Why is the world divided territorially?

Many animals are territorial. It is part of their instinct. In order to survive, they have to live in a habitat where food is bountiful and where security against all foes in the food chain is assured. Humans are no different. Like other animals, our territories change when food is scarce. Early humans transfer to another area when they have exhausted the resources of the land. They reside in places where there are qualities of natural strongholds such as caves. With the discovery of fire, they were able to strengthen their defenses against unwanted trespassers. Security from internal factors (utilize resources and keeping them for their consumption) and from external factors (predators and other tribes) was the major purpose of territory in the past. But as humans progressed, after the discovery of harvesting, humans are now able to stay permanently. Many civilizations emerged and most of them in nearby rivers to sustain harvesting needs. As the population grew, a need for order was placed for the survival of the society. When there is a need for order, there should be an authoritative body to keep and implement it. This changed the ball game of territories.

Leaders of their respective civilization effectively kept order within. But until what extent? Until where will their power can be effective considering the costs and the effort to control? To formalize the legitimacy of the power of the authorities, a clear understanding of what its boundaries must be made. However, many other groups were forming around the land. This was seen as a threat to the order within. Thus, there was a strategic consideration of the landscape of its borders. It would be ideal if territories are separated by mountain ranges, rivers, cliffs and seas. Not only that these physical features offer protection from the outside but also these are road blocks for the authorities or for its economy to reach out to the civiliians (if ever) beyond these separative landscapes. The key in this situation is control.

But as civilizations grew stronger, many tensions between them both economically and politically came forth. Area of territory became associated with power. As the population grew, there was more labor for economic and military purposes. However, the resources within its borders are not sufficient for their growing number. In other cases, lands became harsh for having a stable living (climate, volcanic activity, etc) thus a need for either abandoning and exploring a better replacement or extending the territory. In most cases, extension was the ideal action. Many wars took place because of this. When trade and market became the life blood of the economy as states evolved, territorial conquest for the purpose of extracting more expensive resources had been prioritized. In ancient Rome, the empire concentrated on the conquest of the deserts in the Middle East. It was a mystery for the deserts were desolated, dry and inhabitable lands. But the Romans endured its treacherous lands because, as recently discovered, its lands are abundant in emeralds.

With the absence of natural fortification came the many innovative man made walls for defense. Territory became the subject of religion especially in the dark ages. Because the people where reminded of the fall of Rome despite its military power from outside tribes, many Catholic European states question their security in the rapid spread of islam from both sides of Europe. It was also during this time when the feudalistic treatment to property was dominant. There were many local wars among nobles fighting for their lands. Europe was divided even further. But with Charlemagne, many Western European states are united again.

In the age of exploration, even between seas, territory can be extended in a colony. Many lands in the south were occupied and claimed by Europeans. Now that the world was finally open to them, thanks to Magellan, the race of territorial ownership of the unexplored lands had begun. Their extended territory did not need to be inhabited by its citizens but only a few were to stay to control and exploit the aborigines and their lands. Does a territory make a state? Would a territory be considered a territory even without sovereignty? Or does the state make the territory? The colonization of many nations in this age raised more ambiguity in the definition of territory. It need not be an area where the central authority is bordered. The territory can be an area not attached to the central state. It can be miles away from its central authority. The Jewish nation and its territory is still a question.

The question on how the world is divided has no clear answer as there are many causes and cases for what happened to each nation that established their borders. Historians say that the Philippines would not be an archipelago nation without the colonization of the Spaniards. If we were not colonized, the Philippines would have been 3 or maybe 4 separate nations just like the different nations around the Carribean region. Many countries especially in Asia are evidence themselves of imperialism. Countries would have been united or separated if it were not the arrival of the Europeans.

The early notion of a nation is that it must have within its territory a common people, in race and religion. This early notion caused many civil wars and inter-country wars. But as many nations survive through centuries, the sense of nationalism grew within them especially in the aftermath of revolutions that gave rise to the power of democracy. Thus the world is now not divided territorially, which is the physical aspect, but divided nationalistically, which is the social aspect. If a big social group in a region of a country recognized a need for autonomy from the state, they will continue to fight for their separation from the state. This often happens when a group is a representation of a minority in religion, ethnicity or even in principles in the emergence of different ideologies (USSR western states separated from motherland, North separated from South Korea, East and West Germany).

But now things have changed in the emergence of globalization. Before, people see the economic advantage in acquiring more territories for more resources. But now, people recognize the established territories and promote a freer flow of goods, services and capital considering the physical and social barriers.

Regionalism is the buzz word nowadays. The world is seen as one marketplace. Technology has made this possible. The cost of consumption, production and distribution will be reduced in the abatement of barriers. Europe is slowly acting as if it is one state, which is made possible by EU. Their economic performance has heightened. Maybe soon, Asian nations will be Asian states of a region. Many see this as an opportunity for growth. But many questions are raised in the free flow of service or labor. We cannot deny that Filipinos can be found in every corner of the globe. Imagine if there were freer flow of labor in the world, it will be difficult to distinguish an Asian nation from a European nation (socially) when more Asians are able to enter the continent. But will sovereignty of nations suffer in the advancement of regionalism? This vision may be a good thing since there may be a chance that the world might become more unified. But will this cause more misunderstanding among cultures? Will there be a saturation of cultures? Will this destroy the identity of a nation? Will the destruction of identities lead to more destruction? Is there a need for a defined separation of states? Will this unification exist virtually only?