Contextualizing Borders in East Asia: An Introduction

References

• Agnew, J. 2007. Know-where: Geographies of knowledge of world politics. International Political Sociology 1 (2):138–48. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00009.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldacchino, G. 2008. Studying islands: On whose terms? Some epistemological and methodological challenges to the pursuit of island studies. Island Studies Journal 3 (1):37–56. doi:10.24043/isj.214.
   Google Scholar
• Baldacchino, G., ed. 2017. Solution protocols to festering island disputes: ‘Win-win’ solutions for the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet-Jailly, E. 2005. Theorizing borders: An interdisciplinary perspective. Geopolitics 10 (4):633–49. doi:10.1080/14650040500318449.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet-Jailly, E. 2011. Special section: Borders, borderlands and theory: An introduction. Geopolitics 16 (1):1–6. doi:10.1080/14650045.2010.493765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, B. 2016. Geopolitical implications of the Sino-Japanese East China sea dispute for the U.S. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 9 (2):15–54.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X. 2005. As borders bend: Transnational spaces on the pacific rim. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, N. 2013. Geopolitics at the threshold. Political Geography 37:48–50. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowen, D., and N. Smith. 2009. After geopolitics? From the geopolitical social to geoeconomics. Antipode 41 (1):22–48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00654.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, K. 2018. Borders and bordering in Asia. In Routledge handbook of Asian borderlands, ed. A. Horstmann, M. Saxer, and A. Rippa, pp. 56–72. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Diener, A. C., and J. Hagen. 2009. Theorizing borders in a ‘borderless world’: Globalization, territory and identity. Geography Compass 3 (3):1196–216. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00230.x.
   Google Scholar
• Diener, A. C., and J. Hagen. 2010. Borderlines and borderlands: Political oddities at the edge of the nation-state. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Diener, A. C., and J. Hagen. 2012. Borders: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Downey, D., I. Kinane, and E. Parker, eds. 2018. Landscapes of liminality: Between space and time. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• EARCAG.undated. EARCAG East Asian Regional Conference in Alternative Geography. Accessed September 24, 2023. http://140.112.63.111/lab/r401/earcag/.
   Google Scholar
• Fourny, M.-C. 2013. The border as liminal space: A proposal for analyzing the emergence of a concept of the mobile border in the context of the alps. Journal of Alpine Research 101 (2):1–13. doi:10.4000/rga.2120.
   Google Scholar
• Furukawa, K. 2017. Nihon no kokkyo no hensen ni kansuru ichi kosatsu: Kokkyo-kyokai chiiki kenkyu riron no shiten kara (A though on the shifts in Japan’s state borders: From a viewpoint of border/borderland studies theory). Chukyo Hogaku 51 (4):361–82. In Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Geopolitics. 2005. Theorizing borders. Geopolitics 10 (4):606–49. doi:10.1080/14650040500318415.
   Google Scholar
• Geopolitics. 2011. Special section: Borders, borderlands and theory. Geopolitics 16 (1):1–120. doi:10.1080/14650045.2010.493765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geopolitics. 2017. Special section: Sovereignty contested: Theory and practice in borderlands. Geopolitics 22 (4):749–886. doi:10.1080/14650045.2017.1373582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geopolitics. 2018. Special issue: Bordering the Middle East. Geopolitics 23 (3):495–631. doi:10.1080/14650045.2018.1497375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geopolitics. 2019. Special issue: Politics on border - critical reflections on the Pakistan Afghanistan borderland. Geopolitics 24 (2):277–502. doi:10.1080/14650045.2019.1571487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gohain, S. 2015. Militarized borderlands in Asia. IIAS Newsletter 71:21–23.
   Google Scholar
• Grundy-Warr, C., and C. Schofield. 2005. Reflections on the relevance of classic approaches and contemporary priorities in boundary studies. Geopolitics 10 (4):650–62. doi:10.1080/14650040500318548.
   Google Scholar
• Grundy-Warr, C., M. Sithirith, and M. L. Yong. 2015. Volumes, fluidity and flows: Rethinking the ‘nature’ of political geography. Political Geography 45:93–95. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hau‘ofa, E. 1994. Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacific 6 (1):147–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horstmann, A., M. Saxer, and A. Rippa, eds. 2018. Routledge handbook of Asian borderlands. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hung, P.-Y., and Y.-H. Lien. 2022. Maritime borders: A reconsideration of state power and territorialities over the ocean. Progress in Human Geography 46 (3):870–89. doi:10.1177/03091325221074698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imafuku, R. 2017. Gunto-sekairon (archipilagic worlds), [In Japanese]. Tokyo: Suiseisha.
   Google Scholar
• Iwashita, A., ed. 2012. Nihon no ‘kokkyo mondai’: Genba kara kangaeru (border issues in Japan: Thinking from the field). Tokyo: Fijiwara shoten.
   Google Scholar
• Iwashita, A. 2019. Shinka suru boder studies: Watashitachi no genba to tourism (evolving border studies: Our fields and tourism). Kyokai Kenkyu. 9:91–111. In Japanese. doi:10.14943/jbr.9.91.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, T., C. Sampford, and R. Thakur. 2008. Re-envisioning sovereignty: The end of Westphalia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. 2016. Violent borders: Refugees and the right to move. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, R. 2018. Violence in Asian borderlands. In Routledge handbook of Asian borderlands, ed. A. Horstmann, M. Saxer, and A. Rippa, pp. 17–29. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kolossov, V. 2005. Border studies: Changing perspectives and theoretical approaches. Geopolitics 10 (4):606–32. doi:10.1080/14650040500318415.
   Google Scholar
• Konrad, V., and H. N. Nicol. 2011. Border culture, the boundary between Canada and the United States of America, and the advancement of borderlands theory. Geopolitics 16 (1):70–90. doi:10.1080/14650045.2010.493773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopman, S. 2011. Alter-geopolitics: Other securities are happening. Political Geography 42 (3):274–84. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.007.
   Google Scholar
• Kotani, T. 2015. Crisis management in the East China Sea. SIPRI Policy Brief (February). Accessed September 24, 2023. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2015/sipri-fact-sheets/crisis-management-east-china-sea.
   Google Scholar
• Kurecic, P. 2015. Geoeconomic and geopolitical conflicts: Outcomes of the geopolitical economy in a contemporary world. World Review of Political Economy 6 (4):522–43. doi:10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.6.4.0522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez, O. J. 1994. Border people: Life and society in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, H. 2019. Liminality of the Japanese Empire: Border crossings from Okinawa to colonial Taiwan. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCormack, G. 2011. Contested waters – contested texts: Storm over Korea’s West sea. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 9-8-5:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Minca, C. 2007. Agamben’s geographies of modernity. Political Geography 26 (1):78–97. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.08.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mountz, A. 2015. Political geography II: Islands and archipelagos. Progress in Human Geography 39 (5):636–46. doi:10.1177/0309132514560958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, D. 2003. Boundaries. In A companion to political geography, ed. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, and G. Toal, pp. 123–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Okada, M. 2022. ‘Taichu yokusi no frontier’ ka? ‘Heiwa no kansho chitai’ ka? Ryukyuko kara kangaeru Chugoku, Taiwan (‘Frontier to deter China’ or ‘buffer zone for peace’? Considering China and Taiwan from the Ryukyu Island Chain). Zenrin 526:12–19. In Japanese.
   Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. 2005. Generations and the ‘development’ of border studies. Geopolitics 10 (4):663–71. doi:10.1080/14650040500318563.
   Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. 2011. A border theory: An unattainable dream or a realistic aim for border scholars? In The Routledge research companion to border studies, ed. D. Wastl-Walter, pp. 1–22. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315612782.
   Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. 2015. Academic capitalism and the geopolitics of knowledge. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to political geography, ed. J. Agnew, V. Mamadouh, A. J. Secor, and J. Sharp, pp. 509–23. West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. 2019. The shifting research frontiers: Four strata in border studies. Paper presented at the 4th EARCAG-GPE Workshop, Osaka, Japan, November 26.
   Google Scholar
• Pan, C. 2014. The ‘Indo-Pacific’ and geopolitical anxieties about China’s rise in the Asian regional order. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68 (4):453–69. doi:10.1080/10357718.2014.884054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prescott, J. R. V. 2015. The geography of frontiers and boundaries, [1965]. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pugh, J. 2013. Island movements: Thinking with the archipelago. Island Studies Journal 8 (1):9–24. doi:10.24043/isj.273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, R. S. 1999. The geography of the peace: East Asia in the twenty-first century. International Security 23 (4):81–118. doi:10.1162/isec.23.4.81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumley, D., T. Chiba, A. Takagi, and Y. Fukushima. 1996. Global geopolitical change and the Asia-Pacific: A regional perspective. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Sack, R. D. 1986. Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shambaugh, D., ed. 2005. Power shift: China and Asia’s dynamics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sidaway, J. D. 2010. ‘One island, one team, one mission’: Geopolitics, sovereignty, ‘race’ and rendition. Geopolitics 15 (4):667–83. doi:10.1080/14650040903501120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, P. E. 2005. Insularity, sovereignty and statehood: The representation of islands on Portolan charts and the construction of the territorial state. Geografiska Annalar 87B (4):253–65. doi:10.1111/j.0435-3684.2005.00197.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg, P. E., and K. Peters. 2019. The ocean in excess: Towards a more-than-wet ontology. Dialogues in Human Geography 9 (3):293–307. doi:10.1177/2043820619872886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratford, E., G. Baldacchino, E. McMahon, C. Farbotko, and A. Harwood. 2011. Envisioning the archipelago. Island Studies Journal 6 (2):113–30. doi:10.24043/isj.253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, V. 1995. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. M., and H. Donnan. 2012. A companion to border studies. West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Winichakul, T. 1997. Siam mapped: A history of the geo-body of a nation. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wirth, C. 2012. Ocean governance, maritime security and the consequences of modernity in northeast asia. The Pacific Review 25 (2):223–45. doi:10.1080/09512748.2012.658847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth, C. 2016. Securing the seas, securing the state: Hope, danger and the politics of order in the Asia-Pacific. Political Geography 53:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.02.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar