Les frontières internationales contemporaines sont caractérisées par un processus, en apparence contradictoire, de virtualisation ou d’effacement et de matérialisation. La virtualisation résulte de la porosité grandissante des frontières traversées par des flux de plus en plus importants. Les frontières s’effaceraient donc, ou se feraient «discrètes», elles seraient aussi marquées par une logique de délinéarisation et déterritorialisation (développement de frontières “punctiformes”, comme dans les aéroports). Cependant, dans le même temps, les frontières sont marquées par un processus de sur-matérialisation avec la construction de nombreuses “barrières” (Israël, États-Unis, Arabie saoudite, Ceuta et Melilla, etc.) souvent appelées “murs”. Cette présentation tentera de montrer comme ces dynamiques, loin d’être contradictoires, sont plutôt liées dans une logique de hiérarchisation des flux dans laquelle l’homme apparaît plus problématique que les marchandises.

1. ANTIATLAS
DES
FRONTIERES
COLLOQUE
INTERNATIONAL
Aix-­‐en-­‐Provence,
2
October
2013
Which
(de)materializa>on
for
interna>onal
borders?
Pr.
Stéphane
Rosière
Université
de
Reims
Champagne-­‐Ardenne
(France)
Université
Matej
Bel
(Banska
Bystrica,
Slovakia)
;
Directeur
de
la
revue
en
ligne
L’Espace
poli-que

2. IntroducNon
• Contemporary
internaNonal
borders
undergo
a
paradoxical
process
of
materializaNon/dematerializaNon.
• -­‐
DematerializaNon
(deleNon,
virtualizaNon)
has
various
spaNal
significances
:
delinearizaNon
and
disseminaNon.
• -­‐Paradoxically,
a
materialisaNon
process
(symbolized
by
‘border
barriers’
i.e.
walls
or
fences)
is
also
going
on.
• Connected
quesNons
:
Are
these
processes
contradictory?
What
is
the
efficient
border
in
terms
of
control?
2

3. Common
(western)
representaNons
of
(de)materializaNon
The
immaterial
border
:
the
good
border,
Here
as
imagined
by
Uderzo…
The
material
border
:
the
bad
one
Symbolic
dimension
is
important,
the
word
‘wall’
is
not
considered
cool…
3

4. Content
• 1.
A
materializaNon
disconnected
from
armed
conflicts
• 2.
TechnologizaNon
of
control
and
its
consequences
• 3.
From
«
securitary
conNnuum
»
to
border
disseminaNon
4/23

5. 1.
Materializa>on
disconnected
with
armed
conflictuality
• Most
of
the
up-­‐to-­‐date
‘materializaNon’
of
internaNonal
borders
is
disconnected
from
armed
conflicts
but
linked
with
flows
(migraNons).
Human
beings
are
the
problem…
• About
75%
of
contemporary
border
barriers
are
erected
between
countries
having
good
mutual
relaNons
(USA/
Mexico,
EU
and
NEP
countries,
etc.);
• About
25%
of
border
barriers
are
directly
connected
with
armed
conflicts
(Marocco,
Kashmir,
Israel/PalesNne).
5

6. Contemporary
Border
barriers
The
growing
success
of
mulNscalar
‘teichopoliNcs’,
poliNcs
of
territory
enclosure
(Ballif
&
Rosiere,
2009)
within
ciNes
or
around
states
22
620
km
of
border
barriers
6

7. Context
:
a
reducNon
of
‘classical’
territorial
conflicts
in
spite
of
the
growing
number
of
states
(Rosière,
2011)
A
global
trend
:
the
‘semlement
of
border’
/
«
règlement
frontalier
»
(Foucher,
2007).
InternaNonal
borders
are
less
7

8.
2.
TechnologizaNon
of
borders
and
its
consequences
on
(de)materilizaNon
• Increase
of
flux
is
one
of
the
most
prominent
characterisNc
of
globalizaNon
and
implies
a
growing
pressure
on
borders
(more
controls).
• This
situaNon
underlines
the
old
contradicNon
between
circulaNon
and
security
(Gommann
1973).
• ‘TechnologizaNon'
of
borders
surveillance
appeared
to
be
the
best
soluNon
to
solve
this
contradicNon.
• The
'technologizaNon'
of
borders
can
be
connected
with
a
more
general
‘technologizaNon’
of
security
(Ayse
Ceyhan,
2008).
8

9. 2.1.
TechnologizaNon
of
borders
and
technologizaNon
of
security
• TechnologizaNon
of
security,
«
i.e.
the
making
of
technology
the
centerpiece
of
security
systems
and
its
percepNon
as
an
absolute
security
provider,
started
in
the
US
in
the
80’s
and
has
since
been
expanded
to
the
EU
and
to
almost
all
developed
countries.
»
(Ceyhan,
2008)
• This
dynamic
bounds
together
civilian
and
military
logics:
• -­‐
‘militarizaNon’
of
civil
borders
and
‘civilianizaNon’
of
military
lines
(see
Shira
Havkin,
2011)
• -­‐
MilitarizaNon
mostly
means
growing
use
of
military
technologies.
9

10.
2.2.
‘DemateralizaNon’
technologies
:
smart
borders
and
virtual
borders
‘Smart
borders
’
:
Automated
Border
Crossing
(ABC)
–
here
in
Sciphol
—
a
way
of
making
border
crossing
process
faster
and
smoother…
for
the
EU’s
ciNzens.
The
use
of
these
technologies
must
be
connected
with
liberal
ideology
(to
employ
less
state
agents
and
offer
big
firms
new
markets).
The
symbolic
dimension
must
not
be
neglect
:
the
machines
are
not
invisible
10
(the
fear
is
a
component
of
the
process).

11. ‘Integrated’
border
systems
Every
‘Integrated’
border
system
includes
various
technologies
interconnected
at
three
different
scales:
• -­‐Command
control
&
intelligence
at
naNonal
level,
• -­‐Regional
command
level,
• -­‐Local
level
(terrain).
Border
Integrated
Management
(BIM)
implies
:
-­‐
coordinated
surveillance
-­‐
connecNon
with
huge
(biometric,
administraNve)
databases
and
direct
access
to
visa-­‐issuing
authoriNes
(disseminaNon,
or
ubiquitous
process)
11

12. Integrated
border
systems
:
invisible
networks
Integrated
Security
System
on
Romanian
Serbian
Border.
A
MulNlevel
/
mulNscalar
management
URL
:
hmp://www.miratelecom.ro/en/security/reference-­‐projects/integrated-­‐security-­‐system-­‐on-­‐the-­‐danube-­‐romanian-­‐serbian-­‐border.html
12

13. Virtual
fence
• A
theoreNcally
invisible
border
based
on
video
surveillance,
sensors,
radars,
drones,
etc.
• Here
a
physical
barrier
assists
telesurveillance
• Expensive
systems
(More
developped
countries)
• The
physical
barrier
is
one
element
of
the
‘virtual’
fence
13

14. DematerializaNon
implies
thet
contemporary
border
guards
spend
long
periods
in
front
of
screens.
In
such
contexte,
human
beings
are
dematerialized.
14

15. 3.
From
‘security
con>nuum’
to
border
dissemina>on
• Didier
Bigo
labelled
the
concept
a
‘security
conNnuum’
(1996)
linking
together
very
different
acNviNes:
terrorism,
trafficking,
and
illegal
migraNons.
• Since
the
80’s,
undocumented
immigrants
and
asylum
seekers
are
considered
as
a
threat
in
terms
of
security.
• The
‘security
conNnuum’
focuses
on
all
Clandes-ne
Transna-onal
Actors:
«
nonstate
actors
who
operate
across
na-onal
borders
in
viola-on
of
state
laws
and
who
aBempt
to
evade
law
enforcement
efforts.
»
(Andreas
2003)
• Into
this
frame
border
(line
or
checkpoints)
is
only
an
element
of
control
among
others.
15

16. 3.1.Which
gradient
of
(de)materiality?
• It
is
rather
difficult
to
conceptualized
border
according
to
some
linear
gradient
of
(de)materiality
(+
or
-­‐
,
or
binary
0/1)
• At
the
contrary,
materializaNon
and
dematerializaNon
are
owen
complementary
(slide
13
of
the
virtual
fence).
• The
dematerializaNon
does
not
mean
less
«
barriers
»
on
the
terrain.
• Various
forms
of
virtual
control
assist
various
forms
of
physical
control
and
materializa>on.
16
16

17. For
long,
boundary
stones
materialized
an
approved,
and
pacified
demarcaNon
line.
Polish
/
Belarus
border,
photo
S.
Rosière,
2010.
17

18. 3.2.
Asymetrical
borders
and
asymetrical
materiality
Asymetry
is
a
usefull
tool
to
conceptualize
borders
(Foucher
2007,
Ritaine
2009)

19. Asymetrical
(de)materializaNon:
the
case
of
Nexus
program
19

20. Nexus
on
the
US/Quebec
boundary
Portable
RFID
readers
By
waving
a
photo
ID
that
includes
an
Radio
Frequency
IdenNficaNon
tag
at
border
inspecNon,
the
informaNon
stored
on
the
card
is
analyzed
by
CBPinspectors
who
verify
that
the
card
holder
is
an
approved
frequent
traveler.
20

