After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Asia appeared on the world stage as a sub-system in the wider Eurasian continent. Because of its vast and rich natural resources and its strategic location with respect to Afghanistan, within the discipline of International Relations Central Asia has been widely considered as a mere ‘pawn’ in the competition among the Great Powers for geo-political and geo-economic advantage in the area. This framework of analysis, strongly focusing on systemic factors, has often downplayed and silenced the dense intra-regional political dynamics at play. In the few instances where these dynamics have been studied, the international relations of Central Asian states have always been read through a strongly realist framework of analysis. Since these states are more interested in dealing with foreign powers than with themselves, since there are not Central Asian regional organisations and since several problems, mostly related to water- management and border issues, hinder cooperation between them, the region has often been described as a paramount example of realism at play. This thesis, challenging the existent literature on the region, shows that an English School (ES) reading of Central Asian regional politics reveals much more than it is usually believed to be present there, and that despite the strong confrontational character of the region, these states have managed to coexist relatively peacefully. How? Drawing on a variety of primary sources, interviews with diplomats and practitioners conducted in the region and on the analysis of official documents and statements, this research finds that Central Asia represents an in fieri, but nonetheless existent, regional international society, featuring also local, peculiar interpretations of global norms and institutions, where cooperation and confrontation have always been intertwined and seldom mutually exclusive. Being the first work in the literature to use ES theory to study Central Asian international politics, this thesis advances two agendas: it suggests new, more nuanced and ‘autoptic’ readings of the Central Asian region while encouraging the ES to expand into the ‘heartland’, therefore bringing forward the recently established comparative agenda on international society at the regional level.

Le gouvernement international des frontières d’Asie centrale (Kirghizstan, Tadjikistan, Ouzbékistan, Kazakhstan, Turkménistan) comprend les projets de gestion des frontières conduits par l’OSCE, la Commission européenne, l’ONUDC et l’OIM entre 1992 et 2012. Ils organisent l’import/export d’une expertise alignant les limites étatiques dans cette région sur un double impératif de mobilité et de sécurité. Comment ces savoirs sur la frontière circulent-ils à travers ces dernières ? Les projets passent par trois univers distincts. Ils prennent attache sur les sociétés centrasiatiques aux intersections entre flux et contrôle. Les équipements qu’ils fournissent n’encadrent toutefois les pratiques de vérification que dans une mesure très variable. Ces investissements sont décidés dans des comités de pilotage situés dans un microcosme qu’on appelle le champ d’opérations. Cet espace se configure selon un capital dont le volume décrit l’autonomie des opérateurs, et dont la structure signale leur niveau de spécialisation dans les mondes du développement et de la sécurité. Sa structure sanctionne positivement les acteurs qui accumulent la plus grande quantité de capital social. Les enceintes d’autorisation sont quant à elles encastrées dans un espace transnational gravitant autour de Bruxelles et de Vienne. Tandis que l’Asie centrale est construite comme un enjeu d’intérêt secondaire au sein du champ de l’Eurocratie, les acteurs de la place viennoise lui accordent une importance plus grande. Les élites transnationales les plus subalternes sont incitées à s’établir dans cette zone de relégation, car elles peuvent plus facilement y rétablir leurs positions respectives. / The international government of Central Asian Borders (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan) refers to projects in the field of border management that have been implemented by the OSCE, the European Commission, the UNODC and IOM between 1992 and 2012. These activities import and export a type of expertise aimed at bringing state boundaries in line with an imperative of mobility and security. But how does this border knowledge circulate across borders in the first place? During their life cycle, projects go through three different social universes. Firstly, they connect with Central Asian societies where control and flows intersect. They provide some equipment which only frames checks and controls to some extent. The steering committees deciding over these investments are embedded in a particular social universe that we call the field of operation. This second space is configured according to a capital whose volume corresponds to the level of autonomy that each implementing agency holds, and whose structure refers to their specialization in development and/or security. The practical logic of this field positively sanctions the accumulation of social capital by individual brokers. The authorization-giving arenas, finally, are situated in a transnational space polarized around Brussels and Vienna. Whilst Central Asia is constructed as a place of secondary interest within the field of Eurocracy, actors working from Vienna perceive this region as a more important issue. Subaltern transnational elites tend establish themselves in such unattractive areas because they gain leeway where they can re-establish themselves as important players from there.