Territories LIKE THE CRIMEAN TERRITORIES are, before
anything else, constructions of power, or rather of the powers of whose nature
and name they partake.
In the first place, territories are power supports, not
only spaces of deployment and points of aid, but fashioned spaces: the fashioning
of territories symbolises power.
But this fashioning is not
always the same: it varies in function of the epochs, the forms of regime, and
the types of powers.
The feudal power does not fashion the territories in the
same manner as does the centralised state, the mercantile power does so differently
than the industrial power.
Thus, there are no territories
without power and for the most part, territories constitute the spaces of confrontation
or competition between powers.
But is the reverse equally true?
Can one conceive
of power without territory? YES THE BIG BANK CONCEPT
THE CORPORATION'S DON'T NEED TERRITORY TO HAVE POWER
The answer depends in fact on the nature of the
connection running between power and territory. I
f it is a necessary and central
relation, it is likely that all powers do not maintain this relation with the
same intensity.
A power does not need to be implicated in the fashioning of
a territory, a more or less tight control could suffice.
SEE TROIKA IN PORTUCALE 2011 - 2111.....
To what extent can
one imagine a power without territory, without any mark of interest for some
territory or other? GOLDMAN SACHS
THE FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION'S THAT COMMAND POLITICAL ONES
POLITICAL ECONOMY IS DOMINATED BY terrorist networks which neither claim, fashion, or control
a specific territory and whose net-like form relies on a particular form of
power, territory could well be very secondary but not as such absent.
The support
or complicity of a territorial power appears a condition of their survival.U.S OF A
SAUDI ARABIA THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CHINA
IN HONG-KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES WITH 55 BIG ONES TAX FREE
Does the approach towards
power in terms of governance fundamentally modify the articulation between powers
and territories?
The answer to this question seems to be affirmative to the
extent that this approach leads one to insist on the plurality of this articulation.
In fact, numerous recently published studies characterise the relation between
powers and territories in a contradictory manner: one speaks of "territorialisation,"
of "deterritorialisation," of "reterritorialisation."
All
three terms could be simultaneously true. On the one hand, each of these processes
could signify a basic articulation of territories or of different powers. On
the other hand, in certain cases, they could be perceived as three phases of
the same global process.
Thus, a study could first
be carried out on the way in which different powers maintain a relation with
territories through practices, through intentions, through discourses. What
are the relations that different types of power maintain with territories and
how do those territories, in turn, act upon those powers? What integrates territories
into an action, a project, a politics, a rhetoric? In what way are territories
also bearers of identity?
In a more operational manner,
the two days of the international conference are organised around four sub-themes
which represent the general theme of "Governance/-s, Power/-s, Territory/-ies:
A Rearticulation of the Local and the Global?" As far as possible, the
sub-themes should inspire both comparative (between cultural, civilization spheres,
etc.) and diachronic studies which underline the historicistic nature of the
links between governance/-s, power/-s and territory/-ies.
Territories and Identities
What might the inclusion of territory in the construction of individual, social,
and political identities signify in our contemporary world?
For some time now,
identity has been a key term in the study of international relations. The relations
between identity and territory, however, have remained an afterthought. At best,
territoriality has been considered a secondary feature in the construction of
identity, if it has not simply been read as an expression of traditional, geo-political
power politics. Yet individuals do not live in transit. Neither do groups of
people nor political organizations. They all inhabit some place somewhere. In
this sense, territory can be said to present an integral part of the construction
of any identity. The effect that specific territories might have on identities
and the specific relations between identity-markers such as religion, ethnicity,
nationality, culture and their territory/-ies therefore should be carefully
considered and analyzed.
Frameworks and Territories
What place do the different scholarly and/or political frameworks accord or
confer upon territories? In what manner could the idea of territory be part
of such frameworks themselves? As is well known, in the history of international
relations theory, the school of geopolitics provided a theory of territory -
and became discredited as the ideology of an Imperial, colonialist and even
fascist world politics. Since the end of the East-West conflict, a new, ostensibly
critical, variant of geopolitics has gained in importance and territoriality
has once again become a mode of framing international politics. Yet different
ways of conceiving territory might either complement or negate other frameworks
in international relations - including, but not limited to, human rights as
an international regime, social justice and ecology as part and parcel of international
politics today. Thus, one needs to clarify the effects that conceptions of territory
might actually have in this regard. In addition, the question of how tradition
in this case might or might not influence present thinking is both a vital and
a complex one.
Political Order, Governance, and Territories
What are the relations, if indeed there are any, between political order and
territory IN UKRAINE OR IN SYRIA OR IN THE FORMER EMPIRE ALSO KNOWN BY CENTER AFRICAN OR FORMELY KNOWN BY LYBIA IS THE SAME .....
Are specific political systems the outcome of specific territorialities?
Or do certain territorial arrangements actually reflect particular conceptions
of political order? Political institutions are said to embody or, at least,
are said to be founded on normative principles and (pre-existing) relations
of power. Yet what about their spatial, territorial dimension?
While the possible
relationships between political order, governance, and territories certainly
elude the spatial divisions into "unitary" and "federal"
political systems, their supposed underlying dynamics continue to inform present
debates about a "world government" and a "European polity."
Indeed, both the conception and the practice of "integration," at
the global and/or European level, depends on coming to terms with the kinds
of questions that the making and representation of territory within an institutional
matrix raises.
IS EEC A TERRITORY? IS EEC A UNION
IS EEC THE UKRAINE LOST?
OR IS PARADISE LOST
I NEVER KNOW....
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten