This paper takes a localized conflict over a non-demarcated stretch of the Uganda–South Sudan boundary in 2014 as a starting point for examining the history of territorial state formation on either side of this border since its colonial creation in 1914. It argues that the conflict was an outcome of the long-term constitution of local government territories as patches of the state, making the international border simultaneously a boundary of the local state. Some scholars have seen the limited control of central governments over their borderlands and the intensification of local territorialities as signs of African state fragmentation and failure. But the article argues that this local territoriality should instead be seen as an outcome of ongoing state-formation processes in which state territory has been co-produced through local engagement and appropriation. The paper is thus of wider relevance beyond African or postcolonial history, firstly in contributing a spatial approach to studies of state formation which have sought to replace centre–periphery models with an emphasis on the centrality of the local state. Secondly it advances the broader field of borderlands studies by arguing that international boundaries have been shaped by processes of internal territorialisation as well as by the specific dynamics of cross-border relations and governance. Thirdly it advocates a historical and processual approach to understanding territory, arguing that the patchwork of these states has been fabricated and reworked over the past century, entangling multiple, changing forms and scales of territory in the ongoing constitution of state boundaries.

中文翻译：

---

拼凑的国家：南苏丹-乌干达边界上国家领土的本地化，1914-2014*

本文以 2014 年乌干达-南苏丹边界未标定的一段局部冲突为出发点，研究该边界两侧自 1914 年殖民创建以来领土国家形成的历史。冲突是地方政府领土作为国家的一块块的长期宪法的结果，使国际边界同时成为地方国家的边界​​。一些学者将中央政府对其边界的有限控制和地方领土的强化视为非洲国家分裂和失败的迹象。但文章认为，这种地方领土应该被视为正在进行的国家形成过程的结果，在这个过程中，国家领土是通过地方参与和拨款共同产生的。因此，这篇论文在非洲或后殖民历史之外具有更广泛的相关性，首先是为国家形成研究提供了一种空间方法，该方法试图用强调地方国家的中心性来取代中心 - 外围模型。其次，它认为国际边界是由内部领土化过程以及跨境关系和治理的特定动态所塑造的，从而推进了更广泛的边界研究领域。第三，它提倡用历史和过程方法来理解领土，