While it is true that the past three decades have seen the flourishing of border research and an upsurge in literature on borders in human geography and in social sciences more generally, the same cannot be said about subnational borders. Contemporary border research and debates tend to focus on international borders. By way of example, Doris Wastl-Walter’s edited volume, Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies which aims ‘to provide an authoritative, state-of-the-art review of current research in the multidisciplinary and global field of border studies’ (Wastl-Walter, 2016, p. 1) does not have a single chapter on subnational borders. A scan of both the theoretical and case study chapters (written by leading scholars on border studies) reveals that Wastl-Walter’s volume does little to incorporate the findings from research on borders within the state into the conceptualization and analyses of borders. The omission of these borders from such an authoritative text is not an exception. Chapter 8 in Martin Glassner’s Political Geography (1996) which is dedicated to the discussion on frontiers and borders focuses exclusively on international borders. The chapter conceptualizes boundaries as thin lines appearing on maps ‘marking the limit of sovereignty’ (Glassner, 1996, p. 84). I highlight these omissions to argue for greater attention to the study of subnational borders by human geographers. I do not suggest that human geographers and other social scientists ignore borders at the subnational level completely, or that they have no interest in them. Attempts have been made to research subnational borders to understand their roles in territorial politics and elections (Johnston, Pattie, & Manley, 2017; Narsiah & Maharaj, 1999; Ramutsindela & Simon, 1999), to analyze local conflict (Penu & Essaw, 2019), and governance (Short, 1982). They have also been scrutinized through the prism of regionalism (Ramutsindela, 2013; Zimmerbauer & Paasi, 2013). The political scientist Malcolm Anderson (1996) devoted chapter 4 of his book, Frontiers, to boundaries within the state. My argument in this paper is that research on borders at the subnational level is invisible in current debates on borders, and that there is no commitment among border scholars to include them into broader discussions and debates on borders. This state of border research reminds us that themes in border studies also delineate the field of study. Jones’ (2009, p. 181) remarks that ‘the term “boundary studies”, as with any category, operates as a container into which particular topics or research can be categorized as either boundary studies research or not’ are worth reflecting on here. Subnational borders fall within the scope of border studies and the level at which these

中文翻译：

---

将次国家边界置于边界研究中

的确，在过去的 30 年中，边界研究蓬勃发展，人文地理学和社会科学领域的边界文献激增，但次国家边界却并非如此。当代边界研究和辩论倾向于关注国际边界。例如，Doris Wastl-Walter 的编辑卷，Ashgate Research Companion to Border Studies 旨在“对边界研究的多学科和全球领域的当前研究提供权威的、最先进的评论”（Wastl- Walter, 2016, p. 1) 没有关于国家以下边界的一章。对理论和案例研究章节（由边界研究的主要学者撰写）的扫描表明，Wastl-Walter 的卷几乎没有将国家内部边界研究的结果纳入边界的概念化和分析。在这样的权威文本中省略这些边界也不例外。Martin Glassner 的《政治地理学》（1996 年）中的第 8 章专门讨论边界和边界，专门讨论国际边界。本章将边界概念化为地图上出现的细线，“标志着主权的界限”（格拉斯纳，1996 年，第 84 页）。我强调这些遗漏是为了主张人文地理学家更多地关注次国家边界的研究。我不建议人文地理学家和其他社会科学家完全忽视次国家层面的边界，或者他们对边界不感兴趣。已经尝试研究次国家边界以了解它们在领土政治和选举中的作用（Johnston、Pattie 和 Manley，2017 年；Narsiah 和 Maharaj，1999 年；Ramutsindela 和 Simon，1999 年），以分析地方冲突（Penu 和 Essaw，2019 年） ) 和治理 (Short, 1982)。他们还通过区域主义的棱镜进行了审查（Ramutsindela，2013 年；Zimmerbauer 和 Paasi，2013 年）。政治学家马尔科姆·安德森 (Malcolm Anderson) (1996) 在其著作《边疆》的第 4 章专门讨论了国家内部的边界。我在这篇论文中的论点是，在当前关于边界的辩论中，国家以下层面的边界研究是看不见的，并且边界学者没有承诺将他们纳入关于边界的更广泛的讨论和辩论。边境研究的这种状态提醒我们，边境研究的主题也划定了研究领域。琼斯（2009 年，第 181 页）评论说，“与任何类别一样，术语“边界研究”是一个容器，特定主题或研究可以在其中归类为边界研究研究与否”值得在此反思. 次国家边界属于边界研究的范围以及这些研究的水平 作为一个容器，可以将特定主题或研究归类为边界研究或不研究的容器，值得在此反思。次国家边界属于边界研究的范围以及这些研究的水平 作为一个容器，可以将特定主题或研究归类为边界研究或不研究的容器，值得在此反思。次国家边界属于边界研究的范围以及这些研究的水平