Content uploaded by Samet Yılmaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samet Yılmaz on Jan 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
COVID-19 AND TERRITORY: SEARCHING FOR A SECURE PLACE
Dr. Samet YILMAZ
ORCID: 0000-0002-5232-5435
Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of
International Relations, Bursa/Turkey
ABSTRACT
This study investigates territorial responses to the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) pandemic at
different geographical levels. COVID-19 has negatively affected a large part of societal life and
introduced new restrictions to the daily practices of societies. The struggle against the pandemic
continues in different ways. Multilateral initiatives have been carried out to find a vaccine.
International organizations aim to ensure coordination among states and inform the international
public opinion about the disease and its economic, social and political consequences. In addition to
international cooperation, states implement unilateral policies to protect themselves against the
pandemic. It is observed that states have primarily closed their borders and tried to control mobility. In
other words, states have hardened their national borders to fight against COVID-19. In addition to the
hardening of borders between states, social practices have also been spatially reforged. Local, regional
and national governments have taken various measures such as imposition of curfews, regulation or
isolation of social spaces, protection of social distance and implementation of home quarantine for
individuals and families. Individuals and societies have encountered new spatial restrictions. So, an
intense global territorial tendency has emerged in terms of the functioning of interstate relations and
daily life. The purpose of this study is to prove the functionality of territory, which is a secure spatial
compartment and a means of establishing control, in consideration of responses to COVID-19. It is
observed that territorial divisions have been manifested at different geographical levels and in the
functioning of daily life, and individuals and political organizations which have been searching for a
secure place to survive the virus have taken spatial measures. Thus, the study suggests that territorial
tendency becomes evident in times of health-related crises.
Keywords: COVID-19, Spatial Restrictions, Territory, Territorial Tendency.
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19, which was first encountered in the city of Wuhan in the Hubei province of the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) in December 2019 and then spread to other countries, crossed the national
borders of the PRC, and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic on
March 11, 2020 (Timeline of WHO’s response to COVID-19, 2020). The pandemic has negatively
affected a large part of societal life on the global scale. The United Nations Development Program
states that the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most severe global health problems that humanity
has suffered since World War II (Wang, Zou & Liu, 2020: 154). However, COVID-19 is not merely a
global health crisis. The pandemic has impacts on various areas ranging from politics to the economy,
the health sector and education (Şeker, Özer & Korkut, 2020).
The struggle against the pandemic continues in different ways. Multilateral initiatives have been
carried out to find a vaccine. International organizations aim to ensure coordination among states and
inform the international public opinion about the disease and its economic, social and political
consequences. In addition to international cooperation, states implement unilateral policies to protect
themselves against the pandemic. They have closed their national borders to prevent the virus from
entering inside and imposed restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties such as freedom of
movement and freedom of assembly and association (Fornalé, 2020). Additionally, states have
accepted various economic support packages to reduce the negative effects of the pandemic on
societies (Asal, 2020). At the supranational level, the European Union (EU) has also issued
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
279
recommendations to the member states on its external borders to protect its geographical area, and the
member states have agreed on a recovery plan to eliminate the negative effects of COVID-19
(Coronavirus Response).
This study investigates territorial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic at different geographical
levels. COVID-19 has led political organizations to pursue protectionist policies. States have
responded to the virus primarily by closing their borders and tried to spatially regulate societal
processes inside their borders. Individuals and societies have faced with new spatial restrictions. In
this framework, an intense global territorial tendency has emerged in terms of the functioning of
interstate relations and daily life.
The purpose of this study is to prove the functionality of territory, which is a secure spatial
compartment and a means of establishing control, in consideration of responses to COVID-19. It is
often claimed particularly in globalization studies that the importance of territorial divisions shall
decrease, and a social and political order in which fluidities are evident shall emerge. Accordingly, as
a result of developments in transportation and communication technologies and global production
processes, the old territorial divisions shall dilute, and a network society shall emerge (Castells, 2008;
Scholte, 2005). However, it is observed that territorial divisions have been manifested at different
geographical levels and in the functioning of daily life. Individuals and political organizations which
have been searching for a secure place to survive the virus have taken spatial measures. Thus, the
study suggests that territorial tendency becomes evident in times of health-related crises.
TERRITORY AND ITS FUNCTIONS
Territory, like place and space, is among the key concepts of human and political geography.
