1. University of Thessaly Department of Planning and Regional Development Graduate Program in European Regional Development Studies Fall Semester, 2011-12 Course: The Geography of European Integration: Economy, Society and Institutions Lecturers: Petrakos G., Camhis M., Kotios A., Topaloglou L., Tsipouri L., Bogiazides N.

2. Interaction Perceptions and Policies in the border areas 5th December 2011, Volos UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY Department of Planning and Regional Development Polytechnic School Post Graduate Program: European Regional Development Studies Course: South Eastern European Development Dr. Lefteris Topaloglou

3.  The scientific discussion is still on going  Necessity of interpretation of the new geography in the Southeastern Europe  Necessity for planning sufficient and effective policies Why the border issue matter?

4. Role and nature of borders: Critical Questions  What are the borders and they symbolize nowadays?  Are borders “natural” or human constructions?  Are border “ordinary” or “unique”?  Are border necessary in nowadays digital epoch?  Why new border lines are proliferated in the new setting?

5. Geography and Perceptions: Critical Questions  Are initial conditions advantage or disadvantage for cross border interaction?  Is geographic proximity associated with proximity in perceptions?  To what extent historical events, and differences in culture, language and religion influence cross border interaction?  Which are the dominant images towards the “other” to the opposite side of the borders?

6.  Strategic places of defense lines (Beschomer et al. 1991)  Military fortresses (Hassner, 2002)  Delineation of the national dominance (Anderson and O’Dowd, 1999)  Battle fields (Kratke, 1999)  Outcome of a balanced worldwide State-related system (Pratt and Brown, 2000) Borders as geopolitical spots

7.  Outcome of artificial procedures (Rykiel, 1995)  Strict connection of “dominance” with territorial definition e.g. tree and land (Ratzel, 1897)  The notion of “natural borders” is often associated with expanding policies e.g. France (Hassner, 2002) Borders as natural or artificial interventions

8.  Objects of consecutive evolution (bordering, de-bordering, re- bordering) (Topaloglou, 2007)  Borders can be “freeze” only on maps (Van Houtum, 1998)  Borders as filters can be opened and closed at the same time (Ratti, 1993)  Symbolic lines (Biggs, 1999)  Meeting points between different ways of life (Labrianidis, 1997)  Ideological constructions (Κ. Marx) Borders as a dynamic social phenomenon

9.  Multi-scalar dynamics in space and time deeply incorporated by the society (e.g. national policy, regional localities, MEDIA, etc (Scott, 2006)  Define collective identities of “us” and “them”, “here” and “there” (Paasi, 1998)  Delineate regulation of entrance and exit in accordance to the dominant standard (Paasi, 1998)  Operate at the level of ground and also at the level of mind or even imagination (Paasi, 1996)  Are analyzed through a static (where) and also through a dynamic perspective (how) (Van Houtum et al. 2005) Borders as “institutions”

10.  Borders as the outcome of barriers and asymmetries (Ratti, 1993)  Borders as “guards” or “walls” (Williams and Van de Velde, 2005)  Borders as “tunnels”, ‘’threats’’ or “opportunities” (Petrakos and Topaloglou, 2008)  Borders as dividing lines between something different or even same (Van de Velde, 1999)  Borders as clear lines (The Neo-Westphalian State) (Zielonka, 2001)  Borders as fuzzy lines (New Medieval Empire) (Zielonka, 2001) The functional and symbolic dimension of borders

11.  Every border line represents distinctive historical, social, political and economic conditions (Topaloglou, 2007)  Every border is unique (Evans and Pezdek, 1980)  Sociologically, border reflects the differentiation of social groups in space (Lefebre, 1991)  Need for typologies in order to avoid the “syndrome of unique cases” (Topaloglou et al. 2005) “Common” vs “Unique” border

12.  Temporary perceptions based on digital-based world argue for «borderless world», «global village», «global market» (Ohmae, 1990) «oyster-shell world» (Levitt, 1983)  Revising trends concerning the traditional role of Nation State (e.g. the death of the Nation State etc) (Stokke, 1997)  Tremendous increasing in the volume of economic international transactions over the last decades (Lubbers, 1995)  The proliferation of the border lines over the last decades however, disproves the above allegations (Topaloglou, 2007) Are borders necessary nowadays?

13.  The border needs to be dealt as social construct which requires interdisciplinary approach (Wilson and Donnan, 1998)  Dialectic relationship between space, identities and social setting (Paasi, 1996) Need for an interdisciplinary approach

14. Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

16. Are borders necessary nowadays?

17. The expansion of the Ottoman Empire

18. The decline of the Ottoman Empire

19. The Balkan in 1912-1913

20. The evolution of the Greek borders

22. The decline of the Ottoman Empire

23. Thanks for your kind attention!