Gottmann, J. (1973), The significance of territory,
Gottmann, J. (1973), The significance of territory, The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, p.169
To understand the past and the present partitioning of inhabited world, it is necessary to consider the unit in this partitioning, that is, to consider territory as a portion of space defined by a system of laws and a unity if government
p.2
The practice of international law binds sovereignty and territory closely together
p.3
However it must never forgotten that the relationship between sovereignty and territory is built upon a connecting link: the people in the territory or, if it is devoid of permanent settlement, at least the activity of people within the territory
p.4
The sole presence of a flag flying over the place may not be successful in maintaining sovereignty if activities are occasionally carried out there without the power’s knowledge by people who do not recognize its authority.
p.4
Territory= area around a place, spatial organisation and centrality
Indeed, some reports of American Committees have hinted that, in view of the growing interdependence among the increasingly numerous independent states, no state could claim to be “sovereign” in the full old sense of the term
p.6
National Sovereignty: International social function
p.6
Security must be organized against outsider first, and within community itself afterwards
p.7
Accessibility in space is organized, at all times in history, to serve political aims, and one of the major aims of politics is the regulate conditions of access.
p.7
Each compartment designed by the network of political partitions remains, however, interdependent with other located around it or more distant
p.12
If a territory is the model compartment of space resulting from partitioning, diversification, and organization, it may described a endowed with two main functions: to serve on the one hand as a shelter for security and on the other hand as a springboard for opportunity.
p.14
Territory = substance (material) and psychological (human needs)
The process was not , however n one of simple enclosure of the land by individual political communities or of sheer land-grabbing by certain princes or republic. It was accompanied by statesmen and philosophers as to where the public good was to be found, and where the best interest of their respective peoples.
p.15
Here [In Politics] Aristotle lays the ground for the trilogy of elements constituting a state: the population, the territory, and the unity of the system of government
p.22
The units in medieval times were mainly cities and abbeys; they were small in area, even though they claimed jurisdiction in most of cases over the land immediately surrounding their wall. The rise of an increasing numbers of communities affirming their right to self-government and therefore some freedom from the lord of the “open” county around them, required territorial delimitation, especially as the wealth a power of some of the cities grew.
p.30
Despite the insistence on interdependence, Bodin is neither a true liberal nor a champion of free trade. He is quire conscious of the need for the state to be independent and strongly organized. The Country must be protected, and tariff barriers may well be part if the political organization of international cooperation, for they must be a prerogative of national authority.
p.43
Bondin emphasized the sovereign’s need to know as much as possible about the territory under his jurisdiction, as well as about those of neighbouring lands.
p.44
as the concept of corporate national sovereignty gradually replaced the personal prerogative of the individual sovereign, territorial delimitation acquired much more significance: it fixed limits to the spatial extent of sovereignty and outlined the size and location of it. The territory become the physical and legal embodiment of national identity and the jurists and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to discuss how sovereign governments ought to use these prerogative.
p.49
But more important was that as Grotius showed territorial sovereignty over certain kinds of space could coexist with the freedom of other sectors
p.51
Territorial sovereignty became in the seventeenth century, and remains, the foundation of a certain status of equality between states, like that which must exist between sovereigns.
p.54
Vauban pointed out that the relationship between government of the sovereign and the people must be implemented in terms of spatial organization of the territory.
p.60
In the modern formula of the modern state, territory is the essential constant linking the people and the unified governmental structure. The economic relationship between people and territory on one hand, and between government and territory on the other, will constantly vary according to a multifaced set of factors among which knowledge about the territory and the neighbouring countries, will be paramount. But territory, as an indispensable link, remain constant and essential.
p.60
The American and French revolt opened a new area, in which national states are based on clear-cut territorial sovereignty exercised by the government solely in the name of the nations. The patterns was to be generally adopted was to lay at the foundation of the political partitioning of the world two hundred years later.
p.75
Religious differences, however, and geographical contiguity continued to play an essential part in territorial claim. The doctrine of contiguity as an source of rights or privileges in neighbouring territory is been systematically frowned upon by international law, but in political practice many conflicts and territorial changes resulted from debates between contiguous powers, some felling threatened by neighbours, other feeling that their citizens’ rights to opportunities available next to their border were unjustly denied.
p.75-76
If one considers, however, that the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 granted the status of sovereign state to some three hundred political units previously contain within the framework of the Holy Roman Empire, the total of number of independent states in the world in 1970 is smaller than the number in the Europe of 1650 alone.
p.91
In 1650 the political structures was still partly determined by the feudal and dynastic systems inherited from medieval law and customs.
p.91
In 1970, the political unit is assumed to be a nation, and sovereignty is exercised in the name of the national community.
p.91
The national state is based on the firm, material foundation of territorial sovereignty; the dominant role of the nations written into its laws.
p.91
Nationalism, on its modern expression, has been built on territorial foundations, and it required a territorial base upon which the sovereignty of that nation could apply its jurisdiction. A nation may perhaps exist without being able to exercise any sovereignty, but nationalism implies firstly, a claim to promote the existence of the nation as a distinct group, with distinct system of laws, which means in independence, and, secondly, it implies a promise to promote the welfare of the people, which means a set of material resources at their disposal and if they so decide, at their exclusive disposal. It is this right to exclude others that could not be implemented without territorial sovereignty.
p.95
Nationalism needs some time to arise: it must have leadership and a doctrine.
p.97
The growing together of the purpose of nationalism and socialism in domestic policy had the effect of considerably reinforcing the territorial concerns of politics.
p.102
In his Politisch Geographie (1896), the German geographer Freidrich Ratzel stressed three main characteristics of states from a geographical point of view: the space or territory (Raum), the location (Lage), and a curious, psychological features he termed the ‘sense of space) (Raumsinm).
p.105
One may dispute whether the concept of ‘city’ would still apply to such huge agglomeration, despite their continuity in urbanization. But the fact of livnig and working at such hight density for very large numbers of people is new and pregnant with organizational consequences.
p.118
The rapid changes in the geographic and economic structure of so many national territories, in consequence of the progress of urbanization, have been one of the major forces driving modern politics into concerns of a territorial and geographical nature.
p.121
The happiness of the people today rests on all these aspects of territorial and environmental control. Sovereignty must thus manifest itself in jurisdiction fields from which it seemed to have withdrawn during the period of liberal economic thinking in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The happiness of a dense community would appear to require a greater and more constant exercise of sovereignty over the territory that must be serviced for the community’s needs.
p.122
Examined more closely, the concept [of territory] appears to designate rather a relationship established between neighbouring political authorities.
p.123
To take on a valid general significance, a definition of territory must be “relational”.
p.123
Personal allegiance, the basis of medieval protection, lapsed gradually between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and the national allegiance of the people to the sovereign state prevailed to the community behind defined boundaries under s distinct system of laws. The American and French revolutions claimed natural frontiers and independence for nations that drafted into armies to defined their own sovereignty and in which Church and state were separated. Their distinct national personalities had legal and territorial roots. The concept of national state’s exercing territorial sovereignty was accepted and spread across the continents as the model of political organization.
p.125
The movement toward statehood and national sovereignty, begun in the sixteenth century, seems to have achieved it apogee.
p.166
Three hundred years after the Peace of Westphalia religious difference were still partitioning the world and claiming territorial bases.
p.128
Several fundamental functions of territorial sovereignty have recently been challenged and may hardly be held to operate any longer with some results as in the past. First, the fonction pf protection is now gravely questioned.
p.127
Boundary is “the limiting line”
Frontier is the part of a country that borders on another
This would imply that frontier connotes in all these tongues a concept of zone, containing some population rather than just a concept of geometrical line.
p.134
This examination of the modern role and evolution of international boundaries confirms the feeling of fluidity, of constant changes, of search fir a new international order. The decisive element in the evolution cannot be found in the boundaries, which are symptom, effects determined by deeper causes. The “causes” are to be found in depth, and largely in the international organization of the territory.
p.143
On a regional scale, grouping of states have advanced even further in pooling together the means of their exercise of sovereignty.
p.144
This shift of the concept of the frontier from the wide open spaces to be settled to the dynamic crowding of metropolitan regions was more than a sign of a basic difference between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries in America.
p.144
The question concerning the influence of the place of residence in the rights of the individual citizen arise anywhere in the political partitioned space. The partitioning determines a great deal in the individual’s rights: it designates whether or nit he is a citizen of a certain country, state, or city.
p.147
Politicians have always been wary of large urban crowds. Sociologists have focused on the difficulties of the urban neighbourhoods. Finally, an ancient and constant conflict may be traced throughout history between the central government and the major metropolis in various countries.
p.151-52
The great metropolis was the only substantial political power in a territory organized as one political unit that could challenge, even on the distant past, the organization of political power established over the countryside.
p.152
The city gathered at the crossroads of people as diverse as possible, aiming at a cosmopolitan character and adding exotic components to the way of life. To the “good” more stabilized people of the surrounding country, suspicious of social fluidity, this appeared strange, alien, perhaps even sinful.
p.152
To understand the past and the present partitioning of inhabited world, it is necessary to consider the unit in this partitioning, that is, to consider territory as a portion of space defined by a system of laws and a unity if government
p.2
The practice of international law binds sovereignty and territory closely together
p.3
However it must never forgotten that the relationship between sovereignty and territory is built upon a connecting link: the people in the territory or, if it is devoid of permanent settlement, at least the activity of people within the territory
p.4
The sole presence of a flag flying over the place may not be successful in maintaining sovereignty if activities are occasionally carried out there without the power’s knowledge by people who do not recognize its authority.
p.4
Territory= area around a place, spatial organisation and centrality
Indeed, some reports of American Committees have hinted that, in view of the growing interdependence among the increasingly numerous independent states, no state could claim to be “sovereign” in the full old sense of the term
p.6
National Sovereignty: International social function
p.6
Security must be organized against outsider first, and within community itself afterwards
p.7
Accessibility in space is organized, at all times in history, to serve political aims, and one of the major aims of politics is the regulate conditions of access.
p.7
Each compartment designed by the network of political partitions remains, however, interdependent with other located around it or more distant
p.12
If a territory is the model compartment of space resulting from partitioning, diversification, and organization, it may described a endowed with two main functions: to serve on the one hand as a shelter for security and on the other hand as a springboard for opportunity.
p.14
Territory = substance (material) and psychological (human needs)
The process was not , however n one of simple enclosure of the land by individual political communities or of sheer land-grabbing by certain princes or republic. It was accompanied by statesmen and philosophers as to where the public good was to be found, and where the best interest of their respective peoples.
p.15
Here [In Politics] Aristotle lays the ground for the trilogy of elements constituting a state: the population, the territory, and the unity of the system of government
p.22
The units in medieval times were mainly cities and abbeys; they were small in area, even though they claimed jurisdiction in most of cases over the land immediately surrounding their wall. The rise of an increasing numbers of communities affirming their right to self-government and therefore some freedom from the lord of the “open” county around them, required territorial delimitation, especially as the wealth a power of some of the cities grew.
p.30
Despite the insistence on interdependence, Bodin is neither a true liberal nor a champion of free trade. He is quire conscious of the need for the state to be independent and strongly organized. The Country must be protected, and tariff barriers may well be part if the political organization of international cooperation, for they must be a prerogative of national authority.
p.43
Bondin emphasized the sovereign’s need to know as much as possible about the territory under his jurisdiction, as well as about those of neighbouring lands.
p.44
as the concept of corporate national sovereignty gradually replaced the personal prerogative of the individual sovereign, territorial delimitation acquired much more significance: it fixed limits to the spatial extent of sovereignty and outlined the size and location of it. The territory become the physical and legal embodiment of national identity and the jurists and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to discuss how sovereign governments ought to use these prerogative.
p.49
But more important was that as Grotius showed territorial sovereignty over certain kinds of space could coexist with the freedom of other sectors
p.51
Territorial sovereignty became in the seventeenth century, and remains, the foundation of a certain status of equality between states, like that which must exist between sovereigns.
p.54
Vauban pointed out that the relationship between government of the sovereign and the people must be implemented in terms of spatial organization of the territory.
p.60
In the modern formula of the modern state, territory is the essential constant linking the people and the unified governmental structure. The economic relationship between people and territory on one hand, and between government and territory on the other, will constantly vary according to a multifaced set of factors among which knowledge about the territory and the neighbouring countries, will be paramount. But territory, as an indispensable link, remain constant and essential.
p.60
The American and French revolt opened a new area, in which national states are based on clear-cut territorial sovereignty exercised by the government solely in the name of the nations. The patterns was to be generally adopted was to lay at the foundation of the political partitioning of the world two hundred years later.
p.75
Religious differences, however, and geographical contiguity continued to play an essential part in territorial claim. The doctrine of contiguity as an source of rights or privileges in neighbouring territory is been systematically frowned upon by international law, but in political practice many conflicts and territorial changes resulted from debates between contiguous powers, some felling threatened by neighbours, other feeling that their citizens’ rights to opportunities available next to their border were unjustly denied.
p.75-76
If one considers, however, that the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 granted the status of sovereign state to some three hundred political units previously contain within the framework of the Holy Roman Empire, the total of number of independent states in the world in 1970 is smaller than the number in the Europe of 1650 alone.
p.91
In 1650 the political structures was still partly determined by the feudal and dynastic systems inherited from medieval law and customs.
p.91
In 1970, the political unit is assumed to be a nation, and sovereignty is exercised in the name of the national community.
p.91
The national state is based on the firm, material foundation of territorial sovereignty; the dominant role of the nations written into its laws.
p.91
Nationalism, on its modern expression, has been built on territorial foundations, and it required a territorial base upon which the sovereignty of that nation could apply its jurisdiction. A nation may perhaps exist without being able to exercise any sovereignty, but nationalism implies firstly, a claim to promote the existence of the nation as a distinct group, with distinct system of laws, which means in independence, and, secondly, it implies a promise to promote the welfare of the people, which means a set of material resources at their disposal and if they so decide, at their exclusive disposal. It is this right to exclude others that could not be implemented without territorial sovereignty.
p.95
Nationalism needs some time to arise: it must have leadership and a doctrine.
p.97
The growing together of the purpose of nationalism and socialism in domestic policy had the effect of considerably reinforcing the territorial concerns of politics.
p.102
In his Politisch Geographie (1896), the German geographer Freidrich Ratzel stressed three main characteristics of states from a geographical point of view: the space or territory (Raum), the location (Lage), and a curious, psychological features he termed the ‘sense of space) (Raumsinm).
p.105
One may dispute whether the concept of ‘city’ would still apply to such huge agglomeration, despite their continuity in urbanization. But the fact of livnig and working at such hight density for very large numbers of people is new and pregnant with organizational consequences.
p.118
The rapid changes in the geographic and economic structure of so many national territories, in consequence of the progress of urbanization, have been one of the major forces driving modern politics into concerns of a territorial and geographical nature.
p.121
The happiness of the people today rests on all these aspects of territorial and environmental control. Sovereignty must thus manifest itself in jurisdiction fields from which it seemed to have withdrawn during the period of liberal economic thinking in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The happiness of a dense community would appear to require a greater and more constant exercise of sovereignty over the territory that must be serviced for the community’s needs.
p.122
Examined more closely, the concept [of territory] appears to designate rather a relationship established between neighbouring political authorities.
p.123
To take on a valid general significance, a definition of territory must be “relational”.
p.123
Personal allegiance, the basis of medieval protection, lapsed gradually between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and the national allegiance of the people to the sovereign state prevailed to the community behind defined boundaries under s distinct system of laws. The American and French revolutions claimed natural frontiers and independence for nations that drafted into armies to defined their own sovereignty and in which Church and state were separated. Their distinct national personalities had legal and territorial roots. The concept of national state’s exercing territorial sovereignty was accepted and spread across the continents as the model of political organization.
p.125
The movement toward statehood and national sovereignty, begun in the sixteenth century, seems to have achieved it apogee.
p.166
Three hundred years after the Peace of Westphalia religious difference were still partitioning the world and claiming territorial bases.
p.128
Several fundamental functions of territorial sovereignty have recently been challenged and may hardly be held to operate any longer with some results as in the past. First, the fonction pf protection is now gravely questioned.
p.127
Boundary is “the limiting line”
Frontier is the part of a country that borders on another
This would imply that frontier connotes in all these tongues a concept of zone, containing some population rather than just a concept of geometrical line.
p.134
This examination of the modern role and evolution of international boundaries confirms the feeling of fluidity, of constant changes, of search fir a new international order. The decisive element in the evolution cannot be found in the boundaries, which are symptom, effects determined by deeper causes. The “causes” are to be found in depth, and largely in the international organization of the territory.
p.143
On a regional scale, grouping of states have advanced even further in pooling together the means of their exercise of sovereignty.
p.144
This shift of the concept of the frontier from the wide open spaces to be settled to the dynamic crowding of metropolitan regions was more than a sign of a basic difference between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries in America.
p.144
The question concerning the influence of the place of residence in the rights of the individual citizen arise anywhere in the political partitioned space. The partitioning determines a great deal in the individual’s rights: it designates whether or nit he is a citizen of a certain country, state, or city.
p.147
Politicians have always been wary of large urban crowds. Sociologists have focused on the difficulties of the urban neighbourhoods. Finally, an ancient and constant conflict may be traced throughout history between the central government and the major metropolis in various countries.
p.151-52
The great metropolis was the only substantial political power in a territory organized as one political unit that could challenge, even on the distant past, the organization of political power established over the countryside.
p.152
The city gathered at the crossroads of people as diverse as possible, aiming at a cosmopolitan character and adding exotic components to the way of life. To the “good” more stabilized people of the surrounding country, suspicious of social fluidity, this appeared strange, alien, perhaps even sinful.
p.152