globalization is seen as a series of flows that cross the border. Since September 11, there has been a questioning of the internal - external division of labour, such as, for example, between the police and the military.[[Fichier:Border Mexico USA.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Barrière États-Unis-Mexique à Tijuana.]] | For some time now, it has been observed that borders are less and less a military issue. There is a decrease in inter-state conflicts, which is one of the consequences of the end of bipolarity. Transnational issues are emerging that are becoming increasingly important from the point of view of globalization, which is increasingly permeable between them since globalization is seen as a series of flows that cross the border. Since September 11, there has been a questioning of the internal - external division of labour, such as, for example, between the police and the military.[[Fichier:Border Mexico USA.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Barrière États-Unis-Mexique à Tijuana.]]As much, there was a realistic conception, now there is a globalist conception that questions the relevance of borders and their erosion. There are authors around the theory of globalization such as Manuel Castells around the network society and a convergence of interests with a liberal approach with the importance of the notion of trade. What these approaches have in common is that borders are being eroded. There is a return to the globalist approach that makes the state losing its relevance and emptying it of its substance. | ||
There are other approaches, in particular that of Casttells, for whom borders are no longer lines, but transaction points in his networks that are an overcoming of thought between lines towards network thinking. In this approach, the borders are outdated. Omahe speaks of a world without borders, which is to say that in a world of flows, borders are erased because they have as such to prevent flows from flowing. | |||
More liberal theses question the military approach to the border with Rosencrance, which develops the idea of a commercial state, which is that as trade becomes more important in our militarized societies, borders prevent trade from developing, especially since in the concept of democratic peace, trade is a condition for achieving peace between states and between peoples and commercial logic goes beyond military logic. Roseau describes this process as "overflow". Since the 1970s, these international flows have been seen as a challenge to traditional flow logics as perceived by realists such as Keohane and Nye, who speak of complex interdependencies. There is a "globalist" questioning of the military definition of the border. The State is losing its importance and authority in the face of new transnational actors and flows. The erosion of the State is a bit like what we always come across saying that the State is not enough to manage world affairs at a supranational level. | |||
Often, when we talk about September 11, we are talking about a return of the State, particularly in the area of security. We see here a partial questioning of this globalist perspective. But there is a growing importance of transnational economic flows and the reduction of the military threat does not necessarily mean less interventionist state practices in the field of border security. Globalist and realistic approaches are back-to-back. For realists, borders are military places, as in Mearsheimer's Back to the Future. It is an ahistorical reading of international relations with the idea that the border will remain the place where military affairs are played out. On the contrary, for globalists, borders are dominated by flows where state competences are being eroded. In reality neither of these things happens. | |||
Ultimately, these two approaches may overlook a third dimension of the border dimension. Everyone is stuck in a certain conception with the realists stuck in a military dimension and the globalists in an economic dimension. But the border has always been a police place that the English call "policing". The notion of "policing", which is a function of the State that has always existed, is the ability to say who is desirable or undesirable on its territory. It is a question of the authority and legitimacy of the State that has not disappeared today. | |||
= The "policing" of borders = | |||
= | |||
Dans ''Redrawing the Line. Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century''<ref>Andreas, Peter. "Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century." International Security 28.2 (2003): 78-111.</ref>, Peter Andreas stipule qu’on a tendance à oublier que les logiques autour d’une frontière ont toujours impliqué des formes de contrôle touchant à la territorialité. | Dans ''Redrawing the Line. Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century''<ref>Andreas, Peter. "Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century." International Security 28.2 (2003): 78-111.</ref>, Peter Andreas stipule qu’on a tendance à oublier que les logiques autour d’une frontière ont toujours impliqué des formes de contrôle touchant à la territorialité. | ||
Version du 2 janvier 2019 à 11:03
What is a border?
The "classic" vision of the border is that of a demarcation of the nation state. Malcolm Anderson defines the border as being linked to the territory and the formation of the state, to the physical boundaries of political and legal authorities. The border can be understood as the limits of the State as a physical demarcation which is a delimitation between different authorities.
When we ask ourselves what a border is, we ask ourselves what we are studying when we are interested in borders. We are interested in the question of authority and its limits. Defining a boundary is a capacity given to an entity that has the power to do so, which is an authority. The State has a central role in the delimitation of borders that suggests authority and legitimacy.
Borders and International Relations
In the discipline of international relations, traditionally, in Europe, borders have mainly been perceived in military terms around the defence of the territory and the invasion. It is a perspective in line with the realistic approach to be understood in its broadest sense with authors such as Gilpin, Waltz or Mearscheimer.
For the realists, the border is a military place. When we talk about borders, we are talking about territory that is linked to the pursuit of national interests in an anarchic international context where states have interests that they seek to maximize. The threats are military and outside the territory. Borders become a strategic place to defend or break. The border has a deterrent function against a military attack. Switzerland has long invested in the defence of its borders to deter attacks on its military borders and to lock itself in a national reduction. It is important that the military conception of the border has until recently dominated the perception of what a border is.
For Charles Tilly, the military focus is linked to the long process of forming the modern state as a war machine. It is the idea that the State is a war machine, over several centuries, the modern State has been built on the practice of war which had a transformative value. The idea of a border is clearly defined around an affinity with the military concept.
