| Summary/Abstract |
During the past two decades, scholars have critically examined the political role of space and territory and advanced our understanding of borders with dynamic concepts based on identities and narratives. The literature, though, is divided between works that emphasize domestic politics and those that concentrate on international norms. We seek to bridge this gap by developing a general theoretical framework to understand domestic recognition, or lack thereof, of new borders that result from war losses. We use the case of West Germany post–World War II—which went from non-recognition of its new eastern border along the Oder–Neisse line to full recognition—to develop a theoretical model explaining changing border policies. We conceptualize the interaction between foreign policy priorities, domestic constituency considerations, and international norms and find that when domestic border narratives and primary foreign policy goals of the political coalition in power both point to the same policy direction (acceptance or non-acceptance of the border) then such a policy is likely to be adopted by the leadership. If, on the other hand, foreign policy goals and dominant domestic border narratives differ, we are likely to see a continuation of the border policy. In those periods of silence, however, change still takes place through a stronger influence and gradual internalization of international norms. Over time, then, we may observe a change in the dominant narrative, which could be followed by a policy change.
|