Altering territorial borders by Lena Geerts Danau

ALTERING TERRITORIAL BORDERS THREE CASES FUNCTION AS ANOMALIES FROM THE TRADITIONAL CARTESIAN DIVISION OF THE EARTH INTO POCKETS OF LAND

HISTORY THEORY STUDIES By Lena Geerts Danau Tutor | Shaan Patel 19/04/2021 word count | 4996

ABSTRACT

- 02

TERRITORY | BORDER | EXTRATERRITORIALITY | INFRASTRUCTURE

- 04

T-3 ISLAND

- 06

TREATY OF TORDESILLAS

- 14

ROUTE 443

- 20

TO CONCLUDE

- 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- 30

THE GEOPHYSICAL TERRAIN OF THE EARTH IS TRADITIONALLY DIVIDED VIA THE LOOP TOPOLOGY INTO SEVERAL SOVEREIGN DOMAINS, WHO EACH FORM A STATE. THE FOLLOWING CASES SHOW THAT THIS TRADITIONAL LOGIC OF LAND APPROPRIATION IS ALTERED AND QUESTION THE CURRENT NOTIONS OF TERRITORY.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone that helped me produce this essay. Especially my tutors -Maria Guidici and Shaan Patel- for their invaluable guidance throughout the process.

ABSTRACT How can we understand territory today? In an era of climate instability, the idea of territory as has been described in the 15th century as part of the Peace of Westphalia - a treaty that led to the transformation of Kingdoms and Empires into modern territorial states - is outdated. If we describe territory as a ‘bounded space’, or as a ‘bordered power container’. The questions that remain are, what is this space and how are these boundaries possible?1 Especially regarding the events that evolve as part of climate disruptions, such as melting glaciers or flooding coastlines, the established borders which form the basis to demarcate a territory are altered. Yet this territorial definition still forms the basis for a state to represent its sovereign space. In what follows I will explain the concept of territory by introducing the definitions of border, extraterritoriality and infrastructure. Doing this, the essay frames the historical definition of territory but also questions what it might become.2

Alli`es, P. L’invention Du Terroire. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1980. Elden, Stuart. "Land, Terrain, Territory." Progress in Human Geography, 2010, 19.

1 2

TERRITORY | BORDER EXTRATERRITORIALITY | INFRASTRUCTURE Looking back at the etymology of ‘territory’, both the Latin words for terra -earth, land- and territorium – the suffix -orium explains the outside dimension referring to the agricultural lands surrounding and belonging to a town or and abbey/monastery- are relevant. Both words explain territories politico-economic dimension, as is described as the value of territory as a commodity which can be owned. Furthermore, territory also has a dynamic aspect, since a place can be a territory at times, but not at others, it requires a constant effort to establish and maintain via techniques of measuring land and controlling terrain.3 Still, its definition is not only limited to those two, it is more than that, it is also the result of strategies to affect, influence, and control people, phenomena, and relationships within a bounded space demarcated via borders.4 These borders are lines drawn on a map, they separate discrete sovereign territories described as states, and thus lay at the basis of the modern history of the state. Yet today a border does not only represent geographical margins or territorial edges, but it is also a complex social institution.5 Processes such as border reinforcement and border crossing reveal the tensions according to this seemingly simple line.6 Even though this border marks the extent of a state, there are some anomalies, in which a state can extent its jurisdiction or effective control over zones, individuals or activities beyond these lines. In international law, this concept is defined by the term extraterritoriality, which is rooted in the concept of sovereignty, although it is often considered as its violation.7 Three of these anomalies are explored below, they reveal a proximity to another kind of border, a border that isn’t as obvious as how you expect a border between two countries to be. They reveal multi-layered border geographies described by lines, networks, and areas. They question the traditional cartesian division of the earth into pockets of land and form microhistories who each start from an event to unravel the infrastructures in place to claim borders, and thus to claim a part of the earth. In these cases, the definition of infrastructure changes, for example, in the anecdote of the T-3 island, a military basis is the infrastructure that functions as a territorial proxy for the US (Fig. 1), in the case of route 443, the checkpoints are the infrastructure and serve as interface between two interiorities (Fig. 2), and in the case of the Treaty of Tordesillas, the map is the infrastructure and functions as a legally binding tool (Fig. 3). These three stories show that the dynamics by which land becomes territory, which becomes geography which becomes jurisdiction, are not as linear as they may seem. 3 Elden, Stuart. "Outside Territory." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 123–35. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016.) 4 Sack, R.D. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 5 Vila, Pablo. Crossing Borders, Reinforcing Borders. University of Texas Press, 2000. 6 Sandro, Mezzadra, and Neilson Brett. Border as a Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013. 7 Franke, Anselm, Ines Weizman, and Eyal Weizman. "‘Islands’: The Geography of Extraterritoriality." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 117–21. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016.

