Introduction
This paper seeks to draw attention to a neglected but essential element of
them into categories and groups and to establish arenas of authority or jurisdiction.
Scholars too often assume that boundaries between groups are firm and clear, and assume
that these distinctions form the basis for social hierarchies and divisions of labor.
However, the nature of boundaries is no less important to institutional operation and
social organization than is the fact of their existence. As the first step in a larger research
program, we set out to elaborate here not only the importance that the existence of
boundaries has in creating and regulating social organization, but also the political
significance that the varying nature of boundaries has. We draw on examples from
international relations and international law to highlight what boundaries do and how
they vary, as well as to raise a set of theoretical questions to guide further investigation.
Our interest in institutional boundaries stems from puzzles arising out of our
research. IR theorists’ ability to understand and explain institutional change largely turns
on the manner in which they conceptualize the boundaries of key institutions, in
particular those of the sovereign state. What we present here is our first effort at laying
out the rationale for an investigation of institutional boundaries in international relations.
We view this paper as the initial step in developing a research program that examines
2
This paper draws heavily on John C. Leslie and Anne L. Clunan, “Bounding Institutional Authority in
Comparative Politics and International Relations,” Prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, September 2 - September 5, 2004. Copyright by the American
Political Science Association. My thanks to John Leslie for permission to rely on that collaboration here.
3
Explanations of nationalism such as those of Deutsch, Gellner, Haas, Benedict Anderson are obvious
exceptions to this.
1
Convention