Interdependence and borders

 INTRODUCTION:

The State is a universal framework, as emphasized by the United Nations, an association of 185 sovereign states. Today, it seems that the full realization of a people requires the establishment of a State; this is the ambition of the Palestinians, and the dream of the Kurds.

Indeed, the State regularly draws attention and reflection. The sudden, even brutal, emergence of more than twenty states in Europe over the past decade, following the dissolution of both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, has certainly demonstrated the powerful appeal of the state model. However, it has also shown a troubling weakening of state power.

Thus, a number of developments challenge the State and prompt reflection on the reality of its strength and power. There is much talk about transboundary flows or interdependence, yet it is difficult to assess the competition this creates for the State.

We increasingly live in "one world." Activities and information are globalized. Beyond the economic sphere, global management systems are being put in place. In several areas (weather, air traffic control…), solidarities have emerged. In other sectors, new initiatives are taking shape (health, technical standards…). But it is true that the first face of globalization is that of generalized circulation, of flows of goods and information.

With globalization, the State's control over its territory is significantly reduced: its land must "breathe" and be in harmony with the outside world. Everything must be done to facilitate the circulation of flows. Any State that rejects or opposes this movement of openness penalizes itself.

Are we then dealing with a new issue, where the world's regulations take place outside or even at the expense of territorial sovereignty? Can we still talk about sovereignty? Or does interdependence undermine the concept of borders?

If, legally, borders define the spatial framework where state power is exercised, interdependence, as a direct consequence of globalization, introduces the idea of breaking down and eliminating these borders, thereby seriously compromising the territorial and economic sovereignty of the State.

To support this thesis, we will first address borders from a legal perspective, then the State in the context of interdependence and territorial control, and finally the economic challenges of interdependence.

I- LEGAL ASPECT

The State, legally defined as an independent political entity, is limited by borders within which it exercises its sovereignty. However, State sovereignty is not absolute and must adhere to certain international legal rules within specific limits.

11- Borders

The concept of the border as a continuous, fixed line separating neighboring states is relatively recent. It coincides with the rise of the modern State. It wasn't until the 16th century that cartographic work in Europe made the idea of state border demarcation possible.

According to the dictionary of International Law Terminology, the "border" is defined as a line marking where the boundaries of two neighboring states begin and end. It is therefore an international line separating territorial spaces where two different sovereignties are exercised.

This determination is carried out according to different principles and techniques and is governed by international law.

A- Border Delimitation Techniques

In fact, international law does not impose any particular technique for the delimitation of borders. As a result, states are free to choose whichever general principle they prefer to define their borders. They can either adopt pre-existing boundaries or establish new ones based on natural features or completely artificial lines.

a) Adoption of a Pre-existing Boundary

The method of fixing borders, also known as “UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS,” is closely linked to the process of decolonization. It involves the transmission of boundaries established by colonial powers to newly independent states. This system was notably used to establish international borders in Latin America in the 19th century, and later in Africa and Asia in the 20th century.

It is also worth noting that following the dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia, the principle of "UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS" was adopted as the rule for delineating borders between the newly formed states; the former administrative boundaries between federated states were transformed into international borders.

b) Adoption of New Boundaries

When states decide to establish new borders, they may opt for either natural or artificial boundaries. Natural boundaries are quite varied and can be:

• Orographic: The border can be the crest line of a mountain range or the foot line of the mountains.
• Fluvial: The border is determined by the median line of the river, as is the case with the Rhine between France and Germany, or the Oder-Neisse line between Poland and Germany.
• Lacustrine: Borders are set by following a path that corresponds either to a geometric line (straight or curved between two known geographic points), as between Jordan and Syria, or to an astronomical median or parallel, such as the 38th parallel between the two Koreas.

However, whatever method is chosen by neighboring states, the border between them must be guaranteed by an international legal act.

B- The Legal Regime of Borders

Indeed, the delimitation of a state's territory must be both complete, stable, and final. These requirements respond primarily to the linear nature of the modern border and also constitute an essential factor for legal security and international peace.

As such, it is not surprising that international borders are meticulously determined and that incursions by foreign elements onto national soil are considered serious events that can lead to hostilities.

Moreover, the respect for territorial integrity is a fundamental principle of international law, enshrined in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and endorsed by numerous international agreements.

Furthermore, with the general prohibition on the use of force, any acquisition by force is illegal.

Today, numerous institutions uphold the principle of the inviolability of borders, which form the basis for the delimitation of state territories and within which the State exercises its sovereignty.

 12- State Sovereignty

Indeed, the principle of sovereignty is inherent to the very essence of the State. It represents the fundamental legal characteristic of the State. Moreover, all States invoke it in their favor and strongly adhere to it, both internally and on the international stage.

The concept of sovereignty is closely linked to that of the modern State. It emerged in the 16th century during the historical process of building the French State. Jean Bodin introduced it in 1576 to justify, on one hand, the predominance of the French monarchy over the nobility, and on the other, its independence from any external influence.
Later, in the 19th century, this concept was prominently embraced by German legal science, which, under Hegel's influence, closely associated sovereignty with the power of the State. Gellinck defined sovereignty as "the competence of competences," meaning it constitutes the original, unlimited, and unconditional power of the State to determine its own authority.
Initially presented as a purely political concept, sovereignty has now taken on a legal dimension. It manifests itself both internally and externally. In the first case, it is referred to as internal sovereignty; in the second, as the sovereignty of the State.
Although these meanings differ, they are complementary, and reconciling internal sovereignty only strengthens the sovereignty of the State.
Therefore, sovereignty can be defined as the exclusive power, limited only by law, that each State possesses as a subject of international law. A sovereign State must have an independent existence; international jurisprudence systematically equates sovereignty with independence.
As Professor Karl Chausson illustrated: "Sovereignty is to a nation what free will and human rights are to an individual. Nothing can replace sovereignty as long as there is no global super-state. In its absence, abandoning sovereignty can only mean the domination of the strong over the weak."
It is undeniable that on the international stage, sovereignty is an essential and necessary characteristic of any State.

Sovereignty implies, among other things, legal equality between States and prohibits interference in their internal affairs.
Thus, the equality of States is an immediate corollary of sovereignty.

13- Limits of Sovereignty
While in the domestic legal order sovereignty faces no obstacles, the same cannot be said for the international community.
In the international sphere, States coexist as equal entities with identical claims to absolute sovereignty. However, to prevent their coexistence from devolving into endless conflict, they must make mutual concessions, guaranteed by a set of universally recognized legal rules, without relinquishing their sovereignty.
At the same time, sovereignty cannot be absolute; it only means that a State is not subordinate to another State but must respect minimal rules ensuring the same privilege for all States.
Additionally, a State's participation in international life implies interdependence and necessarily some limitations to its sovereignty. These limitations may result from various factors.
However, regardless of their origins and scope, they are generally agreed upon by States.
To fulfill their functions effectively, foreign representatives enjoy diplomatic immunity, freedom of communication, inviolability, and judicial immunity within the host State.
The limitations on sovereignty also stem from States' submission to international law.
In their mutual relations, States are obliged to form agreements and engage in exchanges in various areas, transcending political, economic, and social differences. To this end, they create legal rules in the form of treaties (bilateral, multilateral) or customs to facilitate relations and resolve disputes peacefully.

By agreeing to be bound by international legal rules, States implicitly accept certain limitations on their sovereignty. The enforcement of treaties demonstrates this, granting privileged status to allied forces stationed within signatory States. For example, the Warsaw Pact involved the presence of Soviet forces in member states' territories. Similarly, Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty explicitly states: "To more effectively achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the parties, individually and collectively, through continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."
Thus, the mechanism of treaties in international law serves as both an exercise of sovereignty and a limitation of that sovereignty.
However, since no State can be bound without its consent, the capacity to engage internationally is one of the most frequent marks of State sovereignty. Undoubtedly, any treaty creating such an obligation restricts the exercise of a State's sovereign rights, but the ability to contract international agreements is precisely an attribute of State sovereignty.
Can we still speak of State sovereignty over its territory when interdependence compromises its independence?

II - Interdependence, the State, and Territorial Control

Although it is not easy to determine the extent to which the State has lost control of its territory and the functions exercised within it, it is clear that interdependence, particularly regarding human rights, has grown so strong that closing borders—even if possible—would not suffice to maintain control. Maintaining control requires developing the State's normative international role.

