States, territory and sovereignty

Author(s): David Storey

Source: Geography , Autumn 2017, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Autumn 2017), pp. 116-121
Published by: Geographical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26546743

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26546743?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Geographical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Geography

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
States,
territory and
sovereignty
States,
territory and
sovereignty
David Storey
Photo © Bryan Ledgard ABSTRACT: The global political map displays a world
composed of apparently discretely divided territorial
units or states. This paints a deceptively static and
solid picture that masks considerable fluidity and
contestation. Drawing on a range of examples, this
article explores the key geographical features of
states through a discussion of territory, borders,
sovereignty and identity, themes that have a
particular salience in light of the results of the 2016
UK referendum to leave the European Union. The
idea of territory is bound up with the evolution of
the state. Alongside this, borders have emerged as
states have endeavoured to demarcate their
territory rigidly from that of others. Sovereignty, or
the right of a state to rule over its territory, has
always been a contested and contingent idea.
States also seek to create and reproduce senses of
national identity among their citizens.
Introduction
We are very familiar with the global political map
displaying a world of neatly divided, discrete
territorial blocks. The cartographic depiction of
these bounded political spaces conveys a sense of
solidity to the extent that we tend to think of it as a
natural configuration. However, these blocks, or
states, are of course human creations. Throughout
history, states have emerged, expanded,
contracted, disappeared, merged and re-emerged.
The global political map is dynamic, not fixed, and
its apparent solidity masks contestations over
territory, boundaries and sovereignty. The modern
state system is usually seen as deriving from the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, from which time
greater emphasis came to be placed on
116
demarcations of territory through a more precise
This content downloaded from
132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
© Geography 2017
delineating of borders separating one entity from
another. The contemporary state is not a single,
unambiguous entity, but a constellation of various
institutions and component parts that together
constitute an apparatus of power. This apparatus
often takes a spatial hierarchical form with central,
regional and local levels of government. While
precisely what it is may be hard to pin down, the
modern state is dependent on three essential,
closely entwined, and intrinsically geographical
features: territory, borders and sovereignty.
Alongside these, a state’s continued existence
depends heavily on the reproduction of ideas of
national identity. This article provides a discussion
of each of these core elements, which have added
significance in the context of the UK’s pending exit
from the European Union (EU).
Territory
In order for a state to exist, it must have a territory
– a portion of geographic space (containing land,
air and water) over which it exercises power.
Territory may seem like a very straightforward idea,
a portion of bounded space under the control of
the state. However, it is rather more complicated
than this. Stuart Elden (2013) argues that territory
is more than simply land (or geographic space).
Our ideas of territory are dependent on ways of
measuring and mapping it. As Elden illustrates,
developments in both cartography and geometrical
means of areal calculation brought with them legal
and administrative developments. States emerged
in conjunction with bureaucratic systems that
codified territorial control. Information gathering on
the nature of the land, its features and resources,
as well as on people, garnered through censuses
and related surveys, became essential
components in state building. These led to a way
of conceiving geographic space through which it
could be owned, controlled and administered.
Territory is a clear necessity for a state to exist,
and provides that state with a seat of power and a
functional space in which to operate. However,
territory is not just a property of the state as the
former is given meaning by the latter – the state
created territory and confers meaning upon it.
Territory itself results from the processes of state
© Geography 2017
evolution and the mechanics of mapping and
calculating space. In a sense then, territory only
exists because the state does; ideas of territory
evolved in tandem with the emergence of the state
and, while territory facilitates state action, it is
also a product of it (Brenner and Elden, 2009). In
addition, the state serves to inculcate a sense of
territorial or national identity with cartographic
techniques appropriated for practical, symbolic and
propaganda purposes through which the state is
made real and visible (Escolar, 2003; Scott, 1998).
The state has evolved as much more than just a
political and administrative unit. Politics and
culture are linked such that the state functions as
both a decision space and an identity space
(Maier, 2016): simultaneously a functional unit in
which political decisions are made, while also an
entity with which people identify and form deep-
seated bonds.
Clearly, states engage in territorial behaviour in
attempting to attain or retain control over
geographic space. Robert Sack (1986) views
territoriality as a strategy designed to achieve
particular objectives and he identifies various
tendencies of territoriality, most notably that it
allows for a classification by geographic area.
Territoriality acts as a mechanism for the
communication of power and authority while
simultaneously facilitating the effacement of that
power so that it is seen to reside in the territory
rather than with those who govern it. This latter is
especially important in that it further serves to
naturalise the state; we take for granted the
enactment of laws pertaining to space reflected in
such expressions as ‘the law of the land’. While
we can say that states are territorial containers
(although increasingly permeable ones) and have
jurisdiction over politics, economy, society and
culture within their acknowledged geographic
spaces (Taylor, 1994), we need to be mindful of
what Agnew (1994) has termed the ‘territorial trap’
whereby we take for granted the centrality, longevity
and fixity of sovereign state power.
Borders
If a state has control over designated territory, it
follows that it must have recognised boundaries
separating its own territory from that belonging to
neighbouring states, necessitating a concern with
the drawing and redrawing of political borders and
the formalisation of territorial arrangements.
Borders appear as neat lines on the global political
map. However, they have huge material and
symbolic importance and convey very clear
messages (Storey, 2012). At borders the
distinction between ‘our’ territory and that of
This content downloaded from
132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
others is made clear, with the paraphernalia of the
state evident through the presence of flags, States,
passport checks, security and customs controls.
Borders graphically distinguish an ‘inside’ from an
territory and
‘outside’ and ‘us’ from ‘them’. Traditionally, sovereignty
political geographers have differentiated between
‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ boundaries. The former
category encompasses naturally occurring
phenomena such as rivers, like the Rio Grande
that forms part of the border between the USA and
Mexico, or the Mekong that forms part of the
boundaries separating Laos from both Myanmar
and Thailand. Lines of latitude are seen as
examples of artificial boundaries. Notable
instances include the 38th parallel forming part of
the border between North and South Korea, and
the 49th parallel forming much of the border
between the USA and Canada. However, this
apparent distinction between natural and artificial
boundaries is highly misleading given that borders
are intrinsically artificial, regardless of the features
or criteria used in their demarcation. Ideas of
natural borders also lend weight to assumptions
that ethnic or national identities are fixed and
unproblematic and that territorial divisions
separating them are ‘natural’, desirable and
attainable (Fall, 2010). In many respects, the
imposition of a physical border can result in the
emergence or reinforcement of ideas of difference
contributing to the essentialising of national
identity and accentuating linguistic and cultural
divisions.
The ‘Golden Triangle’ with
the Mekong and a tributary
Borders are constantly subject to change resulting river separating Thailand
from disputes over territory. These disagreements (where the photographer is
may relate to the precise location of the border or stood), Myanmar/Burma
they may centre on the very existence of a border (to the left) and Laos (to
in the first place. The relative importance of certain the right). Photo:
borders changes over time. In the Cold War era, PeaceMayComeToYou (CC
east-west borders in Europe were charged with BY 2.0 licence).
117
 Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
geopolitical significance and were heavily
States, militarised. In recent decades, however, their
importance has diminished as many ex-communist
territory and states have joined the EU. Elsewhere, many
sovereignty borders remain highly contentious. Notwithstanding
relative peace over the contested space of
Northern Ireland, Irish republicans (who wish to see
a unified Ireland) view the border between the north
and the independent Republic of Ireland, which is
at the heart of the conflict, as an imposed and
artificial boundary. Brexit (the exit of the UK from
the EU) means the Irish border assumes huge
additional significance because it is likely to
become a somewhat ‘harder’ border separating the
UK from an EU member state. Whereas EU
countries retain their borders, these for the most
part allow for the free movement of people and
goods between the member states. The EU’s
external borders (and the Irish border seems set to
become one), however, are less porous and restrict
the movement of goods and people.
Borders act as social and discursive constructs
with important ramifications, both politically and in
people’s everyday lives (Paasi, 2009; Newman,
2010). They have very real material consequences;
they divide and impede; and they can create and
reproduce difference. As Reece Jones (2016) has
recently argued, borders are inherently violent
constructs. In myriad ways borders become
elements within people’s everyday lives, shaping
their day-to-day being. For those living in
borderlands their lives are disrupted by these
imposed divisions of political space, and for people
in disputed zones such as Kashmir (contested
between India and Pakistan) or the Ferghana Valley
(central Asia), state efforts at defending territory
have very real impacts (Megoran, 2006).
Depending on your perspective, borders protect by
affording security and defence or they act as
impediments to movement. For those of a strongly
nationalist political orientation, control of ‘our’
borders has become something of a political
mantra in recent years. Borders are seen as the
last line of defence of ‘our’ territory, keeping out
undesirable ‘others’, and such arguments form one
strand of the Brexit debate. Borders become
discursive devices so that defending, sealing and
controlling them become rallying cries for political
groups. In many instances, different issues become
linked together such that debates on migration
become entwined with discourses on security,
health and well-being, resources and economy.
Sovereignty
Alongside territory and the demarcation of bounded
118
space, sits the closely related concept of
This content downloaded from
132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
© Geography 2017
sovereignty. In essence, this refers to the authority
of a state to rule over its territory and the people
within its borders, without external interference.
Sovereignty implies the existence of geographic
space over which control is exerted, thus ideas of
sovereignty are intimately bound up with ways of
conceiving territory (Elden, 2013). While the world
political map conveys an impression of neatly
demarcated territorial sovereign states, the reality
is somewhat more complex. Sovereignty is
contingent, contested and evolving and has never
been as simple as is sometimes assumed. Three
key issues associated with sovereignty relate to
secession, recognition and external projections of
economic and political power. Secessionist
nationalism refers to a situation where a significant
portion of a region’s inhabitants indicate a desire
to form a separate state, independent of the larger
one in which they are currently located. In various
places, sovereignty is challenged through
secessionist claims, such as the Basque country
and Catalunya in Spain. Within the UK, Scottish
nationalists desire an independent Scotland, and
numerous other examples abound. Secessionism
gives rise to fragmentation of existing states, the
total number of which has steadily increased in
recent decades as new ones, such as Montenegro
and South Sudan, have emerged.
However, the desire for independence is not in
itself sufficient to see the creation of a new state.
In an inter-state system, international recognition
becomes crucial and sovereignty is contingent on
its acceptance by external parties. There are
instances of what might appear to be sovereign
jurisdictions such as places like South Ossetia and
Transnistria but these lack any widespread
international recognition (Blakkisrud and Kolstø,
2011; O’Loughlin et al., 2011). Instead they
remain (officially at least) parts of Georgia and
Moldova respectively, even though they operate to
all intents and purposes as independent entities.
Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and, while
it is recognised by many countries, some continue
to see it as part of Serbia. For a nation to attain its
own sovereign state it needs more than simply a
strong sense of collective identity, it also depends
on the complexities of international relations. While
full UN recognition has become the standard, other
agents also play a role here in affording recognition
to quasi-states. For example, Kosovo is recognised
by FIFA (the governing body of world football), as is
Palestine.
Sovereignty is further challenged through various
global processes and through the asymmetrical
projection of power linked to global geopolitical
relationships. Trans-global flows of capital,
© Geography 2017 Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
technology and ideas, coupled with the rise of alongside an ever-widening range of non-state
global information networks, seem to erode ideas actors who might be seen to exert power across States,
of national sovereignty and point towards the networks rather than over rigidly bordered territory.
irrelevancy of borders. A neo-liberal global economy Agnew (2005) identifies what he terms ‘classic’,
territory and
simultaneously utilises and transcends bordered ‘imperialist’, ‘integrative’ and ‘globalist’ sovereignty sovereignty
spaces, while the unequal distribution of economic regimes:
power calls into question the capacity of states to
• classic regimes might be seen as the
control their own economic destiny. The activities of
‘traditional’ state operating within a bounded
major transnational corporations – with their highly
territorial space
complex geographies of production, distribution,
marketing and taxation – serve to deepen the array • imperialist regimes applies to states who are
of actors that wield forms of power within and relatively weak and beholden to outside forces
across state borders, particularly in a context • integrative regimes are situations where there
where the role of many state institutions has been is a pooling of sovereignty through trans-state
diluted through privatisation and deregulation. arrangements, of which the EU is the most
Nevertheless, despite its seemingly reduced role obvious example
and the ways in which the state is increasingly • globalist regimes refer to an interconnected
penetrated by global flows, it continues to manage world in which some states have considerably This mural supporting a
a highly regulated framework, albeit one that more influence than others and where their separate Basque country
consists of a series of diverse and fragmented global reach, in terms of economic or political is actually located in
institutions whose impacts on society are hugely influence, extends well beyond their own Belfast, Northern Ireland,
variable (Smith, 2009). and represents the area’s
boundaries.
solidarity with another
These complex flows and relationships lead group seeking
The geopolitical strategies of major powers also
Sassen (2013) to emphasise the growing independence from an
points towards sizeable asymmetries. Sovereignty,
disjuncture between territory and state sovereignty. established nation state.
for some, appears contingent on adhering to
Askatasuna (from the
particular ground rules laid out by more powerful She argues for a need to think in terms of complex
Basque word meaning
states. External interventions by western powers in jurisdictions that cross borders creating ‘holes’ in
‘freedom’), a Basque
a range of regions (including parts of the Middle state sovereignty. Ultimately, sovereignty is relative, political party, was
East and Africa) serve to demonstrate that contingent and never complete. It is always an outlawed in 2009. Photo:
territorial sovereignty is highly contingent on states ideal aimed towards, rather than a fully achieved Iker Meridio (CC BY-ND 2.0
conforming to the needs and expectations of more condition. licence).
powerful external actors. The USA performs its
superpower role by displaying both a willingness
and an ability to exert power well beyond its formal
territorial boundaries, while other states
(sometimes labelled ‘failed’ states) become arenas
for external intervention (Morrissey, 2015). The
creation and maintenance of military bases in other
countries and the economic and political pressures
exerted (both directly and indirectly) by major
powers graphically illustrates that some states
possess the capacity to be considerably more
sovereign than others. The exercise of military or
economic muscle allows more powerful states a
much freer rein on the global stage than that
permitted to others. In summary, the linkages
between state sovereignty and territorial control are
far from straightforward and lead to a consideration
of effective sovereignty wielded by both states and
quasi-state actors and deployed across a range of
territorial contexts (Elden, 2009; McConnell, 2010).

Geographer John Agnew (2005) has attempted to

move the sovereignty debate further by positing the
idea of sovereignty regimes. As suggested above,
the effective sovereignty of many states is reduced
119
through various processes and global flows,

This content downloaded from

132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
State, nation and identity
States, States endeavour to inculcate feelings of identity
territory and and belonging. This occurs through attempts to
sovereignty convey a sense of nationality through which a
cultural affinity with a demarcated political space
entwines in the idea of the nation-state. Quite
clearly, however, nation and state are not always in
tandem, thus, in many instances, competing
national identities exist alongside each other.
Within the UK some people may feel British; some
may identify as English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish (or
combinations of two or more of these); while others
may identify more closely with nations with which
they have family or wider ethnic connections. Ideas
of national identity are quite powerful creating what
Benedict Anderson (1991) refers to as a sense of
‘imagined community’ among the members of the
nation. While nationalism appears at its most overt
in cases of contested territory, war and political
conflict associated with secessionist claims, we
need to be aware that a sense of the nation is
often evident in more mundane ways and through
everyday practices, such as flags flying on public
buildings and the existence of ‘national’
institutions in media, culture and entertainment.
For these reasons we need to keep in mind what
Michael Billig (1995) has termed the ‘everyday’
manifestations of national identity. The production
and dissemination of maps serves as a very potent
cartographic depiction of the national territory
(MacLaughlin, 2001; Batuman, 2010) and such
things as international sporting events can serve
as arenas in which the imagined community
becomes, for a time at least, somewhat more ‘real’
Photo: Freedom House (Storey, 2016).
(Public domain)
120
This content downloaded from
132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
© Geography 2017
Ideas of national identity can be utilised as a
means of mobilising a population in support of the
territorial state. In times of war they can serve as
an encouragement to protect its borders against
perceived external threat. Similarly, they act as a
rallying cry for secessionist movements wishing to
create their own state. Many think of the nation as
having a long history, but this is often heavily
mythologised, and the nation (like the state) is a
relatively recent construction (Storey, 2012). In the
EU referendum campaign in the UK, the UK
Independence Party utilised the slogan ‘we want
our country back’, implying both a sense of
collective ownership of the territory as well as the
idea of that control being diminished and
threatened. In his election campaign and in the
early stages of his presidency Donald Trump used
the rhetoric of putting ‘America first’ and ‘making
America great again’, encouraging voters to think of
themselves in broader national terms. Allied to
strongly anti-immigration sentiment, these patriotic
appeals conflate individual well-being with the fate
of a territorial construction. While a positive sense
of collective identity may be formed, there is often
an insular and exclusionary version that can lead to
xenophobic and prejudicial attitudes towards those
seen not to rightly belong to the nation, resulting in
calls to curb immigration and to intensify border
security. These feed into campaigns that seek to
prioritise jobs in ‘our’ land for ‘our’ workers where
the material, the symbolic and the geographic are
intrinsically bound together (Ince et al., 2015).
While some may wish to see national identity in
fixed and rigid ways, such reductionist ideas run
counter to the more hybrid or multi-layered
identities of many. Narrow conceptualisations of
identity can lead to dangerous linkages being
claimed between land, territory and people whereby
the national space is seen to belong to a specific
ethno-national group to the exclusion of others
(Kolstø, 2005; Toal and Dahlman, 2011).
Contemporary international sport offers some
examples of the more complex and over-lapping
nature of identities. This is evident in the cases of
Somali-born athlete Mo Farah or tennis player
Johanna Konta (born in Australia to Hungarian
parents) representing Great Britain in various
sporting events. These suggest a need to think of
national identity and state citizenship in much more
fluid and flexible terms (Yarwood, 2014).
Summary
States provide the political framework that
regulates (directly or indirectly) many facets of our
lives. Through ideas of the nation they also play a
key role in identity formation and in encouraging a
sense of communal belonging, with potentially
© Geography 2017
positive or negative implications. Despite their
apparent solidity, states are not immutable
entities. Rather, they are a historically contingent
means through which territory (and the people
living in it) is controlled. States do not just happen;
they are created and reproduced, and occasionally
subject to challenge. Through the various arms and
agencies of the state we come to think in a
territorial way and this strongly state-centred
approach serves to reify current political-territorial
structures. However, states are not, and never have
been, neatly bounded spatial containers. They can
be seen as dynamic evolving entities, constantly
reconfigured through the interactions of social,
economic, cultural and political activity. Despite all
our global interconnections, the state and ideas of
sovereignty seem unlikely to wither away any time
soon. While recognising their contested nature,
predictions of the demise of the state and the
advent of a borderless world seem wide of the
mark, as Brexit appears to illustrate. While capital
flows relatively freely across international frontiers,
many people (depending on who they are, where
they are from and where they are trying to go) are
faced with the intimidating paraphernalia of the
state manifested at border crossing points.
Although a fortunate few may possess the wealth
and good fortune that enables them to enjoy lives
that transcend borders, for many others –
especially refugees and poorer migrants – life
remains highly constrained by state efforts at
controlling and patrolling their territory (Kingsley,
2016).
References
Agnew, J.A. (1994) ‘The territorial trap: the geographical
assumptions of international relations theory’, Review
of International Political Economy, 1, 1, pp. 53–80.
Agnew, J.A. (2005) ‘Sovereignty regimes: territoriality and
state authority in contemporary world politics’, Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 2, pp.
437–61.
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. Reflections
on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised
edition). London: Verso.
Batuman, B. (2010) ‘The shape of the nation: visual
production of nationalism through maps in Turkey’,
Political Geography, 29, 4, pp. 220–34.
Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Blakkisrud, H. and Kolstø, P. (2011) ‘From secessionist
conflict toward a functioning state: processes of state-
and nation-building in Transnistria’, Post-Soviet Affairs,
27, 2, pp. 178–210.
Brenner, N. and Elden, S. (2009) ‘Henri Lefebvre on state,
space, territory’, International Political Sociology, 3, 4,
pp. 353–77.
Elden, S. (2009) Terror and Territory: The spatial extent of
sovereignty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Elden, S. (2013) The Birth of Territory. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Escolar, M. (2003) ‘Exploration, cartography and the
This content downloaded from
132.229.92.100 on Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:21:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geography Vol 102 Part 3 Autumn 2017
modernization of state power’ in Brenner, N., Jessop,
B., Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. (eds) State/Space: A
reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 29–52. States,
Fall, J.J. (2010) ‘Artificial states? On the enduring territory and
geographical myth of natural borders’, Political
Geography, 29, 3, pp. 140–56.
sovereignty
Ince, A., Featherstone, D., Cumbers, A., MacKinnon, D. and
Strauss, K. (2015) ‘British jobs for British workers?
Negotiating work, nation, and globalization through the
Lindsay oil refinery disputes’, Antipode, 47, 1, pp. 139–
57.
Jones, R. (2016) Violent Borders. Refugees and the right to
move. London: Verso.
Kingsley, P. (2016) The New Odyssey. The story of Europe’s
refugee crisis. London: Guardian Books.
Kolstø, P. (ed) (2005) Myths and Boundaries in South-
Eastern Europe. London: Hurst & Company.
MacLaughlin, J. (2001) Reimagining the Nation-state. The
contested terrains of nation-building. London: Pluto.
McConnell, F. (2010) ‘The fallacy and the promise of the
territorial trap: sovereign articulations of geopolitical
anomalies’, Geopolitics, 15, 4, pp. 762–8.
Maier, C.S. (2016) Once Within Borders. Territories of
power, wealth, and belonging since 1500. Cambridge,
MA/London: Belknap Press.
Megoran, N. (2006) ‘For ethnography in political
geography: experiencing and reimagining Ferghana
Valley boundary closures’, Political Geography, 26, 10,
pp. 622–40.
Morrissey, J. (2015) ‘Securitizing instability: the US
military and full spectrum operations’, Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 33, 4, pp. 609–25.
Newman, D. (2010) ‘Territory, compartments and borders:
avoiding the trap of the territorial trap’, Geopolitics, 15,
4, pp. 773–8.
O’Loughlin, J., Kolossov, V. and Toal, G. (2011) ‘Inside
Abkhazia: survey of attitudes in a de facto state’, Post-
Soviet Affairs, 27, 1, pp. 1–36.
Paasi, A. (2009) ‘Bounded spaces in a “borderless
world”: border studies, power and the anatomy of
territory’, Journal of Power, 2, 2, pp. 213–34.
Sack, R. (1986) Human Territoriality: Its theory and
history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sassen, S. (2013) ‘When territory deborders territoriality’,
Territory, Politics, Governance, 1, 1, pp. 21–45.
Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How certain
schemes to improve the human condition have failed.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Smith, M.J. (2009) Power and the State. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Storey, D. (2012) Territories. The claiming of space
(second edition). London: Routledge.
Storey, D. (2016) ‘Which boys in green? Identity issues in
Irish soccer’ in Howley, C. and Dun, S. (eds) The Playing
Field. Making sense of spaces and places in sporting
culture. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, pp. 129–40.
Taylor, P.J. (1994) ‘The state as container: territoriality in
the modern world-system’, Progress in Human
Geography, 18, 2, pp. 151–62.
Toal, G. and Dahlman, C.T. (2011), Bosnia Remade. Ethnic
cleansing and its reversal. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Yarwood, R. (2014) Citizenship. London: Routledge.
David Storey is Principal Lecturer in Geography in
the Institute of Science and the Environment at
University of Worcester, Worcester, UK (email:
d.storey@worc.ac.uk). 121