FIGURE 1: T-3 island | extraterritorial enclave of the u.s. claimed via the settlement of a military basis

FIGURE 2: route

443 | geography of segregation and exclusion

created via a visible line in the landscape

FIGURE 3: treaty of tordesillas | colonial demarcation lines which divided the world into two

T-3 ISLAND

FIGURE 1: military basis | the infrastructure to claim borders in order to claim the earth

liminal conditions of politically constructed borders Currently, the legal conditions that give a nation the right to expand its territory, did not yet change, while the climate crisis gradually transforms and alters territory, which indicates the liminal conditions of politically constructed borders. The following anecdote tells a story about an ice island located in the Arctic ocean, called T-3. It is an extraterritorial island claimed by the U.S. and functions as a shadow island of disorder floating around in a seemingly ordered structure of international flows.8 In addition, it also embodies the climatic degradation and related changing borders evolving in the Arctic region. Due to anomalies such as this extraterritorial ice island, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized the ‘risk to territorial integrity’ which implies we should reconsider the static process of boundary making, and accordingly redefine the limited notion of territory to land.9

8 Franke, Anselm, Ines Weizman, and Eyal Weizman. "‘Islands’: The Geography of Extraterritoriality." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 117–21. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016. 9 Ferrari, Marco, Elisa Pasqual, and Andrea Bagnato. A Moving Border Alpine Cartographies of Climate Change. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City, 2019.

anecdote

| ice island t-3

What is an ice island?, often an ice island is formed when a massive iceberg breaks off from an ice sheet along a nation’s coast. This is a process that happens regularly, but often gets unnoticed. This specific anecdote happened in 1970, at that moment, three other ice islands where floating around in the Artic ocean (Fig. 5). The one this story focusses on is called T-3, it broke off the Elsmere coast in Canada in 1952 and floated around until it was fully melted in 1978.10 It is specifically interesting because It was occupied during the Cold War by the U.S. even though the island was floating beyond its territorial limits, defined by its territorial landmass (Fig. 6). Now you probably wonder how the U.S. could occupy an island outside their territorial limits. The answer is simple, they used a navy research station inhabited by U.S. scientist during the mid-20th century as a territorial proxy (Fig. 7). This base was part of their strategic and scientific campaign, which aimed to extend their territory into the sea. Although, this act looks like a valid statement, no legal framework confirmed the situation, and consequently the island still was a landmass which did not belong to any specific state.11

10 Koenig, L.S., K.R. Greenaway, Moira Dunbar, and G. Hattersley-Smith. "Arctic Ice Islands," n.d., 67–103. 11 Kean, Sam. "A Bizarre 1970 Arctic Killing Offers a Road Map for How Not to Deal With Murder in Space." Slate Magazine, July 15, 2020. https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/arctic-t3murder-space.html.

FIGURE 5: T-3 path | floating on liquid high sea and for this reason, for legal purposes it was beyond terriorial control

FIGURE 6: T-3 island | location of military basis and size of the island

FIGURE 7: T-3 military base | legal document that acknoledges the occupation of the island by the u.s.

The undefined situation according to the occupation of T-3 went on for a while but came to an end when a member of the research team was killed at a shooting in one of the huts at 84” 47’ North latitude and 106” 28’ West longitude, within the so-called Canadian sector on 16 July 1970.12 At this moment the question of state jurisdiction regarding the island extended from speculations in the academic field to several questions that needed to be solved in the real world. Firstly, the murder happened outside the territorial control of any of the nations since the island was floating on liquid high sea. Secondly, there was a question of venue, the trial took place in Virginia because both the murderer and the victim were U.S. citizens. Thus, the nations decided the U.S. had the most credible national claim to jurisdictional authority. This stands in contrast with the guideline of international law, that states the trial should have been in Thule (Greenland) instead of Virginia, why? this was the first place, Escamilla set foot on land after the incident. Thirdly, it was unclear to which territorial domain the ice island belonged, to the sea or to the land? They decided to trial him for a murder committed on vessels, but off course, an ice island is not a vessel in any real sense. And Lastly, it was questioned if the jury could grasp Escamilla’s action since they never lived on the island, which was governed without any police force, property rights were therefore enforced with guns. So, the situation was not comparable with what the jury was used to. In the end, the incident was phrased as a murder that took place on an American ship on the high seas and Escamilla was indicted for the offence of second-degree murder before a magistrate in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Fig. 8).13 This bizarre killing regarding a jug of raisin wine, called the Escamilla case or better known under the name ‘murder in legal limbo’, showed that we need to think about crime outside our atmosphere. Due to the lack of a legal framework regarding the jurisdiction of the island, it was unclear which law applied and consequently, several questions came up and were treated as a random one-off event.14 This anecdote thus forces us to rethink the current framework to claim territory and expand the limited notion of territory related to only land, not sea, sky, or cyberspace.