For some time now, it has been observed that borders are less and less a military issue. There is a decrease in inter-state conflicts, which is one of the consequences of the end of bipolarity. Transnational issues are emerging that are becoming increasingly important from the point of view of globalization, which is increasingly permeable between them since globalization is seen as a series of flows that cross the border. Since September 11, there has been a questioning of the internal - external division of labour, such as, for example, between the police and the military.
As much, there was a realistic conception, now there is a globalist conception that questions the relevance of borders and their erosion. There are authors around the theory of globalization such as Manuel Castells around the network society and a convergence of interests with a liberal approach with the importance of the notion of trade. What these approaches have in common is that borders are being eroded. There is a return to the globalist approach that makes the state losing its relevance and emptying it of its substance.
There are other approaches, in particular that of Casttells, for whom borders are no longer lines, but transaction points in his networks that are an overcoming of thought between lines towards network thinking. In this approach, the borders are outdated. Omahe speaks of a world without borders, which is to say that in a world of flows, borders are erased because they have as such to prevent flows from flowing.
More liberal theses question the military approach to the border with Rosencrance, which develops the idea of a commercial state, which is that as trade becomes more important in our militarized societies, borders prevent trade from developing, especially since in the concept of democratic peace, trade is a condition for achieving peace between states and between peoples and commercial logic goes beyond military logic. Roseau describes this process as "overflow". Since the 1970s, these international flows have been seen as a challenge to traditional flow logics as perceived by realists such as Keohane and Nye, who speak of complex interdependencies. There is a "globalist" questioning of the military definition of the border. The State is losing its importance and authority in the face of new transnational actors and flows. The erosion of the State is a bit like what we always come across saying that the State is not enough to manage world affairs at a supranational level.
Often, when we talk about September 11, we are talking about a return of the State, particularly in the area of security. We see here a partial questioning of this globalist perspective. But there is a growing importance of transnational economic flows and the reduction of the military threat does not necessarily mean less interventionist state practices in the field of border security. Globalist and realistic approaches are back-to-back. For realists, borders are military places, as in Mearsheimer's Back to the Future. It is an ahistorical reading of international relations with the idea that the border will remain the place where military affairs are played out. On the contrary, for globalists, borders are dominated by flows where state competences are being eroded. In reality neither of these things happens.
Ultimately, these two approaches may overlook a third dimension of the border dimension. Everyone is stuck in a certain conception with the realists stuck in a military dimension and the globalists in an economic dimension. But the border has always been a police place that the English call "policing". The notion of "policing", which is a function of the State that has always existed, is the ability to say who is desirable or undesirable on its territory. It is a question of the authority and legitimacy of the State that has not disappeared today.
The "policing" of borders
Dans Redrawing the Line. Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century[1], Peter Andreas stipule qu’on a tendance à oublier que les logiques autour d’une frontière ont toujours impliqué des formes de contrôle touchant à la territorialité.
Chaque type de frontière à différentes fonctions, formes et trajectoires historiques. Les approches traditionnelles ont tendance à faire référence aux deux premiers types de frontières militaires et économiques. Ces types de frontières ont décliné avec l’accélération de vitesse des échanges et le phénomène de globalisation et un déclin de la frontière militaire avec la quasi-disparition de l’idée d’une menace militaire directe qui est la quasi-disparition de la guerre interétatique et celle l’affirmation la paix démocratique. Du moment que ces fonctions perdent de l’importance, c’est la troisième fonction qui reprend de la l’importance qui est celle de la police des frontières qui est la capacité à exclure les indésirables qui sont les acteurs clandestins transnationaux. Ces transformations touchent principalement l’Europe et les États-Unis. Il est important de penser que ces notions ont toujours coexisté pour ne pas essentialiser la frontière comme étant quelque chose de militaire dans le sens où la frontière était hermétique avant. Les frontières n’ont jamais été hermétiques. C’est l’idée qu’on met l’accent sur un type de gestion de la frontière qui est celui de « policing ». L’objectif de la gestion policière des frontières est d’empêcher l’accès au territoire à des éléments indésirables comme dans le cas des clandestine transnational actors qui sont des criminels, immigrés clandestins ou encore des terroristes. Le rôle de l’État est de dire qui a légitimement accès au territoire de l’État.
Si on quitte les deux approches dont l’enjeu est de faire correspondre une réalité avec un cadre préconçu avec les globalistes qui disent que les frontières sont dans un phénomène qui va dans l’érosion de l’État, on se rend compte que l’État en question, si l’accent est autant mis sur le policing, il se retrouve au carrefour entre les deux logiques mises en avant par les réalistes et les globalistes. La frontière reste un lieu dangereux du point de vue de l’État qu’il faut garder contre les menaces, mais d’un autre côté, l’État a besoin de faciliter des flux économiques et la circulation de certaines personnes. L’enjeu est de gérer ces deux problématiques. Le rôle de l‘État aujourd’hui est une capacité de conjuguer les effets de la globalisation en termes d’importance de flux, mais en même temps de gérer des menaces. La modalité de policing devient un mode de contrôle du territoire.
Les frontières ne sont donc ni en train de s’éroder, ni n’évoluent pas, mais sont en train de se réarticuler autour de l’exclusion territoriale des indésirables tout en assurant un accès facilité à ceux qui ont le droit de circuler librement. La question est de savoir comment gérer la frontière dans un contexte globalisé du moment où la globalisation à une part qui est sombre. Du moment où les flux permettent la croissance, cela est une bonne chose, mais des personnes mal intentionnées peuvent aussi bénéficier de ces flux. La priorité du contrôle aux frontières est désormais centrée sur l’exclusion des indésirables dans un contexte de globalisation de l’insécurité. Toute une part des enjeux de la globalisation sont liés à la sécurité avec la question de savoir comment garantir la prérogative de protéger ses citoyens dans un monde où il y a un impératif de mobilité. L’enjeu est de savoir quel dispositif à mettre en place pour concilier les impératifs de sécurité et des flux de la globalisation.
Territorialité, autorité et sécurité
L’importance de la territorialité persiste. L’État garde avant tout l’autorité de pouvoir déterminer qui a et qui n’a pas accès au territoire. Les frontières restent tangibles pour beaucoup notamment pour les migrants clandestins. Une des transformations de la frontière et le contrôle de la frontière à distance comme avec la nécessité d’obtenir un visa avant de voyager. Le contrôle de la frontière a été externalisé que ça soit à la frontière ou dans le reste du monde. L’État garde l’autorité de pouvoir définir de ce qu’est la frontière.
La frontière n’a pas seulement une fonction de dissuasion puisqu’elle permet l’exercice de l’autorité de l’État, car c’est à la frontière qu’est décidé de qui est légitime ou illégitime, qui est de confiance, qui représente un risque, qui peut rentrer, qui est exclu. La frontière est un lieu qui crée de la normalité favorisant les amalgames. Au-delà de la fonction de la dissuasion, il y a un certain nombre de rituels qui affirment l’autorité de l’État tels que vérification des passeports, fouilles au corps, interrogatoires.
Au travers de ces pratiques de sécurité aux frontières, l’État (ré)affirme son autorité. La frontière devient un lieu où se redéfinit l’autorité et ses limites. L’État n’est absolument pas érodé pour ce qui est du contrôle de ses frontières. Au vu des nouvelles pratiques, l’enjeu pour les États est de concilier les aspects « positifs et négatifs » de la globalisation. La frontière est un lieu de plus en plus « policiarisé ». La frontière ne disparaît donc pas, c’est au contraire un lieu central de la détermination des enjeux politiques contemporains qui détermine la réorganisation des frontières. Dans la distinction entre « communautaire » et « extracommunautaire », c’est la définition de catégories du politique.
L’accroissement de l’importance du policing des frontières engendre un certain nombre de conséquences. L’État ne disparaît pas, mais se redéploie dans différentes modalités de l’exercice du contrôle. Sont mis en place de nouveaux dispositifs de surveillance et de contrôle au-delà des frontières de plus en plus sophistiques avec des filtres innovatifs qui mobilisent la technologie dans le sens où certaines formes de technologies sont devenus largement abordables et applicables. Du moment où l’enjeu n’est plus d’avoir une frontière hermétique, mais une frontière égalitaire, le filtre doit être efficace. Cela implique la mise en place de nouveaux dispositifs de contrôle et de surveillance pour déterminer qui est légitime et qui est illégitime. Apparaissent des problèmes d’ordre plus politique et éthique pour déterminer qui est dangereux ou pas à l’avance.
De plus en plus de pratiques d’ordre militaire et policières convergent et remettent en question la division du travail traditionnelle avec la police qui s’occupe de ce qui se passe à l’intérieur de l’État et l’armée ce qui se passe à l’extérieur. Cela rend plus floue la frontière. Il y a une augmentation de la coopération des offices autant policière, que migratoire ou douanière. On peut assister à un épaississement des frontières qui n’est plus une ligne. Par exemple, la politique européenne de voisinage est entretenue entre l’Union européenne et des pays du voisinage avec des pays qui n’ont pas à vocation de devenir membre. La frontière s’épaissit par la mise en place de dispositifs dans des pays de plus en plus large avec l’augmentation des contrôles à distances. Cela relève aussi d’enjeux relevant de la protection de la vie privée. Dans la construction européenne et avec la mise en place de système d’information, il n’y a pas de régime de check and balance. Il y a un danger autour de la vie privée, autour de l’accumulation de données. Pour Bigo, on se retrouve dans une logique où on procède ainsi afin d’assurer la sécurité des uns, mais cette sécurité des uns se fait aux dépens de la sécurité des autres.
Annexes
Articles
- Isnblog.ethz.ch,. (2015). Why Borders Matter « ISN Blog. Retrieved 6 August 2015, from http://isnblog.ethz.ch/conflict/why-borders-matter
Cours
La frontière : un objet fétiche de la géographie politique, des formes et des effets fluctuants
Bibliography
References
- ↑ Andreas, Peter. "Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century." International Security 28.2 (2003): 78-111.