However, the concept is also handled by different disciplines such as ethology, biology, anthropology
and psychology. Territory is a type of geographical area, which is different to place and space. It is a
spatial compartment, which is mostly handled in terms territoriality. Territoriality is basically a spatial
control strategy. Individuals or groups establish control and claim ownership by bounding a
geographical area. More accurately, territoriality is an observable and discernible claim of ownership
which is applied upon space in relation to the functioning of societal life. In this framework, territory
may be defined as a spatiality which is separated from the outside and delimited by various discernible
markers and signifiers. It has both physical and ideational elements. A geographical area that is
physically delimited indicates a tangible existence. Moreover, it is marked that the inside is
ideationally different from the outside on the basis of spatial ownership (Yılmaz, 2018).
Territory is primarily a political concept, which is assumed as a constituent dimension of the modern
state. It is obvious that the modern state is an influenced territorial actor of world politics. However,
there are also many geographical divisions that have territorial functions in the daily lives of
individuals and groups. In this sense, territory is inherently a function. Drawing on studies in different
disciplines on territory, it may be argued that it has two main functions. The first is security.
Individuals, groups and organizations provide security by demarcating a geographical area or
reimposing its boundaries. The second function of territory is control. Actors establish control or
consolidate their control over a demarcated area (Yılmaz & Koyuncu, 2019).
COVID-19 AND SPATIAL RESTRICTIONS
In evaluation of its impacts, it may be stated that the COVID-19 pandemic is an issue that needs to be
handled in cooperation with formal and informal organizational structures. More accurately, measures
and solutions against the pandemic are expected to be followed in an integrated global governance,
which includes actors and mechanisms taking part in the functioning of international relations. In fact,
a will to this direction may be observed since, as well as states, organizations such as the United
Nations, WHO and the EU have taken steps to prevent the spread of the pandemic. However, these
organizations have been criticized on account of the fact that they could not be effective enough
during the process (Akgün & Çelik, 2020).
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
280
Coordination problems in global governance processes have brought about an increase in the influence
of states on economic, social and political processes. So, a global problem has been attempted to be
resolved through measures which have primarily been taken at the national level (Valiyeva, 2020).
The fact that states have been more effective in the fight against the pandemic may be considered as a
result of the recent developments in the word politics. Before the pandemic, nationalist tendencies
increased both in national and international politics. States such as the United States of America, the
United Kingdom, Japan, India and Israel have adopted a nationalist attitude. In Europe, populist and
far-right parties have been successful in recent elections and had an influence on governments’
policies (Bieber, 2020). The member states of the EU, which are expected to be in solidarity, have
taken unilateral measures against the pandemic (Arslan & Karagül, 2020: 19).
As a result of the conditions specified above, it is observed that states have pursued containment and
isolationist policies against the pandemic and taken spatially constraining measures both inside and
outside of their national borders. As a part of their strategy in the combat against COVID-19, they
have sought to establish control over mobility by closing their national borders. In fact, from
December 31, 2019 to May 24, 2020, 188 states delivered 1,122 policy announcements with different
contents concerning restrictions at external borders (Cheng, Barceló, Hartnett, Kubinec &
Messerschmidt, 2020: 757). So, national borders have been reimposed, and their restrictive function
against the outside has increased. The fact that COVID-19 has been considered as a threat to the state
and the public has caused reinvigoration of national borders for containment of the virus. Most
governments have increased public control over their healthcare system. Therefore, establishment of
control over the mobility of people has become one of the primary goals of states to prevent the spread
of the virus and protect public health (Radil, Pinos & Ptak, 2020: 2).
Tightening control over national borders is one of the primary reactions of states to the pandemic.
However, in addition to national borders, internal boundaries have also become more visible. Entry
into and exit from some regions, cities, districts and villages were regulated, and quarantine was
implemented in some cases. For example, in the Hubei province of the PRC, a regional quarantine was
applied, and internal administrative boundaries almost functioned as national borders (Radil et al.,
2020: 4).
In addition to tightening control over national borders and internal administrative boundaries, social
boundaries have also been rebordered. Individuals and societies have encountered various restrictions
to prevent the spread of the virus. Local, regional and national governments have taken coercive
measures such as imposition of curfews, regulation or isolation of social spaces, protection of social
distance and implementation of home quarantine for individuals and families. Places such as schools,
factories, parks and restaurants have been closed temporarily. These processes have been supervised
by security units. In this framework, states’ control over mobility has increased (Radil et al., 2020: 4).
Spatial control over mobility has been applied not only at the local, regional and national levels, but
also at the supranational level. The most obvious and single example is the EU which has
supranational characteristics in terms of the political and geographical scales. The EU aims to create a
space of welfare in which freedom of movement is established. With the signing of the Schengen
Agreement in 1985 and incorporation of the Agreement and its related conventions into the EU law by
the Amsterdam Treaty, border checks at internal borders have been gradually abolished, and rules on
external border controls have started to be harmonized. During the pandemic, contracting parties to the
Agreement have imposed various restrictions on national borders. The EU has made advisory
decisions concerning the issue. The European Commission adopted a communication on March 16,
2020 which recommended a temporary restriction of non-essential travel from third countries into the
EU for one month. It adopted two successive communications on April 8, 2020 and May 8, 2020, each
of which recommended extension of the non-essential travel restrictions by one month. The member
states of the Schengen Area and the Schengen Associated States implemented these recommendations.
The European Commission recommended to set up an approach for a gradual abolishment of the
temporary restrictions on non-essential travel into the EU as of July 1, 2020 (CEU, 2020). So, the
member states of the EU have agreed on a coordinated approach to restriction of free movement in
response to the pandemic. Moreover, they have also imposed various restrictions on the internal
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
281
borders of the EU since the COVID-19 outbreak. Although they have principally agreed to abolish the
restrictions on mobility, some member states have temporarily reintroduced border controls
(Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control).
A GLOBAL TERRITORIAL TENDENCY
Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, an intense reterritorialization at different
geographical levels has been observed. States, which are apprehensive about their territories, have
responded to the pandemic by tightening their national borders and control over mobility.
Additionally, mobility inside national borders has also been regulated through the coercive power of
states. Thus, national territories have become more visible and discernible. In the case of the EU,
reterritorialization attempts have been made at the supranational level. In this respect, it may be argued
that a global territorial tendency has emerged, or an already existing territorial tendency has increased
more. The search for a secure place against the pandemic has become the primary goal of political
actors and societies.
Implementation of control mechanisms through spatial restriction and regulation at different
geographical levels essentially reveals the functionality of territory as a means of effect. This way,
organizations aim to provide security and establish spatial control. It is clear that territorial tendency
has been manifested primarily by states. Security is an important impulsion for states to restrict entry
into their territories and tighten controls across their national borders in the fight against the pandemic.
States have sought to both provide security and consolidate their control over their territories by
closing their borders to the outside and restricting mobility. In fact, imposition of restrictions on
mobility across national borders during pandemic periods is a prevalent state behavior. When
scientists are unable to provide clear information about pandemic diseases, in particular, decision-
makers generally evaluate the issue as a matter of security and tighten border controls and restrict the
entry of foreigners. Thus, they bolster up their authority on the process (Kenwick & Simmons, 2020:
3-4).
Though states mostly harden their national borders against pandemic diseases, the efficiency of this
precaution is controversial. WHO has taken a stance against measures to restrict the movement of
persons and goods against the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the organization, these restrictions
may be useful for decision-makers to save time in the period when the disease first appears, but they
do not certainly block diseases from entering borders. Moreover, such restrictions may cause
economic and social problems (Lutterbeck, 2020: 38). Similarly, the World Trade Organization states
that temporary border closures harm the global supply chain and world trade (WTO, 2020). In fact, the
global pandemic conditions and measures issued by states against the virus have had negative impacts
on societies and caused economic, political and social problems (CCSA, 2020).
In consideration of WHO’s approach on hardening borders and economic and social problems due to
restrictions, it may be proposed that closure of borders is not a rational behavior for states. In fact,
some studies claim that spatially restrictive measures and unilateral policies of states against the
pandemic, with the conceptualization of John Agnew, are a territorial trap for states. In a period where
multilateral initiatives are required, the unilateral policies of states debilitate the effectiveness of
territorial responses for containment of COVID-19 and increase interstate rivalry (Wang et al., 2020).
The struggle of states against the pandemic by hardening borders and implementing unilateral policies
is essentially a way of control. Reimposition of borders is a symbolic initiative (Radil et al., 2020: 2)
and reflects the belief in that borders shall protect people who are inside from disasters (Mishra &
Mishra, 2010). States try to impose strict control over their space of sovereignty by closing their
national borders to the outside. In other words, spatial measures taken by states are intended for
enhancement of territorial control. This way, states aim to give a message to their people that the
situation is under control (Lutterbeck, 2020: 41). Hence, hardening of borders is not only towards
provision of security. In fact, some states have also imposed travel restrictions on countries with lower
disease rates (Lutterbeck, 2020: 39).
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
282
In addition to an increase in territorial tendency in interstate relations, it may be observed that
territorial practices have also intensified in the functioning of people’s daily lives. Individuals have
tried to protect themselves against the virus by imposition of social or physical distancing on their
interactions with others. Thus, in reference to the conceptualization of Robert Sommer, one of the
important scholars of environmental psychology, it may be claimed that the visibility and
discernibility of personal space, which is centered in the body of the individual and whose boundaries
are not visible (Sommer, 1959; 1966), has increasingly been territorialized. In other words, the
physical area of the relationship among individuals has been fixed. Similarly, individuals and families
have stayed at their homes and reduced their interactions with others and public spaces during the
pandemic period. In the classification of territory introduced by social psychologist Irwin Altman, the
home is among primary territories, which is a well-defended area under the absolute control of
individuals and families (Altman, 1970; Werner & Altman, 1995). In this framework, the fact that
people have mostly stayed at home and restricted their interactions with the outside to protect
themselves against the virus proves the functionality of the home as a primary territory. Additionally,
territorial actions display the impact of territory as a means of communication on social life.
Individuals and families aim to increase the visibility of their own spaces in conducting their
interactions with outsiders by imposition of territorial control.
CONCLUSION
This study has investigated territorial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic at different geographical
levels and suggested that territorial tendency becomes evident in times of health-related crises. With
the emergence of the pandemic, political territories have become more visible as a result of spatial
control measures at the local, regional, national and supranational levels, and territorial tendency has
intensified in the daily lives of societies. It is clear that the long-term territorial consequences of the
COVID-19 pandemic are difficult to predict. However, the following conclusions may be drawn from
the study.
First of all, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the emergence of an intense territorial tendency at
different geographical levels. Individuals and political organizations have sought to acquire spatial
protection against the pandemic. This development reveals the functionality of territory in provision of
security and establishment of control. Individuals and political organizations have tried to ensure
security by exerting spatial control and maintaining their relations with outsiders on this spatial
control.
Secondly, the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the inclination of states to conduct their relations
primarily on the basis of their own territorial boundedness. With the outbreak of the virus, states have
hardened their national borders against the outside for their security. This measure is essentially an
indication of the willingness of public authority to consolidate its control over state territory. In other
words, reimposition of national borders is aimed at increasing the visibility of the spatial boundaries of
the public authority.
Lastly, the pandemic has led to rebordering of the daily lives of individuals and societies and
reimposition of the existing boundaries. So, the effect of boundaries on the functioning of daily life
has increased. Interactions among people have been spatially reorganized, and demarcated areas have
become a part of interactions. This way, it has been aimed at provision of security against the
pandemic on the basis of spatial control.
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
283
REFERENCES
Akgün, B., & Çelik, M. (2020). Yeni Normal Dönemde Küresel Yönetişim: Uluslararası Kurumların
Geleceği. In M. Şeker & A. Özer, Cem Korkut (Eds.), Küresel Salgının Anatomisi İnsan ve Toplumun
Geleceği (pp. 367-384). Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.ticaret.edu.tr/uploads/haberler/1378/SBU%C4%B0_YAPKO_Covid-
19%20Analiz%20Rapor.pdf
Altman, I. (1970). Territorial Behavior in Humans: An Analysis of the Concept. In L. A. Pastalan &
D. H. Carson (Eds.), Spatial Behavior of Older People (pp. 1-24). Michigan: University of Michigan
Press.
Arslan, İ., & Karagül, S. (2020). Küresel Bir Tehdit (COVID-19 Salgını) ve Değişime Yolculuk.
Üsküdar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (10), 1-36. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uskudarsbd/issue/55725/711630
Asal, U. Y. (2020). COVID-19’un Uluslararası Ekonomi Politiği. In O. D. Macar (Ed.), COVID-19
Süreci Analiz Raporu: COVID-19 ile Birlikte Uluslararası İlişkilerde Değişim ve Süreklilikler: Tarih,
Bugün ve Gelecek İlişkisinde Disiplinler Arası Bir Analiz. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.ticaret.edu.tr/uploads/haberler/1378/SBU%C4%B0_YAPKO_Covid-
19%20Analiz%20Rapor.pdf
Bieber, F. (2020). Global Nationalism in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Nationalities Papers, 1-
13, doi:10.1017/nps.2020.35
Castells, M. (2008). Enformasyon Çağı: Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür Birinci Cilt: Ağ Toplumunun
Yükselişi. Ebru Kılıç (Çev.), İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Cheng, C., Barceló, J., Hartnett, A. S., Kubinec, R., & Messerschmidt, L. (2020). COVID-19
Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0). Nature Human Behaviour, 4(756), 756-768.
doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0909-7
Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities (CCSA). (2020). How COVID-19 is Changing
the World: A Statistical Perspective. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities.
Accessed 30 November 2020. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33773
Coronavirus Response. Accessed 30 November 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-
eu/coronavirus-response_en
Council of the European Union (CEU). (2020). Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 of 30 June
2020 on the Temporary Restriction On Non-Essential Travel into the EU and the Possible Lifting of
Such Restriction. Accessed 30 November 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020H0912#:~:text=On%2011%20June%202020%2C%20the,as%20
of%201%20July%202020.
Fornalé, E. (2020). Uncharted Territory: How the COVID-19 Pandemic is Destabilizing the Borders of
Our Freedoms. JURIST-Academic Commentary. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/04/elisa-fornale-covid19-freedoms/
Kenwick, M. R., & Simmons, B. A. (2020). Pandemic Response as Border Politics. International
Organization, 74, 1-23. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000363
Lutterbeck, D. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic and Territoriality: Some Initial Reflections. In S. C.
Calleya (Ed.), Towards a Post Pandemic Euro-Mediterranean Strategy (pp. 36-42). Med Agenda-
Special Issue, Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Study. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/448655/Towardsapostpandemiceuro-med.pdf
Mishra, A., & Mishra, M. (2010). Border Bias: The Belief That State Borders Can Protect Against
Disasters. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1582–1586. doi:10.1177/0956797610385950
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
284
Radil, S. M., Pinos, J. C., & Ptak, T. (2020). Borders Resurgent: Towards a Post-Covid-19 Global
Border Regime? Space and Polity. doi:10.1080/13562576.2020.1773254
Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
Şeker, M., Özer, A., & Korkut, C. (Ed.) (2020). Küresel Salgının Anatomisi: İnsan ve Toplumun
Geleceği. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi. Accessed 30 November 2020.
http://www.tuba.gov.tr/files/yayinlar/bilim-ve-
dusun/K%C3%BCresel%20Salg%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20Anatomisi%20%20%C4%B0nsan%20ve%
20Toplumun%20Gelece%C4%9Fi.pdf
Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in Personal Space. Sociometry, 22(3), 247-260. doi:10.2307/2785668
Sommer, R. (1966). Man’s Proximate Environment. Journal of Social Issues, 22(4), 59-70. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1966.tb00549.x
Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-
border-control_en https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/21/which-european-countries-have-opened-
their-borders-ahead-of-the-summer-holiday-season
Valiyeva, K. (2020). Covıd-19 ile Ulus Devleti Yeniden Düşünmek. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Covid-19 Sosyal Bilimler Özel Sayısı, 19(37), 390-403. Accessed 30
November 2020. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1194978
Wang, F., Zou, S., & Liu, Y. (2020). Territorial Traps in Controlling the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2), 154-15. doi:10.1177/2043820620935682
Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (1995). Territoriality. In T. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (pp. 652-653). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Timeline of WHO’s response to COVID-19. (2020). Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
World Trade Organization (WTO). (2020). Cross-Border Mobility, Covid-19 and Global Trade.
Information Note, 25 August 2020. Accessed 30 November 2020.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/mobility_report_e.pdf
Yılmaz, S. (2018). Human Territoriality: A Spatial Control Strategy. Alternatif Politika, 10(2), 131-
155. Accessed 30 November 2020. http://alternatifpolitika.com/site/cilt/10/sayi/2/1-Y%C4%B1lmaz-
Human-Territoriality.pdf
Yılmaz, S., & Koyuncu, Ç. A. (2019). Teritoryalite Beşeri ve Siyasal Etkileşimlerin Düzenlenmesinde
Neden Hâlâ Önemli? International Journal of Social Inquiry, 12(1), 317-343. Accessed 30 November
2020. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/743650
III. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COVID-19 STUDIES DECEMBER 25-27, 2020
www.covid19conference.org Ankara/Turkey
285