12 Pharand, Donat. "State Jurisdiction over Ice Island T-3: The Escamilla Case." n.d., 82–89. 13 Auburn, F. M. "International Law and Sea-Ice Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean (Based on U. S. v. Escamilla)." The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1973): 552–57. 14 Kean, Sam. "A Bizarre 1970 Arctic Killing Offers a Road Map for How Not to Deal With Murder in Space." Slate Magazine, July 15, 2020. https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/arctic-t3murder-space.html.

FIGURE 8: legal issues | following the current measurements taken in international law regarding sea-ice jurisdiction in the arctic region

military basis as territorial proxy The anecdote reveals that while borders on land can be marked by erecting stone, or mills, bridges, or mountains, in the ocean, there is a lack of these natural reference points to demarcate borders, and consequently the ocean is common to all. This framework allowed nations to pass equally through the ocean but led to some disputes close to the coastlines. These disputes where solved in 1702, when the Dutch jurist Cornelius von Bynkershoek came up with a law to claim the part of the ocean in front of a nations coast. The extent of this claim depended on the reach of a cannon shot. The area after this extent stayed one single common smooth ocean in which all solid national spaces are merged. Today this suggestion is embedded in the UNCLOS Treaty, a Treaty that gives countries the right to expand its territory into the marine zones if they can claim with scientific measurement that their continental shelves extend further than their coastlines.15 The idea that the ocean can’t be claimed refers to the definition of territory and border, in both, the status of the sea is not included. The territorial extent depends on its relation to the measuring of land and the controlling of terrain, and the modern notion of border, does not specify the area of the sea. The anecdote of T-3 is specifically interesting since it altered these definitions, the island transformed form land, into ice, into sea, and in this sense asks for a third option, the law of ice which combines some characteristics of the law regarding land and the one regarding the sea. Due to its dynamic nature, ice highlights that the current assumptions about the geophysical terrain forget about historical and geographic variations (Fig. 9). These laws can’t be applied equally everywhere because they are based on a model that makes most sense in temperate climates, and so is not applicable in this specific situation.16 Thus, this anecdote highlights the current model is outdated and requires different legal-political regimes for extraterritorial enclaves that are changing according to the climate, just as T-3.17

15 Stracuzzi, Irene. Invisible Borders. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019. 16 Bruun, Johanne, and Philip Steinberg. "ICE | Placing Territory on Ice: Militarisation, Measurement, and Murder in the Arctic." In Territory beyond Terra, 147–65. Geopolitical Bodies, Material Worlds. London: rowman & littlefield international, 2018. 17 Strandsbjerg, Jeppe. "Cartopolitics, Geopolitics and Boundaries in the Arctic." Routledge, November 8, 2012.)

FIGURE 9: ice as territory | extension of the definition of territory due to climatic degradations

TREATY OF TORDESILLAS

FIGURE 10: map | the infrastructure to claim borders in order to claim the earth

border as a line This next case reveals how a map can function as a legally binding tool which provides a relatively stable foundation for demarcating territory via borders.32 In this case, the infrastructure to claim the earth is the map and more specifically the border line drawn on this map, which has the potential to divide two places, often states. Most of the times, this line isn’t visible in the physical landscape, still it materializes legal and political constructs that are only enforced by a clause in a treaty or another legal agreement, as was the case in the Treaty of Tordesillas.33

32 Strandsbjerg, Jeppe. "Cartopolitics, Geopolitics and Boundaries in the Arctic." Routledge, November 8, 2012.) 33 Van Houtum, Henk. "Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries." Geopolitics, Taylor & Francis, 10 (2005): 672–79.

case

| treaty of tordesillas

The Treaty of Tordesillas came to rise in June 1494 when the Portuguese and Castilian crowns met in Tordesillas, a small town in central Castile, to resolve a diplomatic and geographic dispute. Here, they signed the treaty that represents a colonial border with a line on a map (Fig. 11). This was one of the most hubristic acts in the history of European imperialism, the geographic battle line was drawn on a map and divided the earth into two parts.34 The treaty stated that the two crowns: ‘covenanted and agreed that a boundary or straight line be determined and drawn north and south, from pole to pole, on the said ocean sea, from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight, as aforesaid, at 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde islands’35. This meant that everything on the west of this line, including the lands discovered by Columbus, were part of the domain of the Castilian crown; all territory to the east belonged to Portugal, and no other European power was included in the contract. To put it simply, the world had been divided in half by two European kingdoms.36 The treaty was the result of the return of Columbus in 1493 from his first voyage to the new world on behalf of Castile, this voyage made it necessary to clarify the exact location of the newly discovered lands, in order to determine which of them followed under Portuguese or Castilian domain.37 This agreement ignited another dispute regarding the ownership of the Moluccas islands, today knows as Indonesia. The Portuguese wanted to take possession over the island and gain control over the spice trade. The Tordesillas document, which was the starting point for the new demarcations of territory, highlighted the spheres of influence in the west but there was no mention till where the line should fall in the eastern hemisphere. An information rush followed, Castile and Portugal deployed an arsenal of navigators, diplomats and cartographers to produce maps of the right location of the islands. With these maps, new claims were made, the Spanish stated that the Moluccas Islands were 150 degrees west of the Treaty of the Tordesillas line, and so 30 degrees within the Spanish half of the globe. The Portuguese responded to these claims with a world map showing the Moluccas to be 132 degrees east of the Tordesillas line, or 46 degrees within the Portuguese hemisphere.38 Due to inaccurate instruments and limited geographical knowledge to define the right position of the islands, the dispute went on for seven years. Eventually it seemed the maps produced by the cartographer Ribeiro proved the Castilian ownership but weirdly, Charles V (Castilian crown) decided to give the Portuguese ownership over the Moluccas islands in return for a massive 350,000 ducats compensation signed under the Treaty of Saragossa in 1529 (Fig. 12).39

34 Stracuzzi, Irene. "Border Carthographies." In Invisible Borders, 45–69. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019. 35 Ibid. 36 Brotton, Jerry. "World Maps and the Dawn of Globalisation." Geogrpahy southwest, n.d. 37 Stracuzzi, Irene. "Border Carthographies." In Invisible Borders, 45–69. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019. 38 Brotton, Jerry. "World Maps and the Dawn of Globalisation." Geogrpahy southwest, n.d. 39 Ibid.

FIGURE 11: treaty of tordesillas | june

7, 1494 ce, rise of abyssal

thinking

FIGURE 12: propoganda or second borgian map | compiled by diego ribero in

1529, containing the whole world which

is divided into two parts according to the agreement made by the catholic majesties of spain and king john of portugal at tordessilas

map as legally binding tool The treaty of Tordesillas gave rise to the first modern global line. This line dropped the idea of a common global order for abyssal thinking and triggered an explosion in global cartography. As a result, a whole new industry of mapmaking emerged. In this model, the global dimensions of the earth are recognized as a political and geographical space created by mutually exclusive sovereign entities that define an internal and external sovereignty.40 In this new model, the map served as a scientific and legally binding object to precisely demarcate the borders of the nation states, understood within the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 as the sovereign domain over which a state has control. These sovereign domains divide the earth into discrete, adjacent units, all positioned on the linear and horizontal division of the earth’s surface (Fig. 13).41 Because of this evolution in mapmaking, Kingdoms and empires transformed into modern territorial state and used a map as an important instrument to achieve control over their territory.42 Accordingly, the map became a political tool to serve the power of a nation-state even if these territories lay thousands of kilometres away from the centre of their empires.43 It allowed nations to define new political settlements which lay outside of their constructed borders. The expansion of the mapmaking industry set a precedent for the use of a line drawn on a map to declare possession of new lands and shaped the European colonial policies for the following centuries.44

40 Hildebrandt, Mireille. "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Enforce in Cyberspace?: Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in Cyberspace." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 173–201. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016. 41 Dellanoce, Leonardo, and Arthur Steiner. "Digital Earth." Broken nature, August 6, 2018. http://www.brokennature.org/digital-earth/. 42 Mark Whitehead, Rhys Jones, and Martin Jones. The Nature of the State. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2007. 43 Aeon. "What Would Leibniz Say about the Schisms in Europe Today? – Maria Rosa Antognazza | Aeon Ideas." Accessed November 20, 2020. https://aeon.co/ideas/what-would-leibniz-sayabout-the-schisms-in-europe-today. 44 Stracuzzi, Irene. "Border Carthographies." In Invisible Borders, 45–69. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019.

