In critical theory, the exclusiveness of sovereign borders is approached following two radically distinct theoretical frameworks. Either the borders are said to be powerful and spectacular governmental institutions, or they are depicted as diffuse network of constraining governance practices. If both approaches have their merits, they are however irreconcilable, at least regarding their relationship to territory. On one hand, they are turned into spatial demarcations while on the other they present themselves as deterritorialized coercive mechanisms. In this article, I'd like to claim that critical theorists cannot eat their cake and have it too, i.e. that they should acknowledge the wide gap between both conceptual approaches and consequently opt for a single one of them.
