The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On borders and power: A theoretical framework
Abstract
This paper raises the question whether it is possible to develop a theory of bordering which will encompass the diverse types of border and boundary experience. I have previously argued that the only way to create a common language between the different disciplinary languages (including geographers, political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, economists and others) is to create a common set of theoretical constructs and frameworks which can be used as a generalized explanatory model for understanding changing border/boundary phenomenon (Newman 2003). In essence, this paper reiterates a question asked long ago in one of the classic studies of international boundaries, namely how are boundaries (borders) to be redefined in the settings of contemporary time and place (Jones 1959).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory
Agnew, J. (1994) · Review of International Political Economy · doi:10.1080/09692299408434268 · Cited by 2,549
Metadata
- Authors
- Newman, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Borderlands Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-25
- ISSN
- 0886-5655 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-1229
- OpenAlex
- W1965710106
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On borders and power: A theoretical framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08865655.2003.9695598
- The paper
- Newman, D. (2003). On borders and power: A theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2003.9695598
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