21- The Endurance of the State Model
The question of the validity of the principle of territoriality has become crucial. If reference to territory is now marginal, what remains of the State?
Does territory still hold enough significance to remain a decisive reference for the State to remain a major actor? Undoubtedly, there is a relativization of territory. Today, the State cannot maintain control over its territory without international coordination, and it is precisely this coordination that results in the loss of exclusivity, which was once the essence of State-territory relations. This raises the question of the endurance of the State model.
Additionally, the State is increasingly vulnerable to movements originating outside its borders, while its capacity for action or reaction stops at its borders. For example, how can a State resist a cyberattack on its security networks, or prevent the circulation and laundering of criminal money? The loss of control is certain.
Interdependence, a key factor in globalization, acts like a powerful acid against all fortresses. All the monopolies that once consolidated the State's legitimacy (transport, communications, etc.) are now bypassed and dismantled. The State's central functions are reshaped by the logic of competition. Currency values are set by markets, defense is increasingly multinational, and diplomacy, once a noble mission, is now geared toward promoting trade.
Ultimately, the State, and within it the government, is now seen as the coach of a team. It no longer orders or dictates but explains, convinces, and motivates. Like Japan's Prime Minister, whom General De Gaulle mockingly called a "transistor salesman," all governments are now salespeople.

Interdependence has not only weakened territorial control but also compromised the principle of the State's exclusive right to exercise violence, famously described by German sociologist Max Weber as "the monopoly on legitimate violence."

22 - Humanitarian Interdependence
Today, the State's legitimate use of violence against its citizens is more subject to external intervention under the banner of human rights and democracy.
State sovereignty, in its most fundamental sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. Today, it is widely accepted that the State exists to serve its population, not the other way around. Simultaneously, individual sovereignty—the collection of human rights and fundamental freedoms universally recognized—has been reinforced by a renewed awareness of each individual's right to control their destiny, free from State coercion.
This evolution has enabled international organizations to take resolute action against grave and systematic human rights violations with serious humanitarian consequences. It is in this context that the UN intervened to stop genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans.
In his speech at the inaugural session of the UN General Assembly, Mr. Kofi Annan stated: "States inclined to adopt criminal behavior now know that they are not entirely shielded by their borders and that the Security Council will intervene to prevent further crimes against humanity. They will refrain from such behavior, knowing they cannot rely on sovereign impunity."

In an era marked by human rights and interdependence, borders are no longer an obstacle to enforcing fundamental human rights and compelling States to comply. The choice of interdependence is accompanied by the proliferation of mechanisms monitoring States. Monitoring stems not only from inter-state mechanisms but also from the rise of transnational movements such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, spokespersons of a global public opinion that is still vague but increasingly real. Governments are gradually becoming accountable to the international community.
Faced with threats to its survival, the State is called to actively participate in developing international regulations and adopting a genuine territorial policy.

23-Solutions to Maintain Control

It is clear today that the state can maintain control over its territory primarily through its international role, especially in setting norms, and by implementing decentralization policies. However, this often comes with a loss of exclusivity. Unilateral control attempts are both suspicious and have limited effectiveness. For instance, the increase in extraterritorial claims requires resources that only a very small number of states, possibly just one, possess. Otherwise, coercive measures must be used, such as banning currency convertibility, restricting certain technological means (satellite dishes, telephone exchanges, etc.), and enforcing strict border controls. Nevertheless, these reactions can only be temporary, as closing borders alone will not suffice to protect the territory.

The key to maintaining or restoring control (if one believes it is still possible) lies in cooperation, both horizontally and vertically. Vertical cooperation stems from the fact that international law requires national channels for its implementation. Horizontal cooperation leads to jointly determining common rules or sharing competencies. The degrees of cooperation can vary from harmonization to unification, with some level of integration being indispensable. The most advanced example is the federal mechanisms within the European Community, although such a level of integration remains difficult to achieve.

Alongside this integration, the state must pursue a genuine territorial development policy to strengthen decentralization, ensuring the respect of local identity and specificities. Interdependence affects not only state competencies but is primarily economic in nature.

III. Stakes of Economic Interdependence

Economic interdependence has allowed for the financial and commercial integration of emerging societies and the absolute dominance of transnational corporations. However, this phenomenon has only widened the gap between developed and developing societies, leading to social distress and a significant threat to the sovereignty of economically fragile states. Solutions are being explored to mitigate the negative effects of this phenomenon.

31. Positive Effects of Interdependence

Interdependence has spurred the economies of developing societies while allowing trusts to dominate the global economy.

311. Financial and Commercial Integration of Emerging Societies

The broadening of commercial products has allowed Third World countries to improve their access to advanced technologies. Interdependence boosts firm productivity by creating a favorable climate for exporters. For example, external trade increased from 33% of GDP in 1980 to 43% in 1999 and may exceed 50% in the early 21st century. The GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) agreements have significantly advanced economic liberalization.

Another important observation is that private capital inflows to developing countries quadrupled from 1994 to 2000. Furthermore, foreign capital inflows have helped improve their economic policies and enabled unprecedented economic recovery.

While interdependence has revived the economies of emerging countries, what about the domination of the global economy by trusts?

312. The Domination of the Global Economy by Trusts

Trusts, through technological flows, control, disrupt, and universalize the structured organization of production, allowing for an unprecedented expansion of their commercial activities worldwide. By the end of the last decade, the share of the U.S. in global production accounted for nearly a third of the world’s output, a quarter for Japan, and 42% for the Netherlands.

Mergers of giants like McDonald Douglas and Microsoft can shake global stock markets and force states to follow their economic policies to avoid financial crises. As a result, the monetary reserves held by these transnational corporations allow them to control and manage their efforts according to their interests.

Although the positive effects of interdependence have helped many countries recover, what are its harmful consequences for people?

32. Negative Effects of Interdependence

Poverty, unemployment, and international crime are the negative consequences of global economic interdependence.

321. Proliferation of Poverty and Unemployment in Societies

The unequal distribution of wealth and employment, due to the economic growth of companies and their access to technology, destabilizes political systems and promotes the rise of fiscal criminality. Here are some statistics to illustrate:

• The planet has 6 billion people.
• 500 million live in affluence.
• 4.5 billion are on the brink of poverty, highlighting a vast disparity.

In the U.S., between 1973 and 1995, the average wage fell by 13%, with 12% of the population living in poverty. In Morocco, those excluded by interdependence join the ranks of the unemployed, with unemployment reaching 19% of the active population. Additionally, the disappearance of regional markets, without protection against fierce competition from international giants, has deprived thousands of workers of their livelihoods. Moreover, instead of creating jobs, the growth of trusts destroys them.

Meanwhile, the rise of criminal organizations (fiscal mafias) has turned their major projects into opportunities for money laundering and the creation of tax havens.

While interdependence fosters poverty and unemployment, it can also strip states of their sovereignty.

322. A Threat to State Sovereignty

Faced with the strength and power of international companies, the state becomes a security apparatus at their command. Interdependence has created a significant disconnect between markets controlled by the state and the political decisions made about them. This disconnect shifts the balance of power in favor of powerful trusts, which exert direct or indirect influence on both domestic and international economies. This pressure forces states to alter their economic policies.

As a result, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) grants transnational companies the right to sue states in commercial disputes, making state sovereignty increasingly ephemeral in the context of interdependence.

33. Solutions to Alleviate the Challenges of This System

• Ensure equitable sharing of benefits.
• Strengthen multilateral institutions.
• Improve the participation of developing countries.

1. Ensure Equitable Sharing of Benefits

The trend towards greater economic interdependence has resulted in gains for some but disadvantages for others. This is due to the different capacities of countries and individuals to take advantage of globalization. Public protests against interdependence are primarily driven by the notion that it increases inequality, exacerbates environmental risks, and undermines social protection norms.

2. Strengthen Multilateral Institutions

Respect for the rule of law in international trade is at the heart of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As the global economy changes, the WTO's rules must adapt. It is no longer sufficient to regulate merchandise trade alone. The trade in services, which is just as important today, must be regulated accordingly. Similarly, the removal of barriers imposed by public authorities has highlighted the need for new rules to eliminate the obstacles created by anti-competitive behavior in the private sector. Finally, new regulations are needed to optimize the risks associated with the growing flows of foreign direct investment.

3. Improve the Participation of Developing Countries

The new trade cycle offers developed countries the opportunity to help developing nations define sound national policies and institutions that will allow them to benefit from an open global economy. Encouraging sustainable development policies, which promote economic growth, protect environmental resources, and promote social equality, will help countries that have implemented macroeconomic, institutional, and sectoral reforms fully participate in the advantages of an open trade environment.

CONCLUSION:

A country engaged in globalization will see its borders abolished and its political, economic, and social structures transformed by interdependence—a Western model imposed on the rest of the world by the United States, supported by developed societies. Persistent crises (e.g., Palestine, Africa, Asia) hinder this dominance, explaining U.S. efforts to resolve these conflicts. Increasingly, voices from anti-globalization and environmentalist movements are speaking out against a system that only exacerbates global inequalities and endangers the planet's ecosystem.