The persistence of partition: Boundary-making, imperialism, and international law

Abstract

This article implores political geographers to engage with the sub-discipline's imperial roots in which international law was foundational. It does so by revisiting the practice of partition – defined here as an imposed boundary – which remains central to historical and current-day imperialism. This is the case, both regarding longstanding partitions, such as Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Chagos Islands/British Indian Ocean Territory, Cyprus, Korea, and Western Sahara, and with regard to proposals to impose new partitions in Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, and in the South China Sea. By adopting an historical perspective on the geopolitics of bordering, partition can be understood as an imposed boundary, in which the negotiators, to the extent they were consulted, were not presented with a free choice. Partitions in colonial situations only became illegal during the height of decolonization and the Cold War confrontation with the West, when the Soviet Union and Third World succeeded in modifying international law in a way that required the colonial powers to obtain the consent of the representatives of the communities whose territories they proposed to partition. As the world enters a more uncertain period, with increasing geopolitical competition, partition could make a comeback, in various guises, in which it may become necessary to pass judgment on the legality of partition, and not just its efficacy.