Abstract
Although non-state actors have recently proliferated, many predate the modern state system itself. Among these, traditional nomads uniquely challenge sovereignty. Nomadism undermines states’ capacity to tax, conscript and otherwise regulate population. However, nomadism constitutes an ideational as well as material threat to states. By disrupting states’ territorial configuration, nomadism undermines the ideational foundations of statehood. States have responded to nomadism in three ways. Many forcibly settle nomads. Weak states, unable to secure borders, allow nomads to migrate relatively freely. Others voluntarily facilitate freer migration by reducing the salience of borders. We offer three examples: Bedouins, often forcibly settled; African pastoralists, permitted to migrate through porous borders; and Roma, permitted to migrate transnationally within the European Union. While the Bedouin and African instances suggest a necessary conflict between the role of state and the culture of nomadism, the European experience suggests border relaxation can permit states and nomads to coexist.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For critical – and also not very critical – reviews of the literature on international organizations, institutions, and other ‘big’ transnational actors, cf. Kratochwil and Ruggie (1986); Keohane (1995); Martin and Simmons (1998); Smith (2000); Simmons and Martin (2001); Keohane and Nye (2001); and Milner (1997). For the debates about the impact of non-state actors in security studies, cf. Walt (1991); Kolodziej (1992); Tucker (1998); Lacqueur (1998); Singer (2001); Booth and Dunne (2002); and Duyvesteyn (2004).
Exceptions include Buzan and Little (2000), Van der Peel (1995), Neumann and Wigen (2012).
While the characterization of the EU's member states as post-Westphalian is contested, the European integration project has frequently been described as post-Westphalian by IR scholars. See for example Linklater (1996, p. 79), who builds on Bull's (1977) depiction of a ‘neo-medieval’ order potentially emerging in Europe. For our purposes, we suggest that there are emergent post-Westphalian aspects of EU states (especially the reduced salience of territorial borders) that stand in contrast to states more thoroughly wedded to the Westphalian nation-state form.
Terming such states ‘Westphalian’ is historically controversial. See Osiander (2001). We use the term in the conventional sense, to refer to a territorially exclusive, administratively hierarchical sovereign state.
For canonical accounts of state formation and expansion, see Olson (1993) and Tilly (1985).
Nomads are thus somewhat different from ethno-national diasporas, which are detached from their traditional territory but are not defined by being traditionally migratory or pastoral (such as the Jewish population of Central and Eastern Europe, which the Zionist movement argued was not so much a religious minority as a nation without a state – we are grateful to the editor for indicating this contrast to us).
This is not to overlook historical instances of nomads settling voluntarily, or previously nomadic peoples now settled in territorial states (for example, Fulbe, Mongol). See Azarya (1996), who emphasizes increased wealth and political resources, along with related forces of political stratification, as primary factors related to voluntary state formation among African nomadic groups. Interestingly, voluntary nomadic settlement in Africa appears to have been conditional on continued pastoral production. An exception might be relations between nomads and the Soviet Union, where a focus on economic development may have been more pressing than Westphalian security concerns.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia are interesting exceptions, having nomadic roots themselves.
Even ‘illegal’ or illegitimate non-state actors, such as terrorist and criminal organizations, take advantage of and depend on the legitimate structures of states, even as they may be violently set against them. In some extreme cases, these groups oppose existing states to carve one of their own.
Some accounts of state formation take tax collection to be the primary purpose in settling populations that go on to form early states. See Tilly (1985) and Olson (1993).
Material and ideational/ontological threats overlap, and many of the threats addressed in our cases exhibit aspects of both. A parallel argument is presented by Wendt and Duvall (2008, pp. 620–622), who suggest that the potential existence of extra-terrestrial life, in the form of UFOs, threatens the state both materially and ontologically, resulting in a ‘UFO taboo’ in which UFOs are effectively ignored by authorities. The ontological-ideational threat consists in the notion that a world government might be necessary to combat a material extra-terrestrial threat, undermining the current sovereignty-anarchy formula.
Scott's more recent work (2009) on Southeast Asian hill tribes as escapees from the state suggests a related logic, although he covers a different phenomenon – flight from the state as a reaction to it, rather than historical precedence over it. As such, these are not so much pre-state actors as ‘flee-state actors’.
A more radical variant of this strategy, less often seen, is forced migration off the state's territory – the ethnic cleansing of the nomadic minority from the state. In the first half of the twentieth century the Roma were forcibly settled or ethnically cleansed in Europe.
These states are, in Robert Jackson's terms (1990), as much quasi-states as states proper.
This finds parallels in Ruggie's (1993, pp. 164–165) discussion of extra-territoriality, wherein relations between modern states are made possible by the territorial exception of diplomatic institutions. Extra-territorially makes modern territorial rule possible much in the same way that weak states can legitimate the practice of nomadism. In each instance, the exception permits the rule.
It may be that the loosening of EU border restrictions has made nomads an issue to national authorities anew. In the case of the recent expulsion of Roma people from France and Italy, those deported were citizens of other EU members, such as Romania and Hungary, no longer ‘contained’ in their own countries because of EU mobility. If so, reduced border salience undermines the institution of the state. We discuss this in the penultimate section.
Following Shmueli's (1980, p. 257) definition, we consider Bedouins to be ‘a population which regards itself as Bedouin, although it has [largely] ceased wandering’. Shmueli's definition, while at first seeming tautological, is instructive as it recognizes several groups and class distinctions among Bedouin society that appear to be acting – and acted upon – in concert by governmental authorities. Shmueli's definition not only relies on self-identification by group members as well as other-identification by the authorities but also suggests a common political and social trajectory of several groups that have become aligned over time. Within modern-day Israel these Bedouin populations appear in both the geographic north (Galilee) and the south (Negev), following roughly similar patterns of sedenterization albeit with a slight temporal lag between the two. Sedentarization occurred sooner in the northern Galilee region, according to Kliot and Medzini (1985, p. 433) for several reasons. First, a more favourable climate in the Galilee attracted Jewish immigrants in numbers during the British Mandate. Their newly enclosed agricultural land reduced grazing lands on which Bedouin had traditionally relied. Second, higher wages in urban centres, also associated with Jewish immigration, offered higher incomes than traditional lifestyles. Finally, Kliot and Medzini claim that northern Bedouin were politically weaker than their southern counterparts and were less able to resist state attempts to settle them. However, for our purposes we will treat both the southern and northern Bedouin together as one case study.
Falah (1989) is perhaps alone in the literature to claim that the Bedouin population was already semi or fully sedentary by the time Israel was founded.
Similar to the debate about Palestinian refugees, Goering (1979, p. 5) points out that there is controversy as to whether Bedouin fled the hostilities or whether a massive exodus was planned by the Zionist leadership.
According to Goering (1979, p. 7), ‘Lands in the Western Negev, from which the Bedouin had been removed, were declared “abandoned” and subsequently expropriated by Israel under the “land acquisition law” ’.
The numbers of Bedouin settling in these planned townships increased over time, according to Kliot and Medzini (1985, p. 532), Dinero (2004, p. 262), Meir (1986), and others, as government planners learned lessons from previous mistakes integrating these lessons into newer communities (for example increasing the size of plots for privacy purposes, grouping tribes together to avoid intertribal conflict, reducing density and so on). On the other hand, Falah (1989) claims that Bedouin have resisted planned sedentarization through continued spontaneous building.
Kliot and Medzini (1985, p. 438) assert that Bedouin deliberately continue with so-called spontaneous construction despite government planning not as a form of resistance but in an attempt that this construction will be recognized post-hoc. They have found that the practice of ‘illegal construction’ actually ramps up during election cycles when political candidates will be less likely to enforce demolition orders for fear of alienating voters.
‘Any Bedouin wanting to leave, enter or merely pass from one zone to the other was first obliged to secure permission from the military administration … . With movements sharply curtailed, the Bedouin's wandering capacity was severely restricted’ (Goering, 1979, p. 7).
However, this is not to say that the Bedouin did not actively resist state efforts to settle them. Many refused to register lands under the Ottomans and the British (Shamir, 1996, p. 241) and, as already noted, numerous ‘spontaneous’ or illicit Bedouin settlements arose despite government plans to the contrary.