FIGURE 13: peace of westphalia | sovereignty was determined by the control of territory been the medieval view

- not of people, as had

leibniz advocated for the

importance of maps as the instrument through which to achieve such control

ROUTE 443

FIGURE 14: checkpoint | the infrastructure to claim borders in order to claim the earth

fenced up apartheid planet The following case looks at checkpoints that function as an interface between the interiority and exteriority of a state. These checkpoints are the infrastructure to claim borders in order to claim pockets of land. Following the knowledge of the science studies of Bruno Latour and the geopolitical geography of Stuart Elden, the anecdote looks at space as a historicised assemblage of Palestinian and Israeli’s relationship to this specific part of the earth. The constructed space created by these people, precedes the establishment of the physical manifestation of the 1949 Armistice line, an arbitrary line that separated Israel from the legal Palestinian territory.18 This case about route 443 explains how a a geography of segregation and exclusion is created via checkpoints.19

18 Strandsbjerg, Jeppe. "Cartopolitics, Geopolitics and Boundaries in the Arctic." Routledge, November 8, 2012.) 19 Stracuzzi, Irene. Invisible Borders. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019.

case

| route 443

In this case, Israeli territory finds itself alternately above and below the Palestinian This physical separation of transport infrastructure cuts through the territorial labyrinth created by the Oslo Accords, which were secretly signed between the P.L.O (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and the state of Israel in 1993. The result of this Accords was a separation of the West Bank into three different zones: Areas A, B, and C. In Area A (17% of the West Bank) the Palestinian government has the right to ensure security by its own means, In Area C (63% of the West Bank), Israeli army has absolute power and area B (10% of the West Bank) functions as a buffer zone in which both have the right to intervene (Fig. 15). Even though the accords gave the P.L.O a relative independence from Israel in the main cities of the West Bank, it has been experienced by Palestinians as a territorial compromise due to the clear asymmetry between the areas. Currently, this treaty is almost 20 years in place and proves that Israel still supresses some of the remaining Palestinian cities that lay outside of their extraterritorial enclaves and thus also outside of their legally defined jurisdictional area of control, earlier referred to as Area C.20 Route 443 is one of the signs to indicate the power of the Israelis. The road functions as an example of the territorial segregation that haunts the West Bank. It is a high-speed axis which makes it extremely easy for Israeli settlers and army control forces to drive from any settlement in the West Bank to Tel Aviv and thus it maximizes their movement within the West Bank. In contrast, Palestinians are currently prohibited to travel on route 443, which forms a problem.21 You probably wonder, how did it come so far? To grasp the current tension, we should look at the Sykes-Picot agreement from 1915. This agreement solved the rivalry between France and Britain regarding the occupation of the Middle East via a diagonal line in the sand that ran from the Mediterranean Sea coast to the mountains of the Persian frontier. This arbitrary line defined the territory of France, north of the line and the territory of Britain, south of the line. Still, both powers were unsure about the future of Palestine, and compromised that this land should have an international administration (Fig. 16). A compromise that up until today fuels the Arab Israeli conflict.22

20 Lambert, Leopold. "# POLITICS /// The Political Archipelago: For a New Paradigm of Territorial Sovereignty." THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE, July 22, 2013. https://thefunambulist.net/history/politics-the-political-archipelago-for-a-new-paradigm-of-territorial-sovereignty. 21 Lambert, Leopold. "# PALESTINE /// The Route 443, a Symptomatic Example of the Apartheid Apparatus in the West Bank." THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE, June 12, 2011. https://thefunambulist.net/law/palestine-the-route-443-a-symptomatic-example-of-the-apartheid-apparatus. 22 Barr, James. "The Carve-up: 1915-1919." In A Line in the Sand. London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, New Delhi: simon & schuster, n.d.

FIGURE 15: oslo accords | seperation of the west bank into three different zones. zone buffer zone and zone

A - palestinian control, zone B C - israelian control

FIGURE 16: sykes-picot agreement | rivalry between britain and france regarding the occupation of the middle east

no agreement around palestine

One of the multiple crimes that emerged after this compromise, took place on route 443, in 2002. This specific event was powered by Palestinians who started to gunfire Israeli vehicles, during this gunfire’s six Israeli citizens and one resident of East Jerusalem were killed. Following on this act, the prohibition for Palestinians to use this road was settled. Palestinians could not use the road by vehicle or on foot, for whatever purpose, including transport of goods or for medical emergencies. This prohibition formed a major problem for Palestinian citizens because the route is not only the way to their farmland that lies on both sides of the road, but also the primary access road to Ramallah, the city on which the villagers rely for commerce, for their health and education needs, and for visiting family and friends. Now, all the villagers need to use an old road that passes through a tunnel under route 443 and through their villages (Fig. 17). It is a much longer and smaller road that isn’t suitable for the growing volume and traffic of the 35,000 villagers living in this area. Instead of going from Ramallah to Bethlehem in half an hour, this trip now takes one hour and a half, even though those two cities are only geographically separated by twenty-five kilometres.23 Following this case, in June 2007, Palestinian residents from villages around route 443 petitioned the High Court of justice to reopen the road again for Palestinians. They claimed that closing the road infringed their human rights, violated a previous judgment of the court, exceeded the authority of the military commander, and improperly discriminated against Palestinians (Fig. 18). Approximately two and a half year later, in December 2009, the High Court ruled that the prohibition that now took the form of physical obstructions such as iron gates, concrete blocks, or checkpoints, as well as army patrols, who punished Palestinians who violated the prohibition by issuing tickets, must be lifted. Subsequently, new traffic arrangements were proposed by the Israeli army which seemed like a concession from the Israeli towards the Palestinians, but when taking a closer look, these arrangements still excluded the Palestinian villagers from the road and thus they rendered the judgement of the High Court meaningless.24 Furthermore, the Israeli army decided to remove physical obstructions form four access roads of Palestinian villages, which improved the travel movement of Palestinians between their villages, but at the same time the army also established two checkpoints at either end of the road to check the Palestinian vehicles that want to pass - called Maccabim Checkpoint where it enters Israeli territory and Atarot Checkpoint where it enters Jerusalem’s jurisdictional area – thus the main issue remains, the Palestinian villagers still can’t use route 443 as the artery to Ramallah (Fig. 19). And even more, the High Court took the side of Israel in the dispute since they decided Israel still has the right to protect the lives of every person in territory under its effective control. Which means that in these areas, Israel has authority to impose restrictions on the movement of residents (also on the road) within their occupied territories.25 23 B’Tselem. "Route 443 – West Bank Road for Israelis Only" January 1, 2011. https://www. btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/road_443. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

FIGURE 17: palestinian alternative road | tunnel snaking under route

443

FIGURE 18: activitst block | isreali soldiers arrest palestinian activist on route

443

FIGURE 19: maccabim checkpoint | an israeli soldier guards a concrete structure on highway

443 at the border

between the west bank and isreal

checkpoints as interface between two interiorities Route 443 produces an elusive and mobile geography, which is continually reshaped by Israel’s military strategies via checkpoints (Fig. 20).26 These checkpoints represent an interface between two interiorities, they are scattered along the route and used by Israelis to reach their extraterritorial enclaves safely and quickly, without having to interact with the local population.27 They function as a membrane that lets certain flows pass and blocks others, and thus divide the social reality into two realms, the realm of “this side of the line” and the realm of “the other side of the line”. The division is such that “the other side of the line”, in this case the Palestinian territory vanishes as reality, becomes non-existent, and is oppressed. 28 29 Consequently, this leads to uncertainty for the Palestinians, because they never know what happens when they leave an island to go to another one, to go to work, to visit friends, to go back home, or simply to exercise the freedom of movement which is recognized to nations on their own territory.30 In this example, the linear borders established at the Oslo-Accords are a cartographic imaginary. Even though the nation states under the auspices of the international community came to an accord about their function and position, in reality, they are non-existent. Due to their unilateral adaptation from the strongest party in this case the Israeli. These linear borders are represented via several temporary, transportable, deployable, and removable border-synonym - in this specific case checkpoints - that deny entry to Palestinians. To conclude, the map which functioned as the infrastructure in the previous case of the Treaty of Tordesillas is here overruled by the placement of checkpoints ruled by strongest party in the field.31

26 Sandro, Mezzadra, and Neilson Brett. Border as a Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013. 27 Lambert, Leopold. Weaponized Architecture. New York: dpr-barcelona, 2012. 28 Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. "Part Two: Towards Epistemologies of the South: Against the Waste of Experience." In Epistemologies of the South, 118–212. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2014. 29 Sandro, Mezzadra, and Neilson Brett. Border as a Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013. 30 THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE. "# PALESTINE /// The Palestinian Archipelago: A Metaphorical Cartography of the Occupied Territories," March 26, 2012. https://thefunambulist.net/architecture/palestine-the-palestinian-archipelago-a-metaphorical-cartography-of-the-occupied-territories-on-arquine. 31 Sandro, Mezzadra, and Neilson Brett. Border as a Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013.

FIGURE 20: elusive and mobile geography | the black line is road

443 - forbidden for palestinian travel, the purple blue line is a road - restricted for palestinian travel, the green line is the 1949 armistice line separating israel from the legal palestinian territory, the red line is the separation barrier, black circles are checkpoints, blue strains are palestinian settlements, brown strains are area buffer zones and white strains are isreali settlements

FIGURE 21: detail drawing

| T-3 island

FIGURE 22: detail drawing | treaty of tordesillas

FIGURE 23: detail drawing | route

443

TO CONCLUDE When we look back at the definition of territory while keeping in mind these three cases, it is clear that demarcating territory via static borders is an illussion. Especially following the emerging climate disturbances, this definition of borders, that define a territory, is altered. They show that within the current world order, nation states are losing their territorial container aspect -as Giddens called it- which divides the earth into small pockets of land.45 As a result, these pockets are no longer divided by linear borders but merged together and gradually form one ocean of connectivity without a ruling state system.46 The cases explain three possible landscapes of islands of exclusion, who each present in a different way the liminal condition of borders. They highlight that borders move beyond their geographical location, form, and shape, and also include influences from sociological, psychological, anthropological, and ontological issues.47 Thus, these anomalies show that borders and territory require a new geopolitical governance system, which rethinks their original meaning of separating sovereign space.

45 Sack, R.D. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 46 Franke, Anselm, Ines Weizman, and Eyal Weizman. "‘Islands’: The Geography of Extraterritoriality." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 117–21. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016. 47 Parizot, Cedric, Anne Laure Amilhat-Szary, Gabriel Popescu, Isabelle Arvers, and Thomas Cantens, et al.. THE ANTIATLAS OF BORDERS, A MANIFESTO. Journal of Borderlands Studies, Taylor & Francis, (2014), 1–10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY print Alli`es, P. L’invention Du Terroire. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1980. Auburn, F. M. "International Law and Sea-Ice Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean (Based on U. S. v. Escamilla)." The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1973): 552–57. Barr, James. "The Carve-up: 1915-1919." In A Line in the Sand. London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, New Delhi: simon & schuster, n.d. Brotton, Jerry. "World Maps and the Dawn of Globalisation." Geogrpahy southwest, n.d. Bruun, Johanne, and Philip Steinberg. "ICE | Placing Territory on Ice: Militarisation, Measurement, and Murder in the Arctic." In Territory beyond Terra, 147–65. Geopolitical Bodies, Material Worlds. London: rowman & littlefield international, 2018. Elden, Stuart. "Land, Terrain, Territory." Progress in Human Geography, 2010, 19. Elden, Stuart. "Outside Territory." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 123–35. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016.) Franke, Anselm, Ines Weizman, and Eyal Weizman. "‘Islands’: The Geography of Extraterritoriality." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 117–21. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016. Ferrari, Marco, Elisa Pasqual, and Andrea Bagnato. A Moving Border Alpine Cartographies of Climate Change. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City, 2019. Hildebrandt, Mireille. "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Enforce in Cyberspace?: Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in Cyberspace." In Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds, 173–201. punctum books, Earth, Milky Way, 2016. Koenig, L.S., K.R. Greenaway, Moira Dunbar, and G. Hattersley-Smith. "Arctic Ice Islands," n.d., 67–103. Lambert, Leopold. Weaponized Architecture. New York: dpr-barcelona, 2012. Mark Whitehead, Rhys Jones, and Martin Jones. The Nature of the State. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2007. Parizot, Cedric, Anne Laure Amilhat-Szary, Gabriel Popescu, Isabelle Arvers, and Thomas Cantens, et al.. THE ANTIATLAS OF BORDERS, A MANIFESTO. Journal of Borderlands Studies, Taylor & Francis, (2014), 1–10. Pharand, Donat. "State Jurisdiction over Ice Island T-3: The Escamilla Case," n.d., 82–89.

Sack, R.D. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Sandro, Mezzadra, and Neilson Brett. Border as a Method, or the Multiplication of Labor. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2013. Stracuzzi, Irene. Invisible Borders. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019. Stracuzzi, Irene. "Border Carthographies." In Invisible Borders, 45–69. Netherlands: saturn 5, 2019. Strandsbjerg, Jeppe. "Cartopolitics, Geopolitics and Boundaries in the Arctic." Routledge, November 8, 2012.) Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. "Part Two: Towards Epistemologies of the South: Against the Waste of Experience." In Epistemologies of the South, 118–212. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2014. Van Houtum, Henk. "Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries." Geopolitics, Taylor & Francis, 10 (2005): 672–79. Vila, Pablo. Crossing Borders, Reinforcing Borders. University of Texas Press, 2000.

