Nominally, Thailand has never been colonized by western imperial states. However, just as Benedict Anderson stated that ¡§it¡¦s borders were colonially determined, therefore, one can see unusually clearly the emergence of a new state-mind within a ¡¥traditional¡¦ structure of political power¡¨. In order to resist the invasion of imperialism, Siam¡¦s rulers bent their attention to build a polity corresponded with the game rule of the Sovereign State System. It required that Siam¡¦s political and cultural boundaries must be overlapping. Then Thainess which was based on the trinitarian mystery of ¡§Nation, Religion, and King¡¨ was created, and became the central value of Thailand¡¦s national identity. During the last one hundred years, Thai rulers impose the Thai nationalism on their people within border. Consequently, there are so many conflicts between the dominant ethnic group and the ethnic minorities while the policy of national assimilation is put into practice by way of national education system, religion, and the mass media. Recently, with the tides of de-territorialization, and de-nationalization, the capability of nation-state as a basic unit of international system is questionable. It¡¦s the best time to rethink the constituents of nation-sate, especially the role of boundary and identity. Undoubtedly, Thailand is the best object of study because of it¡¦s distinctive historical legacy.

Wars are moments of significant rupture for states, societies, and economies. Wars where one state suffers significant territorial losses can be particularly challenging for states, their power structures, and the prevailing visions and identities in their geopolitical cultures. How states react to territorial losses is a compelling area for research. The recent experiences of the Republic of Armenia present a rich case study in how states adjust to territorial change. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of an independent Armenian state was accompanied by war over a disputed territory with neighbouring Azerbaijan. By the time of the cease-fire of the First Karabakh War in 1994, Armenia held its own territory and strongly supported the Armenian-populated unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. "Karabakh is ours", which served as a long-standing slogan of the geopolitical culture of Armenia, was shattered as a result of the Second Karabakh War of 2020, during which Azerbaijani forces gained control over considerable territory. The status quo after the war had notable impact on the province of Siunik in southern Armenia as well. This dissertation is a study in the aftermath of territorial shock, looking to the framework of geopolitical culture and the category of the geo-body to account for the developments in Armenia generally and in Siunik in particular since 2020. Drawing on the literature of critical geopolitics as well as fieldwork conducted in Armenia, the dissertation argues that the shock and trauma of the war has caused deep disruption and fragmentation in the geopolitical culture of Armenia, which remains in crisis. There are disputed and competing territorial visions of the country, some of which are manifested as centre-periphery distinctions between the capital Yerevan and the province of Siunik. The strong local identity of the province serves as a basis to look to ideological tropes of nationalist imaginations as a coping mechanism while facing precarious circumstances. Material geographical realities and discursive or ideological imaginations continue to be in tension in Armenia, especially in Siunik. / Doctor of Philosophy / Wars are moments of significant disruption for states and societies. Wars in which a state suffers significant territorial losses can be particularly challenging for governments and the people, and how they think of themselves. How states react to territorial losses is a compelling area for research. The recent experiences of the Republic of Armenia present a rich case study in how states adjust to territorial change. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of an independent Armenian state was accompanied by war over a disputed territory with neighbouring Azerbaijan. At the time of the cease-fire of 1994, the Armenian side emerged with consolidated territorial gains. Following years of peace negotiations and some escalations, Azerbaijani forces launched a large-scale offensive in 2020, as a result of which much territory changed hands. The status quo after the war had notable impact on the province of Siunik in southern Armenia as well. This dissertation is a study in the aftermath of territorial changes. It looks to how states and societies think about themselves and their territories. To say that a territory is disputed between two or more parties is a straightforward observation. But it is worth asking more nuanced questions: how is territory framed, how does that framing inform disputes, and how might a better understanding of those framings help resolve them? In the case of Armenia, this dissertation argues that the government and people remain in a state of shock and trauma two years after the end of the war. There is a disconnect between framings, future visions, and prospects as expressed by the central government of Armenia and the experiences and expectations of people on the ground in Siunik. Many studies of conflicts focus on politics, diplomacy, and international affairs. They may bring to the surface humanitarian issues, questions of public international law, art, justice, or history. This dissertation invites the reader to think more about the geography of conflicts, both as a material reality and as an ideological value.

No description available.