Border Barriers in the Modern World: Factors Contributing to Barrier-building Practices in the post-1945 World

• Název práce v češtině: Hraniční bariéry v moderním světě: faktory vedoucí k budování hraničních bariér po roce 1945
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Border Barriers in the Modern World: Factors Contributing to Barrier-building Practices in the post-1945 World
• Klíčová slova: Teichopolitka, globalizace, hranice, hraniční bariéry, opevňování hranic, teritorialita, managment hranic, Carl Schmitt, suverenita, vyhrazení území, cezhraničné etnické skupiny, vojenské hrozby, migrace, terorismus
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Teichopolitics, globalization, border, border re-hardening, border barriers, territoriality, border management, Carl Schmitt, sovereignty, land-appropriation, cross-border ethnic groups, military threats, migration, terrorism
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2016/2017
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra politologie (23-KP)
• Vedoucí / školitel: doc. Martin Riegl, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 28.05.2017
• Datum zadání: 28.05.2017
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 19.06.2018 07:15
• Místo konání obhajoby: Jinonice - U Kříže 8, Praha 5, J3006, Jinonice - místn. č. 3006
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 06.05.2018
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 19.06.2018
• Oponenti: Mgr. Vojtěch Bahenský, Ph.D.

Zásady pro vypracování

Topic
The main research interest of the proposed project is the increase in state-built barriers on
the international borders since the end of the Second World War. As such, various types of
manmade physical barriers have been used throughout history for a wide range of reason –
to contain plagues or to protect a place of interest. However, with the advent of the
globalized and technologically interconnected world after 1945 and especially after 1989
these practices have not disappeared, as was expected, but only transformed into a wide
range of border strengthening measures all around the world. Furthermore, notions of these
practices are increasingly prevalent in the political discourse of European and American
societies.
With the aforementioned increase in relevance of this issue in the political arena of many
Western countries and continuing construction of several border barriers all around the
world the further academic study of factors contributing to these changes seems needed.

Project Goals

The presented project seeks to devise a comprehensive study intended to identify key
factors contributing to country’s willingness to strengthen its borders with one of its
neighbours. Identification of these factors will be constructed on the already existing
literature dealing with border-barriers but also on a wider body of research concerned with
different material conditions that could affect state’s need for better border security.
Therefore, the main project goal is to amplify the existing research of border barriers
construction with new possible factors that lead to such practice. Furthermore, it also seeks
to identify the relation between different factors and different types of border barriers.
These goals combined should not only provide better academic insight into the issue of
barrier-building but also at least partly contribute to a wider body of literature dealing with
integrative and disintegrative processes present in the globalizing world.
In summary, this project will try to answer the question: what factors contribute to states’
willingness to build differing types of border barriers?