However, the process of claiming lands began with the British. Because of the growing competition over land, successive governments, starting with the British, sought to place greater control over land resources for development (Meir, 1988, p. 259). Under the British mandate for Palestine, the growing sedentary population and the expansion of agriculture put increasing pressure on the nomadic lifestyle (Falah, 1991, p. 293). Falah (1991, p. 291) cites the first British High commissioner for Palestine, ‘The habitual mode of life … with its wasteful system of nomadic grazing, can hardly be held to justify the perpetuation of private methods of cultivation. The whole questing demands careful consideration. It may be that pastoral economy and intensive culture cannot exist side by side, in which case the Bedouin's needs must be met in other ways’.
Falah (1989, p. 87) disputes this evidence noting that ‘there are sizeable deficiencies [in the provision of services and infrastructure to the Bedouin] and services are not provided equally to non Jewish residents’. See also Krakover (1999, p. 558).
Under German rule the Maasai of Tanganyika were restricted to the ‘Maasai Reserve’, which appears to have been anywhere south of the Moshi-Arusha-Dodoma road. All areas north of this division line were set aside for settlers. After the First World War, and the British take-over of Tanganyika, a more closely restricted reserve was created in 1924. Any Maasai found grazing outside of the reserve was fined 10 heifers and forcibly returned. In Kenya, huge game reserves were created in the north and south from the early 1900s. Maasai and other pastoralists who had pasturelands in these reserve areas were not initially moved (Enghoff, 1990, pp. 96–97; Ndagala, 1990, pp. 52–53).
The Sywnnerton Plan, for short; this set of policies was formulated in response to the Mau Mau war for independence (Ochieng, 2007, p. 459).
Interestingly, the Maasai typically suffered higher taxes than other groups, pastoral or otherwise. For example, ‘In 1930 … the Maasai paid 15 shillings, whereas other communities in [Tanganyika] paid rates of between 6 and 12 shillings. The agricultural Sonjo living in Maasai District paid 6 shillings while “natives of other tribes owning cattle” in the District paid 12 shillings’ (Ndagala, 1990, p. 55). This may have been due to the fact that the Maasai were relatively wealthy, but it may also have been due to the fact that they were more difficult to administer because of their large numbers and greater degree of concentration. For example, in 1926 the number of administrators in Maasai District had to be increased because ‘The Maasai Tribe require all the administrative control we can give them and an increase in the Hut and Poll Tax … to meet the additional expenditure incurred (ibid, p. 55). Conversely, groups that were ‘relatively smaller and widely scattered over several administrative Districts in which they were dominated by agricultural communities … [were governed] through the respective “Native Authorities’ in which they were either underrepresented or not represented at all’ (ibid, p. 56).
See for example Bishop (2007, p. 16) and Narman (1990, pp. 108–121).
According to the Humanitarian Policy group, more than 95 per cent of regional trade in East Africa is conducted through ‘unofficial channels’ and much of this revolves around the trade in food and agriculture products (Pavanello, 2010, p. 2).
See also Aklilu (2002), Peter Little (2006) and Zaal et al (2006).
While there is no agreed upon term with which to refer to the ethnic group, scholars and activists alike have tended, in recent years, to adopt the term ‘Roma’, which is a self-appellation. However, this term may exclude Sinti and other groups who do not consider themselves ‘Roma’ but are generally included in the term ‘Gypsy’. Confusing the matter further are many itinerant groups of non-Romani origin, seen to be autochthonous to Europe, such as the English Romanichels, the Welsh Kale, the Jenische of Switzerland, the Dutch Woonwagenbewoner and the Quinqui of Spain. Bancroft (2005, pp. 5–8) uses the term ‘Gypsy-Traveller’ to refer to these non-Romani groups and ‘Roma’ to refer to continental European, non-autochthonous Gypsies, including Roma and Sinti.
In Portugal, a 1538 law banishing Ciganos also applied to ‘all other persons of whatever nation who live like Gypsies, even if they are not’ (Fraser, 1992, p. 101). Likewise, in eighteenth century Spain, distinctions were made between sedentary ‘good Gypsies’ and itinerant ones subject to detention (Lucassen, 1998, p. 56; Shahar, 2007, p. 8).
