DOI: 10.46340/eppd.2025.12.6.2
Yuliia Uzun, D.Sc. in Political Science
I. I. Mechnikov Odesa National University, Odesa, Ukraine
Svitlana Koch, D.Sc. in Political Science
I. I. Mechnikov Odesa National University, Odesa, Ukraine
How to cite: Uzun, Y., & Koch, S. (2025). Buffering and Peripheral Dynamics in the Morphology of Political Space. Evropský politický a právní diskurz, 12, 6, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2025.12.6.2
Abstract
The article is devoted to a systematic study of the spatial structures of political development through the analysis of center-periphery interactions, buffer zones, and borderlands as specific forms of political space organization. It demonstrates the evolution of concepts from imperial notions of territorial control to contemporary networked and cross-border models that reveal the changing role of peripheries in the global distribution of power. The theoretical foundation of the research combines world-systems, structural–morphological, and limological approaches. Peripherality is defined as a structured inequality in access to resources, security, and institutional influence; however, it is no longer interpreted as a passive “margin.” Peripheries are understood as social fields in which alternative political interests, mobilization practices, and new formats of identity are formed. Particular emphasis is placed on buffer spaces as a special form of peripherality. They serve as ‘shock absorbers’ between competing centers of power while simultaneously using their ‘in-between’ position as a resource for foreign policy and strategic manoeuvring. The article distinguishes between passive and strategic buffers, as well as the variability of their status depending on the dynamics of the geo-economic environment and the balance of power. The second conceptual block focuses on the transformation of borders in the era of globalization. The state is losing its monopoly on spatial organization, while borderlands are turning into transit nodes of economic and political flows, where cross-border identities and new forms of political participation emerge. Thus, space is increasingly defined not by barriers, but by networked interaction and the density of connections. The development of the European political space is analyzed through the dialectic of integration and regionalization: the growth of local autonomy is combined with the strengthening of supranational governance, which creates conditions for the politicization of peripheries and their involvement in strategic decision-making. It is noted that the modern political space is shaped not only by the dominance of centers but also by the capacity of peripheral and buffer regions to act as autonomous actors whose agency determines the stability and transformation of the international system. This opens perspectives for further research into the adaptation strategies and subjectivity of such territories within a multipolar world.
Keywords: political space, peripherality, buffer zones, borderlands, cross-border interaction, regional agency, network configurations, territorial hierarchy, territorial politics, geopolitical stability.
References
Amin, S. (1976). Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Balibar, É. (2002). Politics and the Other Scene. London & New York: Verso.
Bartolini, S. (2005). Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring Between the Nation State and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beehner, L., & Meibauer, G. (2016). The Futility of Buffer Zones in International Politics. Orbis, 60(2), 248‑265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2016.01.004
Beehner, L., et al. (2020). Buffer States in World Politics: Neutrality in the Age of Great Powers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Questions de Sociologie [Sociological Questions]. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. [in French].
Braudel, F. (1993). Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe–XVIIIe siècles [Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism, 15th–18th Centuries]. Paris: Le Livre de Poche, 3. [in French].
Brunet, R. (2002). Lignes de force de l’espace européen [Key Features of the European Space]. Mappemonde [World Map], 66(2), 14-19. [in French].
Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books.
Castells, M. (1996–1998). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1-3.
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chand, B. (2023). Reframing the Buffer State in Contemporary International Relations: Nepal’s Relations with India and China. London: Routledge.
Christaller, W. (1967). Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Collins, R. (1999). “Balkanization” or “Americanization”: A Geopolitical Theory of Ethnic Change. In: Macrohistory: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run (pp. 70–109). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Collins, R. (2001). Civilizations as Zones of prestige and social contact. International Sociology, 16(3), 421–437.
Follis, K. S. (2012). Building fortress Europe: The Polish-Ukrainian Frontier. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Foucher, M. (2007). L’obsession des frontières [The Obsession with Borders]. Paris: Perrin. [in French].
Frank, A. G. (1966). The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 18(4), 17-31.
Friedmann, J. (1966). Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hägerstrand, T. (1952). The Propagation of Innovation Waves. Lund: Royal University of Lund, Department of Geography.
Hägerstrand, T. (1967). Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hingel, A. J. (1995). Co-development Across the EC’s External Borders. In: A. Kukliński (Ed.) Baltic Europe in the Perspective of Global Change (pp. 21–33). Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa Euroreg.
Jasky, O. (2012). Borderlands as Social Constructs. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 27(3), 241-255.
Keating, M. (2013). Rescaling the European State: The Making of Territory and the Rise of the Meso. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, K. (2008). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. New York: Basic Books.
Kelly, P. (2006). Checkerboards & Shatterbelts: The Geopolitics of South Asia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Newman, D. (2006). The Lines that Continue to Separate Us: Borders in Our “Borderless” World. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143-161.
Paasi, A. (1996). Territories, Boundaries and Consciousness: The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-Russian Border. Chichester: Wiley.
Paasi, A. (2011). Border Studies Reanimated: Going Beyond the Territorial/Relational Divide. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(1), 56-69.
Perroux, F. (1955). Note sur la notion de ‘pôle de croissance’ [Note on the Concept of ‘Growth Pole’]. Économie appliquée [Applied Economics], 8(1-2), 307-320. [in French].
Prebisch, R. (1950). The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems. New York: United Nations.
Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Rokkan, S. (1975). Dimensions of State Formation and Nation-Building: A Possible Paradigm for Research on Variations Within Europe. In: C. Tilly (Ed.), The Formation of National States in Europe (pp. 562–600). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rokkan, S., & Lipset, S. M. (1967). Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments. New York: The Free Press.
Scott, J., & Liikanen, I. (2010). Civil Society and the Neighbourhood – Reconciling Supranational, National and Local Agendas. Journal of European Integration, 32(5), 423-438.
Sloterdijk, P. (2004). Sphären III: Schäume [Spheres III: Foams]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Smith, A. (1979). Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press.
Uzun, Y., Koch, S. (2024). Spatial Imagination In Politics: the Strategic Role of Phantom Borders and Imaginary Territories. Evropsky Politicky a Pravni Diskurz [European Political and Law Discourse], 11(6), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2024.11.6.1
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Zarycki, T. (2009). Peryferie: Nowe ujęcia zależności centro-peryferyjnych [Periphery: New Approaches to Center-Periphery Relationships]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. [in Polish].