Current State of Research

In the recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research devoted to the
questions of border barriers. The first work that introduced the term teichopolitics was
named The Challenge of "Teichopolitics": Analyzing Contemporary Border Closures. This
article defined teichopolitics as any policy of space partitioning, generally linked to a more or
less justified concern for the protection of a territory and its control. (Ballif and Rosière,
2009:194). Furthermore, it also introduces a typology of border barriers – namely marches,
fences, walls and front lines (Ballif and Rosière, 2009:197) The conclusions it drew from the
analysis of both international and intra-urban walls around the world were that while most
of the arguments for wall-building refer to violence, fear and the pursuit of individual or
collective security there is an underlying theme which shows that barrier-building is linked to
the control of space by social groups (social class or ethnicity) in interactions with economic
and financial actors (Ballif and Rosière, 2009:204). Finally, it stresses the importance of
understanding this phenomenon as the opposite side of economic and political globalization
(Ballif and Rosière, 2009:205).
The interaction between border barriers and globalization is also addressed by Brown in her
book Walled States, Waning Sovereignty. One of the Brown’s main argument in this book is
that border walls result from the fact that state’s sovereignty is slowly disappearing and new
types of sovereigns in form of global capital and renewed religious-fervour appear on the
global stage (Brown, 2010:62-66). Therefore, she argues, that these border-walls are far
from defences against international invasions by other state powers but are response to
transnational economic, social and religious flows that do not have the force of political
sovereignty behind them (Brown, 2010:81). Brown furthermore draws on the Schmitt’s
definition of state as a political sovereign - that is one who identifies who the enemy is - and
suggests that with the ongoing globalization the state is no longer the sole sovereign over
the definition of the enemy (Brown, 2010:83). Therefore, she argues, the continued
globalization does not limit the amount of violence, as is expected by its neoliberal
proponents, but instead creates a situation of “war of all” which the perishing state
sovereignty is trying to contain by creating the border barriers (Brown, 2010:94-97) while
also contributing to the maintenance of clearer “us-them” distinction (Brown, 2010:104;115-
119).
Another article, Teichopolitics: Re-considering Globalisation through the Role of Walls and
Fences, continues the inquiry into the relation between different globalization tendencies.
This article partly redefines teichopolitics, and identifies it as a term connected to the
Foucaltian notion of biopower, which is specifically manifested in rejection of human
mobility rights (Rosière and Jones, 2012:219). Furthermore, it also identifies different types
of border barriers similar to Ballif and Rosière (2009:197) ranging from frontlines to walls
but also including closed straits in the sea borders (Rosière and Jones, 2012:222-227).
According to the results provided in this work, the barrier building practices are directly
linked to the state’s desire to protect its economically privileged citizens (Rosière and Jones,
2012:230). However, even though the cited research outlines the basic logic and
mechanisms behind border strengthening it does not provide strong empirically evidence to
support its claims.
Finally, one of the most empirically focuses articles is among the most recent and is called
Why Do States Build Walls? Political Economy, Security, and Border Stability and builds on
three hypotheses derived from three areas of interest in interstate relations – economy,
security and territorial disputes. The economic hypothesis is essentially based on the same
line of argument as in the previously cited work and it claims border-barriers are built on
borders between states with extremely different level of income (Carter and Poast,
2017:245). The second hypothesis assumes that there is a link between a civil war in
neighbouring state and desire to strengthen the frontier regime. Finally, the third hypothesis
formulate the possible relation between territorial disputes between states and their
willingness to build border barriers (Carter and Poast, 2017:247). Stated hypotheses are
tested using regression analysis on the date consisting of neighbouring states dyads since
1800 along with information on variables of interest. As stated by the article, the collected
data show strong relation between the economic factors and constructed border barriers
(Carter and Poast, 2017:263). Even despite rather complex and rigorous data collection and
analysis interpretation there are problems in regard to some of the used indicators. It can be
argued that the research does not reflect the latest findings in literature on civil-war spillover
and ethnicity, which can in turn undermine the validity of results. Furthermore, the
cited article does not include other important factors such as terrorist proliferation in the
neighbouring state, health concerns and economic inequality in barrier-building state.
Apart from these broader examinations into the problematic of border walls, there is a
number of case studies dealing with different aspects of erecting border barriers. To state a
few examples. Moria Paz’s Between the Kingdom and the Desert Sun: Human Rights,
Immigration, and Border Walls deals with the human rights aspect of border walls and
examines it on the case of Israel-Egypt walls (Paz, 2016). The article Protective Barriers and
Entrapping Walls: Perceptions of Borders in the Post-Yugoslav Bosnian Diaspora which
examines how changing border regimes influence the identity formulation (Huttunen, 2016).
Brendon John Cannon’s article focuses on the comparison of Kenyan and Somali wall
effectiveness in terrorist deterrence (Cannon, 2016). Finally, McGuire’s work focuses on the
concrete effects and effectiveness of walls in given frontier communities (McGuire, 2013).

Theoretical Background

From the meta-theoretical perspective, this research will be based in essence on the neopositivist
approach with the associated phenomenalism’s commitment to observable parts
of the nature.
In terms of theorisation of the border barriers, the proposed project will lay its foundations
on the concepts and definitions provided by two of the aforementioned works. First of all, it
will appropriate the concept of strategic defence (Keegan, 2004:142), which was also used
by Carter and Poast (2017:248). Keegan, and subsequently Carter and Poast, define strategic
defence as a series of continuous or individual but mutually supporting strongpoints devised
and located in terrain to prevent entrance of any unwanted entities. However, this definition
needs to be at least partly modified to better reflect different types of existing border
barriers. These barriers can at certain times be hard military-kept border walls while at other
times they can consist of much more temporary and administrative solutions. What they
have in common is their aim to limit movement of people and products across borders
(Rosière and Jones, 2012:222). Therefore, the best definition, which properly accounts for
differing types of border barriers, understands border barrier as a continuous or
discontinuous line of mutually supporting strongpoints, whose aim is to limit movement of
people or goods across the border using military or administrative tools.
This definition allows the division of such barriers into frontlines, fences and walls. Frontline
is characterised by the existence of an empty space separating two zones of military
installations. They often mark a disputed area where two states continue to claim territory
on the other side and a peace treaty has not yet been negotiated (Rosière and Jones,
2012:222-223). Fences then are more temporary and they do not completely block the vision
of the other side. Walls, on the other hand, are more finalised, eliminate the line of sight
across the border and increasingly involve biometric solutions (Rosière and Jones, 2012:225-
226).
With the definition of what border barrier is and what different types of these barriers there
are, it is now possible to move towards the identification of key factors that could increase
state’s willingness to fortify its borders. To properly identify these factors two important
concepts need to be taken into account.
First of them is the principal border barrier building entity – a modern state. According to
Weber (1919:1) state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. However, while such definition
provides a suitable form it does not imbue state with any substance, it tells us what state is
but not what it does. Weber elaborates and claims that any state business is a political
business and thus that any political action is related to striving to share power or striving to
influence the distribution of power among groups within a state. This substance however, as
Schmitt (1932:20) correctly points out, means that the state and political are always one and
the same and thus if this was true any historical community other than state could not be
political. In Schmitt’s perspective, the claim that “state = political” is not automatically
correct, even though it was correct for a large part of history. Then it can be argued that
there are two components joined together in modern state – a formal one and a substantial
one. The formal one is correctly captured by Weber’s definition of state outlined above. The
substantial component is that of political sovereignty. Schmitt (1932:26) identifies the friendenemy
distinction as the very basis of the political. In short, this means that any type of
antagonism strong enough to create groups of people willing to die and kill for their group
can become political (Schmitt, 1932:37). It is this group (a political unity) that decides on
who lays where on the friend-enemy distinction (Schmitt, 1932:43) – in other words, a
political unity has the ius belli and therefore can independently decide who its enemy is and
when to fight him. This right is then understood as the political sovereignty. Since the peace
of Westphalia almost sole actor with this right was the modern state. To conclude then,
modern state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly on the use of
physical force within a given territory and which also maintains the exclusive right to decide
on its enemies.
The second important concept is globalization and the type of actors it produces. Scholte
(c2011:15) defines globalization as “processes whereby social relations become relatively
delinked from territorial geography, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the
world of single place.” Apart from other things, this definition suggests that country
locations and boundaries between territorial states are in some important sense becoming
less central to the world politics. Furthermore, globalization has been transpiring through
the proliferation and growth of organizations that operate as trans-border networks
(Scholte, c2011:16). These organizations, along with other factors, contribute to the shifts
that transfer authority away from the realm of states and into the social and economic
realms (Rosenau, 2005:50). In other words, mechanisms of control at national levels are in
varying degrees yielding space to both more encompassing and narrower, less
comprehensive forms of governance (Rosenau, 2005:51). Therefore, it can be argued that
the advent of network forms of organizations undermined and continues to undermine the
authority of states (Rosenau, 2006:140) and thus that globalization in itself implies the
weakening of state sovereignty and state structures (Beck, 2000:86). In summary,
globalization can be understood as processes creating alternative place for social relations to
play out resulting in new type of network based actors and subsequent weakening of state
political sovereignty.
Implicit from both the definition of state and of globalization are the reasons why states
build walls. First of all, states build walls for the same reasons they built them historically –
to protect the territory in which they have monopoly on the use of force. In other words,
they build barriers to maintain the formal component of statehood. Secondly, and in line
with Brown’s (2010:83) argument, globalization causes states’ ability to define friends and
enemies to slowly diffuse into a world of new and problematically identifiable actors. Thus,
a border barrier is an attempt to maintain the control over the territory the state claims as
its own and also to re-establish its political sovereignty and once again clearly define the
friend on the inside and the enemy on the outside. It is important to note that in practice
these two reasons can overlap. This is because the claim to a given state’s political
sovereignty is first of all usurped by various trans-border networks, mainly ethno-religious
groups and terrorist organizations, but its role is also obscured by the developments in the
nature of inter-state warfare, whose aim is change in the control of territory.
In practical terms, this means that a state will try to fortify its borders when there is a danger
of creation of a new type of political unity that would usurp its own political sovereignty.
Such a danger is connected to the ethnic (and possibly religious) links between warring sides
in the civil war and ethnic groups living in the neighbouring country (Bosker and de Ree,
2014:214). According to this logic, a state should be willing to strengthen its frontiers with a
neighbour if this neighbour is troubled by an ethnic (or religious) civil war that is connected
to its own ethnic (or religious) groups. Similarly, due to the networking nature of terrorist
organisations and their almost “cancerous” spreading potential (Yilmaz, 2013:359) a state
can logically be wary of the possible trans-border expansion of terrorist organisation from
the neighbouring states, especially if such organizations are in actual possession of territory.
Therefore a state should attempt to fortify its borders in order to prevent terrorist spread
from a neighbouring country. By doing so, it is able to define in clearer terms both the
“friends”, the “internal enemies” and the enemies on the outside and prevent the loss of its
claim to political sovereignty (i.e. the creation of new political unity due to a spill-over of
ethnic or sectarian violence into its own territory, or creation of terrorist cells within its own
territory). This consideration can be summed up in the following hypothesis:
H1: States build border barriers in order to prevent spread of civil war or of terrorist activities
from a neighbouring country.
However, the loss of political sovereignty is not the only problem states have to address.
States have to also maintain its monopoly on the use of violence in a given territory, thus
they not only need to deter other states from taking their territory but also ensure their
authority in this territory. It seems then, that a state should try to create border barriers to
simply protect its territory from a possible invasion by a hostile neighbour. However, it
appears implausible that a state would hamstring itself with an immovable border barrier in
times of fast-paced and highly movable warfare (Biddle, 2006:190). But, this type of territory
protection is once again linked to the problem of friend-enemy distinction. This is due to the
changing nature of inter-state warfare and increased amount of hybrid techniques that aim
to create uncertainty and confusion as to who the real enemy is (Bresinsky, 2016:42, 47)
even though they ultimate goal remain the same as they were historically – the acquisition
of territory. Therefore, states should build border barriers when there is a danger of an
invasion from a hostile state that is able to use hybrid warfare techniques. Furthermore,
states not only want to keep the territory in their possession, they also want to maintain
their authority in it. This authority is regularly questioned by another actor stemming from
the globalization, namely the transnational crime organizations. These organizations
deteriorate state authority in its territory by maintenance of illegal flows through the
borders. Arguably, their actions involve drugs smuggling, human trafficking and human
smuggling. Since most of them involve using illegal migrants to get “products” into the
targeted country (Dudley, 2012:17) it can be assumed that states will try to limit these
activities by building a border barrier when there is a large influx of illegal immigrants. There
are two hypotheses that stem from the aforementioned reflection:
H2: States build border barriers when there is a danger of invasion of hybrid nature from a
neighbouring country.
H3: States build border barriers when there is a considerable amount of trans-border criminal
activity coming from the neighbouring country.
Thirdly, it needs to be noted that the loss of political sovereignty or control of the territory
need not be the only motivation for state to build walls. Since states have population that in
one way or another influences their behaviour, it can be expected that there are at least two
areas in which the population will influence states willingness to build border barriers. First
of them is their economic well-being, the second one is health. Since border barriers are
predominantly concerned with the movement of people across borders the problem of
economic well-being in this area should probably be linked to the question of immigration.
Therefore, it can be expected that a certain type of population will want to limit influx of
immigrants due to their negative impact on their economic well-being. In general, there are
two possible ways how to research this. First of all, a general economic performance and
income levels between neighbours can be checked. Logically, a large difference in incomes
between two neighbouring countries can lead to increased immigration from the poorer to
the wealthier and in turn to economic problems and a need for increased redistribution in
the latter. This is essentially the argument Carter and Poast (2017:243) use. However, it can
also be argued that this way of thinking does not take the state of the wealthier country into
account. Immigration of non-skilled workers has negative impacts mainly on the less
educated workforce in the country of destination (the so called “losers of globalization”) as
they both compete for the same jobs, but also on the wealthy since a larger amount of poor
people in the country would call for increased redistribution (Dolmas and Huffman,
2004:1161). Therefore, a country that is both wealthy but also has a high level of native
income inequality – meaning there is a lot of well-off people who do not favour
redistribution and a lot of low-income people who are in need of a job – should have a
higher willingness to build a border barrier on the border with less well-off neighbour. As for
the health, it can be expected that if there is large scale epidemic in the neighbouring
country the population will want to limit the inflows from that country. Thus this can also be
linked to the choice of border regime. The spread of viral diseases over large areas has been
linked to the insufficient state borders and large number of migrants (Pineda-Peňa et Al.,
2016:221) (Guo et Al., 2013:11-12). Therefore, it is feasible to assume that if a state is
concerned about the health of its citizens then it will try to build barriers on the borders with
neighbour stricken by epidemics. Hypotheses linked to the aforementioned issues are
following:
H4: States build border barriers if the neighbouring country is significantly poorer.
H5: States build border barriers if the neighbouring country is significantly poorer and internal
division of wealth is highly unequal.
H6: States build border barriers if there is an epidemic in a neighbouring country.
Finally, an important note. States are not equivalent in terms of economy and geography.
This means that state capability, both economic and geographical, to construct elaborate
border barriers needs to be taken into account. It can be assumed that wealthy states with
easily protectable borders will opt for a border barrier when the circumstances are right
while poor states cannot do the same even if they would like to. Therefore, the final
hypothesis researched in the project will be:
H7: Wealthier states and states with easily defendable borders will build more border barriers
than their opposites.

Research Method

The method of research will in essence follow the division of factors described above. First of
all, the different border barriers built since 1945 will be evaluated and ranked according to
their type. Secondly, the presence of civil war will be ranked depending on its existence in
the neighbour and possible ethnical/religious links to the country in question. Similarly,
existence of terrorist groups and their level of influence in the neighbouring country will be
evaluated and ranked. Next, a possible hostile neighbour with hybrid warfare capabilities will
be identified by focusing on whether there is an ongoing border dispute with the primary
country, whether there is a significant ethnic minority from the neighbouring country within
the primary country and whether this neighbour has the military capabilities to wage hybrid
warfare. In the fourth step, the approximate number of illegal immigrants will be used as a
proxy for the level of transnational crime. Next, the differences in the level of income and
general economy performance between the neighbouring countries will be rated, along with
the domestic income inequality in the state of interest. Finally, the presence of a contagious
disease epidemic in the neighbouring state will be researched. After these data are collected
for every country-neighbour dyad in every year defined in this research’s scope a limited
dependent variable regression analysis will be conducted. All in all, the proposed research
will perform a synchronic comparison analysis using quantitative tools.

Seznam odborné literatury

Data Sources
In general the data will be acquired from the public database such as UN, WHO and World
Bank, but also from the available statistic bureaus of particular states. Furthermore, the list
sovereign countries existing over the years as well as their specific neighbours will be drawn
from both the membership list of the UN, world map and historical atlases.
Bibliography
BALLIF, Florine a Stéphane ROSIÈRE. Le défi des « teichopolitiques ». Analyser la fermeture
contemporaine des territoires. Espace géographique. 2009, 38(3), 193-. DOI:
10.3917/eg.383.0193. ISSN 0046-2497.
BECK, Ulrich. The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity.
British Journal of Sociology. 2000, 51(1), 79-105. ISSN 00071315.
BIDDLE, Stephen. Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. 5th edition.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-691-12802-3.
BOSKER, Maarten a Joppe DE REE. Ethnicity and the spread of civil war. Journal of
Development Economics. 2014, (108), 206-221.
BRESINSKY, Markus. Understanding Hybrid Warfare as Asymmetric Conflict: Systemic
Analysis by Safety, Security and Certainty. Modeling the New Europe. 2016, (21), 29-51.
BROWN, Wendy. Walled states, waning sovereignty. Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by the
MIT Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-935408-08-6.
CANNON, Brendon. Terrorists, Geopolitics and Kenya’s Proposed Border Wall with Somalia.
Journal of Terrorism Research. 2016, 7(2), 23-36.
CARTER, David B. and Paul POAST. Why Do States Build Walls? Political Economy, Security,
and Border Stability. Journal of Conflict Resolution [online]. 2017, 61(2), 239-270 [cit. 2017-
02-28]. DOI: 10.1177/0022002715596776. ISSN 0022-0027. Available from:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002715596776
DOLMAS, Jim a Gregory HUFFMAN. On the Political Economy of Immigration and Income
Redistribution. Journal of Management Economics and Business. 2004, 45(4), 1129-1168.
DUDLEY, Steven. Transnational Crime in Mexico and Central America: Its Evolution and Role
in International Migration. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2012.
GUO, Zhenyang et Al. National Borders Effectively Halt the Spread of Rabies: The Current
Rabies Epidemic in China Is Dislocated from Cases in Neighboring Countries. Neglected
Tropical Diseases. 2013, 7(1-13), 219-222.
HUTTUNEN, Laura. Protective Barriers and Entrapping Walls: Perceptions of Borders in the
Post-Yugoslav Bosnian Diaspora. Journal of Borderlands Studies. 2016, 1-15. DOI:
10.1080/08865655.2016.1202775. ISSN 0886-5655.
KEEGAN, John. Historie válečnictví: [vývoj válečnictví od ritualizovaných kmenových bojů
doby kamenné až po destruktivní masové války v moderní době]. Praha: Beta-Dobrovský,
2004. Historie (Beta-Dobrovský Ševčík). ISBN 80-7291-098-1.
LEMKE, Thomas. Biopolitics: an advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press,
c2011. ISBN 9780814752418.
MCGUIRE, Randall H. Steel Walls and Picket Fences: Rematerializing the U.S.-Mexican Border
in Ambos Nogales. American Anthropologist. 2013, 115(3), 466-480. DOI:
10.1111/aman.12029. ISSN 00027294.
PAZ, Moria. Human Rights, Immigration, and Border Walls. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2016,
7(2), -. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2526521. ISSN 1556-5068.
PINEDA-PEŇA, Andrea-Clemencia et al. On the contribution of Angola to the initial spread of
HIV-1. Genetics and Evolution. 2016, 46, 219-222.
ROSIÈRE, Stéphane a Reece JONES. Teichopolitics: Re-considering Globalisation through the
Role of Walls and Fences. Geopolitics [online]. 2012, 17(1), 217-234 [cit. 2017-02-28]. DOI:
10.1080/14650045.2011.574653. ISSN 1465-0045. Available from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14650045.2011.574653
ROSENAU, James. Governance in the twenty-first century. In: The global governance reader:
an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2005, s. 45-67. ISBN
978-0415332071.
ROSENAU, James. Global governance as disaggregated complexity. In: The study of world
politics: an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2006, s.
131-153. ISBN 0415385490.
SCHMITT, Carl. Pojem politična: text z r. 1932 s předmluvou a se třemi korolárii. 2. vyd.
Praha: OIKOYMENH, 2013. Knihovna novověké tradice a současnosti. ISBN 978-807-2984-
916.
SCHOLTE, Jan. The globalization of world politics. BAYLIS, John a Steven SMITH. In: The
globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, c2011, s. 13-31. ISBN 978-0199569090.
WEBER, Max. Politics as a Vocation [online]. 1919 [cit. 2016-04-26]. Available from:
http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-as-aVocation.pdf
YILMAZ, Sefer. An Analogy Between Cancer Cells and Terrorist Organizations. Journal of
Management Economics and Business. 2013, 9(19), 348-364.

Předběžná náplň práce

Outline
1. Introduction
1. Literature review
2. Theoretical background
1. Concept of State as the Political Sovereign
2. Globalization and its impact on sovereignty
3. Border Barriers Theorisation
4. Key Factors
3. Method
1. Variable Values Assignment
2. Limited Dependent Variable Regression Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusion

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Outline
1. Introduction
1. Literature review
2. Theoretical background
1. Concept of State as the Political Sovereign
2. Globalization and its impact on sovereignty
3. Border Barriers Theorisation
4. Key Factors
3. Method
1. Variable Values Assignment
2. Limited Dependent Variable Regression Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusion