Two of the most prolific contributors to the theoretical literature on territoriality—Robert Sack and Claude Raffestin—treat territoriality in fundamentally different ways. Sack conceives of territoriality as a spatial strategy that individuals, groups, and organizations use to achieve particular social and political ends. Raffestin, in contrast, takes a relational approach to territoriality—seeing it as arising out of, integral to, and reinforcing of interactions and structural circumstances. These contrasting approaches reflect different types of scholarly projects. The reading of one against the other shows that Raffestin's relational approach is critical to capturing the territorial ideas and practices of everyday life, as these are not reducible to simple strategies to control space. But as these ideas and practices congeal into territorial structures and norms of the sort exemplified by the emergence of the modern state system they produce understandings and arrangements that lend themselves to the type of theorization of territoriality proposed by Sack. Rather than treating the relationship between Raffestin's and Sack's approaches to territoriality as strictly oppositional, it is more constructive to explore the circumstances in which relational territoriality, as developed by Raffestin, produces understandings and arrangements that can be effectively captured through the territoriality-as-spatial-strategy approach of Sack.
AgnewJ, 1994, “The territorial trap: The geographic assumptions of international relations theory”Review of International Political Economy153–80.
2.
AgnewJ, 2009Globalization and Sovereignty (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD).
3.
AllenJ, 2009, “Three spaces of power: Territory, networks, plus a topological twist in the tale of domination and authority”Journal of Power2197–212.
4.
AminA, 2004, “Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place”Geografiska Annaler, Series B8633–44.
5.
ArdreyR, 1966The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations (Atheneum, New York).
6.
CoxK, 1998Political Geography: Territory, State and Society (Blackwell, Oxford).
7.
CramptonJEldenS, (Eds), 2007Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
8.
DelaneyD, 2005Territory: A Short Introduction (Blackwell, Malden, MA).
9.
Dell'AgneseE, forthcoming, “The political challenge of relational territory”, in Spatial Politics: Essays for Doreen Massey Eds FeatherstoneDPainterJ, (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford).
10.
EldenS, 2009Terrorand Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).
11.
EldenS, 2010, “Land, terrain, territory”Progress in Human Geography34799–817.
12.
FallJ, 2007, “Lost geographers: Power games and the circulation of ideas within Francophone political geographies”Progress in Human Geography31195–216.
13.
GottmannJ, 1952La Politique des États et leur Géographie (Armand Colin, Paris).
14.
GottmannJ, 1973The Significance of Territory (University Press of Virginia, Charlotteville, VA).
15.
HäkliJ, 1994, “Territoriality and the rise of the modern state”Fennia1721–82.
16.
HäkliJ, 2008, “Regions, networks and fluidity in the Finnish nation-state”National Identities105–22.
MacLeodGJonesM, 2007, “Territorial, scalar, networked, connected: In what sense a ‘regional world’?”Regional Studies411177–1191.
19.
MalmbergT, 1980Human Territoriality: Survey of Behavioural Territories in Man with Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Meaning (Mouton, The Hague).
20.
MarkusenA, 1996, “Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts”Economic Geography72293–214.
21.
MasseyD, 2005For Space (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
22.
MurphyA, 1996, “The sovereign state system as political – territorial ideal: Historical and contemporary considerations”, in State Sovereignty as Social Construct Eds BierstekerTWeberC, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 81–120.
23.
MurphyA, 2008, “Rethinking multi-level governance in a changing European Union: Why metageography and territoriality matter”GeoJournal727–18.
24.
OlwigK, 2002, “The duplicity of space: Germanic ‘Raum’ and Swedish ‘Rum’ in English language geographical discourse”Geografiska Annaler, Series B841–17.
25.
PaasiA, 1999, “Boundaries as social processes: Territoriality in the world of flows”, in Boundaries, Territory, and Postmodemity Ed. NewmanD, (Frank Cass, London) pp 69–88.
26.
PaasiA, 2009, “Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory”Journal of Power2213–234.
27.
PainterJ, 2007, “Territory/network”, RP 3, Centre for the Study of Cities and Regions, Department of Geography, Durham University.
RaffestinC, 1980Pour une Géographie du Pouvoir (Librairies Techniques, Paris).
30.
RaffestinC, 1984, “Territoriality: A reflection of the discrepancies between the organization of space and individual liberty”International Political Science Review5139–146.
31.
RaffestinC, 1986a, “Ecogenèse territoriale et territorialité”, in Espaces, jeux et enjeux Eds AuriacFBrunetR, (Fondation Diderot, Paris) pp 173–185.
32.
RaffestinC, 1986b, “Territorialité: Concept ou paradigme de la géographie sociale?”Geographica Helvetica291–96.
33.
RaffestinC, 2007, “Could Foucault have revolutionized geography?”, in Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography Eds CramptonJEldenS, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 129–137.
34.
SackR, 1981, “Territorial bases of power”, in Political Studies from Spatial Perspectives Eds BurnettATaylorP, (John Wiley, New York) pp 53–71.
35.
SackR, 1983, “Human territoriality: A theory”Annals of the Association of American Geographers7355–74.
36.
SackR, 1986Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
37.
SkocpolT, 1992Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
38.
SöderströmOPhiloC, 2004, “Social geography: Looking for geography in its spaces”, in Human Geography: A History for the Twenty-first Century Eds BenkoGStrohmayerU, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 105–138.
39.
SojaE, 1971, “The political organization of space”, RP 8, Commission on College Geography, Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC, pp 1–54.
40.
StoreyD, 2001Territory: The Claiming of Space (Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex).
41.
ThelenKSteinmoS, 1992, “Historical institutionalism in comparative politics”, in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis Eds SteinmoSThelenKLongstrethF, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 1–32.
42.
VogelE, 2008, “Regional power and the power of regions: Resistance to dam removal in the Pacific Northwest”, in Contentious Geographies: Environment, Meaning, Scale Eds GoodmanMBoykoffMEveredK, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 165–186.
43.
WolchJDearM, 1989The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life (Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA).