21. Conclusions
• We
are
not
living
a
dematerilizaNon
process
of
borders
but
a
simultaneous
process
of
materializa>on
and
dematerializa>on.
• The
efficiency
of
border
systems
must
be
discussed
(in
a
Nme
of
funds
shorNng).
What
is
the
real
aim
of
virtual
border
or
walls?
To
produce
a
new
‘Lumpenproletariat’?
(Nicola
Mai)
• Beyond
the
objecNves,
the
symbolic
dimension
of
borders
remains
essenNal.
A
wall
is
first
of
all
a
symbol.
We
can
stress
that
a
exagerated
dematerializaNon
could
be
counter-­‐producNve.
21

22. What
is
visible
can
produce
fear
22

23. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AMILHAT-­‐SZARY,
A.-­‐L.,
GIRAULT,
F.,
(2011),
"FronNères
mobiles
:
présentaNon
du
colloque
BRIT
XI",
[En
ligne]
hmp://www.unige.ch/ses/geo/britXI/index/BRIT_ProgramFinal__.pdf
ANDREAS,
P.,
(2003),
“Redrawing
the
line.
Borders
and
Security
in
the
Twenty-­‐first
Century”.
Interna-onal
Security
(28)
2,
78-­‐111.
ANDREAS,
P.,
(2001),
Border
games.
Policing
the
US-­‐Mexico
Divide.
Ithaca,
London:
Cornell
UniversiNes
Press
BIGO,
D.,
(1996),
Polices
en
réseaux,
l’expérience
européenne.
Paris:
Presses
de
Sciences
Po.
CEYHAN,
A.,
(2008),
TechnologizaNon
of
Security:
Management
of
Uncertainty
and
Risk
in
the
Age
of
Biometrics.
Surveillance
and
Society
(5)
2,
102-­‐123
DAVID,
Ch.-­‐P.,
VALLET,
E.,
2012,
«
Du
retour
des
murs
frontaliers
en
relaNons
internaNonales
»,
Etudes
interna-onales,
«
Le
retour
des
murs
en
relaNons
internaNonales
»,
vol.
XLIII,
n°1,
5-­‐27.
DOLLFUS,
O.,
(2007),
La
mondialisa-on.
Paris,
Presses
de
Sciences-­‐Po.
FOUCHER,
M.,
(2007),
L’obsession
des
fron-ères.
Paris:
Perrin.
GOTTMANN,
J.,
(1973),
The
Significance
of
Territory.
Charlomesville:
University
Press
of
Virginia.
HAVKIN,
Sh.,
(2011),
La
privaNsaNon
des
checkpoints:
quand
l'occupaNon
militaire
rencontre
le
néolibéralisme.
In
S.
Lame-­‐Abdallah
&
C.
Parizot,
Arles,
Actes
Sud,
51-­‐72
MUELLER,
J.,
(1989),
Retreat
from
Doomsday:
the
Obsolescence
of
Major
War.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
POPESCU
G.,
(2011),
Bordering
and
Ordering
the
Twenty-­‐first
Century:
Understanding
Borders,
Rowman
&
Limlefield.
RAZAC,
O.,
(2000),
Histoire
poli-que
du
barbelé.
Paris:
La
Fabrique.
RITAINE,
É.
(2009),
«
La
barrière
et
le
checkpoint
:
mise
en
poliNque
de
l’asymétrie
».
Cultures
&
Conflits,
n°
73,
15-­‐33
[En
ligne]
hmp://conflits.revues.org/index17500.html
ROSIERE
S.,
(2012),
«
Vers
des
guerres
migratoires
structurelles
?
»
Bulle-n
de
l’Associa-on
de
géographes
Français,
Dossier
:
Risques
et
conflits,
vol.
89,
n°1,
54-­‐73.
ROSIÈRE,
S.,
(2010),
«
La
fragmentaNon
de
l’espace
étaNque
mondial.
»
L'Espace
Poli-que
[En
ligne],
11
|
2010-­‐2,
mis
en
ligne
le
16
novembre
2010,
Consulté
le
28
novembre
2012.
URL
:
hmp://espacepoliNque.revues.org/
index1608.html
SAADA
Julien,
(2010),
"L’économie
du
Mur
:
un
marché
en
pleine
expansion".
Le
Banquet.
Centre
d’étude
et
de
réflexion
pour
l’acNon
poliNque
(CERAP),
n°
27,
59-­‐86
SPARKE,
M.
B.
(2006).
"A
neoliberal
nexus:
Economy,
security
and
the
biopoliNcs
of
ciNzenship
on
the
border".
Poli-cal
Geography
(25)
2,
151-­‐180.
23