ABSTRACT
How can we take stock of the politics of border management around the world today?
Conventional wisdom in and outside the academic community suggests that borders generally have been ‘hardened’ or ‘re-territorialized’ in the post-September 11 period due to concerns about national security (Andreas and Biersteker 2003). This is being done, the narrative goes, in the face of countervailing pressures forcing de-territorialization such as globalization and free trade which make border control in the twenty-first century a difficult and dilemma-wrought challenge. I accept that this trend has been the case but would like to make the argument here that this remains only one part of the larger picture of contemporary border management around the world. In my view, it is not really a question of if borders are getting ‘harder’ (they are) or ‘softer’ (they are) but rather how, why, and when this is taking place – and if any broad generalizations can be made about these dynamics. The overall picture that emerges, I submit, is really one of border policy regime differentiation – between, within, and beyond states. These differentiated and uneven regimes manifest themselves in different functional ways in different areas of the world – for example, to serve military or policing ends – some of which will be explored briefly in this chapter.