The Nazi extermination of Gypsies is well documented, though estimates of the number of victims range widely from 200 000 to 1.5 million. Shahar (2007, pp. 12–3, 18) attributes the survival of a small minority of the Roma population in Germany and the occupied territories to a certain ‘romantic racism’ embraced by Himmler and other Germans, who saw certain racially ‘pure’ Gypsies as ancient Aryans, speaking an Indo-European language.
Fraser notes that Gypsies were repeatedly accused of espionage by various princes and dukes throughout the Holy Roman Empire, in the late 1490s, and thus targeted for expulsion. Early scholarly treatises, such as that of Dutch theologian Voetius, produced soon after the Thirty Years War, held that Gypsies were spying for the Turks (Fraser, 1992, pp. 86, 151, 189).
A French royal decree in 1682 called for the capture of all ‘bohemians’ (Gypsies) for service in the galleys, and established Western Europe's first fully centralized police force, the marechaussé, to enforce it (Lucassen, 1998, pp. 62–63).
Bancroft (2005, pp. 1–2, 7) identifies ‘place’ with identity and ‘space’ with the institutions of modernity, which include the nation-state and bureaucracies.
However, the Ottomans did attempt to settle itinerant Roma in order to facilitate tax collection (Barany, 2002, pp. 84, 91).
These came in the form of a series of edicts, ordering the Roma to settle and pay taxes, forbade them from owning wagons or horses, banned their traditional dress and language, and forcibly removed Roma children from their parents to be raised in state schools and foster homes (Barany, 2002, p. 93).
Many of the interned Roma were not released immediately after the end of the war, in the belief that they continued to pose a security threat (European Roma Rights Centre, 2005, pp. 51, 55).
However, the goal appears to have been social and cultural, as well as economic assimilation, because in Yugoslavia, home to a more pluralist form of Marxism, Roma were granted national minority status, along with language and cultural rights, and nomadic Roma were not forced to settle (Fraser, 1992, p. 282).
Under pressure from the EU and the Council of Europe, the wall was dismantled a month later (Braham and Braham, 2000, p. 99). Heather Rae provides an interesting account of the fate of the Roma people in the modern Czech Republic after the partition. For this case study and a more general discussion about what she calls a ‘pathological’ promotion of the homogenization of domestic populations, please see Rae (2002).
Golston (2002, pp. 158–159) notes that Italian teachers ‘find it “impossible to blend the nomad culture with ours” – despite the fact that, as in most places, few of Italy's 100 000 Roma are actually nomadic’.
The ECHR hears cases brought under the European Convention of Human Rights, a treaty signed by all member states of the Council of Europe (Golston, 2002, p. 152).
The second High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) report, issued in 2000, shifted its focus almost entirely from migration to human rights (Guglielmo and Waters, 2005, p. 767).
A somewhat different European case is that of the Sami people of Europe's Nordic countries, whose access to migratory rights is mixed. Sami circumstances differ both in that they traditionally migrate with livestock (reindeer) and that their traditional territory is on Europe's territorial periphery. See for example Joona (2005). We thank the editor for raising the matter.
References
Aklilu, Y. (2002) An audit of the livestock marketing status in Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan. Nairobi, Kenya: Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics. April, http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/cape_new/Akliliu_Marketing_vol_1.pdf, accessed 1 May 2009.
Azarya, V. (1996) Nomads and the State in Africa: The Political Roots of Marginality. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Bancroft, A. (2005) Roma and Gypsy Travellers in Europe: Modernity, Race, Space and Exclusion. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Barany, Z. (2002) The East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bishop, E. (2007) Schooling and the encouragement of farming amongst pastoralists in Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples 11 (2): 9–29.
Booth, K. and Dunne, T. (eds.) (2002) Worlds in collision. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of the Global Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–26.
Braham, M. and Braham, M. (2000) Roma migrations and EU enlargement. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 13 (2): 97–116.
Branch, J. (2011) Mapping the sovereign state: Technology, authority, and systemic change. International Organization 65 (3): 1–36.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000) International Systems in World History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dinero, S. (2004) New identity/identities formulation in a post-nomadic community: The case of the Bedouin of the Negev. National Identities 6 (3): 261–275.
Drakakis-Smith, A. (2007) Nomadism a moving myth? Policies of exclusion and the gypsy/traveler response. Mobilities 2 (3): 463–487.
Duyvesteyn, I. (2004) How new is the new terrorism? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27 (5): 439–454.
Enghoff, M. (1990) Wildlife conservation ecological strategies and pastoral communities: A contribution to the understanding of parks and people in East Africa. Nomadic Peoples 25 (27): 93–107.
European Roma Rights Centre. (2005) Always Somewhere Else: Anti-gypsyism in France. Budapest, Hungary: European Roma Rights Centre. Country Report Series No. 15, November, http://www.errc.org/db/01/A5/m000001A5.pdf, accessed 1 May 2009.
Falah, G. (1983) The development of the ‘planned Bedouin settlement’ in Israel 1964–1982: Evaluation and characteristics. Geoforum 14 (3): 311–323.
Falah, G. (1989) Israeli state policy toward Bedouin sedentarization in the Negev. Journal of Palestine Studies 18 (2): 71–91.
Falah, G. (1991) Pre-state Jewish colonization in Northern Palestine and its impact on local Bedouin sedentarization 1914–1948. Journal of Historical Geography 17 (3): 289–309.
Fraser, A. (1992) The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Goering, K. (1979) Israel and the Bedouin of the Negev. Journal of Palestine Studies 9 (1): 3–20.
Golston, J.A. (2002) Roma rights, Roma wrongs. Foreign Affairs 81 (2): 146–162.
Guglielmo, R. and Waters, T.W. (2005) Migrating towards minority status: Shifting European policy towards Roma. Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (4): 763–785.
Havatzelet, Y. (2006) Land disputes between the Negev Bedouin and Israel. Israel Studies 11 (2): 1–22.
Huxley, E. (1948) The Sorcerer's Apprentice. London: Chatto & Windus.
Jackson, R.H. (1990) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Joona, T. (2005) The political recognition and ratification of ILO Convention No. 169 in Finland, with some comparison to Sweden and Norway. Nordic Journal of Human Rights 23 (3): 306–321.
Keohane, R. (1995) International institutions: Two approaches. In: J. Der Derian (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations. New York: New York University Press, pp. 279–307.
Keohane, R. and Nye, J. (2001) Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.
Kliot, N. and Medzini, A. (1985) Bedouin settlement policy in Israel, 1964–1982: Another perspective. Geoforum 16 (4): 428–439.
Kolodziej, E.A. (1992) Renaissance in security studies? Caveat lector! International Studies Quarterly 36 (4): 421–438.
Krakover, S. (1999) Urban settlement program and land dispute resolution: The state of Israel versus the Negev Bedouin. GeoJournal 47 (4): 551–561.
Kratochwil, F. and Ruggie, J.G. (1986) International organization: A state of the art on an art of the state. International Organization 40 (4): 753–775.
Lacqueur, W. (1998) The new face of terrorism. The Washington Quarterly 21 (4): 169–178.
Linklater, A. (1996) Citizenship and sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian state. European Journal of International Relations 2 (1): 77–103.
Little, P. (2006) Working across borders: Methodological and policy challenges of cross-border livestock trade in the Horn of Africa. In: J.S. McPeak and P. Little (eds.) Pastoral Livestock Marketing in Eastern Africa: Research and Policy Challenges. Rugby, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 169–185.
Lucassen, L. (1998) Eternal vagrants? State formation, migration and travelling groups in Western Europe, 1350–1914. In: L. Lucassen, W. Willems and A. Cottaar (eds.) Gypsies and Other Itinerant Groups: A Socio-historical Approach. Hampshire, UK and London: Palgrave Macmillan Press, pp. 55–73.
Martin, L.L. and Simmons, B. (1998) Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International Organization 52 (4): 729–757.
Meir, A. (1986) Demographic transition theory: A neglected aspect of the nomadism-sedentarism continuum. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11 (2): 199–211.
Meir, A. (1988) Nomads and the state: The spatial dynamics of centrifugal and centripetal forces among the Israeli Negev Bedouin. Political Geography Quarterly 7 (3): 251–270.
Milner, H. (1997) Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 341–370.
Narman, A. (1990) Pastoral peoples and the provision of educational facilities: A case study from Kenya. Nomadic Peoples 25 (27): 108–121.
Ndagala, D.K. (1990) Pastoralists and the state in Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples 25 (27): 52–63.
Neumann, I.B. and Wigen, E. (2012) The importance of the Eurasian steppe to the study of international relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, advance online publication, 7 December 2012. DOI: 10.1057/jird.2012.27.
Nexon, D.H. (2009) The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ochieng, C. (2007) Development through positive deviance and its implications for economic policy making and public administration in Africa: The case of Kenyan agricultural development, 1930–2005. World Development 35 (3): 454–479.
Olson, M. (1993) Dictatorship, democracy, and development. American Political Science Review 87 (3): 567–576.
Osiander, A. (2001) The Westphalian myth. International Organization 55 (2): 251–288.
Pavanello, S. (2010) Working across Borders. London: Overseas Development Institute. HPG Policy Brief no. 41, September, http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=4997&title=working-across-borders-harnessing-potential-cross-border-activities-improve-livelihood-security-horn-africa-drylands, accessed 2 May 2009.
Rae, H. (2002) State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (1999) The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rigby, P. (1985) Persistent Pastoralists: Nomadic Societies in Transition. London: Zed Books.
Ruggie, J.G. (1993) Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization 47 (1): 139–174.
Scott, J.C. (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shahar, S. (2007) Religious minorities, vagabonds and Gypsies in early modern Europe. In: R. Stauber and R. Vago (eds.) The Roma – A Minority in Europe: Historical, Political and Social Perspectives. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press, pp. 1–18.
Shamir, R. (1996) Suspended in space: Bedouins under the law of Israel. Law and Society Review 30 (2): 231–256.
Shmueli, A. (1980) The Bedouin of the land of Israel – Settlement and changes. Urban Econology 4 (4): 253–286.
Singer, P.W. (2001) Corporate warriors: The rise of the privatized military industry and its ramifications for international security. International Security 26 (3): 186–220.
Simmons, B. and Martin, L.L. (2001) International organizations and institutions. In: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. Simmons, (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 192–211.
Smith, S. (2000) The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.
Soffer, A. and Bar-Gal, Y. (1985) Planned Bedouin settlement in Israel – A critique. Geoforum 16 (4): 423–451.
Spruyt, H. (1994) Institutional selection in international relations: State anarchy as order. International Organization 48 (4): 527–557.
Tal, A. (2008) Space matters: Historic drivers and turning points in Israel's open space protection policy. Israel Studies 13 (1): 119–151.
Tilly, C. (1985) War making and state making as organized crime. In: P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer and T. Skocpol (eds.) Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–191.
Tucker, D. (1998) Responding to terrorism. The Washington Quarterly 21 (1): 103–117.
Van der Peel, K. (1995) Nomads, Empires, States: Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy. London: Pluto Press.
Walt, S. (1991) The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 211–239.
Weber, M. (2004) Politics as a vocation. In: The Vocation Lectures, trans. R. Livingstone. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, pp. 32–94.
Wendt, A. and Duvall (2008) Sovereignty and the UFO. Political Theory 36 (4): 607–633.
Yahel, H. (2006) Land disputes between the Negev Bedouin and Israel. Israel Studies 11 (2): 1–22.
Yiftachel, O. (1992) The Arab minority in Israel and its relations with the Jewish majority: A review essay. Studies in Comparative International Development 27 (2): 57–83.
Zaal, F., Siloma, M.O., Andiema, R. and Kotomei, A. (2006) The geography of integration: Cross-border livestock trade in East Africa. In: J. McPeak and P. Little (eds.) Pastoral Livestock Marketing in Eastern Africa Research and Policy Challenges. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing, pp. 145–168.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Steven Bernstein, Kimberly Carter, Lilach Gilady, Jeffrey Kopstein, Norrin M. Ripsman, Edward Schatz, Janice Stein, Michael C. Williams, the journal's editor and an anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacKay, J., Levin, J., de Carvalho, G. et al. Before and after borders: The nomadic challenge to sovereign territoriality. Int Polit 51, 101–123 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2013.24
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2013.24