websites Aeon. "What Would Leibniz Say about the Schisms in Europe Today? – Maria Rosa Antognazza | Aeon Ideas." Accessed November 20, 2020. https://aeon.co/ideas/ what-would-leibniz-say-about-the-schisms-in-europe-today. B’Tselem. "Route 443 – West Bank Road for Israelis Only" January 1, 2011. https:// www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/road_443. Dellanoce, Leonardo, and Arthur Steiner. "Digital Earth." Broken nature, August 6, 2018. http://www.brokennature.org/digital-earth/. Kean, Sam. "A Bizarre 1970 Arctic Killing Offers a Road Map for How Not to Deal With Murder in Space." Slate Magazine, July 15, 2020. https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/arctic-t3-murder-space.html. Lambert, Leopold. "# POLITICS /// The Political Archipelago: For a New Paradigm of Territorial Sovereignty." THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE, July 22, 2013. https:// thefunambulist.net/history/politics-the-political-archipelago-for-a-new-paradigm-of-territorial-sovereignty. Lambert, Leopold. "# PALESTINE /// The Route 443, a Symptomatic Example of the Apartheid Apparatus in the West Bank." THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE, June 12, 2011. https://thefunambulist.net/law/palestine-the-route-443-a-symptomatic-example-of-the-apartheid-apparatus. Lambert, Leopold. "# PALESTINE /// The Palestinian Archipelago: A Metaphorical Cartography of the Occupied Territories," THE FUNAMBULIST MAGAZINE, March 26, 2012. https://thefunambulist.net/architecture/palestine-the-palestinian-archipelago-a-metaphorical-cartography-of-the-occupied-territories-on-arquine.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FRONT AND BACK source: drawn by the author FIGURE 1 | T-3 ISLAND source: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/ view/66950/50863 FIGURE 2 | ROUTE 443 source: https://www.972mag.com/israels-new-apartheid-road-is-about-morethan-segregation/ FIGURE 3 | TREATY OF TORDESILLAS source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Spain_and_Portugal.png FIGURE 4 | MILITARY BASE AS INFRASTRUCTURE source: drawn by the author FIGURE 5 | T-3 PATH source: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic5-2-66.pdf FIGURE 6 | T-3 ISLAND source: https://www.gebco.net/about_us/gebco_symposium/documents/ hall_02_1_2017.pdf FIGURE 7 | T-3 MILITARY BASE source: FIGURE 8 | LEGAL ISSUES source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/abs/international-law-and-seaice-jurisdiction-in-the-arctic-ocean/193C78B3DB127D4B926B16E2D255A08B FIGURE 9 | ICE AS TERRITORY source: https://www.noorimages.com/arctic-new-frontier#norway FIGURE 10 | MAP source: drawn by the author FIGURE 11 | TREATY OF TORDESILLAS source: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jun7/treaty-tordesillas/ FIGURE 12 | PROPOGANDA OR SECOND BORGIAN MAP source: http://www.myoldmaps.com/renaissance-maps-1490-1800/346-diego-ribero-world-map/346-ribero.pdf FIGURE 13 | PEACE OF WESTPHALIA source: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-would-leibniz-say-about-the-schisms-in-europe-today

FIGURE 14 | CHECKPOINT source: drawn by the author FIGURE 15 | OSLO ACCORDS source: https://www.btselem.org/download/area_c_blocked_to_palestinian_ use_full_eng.pdf FIGURE 16 | SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT https://www.euroclio.eu/2016/12/08/war-allies-but-colonial-rivals-britain-franceand-the-middle-east-2/ FIGURE 17 | PALESTINIAN ALTERNATIVE ROAD source: https://greenolivetours.com/route-443-develops/ FIGURE 18 | ACTIVIST BLOCK source: https://www.972mag.com/photos-palestinians-block-route-443-to-protest-settler-violence/ FIGURE 19 | MACCABIM CHECKPOINT source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulk/50027275702/in/photostream/ lightbox/ FIGURE 20 | ELUSIVE AND MOBILE GEOGRAPHY source: https://www.btselem.org/download/road_443_map_eng.pdf FIGURE 21 | DETAIL DRAWING | T-3 source: drawn by the author FIGURE 22 | DETAIL DRAWING | TREATY OF TORDESILLAS source: drawn by the author FIGURE 23 | DETAIL DRAWING | ROUTE 443 source: drawn by the author

LENA GEERTS DANAU ma architecture | royal college of art history and theory studies

2021