Page 1 of 27
THE IMPACT OF BORDER WALLS ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND
CONFLICT PREVENTION
Introduction
Border walls: physical manifestations of security concerns and sovereignty
International boundaries are as old as diplomacy and define the geographical extent of
any sovereign country and demarcate the territories of countries. In the recent decades as
globalization enhanced the interconnectivity between nations, issues related to security and
especially border control became of core concern for many nation-states especially to address the
issues of immigration, smuggling etc and more so to handle external threats, which meant that
many nations began to fortify their borders with physical barriers such as walls and fences with
the aim of regulating the flow of commodities and individuals across the borders. More recently,
during the past few decades the United States has erected walls and fences along the U.S.-
Mexico border; Israel built a wall with Palestine; India constructed a wall with Pakistan; and
within the continent of Europe. The proponents of such border walls argue that these structures
are indeed essential, inasmuch as they are representations of sovereignty and security of a nation
in terms of determining who or what is allowed to cross over the borders of the nation.
Opponents argue that border walls are merely political stances aimed at nationalism and
xenophobia, which lack the substantive benefits of real border protection or national interests
when analyzed more closely. Border walls also experience criticisms for splitting communities
living on different sides of borders which were previously more permeable to people‟s
movements. The construction of the border walls and fences around the world in present times
can be understood as literal representations of how much value is attached to the sovereignty and
security of the borders in the increasingly integrated world in front of a plethora of policy
Page 2 of 27
difficulties including but not limited to the matters of cross border smuggling, terrorism, and
cross border diseases, and the most contentious immigration issues like the immigration of the
illegals which requires the balance and the measure keeping in view both It is safe to say that
their future will be shaped by the ability of the policymakers to craft comprehensive solutions
that respond to the underlying policy issues and not merely with the help of the physical barriers
to borders.
Increasing prevalence of border barriers in the 21st century
Later, in the 21st century, the world observed a shift toward the construction of more
border barriers with governments opting for concrete walls, fences, and other embankments, in
addition to other forms of security enhancement. One is to reduce illegal immigration; the most
well-known example of which is the construction of a wall between Mexico and the United
States which was pledged by Trump as a candidate and continues to be proposed in his
presidency. Physical barriers are viewed as a solution to control the movement of immigrants
and keep them away from crossing borders illicitly. Another major reason is to counter security
threats, where Australia, Israel and Saudi Arabia and India have built border walls for at least in
part counterterrorism purpose. There are also geopolitical factors where barriers are put up to
signal sovereignty and territorial demarcation, which is evident with barriers constructed by
Russia along the Ukrainian border. As more countries integrate into the global economy through
trade and movement of people and ideas, there is for some countries a reaction to regain the lost
ability to control through erecting walls. Nevertheless, border barriers are still not well received
and criticized as being expensive, inefficient, damaging to communities, and contrary to the
spirit of global collaboration. This has created a number of legal, ethical and human rights issues
which are equally complicated by their increasing incidence. Finally, however, borders can be
Page 3 of 27
seen as meeting certain perceived domestic interests but at a cost of provoking regional conflict
and forming a part of the overall shift in the general liberal globalization paradigm of the post-
cold-war late twentieth century to the paradigm of restricted or even hostile borders between
even peaceful neighbors in twenty-first century. It will be uncertain how the US and European
Union citizens will in future deal with issues of security, mobility and human rights based on
fragile political deals.
Complex implications for international relations and conflict dynamics
The challenging part is that the modern world relations involve many more facets and
layers that are hard to define and deal with in terms of conflicts. New roles and positioning, new
potential conflicts appear as the world order changes and the balance of power between different
countries fluctuates and rearranges. It is rather vague as to how these macro-variables such as
climate change, technological disruption, demographic shifts, global health crises, and the like
will affect inter-state relations from tomorrow onwards. With the shift to multipolarity on the
rise, there seems to be even more holes for such flashpoints to occur, but on the same note the
interconnectivity of the world is somewhat a safety measure against raw conflict. In any case, it
is important to navigate the conflicts of interest and cooperation between states not only
skillfully but also taking into account the specifics. Pugnacious battles in localized affairs can
quickly metamorphose into ideological contests or involve outside forces in the proxy wars.
Hence, international institutions and norms appear all the more indispensable despite the fact that
some politic al players challenge the legitimacy of the former. It is also probable that 21st
century geopolitics will be characterized by no clear-cut laws applicable to world politics.
However, when rapid changes disrupt the paradigms, the future of the international relations, at
best, is shrouded in the veil of uncertainty. This call for realistic and rational planning that has to
Page 4 of 27
take into consideration the existing conditions in the world today. Of course the risks are
obvious, and what makes it even more intriguing is the possibility for new and innovative types
of collaboration and positive development, if only the key players are able to rise above their
specific interests. In the end, it is about the unity of the world and how it copes with the
problems affecting everyone despite the complications with which it is supplied.
Psychological Effects of Border Walls on Populations
Border Walls: Symbol of division fostering mistrust between nations
Borders have always been deemed as the barriers, the boundaries that marked out
territories and the sovereignty of countries. In different periods of history, leaders and authorities
erected walls and barriers along borders as sign of the territories‟ boundaries and to regulate
movements of people, goods, and prohibited items. Historic examples of walls built include the
Great Wall of China, the Hadrian Wall in Britain, the Berlin Wall, and wall separating Mexico
and United States and the Israeli West Bank Wall. The declared purpose of border walls are
usually related to the security issues, to halt the influx of immigrants, drug traffickers, drug
mules and terrorists and to curb crimes and drug trade. At the same time, walls and fences built
along the borders are not only tangible partitions; they also signify „the other side‟; distrust
between people and governments, and between nations, as well as the desire to emphasize one‟s
unique identity while repudiating the other. Border walls are criticized for increasing nationalism
and creating enmity instead of goodwill, collaboration and joint problem solving; they note that
motivated individuals will always find a way to breach the barriers erected. Advocates of border
security state that security has to be established through the protection of the physical space,
regulation of entry of people into a country, as well as guarding citizens from the negative
aspects of society such as criminals and terrorists. While there are logical reasons to support each
Page 5 of 27
side, the existence of border walls means that the, often very visible, physical divide between
two countries can prevent the want for compromise and nurturing of relations between two
nations. Instead of people gathering around the common goals and beliefs in the society, walls
say, „Do not trespass,” and highlight real or perceived dangers inherent in other civilizations.
Border barriers thus become political symbols which can be used by governments to make
distinctions between them and their neighboring countries and also to show their counterparts
unwillingness to deal with global problems as partners. As much as border security is important,
barriers in form of walls and fences are rather more of a way of creating barriers between people
and negating any positive vibes that are created by uniting people from different countries.
Border Walls as sense of security potentially masking underlying issues
Physical barriers such as walls could offer a psychological relief in terms of defining
borders but they do little to explain why people migrate or why certain threats persist in crossing
borders. Despite the fact that the wall can define boundaries, metaphorical walls often have this
hidden effect of making the nations not look for more substantive changes. Erecting walls is
often a desperate act that provides only the facade of protection much of the time instead of a
system of protection. Bulwarks constructed as a result of psychological barriers or isolationism
grant psychic protection of walls instead of rational changes in policies that would be useful in
balancing immigration or redefining relations with neighborly countries. But however visible the
walls may seem, it avoids coming with a detailed complex picture. Indeed, no wall can
effectively sort dynamic flows of people and deliveries all by itself. These social, economic, and
political motives either positive or negative remain intact behind whatever social barrier exists.
Picture ID checks, patrol agents, surveillance technologies, and processing facilities afford
border control much more than explicit markers on the ground. Nevertheless, politicians tend to
Page 6 of 27
use public speeches to stress the need for walls with great passion while ignoring realistic
feasibility concerns. Besides, fences define nationalism; thus walls are adequate for some parties.
Yet, their claimed authority is balancing immigration relies on enforcement operations‟
backstage to perform the more significant work. Walls only address the effects of migration and
cross-border crime whereas strong reform for the inherent motives is effective in tackling the
roots. When undocumented influxes continue to increase, with increased border controls, missed
opportunities arise to either bring policy in line with global economic conditions or enhance
governing capacities in other countries. Additional spending in data-driven visas and selective
temporary worker programs, bilateral development or trade pact balance may help to mitigate
underlying pressures. Dependence on walls may mean that people never look for ethical systems
for the domestic people and the foreigners but instead work under an „us versus them‟ mentality,
which is unhealthy. It would be far more effective for leaders to look beyond the barriers before
those barriers are set in concrete and engage with the concept of intrapersonal and interpersonal
needs being mutual.
Border Walls’ impact on cross-border communities and cultural exchanges
The erection of a wall or a fence between countries as a measure to control immigration
and movement of people frequently affects the lives of people residing on either side of the
border, as well as cultural exchange between the two nations. The sudden imposition of a
physical divide in the form of a wall to regions that otherwise share open borders complicates the
day to day existence of persons residing in border towns and cities who are used to crossing the
border at will. For instance, the construction of the wall along the US-Mexico border has led to
difficulties in movement among residents of such cities as El Paso in Texas and Ciudad Juarez in
Mexico by restricting movement in search of education, employment, food, or social contact
Page 7 of 27
with loved ones on the other side of the border. This has had adverse effects on the economies of
the neighboring countries that have dependence on cross border travellers. Cultural barriers
section people of a particular culture from those of another culture through construction of walls
or fences. Some indigenous communities like the Tohono O‟odham Nation of Native American
have some of its members on either side of the border having been demarcated by the wall hence
limiting mobility within their ancestral territories. This separates families and interferes with
praying times in religious practices and traditions. The walls at borders in Europe, Africa, Asia,
or elsewhere divide people of different culture and ethnicity with their histories, language, or
religion, which could well span several countries because of colonial boundaries drawn with
little consideration for ethnic homogeneity. Other than the effects on the community, the
construction of border walls limits the normal cross-border interaction between cultures of those
countries. Tourism, student exchange, sporting events and artistic performances all need open
borders to effect exchanges that will promote interaction and understanding between peoples.
Albeit having sensible justifications for border security, physical barriers are worst physical
structures for the people of border regions, resulting in negative impacts on social cohesion,
economic prospects, indigenous identity, and possibilities of meetings and interaction with the
neighboring countries. Care must be taken to ensure that security concerns are met without at the
same time providing for a situation where individuals with regional interests and identities are
separated from one another.
Humanitarian Implications of Border Wall Policies
Refugee and asylum seeker access to safety
Neighboring countries have also been known to use bureaucratic measures in an effort to
control the flow of immigrants; such measures include wall and fences. However, these policies
Page 8 of 27
often have humanitarian repercussions that endanger the lives of some of the most vulnerable
individuals on this planet – refuges and asylum seekers who are leaving violent and/or
persecuting environments. During migrating as a result of danger, the refugees and asylum
seekers are in dire need of protection, shelter, and basic freedoms. However, the existence of
border walls and policies of exclusion – including in countries with a right to asylum recognized
under international law – deprives people of safe space and protection. For instance, the building
of the wall of extended border barriers between Mexico and the United States has compelled
refugees and asylum seekers find other risky routes, more than 3,000 migrants have died in the
Sonoran desert in the last 20 years. Like in Europe, the put up barbed wire between Greece and
Turkey has made asylum seekers to pay smugglers through their neck and risk their lives on an
overcrowded sea in the Mediterranean. Sadly, this has led to the loss of refugee and migrant lives
with around 23,000 drowning in the Mediterranean over the past two decades. While preventing
asylum seekers from accessing safe ground, border walls also allow border patrol agents to
physically remove asylum seekers without the need to undertakes protection needs assessments
or non-refoulement considerations. Border walls have also been criticized on the grounds of
International Humanitarian Law and Principles of Refugee Law were it deems to eliminate the
possibilities of persons in distress to seek refuge and access rights to basic need in life. One has
to remember that the question of borders‟ security remains among the interests of many states
and the EU; however, approaches to border management have to be elaborated according to the
international legislation and take into consideration the rights of refugees and asylum seekers.
Some ideas that may help restore the balance between the security concerns and the continuing
refugee issue are as follows: well developed humanitarian policies that ensure availability of
protection for refugees; well-conceived and well implemented policies that offer safe solutions to
Page 9 of 27
refugees‟ perilous journeys through borders. The international society needs to employ measures
that ensure that those individuals facing persecution get a legal window to seek asylum.
Human rights concerns regarding wall construction methods
The issue of building walls or fences to regulate immigrants‟ arrival in a country has the
following human rights implications. Even more importantly, the acquisitions of the land as well
as the construction procedures more often than not do not take into consideration the rights of the
locals or the environment. To construct barriers along the border, the governments often invoke
the right of eminent domain, hence exercising legal power to acquire private property for public
use within the borders with a compensation offer. However, the compensation provided for may
not cover the economic and cultural significance of the land for its original owners/occupants
and the Native Americans‟ tribal nations, whose land is divided by this line. Even the
construction of the site put at risk the existing fauna and flora of the region in case of inadequate
environmental impact assessments. The remains of the equipment and the oil, which are released
in the process of machinery operation, can negatively impact the ecosystems that are used by
people for water supply. Moreover, walls as a measure to prevent the migrants‟ crossings to
another point call for more dangers to cross through deserts and mountains. Hundreds have
worked from thirst, heat stroke and hypothermia while trying to avoid border barriers. There are
also legal challenges that arise when migrants, who are in need of emergency assistance or
asylum, are denied entry into the country to claim legal asylum. Females and children are among
the most at risk and are likely to get raped, trafficked, and detained in the shelters located on the
Mexico side of the border. Another common situation of family separation is when some but not
all of the family members reach the safe land and remain unable to reunite. At the same time, it
is important to emphasize that many walls have been built without paying special attention to the
Page 10 of 27
rights and the needs of bordering communities and, more importantly, migrants. As earlier
pointed out, attaining security objectives in the Southeast Asian region requires policies that
respect social, economic and environmental structures to enhance the dignity of human beings. It
has always been a question for governments in the modern world to weigh their sovereign right
by controlling the borders against the humanitarian responsibility while enacting policies and
measures.
Health impacts on populations divided by barriers
The construction of the walls and barriers for the borders is potential to damage the
humanitarian as well as the health of the people living in those regions. Walls socially isolate
people, stop health necessary services, separate families from caregivers, and cause mental
suffering due to mobility restrictions. For example, the wall built between the United States and
Mexico has constrained how those in the border areas of the two nations to access the HC and
care givers in adjacent country. This is especially the case where they are in need of special
attention or treatment which may be hard to come by back at their homes. Even issues as basic as
individuals who are related and are assigned by the society to take care of their kin or those who
stay with them and assume the responsibility of their guardians particularly in medical related
matters may also be equally disadvantaged by this restricted border and movement systems. In
addition, fragmented societies tend to have a long-term stress anxiety and depression influencing
the family separation difficult economic conditions and social exclusion. It is evidenced from the
research that augments physical health illnesses and slowly weakens the immune systems in the
specifically studied subject. Indigenous peoples with cross border territories are likely to be
locked out of their ancestral ceremonies and natural resources that are parts of health and
wellbeing. Thus, even if one looks at it from the standpoint of public health values, reasons for
Page 11 of 27
justice and equity, or human rights, border walls that change the notion of open borders and the
ability to move freely is scarce. Non-discrimination and the respect for non-stigmatization are
amongst the most basic coupled principles of public health; yet, a border wall is detrimental to
vulnerable but stigmatized populations. Border walls are also condemned for the disposal of the
public funds that can otherwise be used to build right healthcare centers and meet people‟s basic
needs. The humanitarian and medical justice point of views that are associated with the
construction of the border walls and barriers have to be measured regarding to the social justice
and medical ethical rules by the policy makers. Probably, more positive change focused on the
legalization of immigrants, providing them with equal rights and healthcare and improving the
relations between immigrants and communities might be more effective from the standpoint of
public health.
Geopolitical Shifts Resulting from Border Fortifications
Power dynamics alteration in regional security landscapes
The power and superior relations among the countries bring dramatic changes to the
regional security systems when people start constructing fences at borders. However, it is worth
pointing out that the only reason that is connected to the construction of walls and fences is
security, although there may be other reasons that could be mentioned in the context of
immigration regulation or geopolitical status. Whereas in the case of regional dominance if a
regional power begins building boundaries, the dynamics of power politics and security
architecture in a region is altered. For instance, physical barriers such as the Bengal Barrier
Indian Government have built along the border of Pakistan and Bangladesh is to curb on cross
border terrorism and influx of illegal immigrants. At the same time, these walls also indicate
India‟s ability to act as a hegemon in South Asia and fence off its neighbors without their
Page 12 of 27
consent. The barriers contribute to conflict with such nations as Pakistan and Bangladesh since
they portray that there is no trust in the international system. They also demonstrate mobility and
aggression of India in the border disputes especially in an attempt to protect its self-interests.
Therefore, they redefine structure power relations as well as security in regions.
The Indian government gains more control over territory boundaries while the Pakistani
and Bangladeshi governments are displeased with the barbed wires separating people and land.
This only aggravates existing conflicts between the countries that have been existing for a long
time. Therefore, border barriers contribute to regional security for New Delhi by altering the
neighbors‟ behavior but at the same time, worsen the relations with neighbors. The walls protect
India from regional powers but, at the same time, are emblematic of new political issues
concerning neighboring countries nor is it simply about enhancing the physical security of the
India‟s borders, but the strategic value of each and every one of them. They forecast shifts of
power balance in some geographical locations. Therefore, one can see that it is quite obvious that
constructions of borders are to enhance the rating of a specific country and its importance in
enhancing security within a particular area. However, they also usually worsen relations of the
first-tier neighbors for the former in physical terms. These changes in influence and broken
cross-border cooperation are deemed to lessen the stability and interaction of larger regions. In
most instances, those security assurances for one dominant country are procured at the cost of
collateral political damage. Border barriers can be advantageous to the builder nation;
nevertheless, they are usually disadvantageous to the steadiness of the larger neighborhood.
Therefore, these effects are not limited to providing support to one aggressive nation‟s goal of
fortifying borders for regional hegemony.
Strategic realignments in response to perceived isolation
Page 13 of 27
Construction of walls and fences within the borders has posed immense implications as to
the transformation of the relations and alliances of nations inter alia because of the shift in the
circumstances which make people feel enclosed by the construction of the walls. Every time
nations start construction of structures like walls, fences, and other barriers such as those
separating the states, the relations, business, and movement that existed between the states are
changed, thus becoming a barrier between nations and their neighbors. This results in responding
actions and reactions as local states and excluded countries seek new partners and other
strategies in a bid to regain the previous trans-border interactions. For example, as the US
tightens its borders especially the southern one through the lengthening of the security fencing
and barriers, Mexico and Central American states have strived to integrate with other states in
the global periphery beyond North America in order to cut their dependence on the US. Mexico
and all the Central American nations have shifted their policies and actively sought to diversify
their trade and cooperation not only with the South American neighbors but also the European
Union and China other than the US as their exclusive economic partner. This can be seen as a
direct response to the feeling of social isolation from the US due to a greater emphasis on border
security. Such reactions have been witnessed all over the world as countries have put up walls
and fences. In general, construction of border structures provokes regional remobilization, as the
states on the other sides of those walls, ostracized both physically and systematically, look for
ways to lessen the consequences of such isolation by engaging in more active diplomatic
relations with other centers of power in their respective regions. They then use that opportunity
to assert more domineering power in terms of economic, political and at times military assistance
and partnership. The effects resulting from border barriers distorted in the narrative illustrate that
while the political globe is increasingly intertwined; the process of isolation of one state sets off
Page 14 of 27
a chain reaction of consequences among other states‟ relations and power balance in the region.
Security barriers might seek to deter and socially exclude dangers but end up generating
unpredictable local changes as targeted states respond to notions of exclusion produced via the
construction of impenetrable international borders.
Influence on global perceptions of national priorities
National interests determine the way a country is portrayed internationally and also affect
other countries‟ diplomacy. Armament and development of technology are usually imbued with
the concepts of power and dominance, which are most often associated with superpowers such as
the United States, China, and Russia. For instance, the China‟s spending on developing its
modern military and space capabilities for the last two decades has greatly changed the
perception of the nation from a harmless developing country to a budding superpower rival. On
the other hand, the countries that are not focused on military might like global warming concern
and international charity can increase their soft power and influence around the world. Among
the countries of the world, Sweden and Norway stands out as these two nations spend about
1.07% and 1.02% respectively of their gross national incomes on foreign aid. This spending is in
line with national beliefs towards responsibility and this is one of the reasons why those
countries are being viewed as great models to emulate on matters of human rights and
sustainable development. Political domestic realms also, to an extent, influence international
perceptions due to the revelation of national values. This was evident in the early legalization of
cannabis in Canada and Uruguay that was in tandem with perceived changes in the protection of
individual freedoms and drug liberalization, which was associated with the liberal image. On the
other hand, new abortion limitations in Poland and actions against the rights of LGBT people in
Hungary caused warnings about the degradation of democracy that has affected the reputation of
Page 15 of 27
those countries. Besides policy initiatives, even the words and actions of political leaders can
build up or erode the credibility of a country in the international system. This is because Former
U.S. President Trump made America‟s interests as the main priority; this created the impression
of Americans as selfish people who are not willing to bear the world‟s burdens. In Brazil, Lula‟s
crude remarks about race gender as well as the environment which Bolsonaro has peddled as a
president has affirmed this notion of reactionary populism. While optimistic/impressive clichés
must be shunned, it is impossible to overemphasize the fact that a nation‟s management of
domestic issues shapes how its government, culture, and society are perceived by the rest of the
world. Whereas in the pre-201x world, every country‟s priorities were local and responded to by
local interests only, now no priority is distant enough to be unaffected by other nations‟ opinions
and actions.
Technological Advancements in Border Wall Systems
Integration of surveillance technologies with physical barriers
Despite the fact that physical barriers and surveillance technologies have been utilized
together along the border, the later has had major development in the recent past. Similar to
watch towers, modern border fences and walls are fitted with video cameras, sensors, radar
systems, and other technologies to improve security. These smart border systems are designed to
include real-time monitoring and basically alert mechanisms which enable a quick response to
the threats. For example, seismic sensors can feel vibrations from the ground due to tunneling
below a border wall and immediately report such activity to the border agents before the tunnel
actually starts operating. Remote controlled cameras with infrared vision on high walls give
agents a view of what is happening on the other side and they are able to identify groups
approaching the wall especially at night. Other security systems that entail camera towers with
Page 16 of 27
qualitative imaging and analysis software are capable of identifying and monitoring human
activity, cars, or suspicious activities and send signals to agents for evaluation. The integration of
these force multiplying technologies directly into the barriers that are deployed at the borders
offers a variety of benefits including optimized usage and coverage area. This is a very effective
approach of combining virtual and physical enforcement of borders since the two forms a tight
net that is more secure, intelligent and quick in its actions. Current and future integration
solutions are under debate, such as anti-climb technologies, lighting integration, and even robotic
guards which are programmed to patrol some part of the border wall. The ongoing AI technology
innovations, the increased use of automation, and sophisticated sensors are opening doors to new
opportunities. The dream is to have a long-term monitoring of the entire land border and any
activity or threat going on in that area gives an immediate alert and prompt action. Smart
technologies interconnection with tactical structures at the border has become an advantage for
the police offering a superior containment sphere of information that is far beyond a simple
physical barbed-wire. This „virtualized‟ border offers the opportunity for an increased coverage,
sensitivity and precision of enforcement activities. While the combination of smooth
technological and physical impediments makes new opportunities for borders security capacity
that corresponds to contemporary innovations.
Cyber vulnerabilities introduced by "smart" border systems
It has been observed that with more countries turning to „smart‟ technological solutions
to beef up security along the borders, the systems themselves become weak links in the
cybersecurity chain which can be manipulated by cyber criminals. To enhance the effectiveness
of monitoring processes or respond to possible threats, sensors, cameras, databases, AI analytics,
and other sophisticated technologies are integrated into the structure of borders‟ walls and
Page 17 of 27
fences. Each networked component gives hackers a new means of infiltration and exploitation.
Whether conducted by hostile nations, terrorists, hackers, or criminals, the successful attack
could result in the ability to gain unauthorized remote access to computers and networks;
intercept communications; modify or disrupt monitoring capabilities; or extract biographical data
on travelers and security personnel. The weak encryption, flawed authentications, and inadequate
access control measures exacerbate these challenges. Country and region-specific data
repositories and analytic engines could be especially rewarding objectives for malicious actors,
through information theft or disruption of data-driven decision processes. Smart border systems
are closely interconnected and therefore the breach of security in one of the elements may
jeopardize the security of the entire smart border system. Furthermore, many countries that
import this kind of advanced technology may not have cybersecurity skills that are as advanced
as those of modern state-sponsored hackers. Thus, despite the fact that “smart” borders offer
large improvements in principle when it comes to security, insufficient protection measures lead
to the introduction of the certain cyber threats, such as smuggling and illegal immigration,
possible terrorist attacks, and acts of war. Such systems must be supported by commensurate
cyber defenses; the countries must run through adversarial exercises and vulnerability
assessments; there must be preparedness protocols for cyber-related emergencies; and the threat
landscape must be reassessed regularly. It seems that liberalization of borders should be done
along with susceptibilities opened by integration of technologies still with emergent and
unresolved vulnerabilities of both the hardware and the software. Even the slightest of openings
in defense could cause a level of devastation beyond what less technologically advanced
frontiers could have deterred using less sophisticated methods.
Arms race potential in border security technologies
Page 18 of 27
In a move towards safeguarding international boundaries, there could be a possibility of
having an „arms race‟ in the innovation of new technologies for border surveillance systems.
Traditionally arms races are viewed as a competition between two or more nations to accumulate
as powerful a weapon and a defense force as possible. In the specific case of border security, the
technologies themselves are not directly weaponized, however, there is pressure to invent new
technologies since every country tries to create systems which would be deemed better than
those of other countries for controlling the borders, which can lead to faster development and
deployment of solutions that meet the needs of business and consumers. The technologies in the
land borders include sensors and monitoring cameras, data analytics to enhance the detection and
interdiction ratios against the cross-border unauthorized migration, artificial intelligence system,
and robotics sentinels. In this case there will likely be strong incentives to integrate new
capabilities that will include biometrics, drone and augmented reality interfaces depending on the
future developments of these fields. For some countries, demonstrating power on borders or
technological supremacy might be enough of a reason to flaunt and boast of one‟s military might.
On the other hand, it can also be seen that inequality of economic and technological capabilities
between neighboring states could also prompt a skewed investment in border tech for those that
are felt to be „behind‟ the process. But, similar to earlier arms races, aggressive pressures
towards increased border tech development might welcome negative consequences. The use of
rapid deployment of force may be counterproductive if it is not supervised and may lead to the
violation of human rights. Extensive apparatus developed for borders may one day turn on its
builders and be used to domesticate a state‟s own populace. But there are also expectations that
technology can offer some non-warlike ways to improve the situation with borders‟ security,
rather than armed guards or manifestations of military might. It may be that through careful
Page 19 of 27
consideration and collaboration it is possible to have our cake and eat it – that is to gain the
advantages that come with technological advancement of the border security environment,
without creating the negative arms race dynamics seen in other arenas. Since the incentives and
risks are entailed by this competitive environment, they should be taken into account as border
systems evolve.
Diplomatic Repercussions of Border Wall Policies
Strained bilateral relations due to unilateral decisions
The current construction of the border wall that was promoted by the Trump
administration in the United States on the border between the two countries has raised tensions
and decreased the levels of cooperation between the two countries. The building of the border
wall was developed and executed without proper participation of Mexican representative
institutions, which contradicted the idea of unity and collaboration that was characteristic of the
previous years. This has been perceived by Mexico as a despise to its sovereignty and interests
by going it alone. Since building the border wall goes on, depending on the US directives and
resources only, several other ramifications for the communities and ecosystems throughout the
border area have emerged without the cooperative planning and assessment. For example,
passages for crossing over, movement corridors, and habitat connectivity have been blocked,
migration routes disturbed, and habitats divided. Moreover, there is defilement of cultural assets
and areas significant to native populations of border regions. A significant number of
environmental and social impact assessments that do not include binational stakeholders have
emerged due to the side-by-side planning and construction of the border wall. The unilateral
border wall plans have also excluded other historic two-country border management strategies
such as border 2012 program that was a cooperation plan geared towards spending on integrated
Page 20 of 27
border infrastructure, technology and human resources that aimed at increasing security while at
the same time promoting legal cross border movement of people, goods and services. Since
Trump administration has gone ahead constructing the border wall without any benchmark of
cooperation between the US and Mexico the joint mechanisms for the cooperative border
management are left idle. This would be devastating to the two nations and effectively unravel
all the progress that was achieved in the last fifty years of focusing on both security and
economic/social factors. Finally, if there is no going back to the days of working together with
the bilateral agreement to effectively address the border issues, the wall will only be an infamous
monument that is likely to impede relations between the US and Mexico for many more years to
come. Particularly when it comes to handling security concerns along the border, strategic
approaches to diplomacy and leadership will be needed to rebuild the broken relationships. It is a
truth universally acknowledged that no state acting alone can offer the stable and efficient
solutions when the concerns of different countries and borders come into play.
International law challenges regarding territorial demarcations
Basically, territorial boundaries have always been an issue of international concern and
have caused diplomatic conflicts; whereas the construction of barriers for stopping people from
crossing the border has recently been in the center of attention of international law. As is evident,
there are several significant global law concerns regarding border walls and territorial
demarcation. The first one arises from the prohibition of the principle of sovereignty in
international law that grants states the right to regulate movement across borders, but building
walls and fences can also infringe other principles that are interconnected with migrants‟
treatment, the right to seek asylum, and indigenous peoples‟ rights to access land and resources
they share across borders demarcated by walls and fences. For instance, construction of more
Page 21 of 27
barriers particularly the construction of the border wall between the United States of America
and Mexico under more rigid immigration laws of the United States of America has attracted
criticism from United Nations as well as Inter-American Commission on Human Rights among
others on grounds of violation of principles of international human rights law and covenants on
humane treatment of immigrants irrespective of their immigration status whether refugees or
asylum seekers. In addition, actions such as Hungary or Kenya building new barriers at its border
that are designed to block migrants and refugees contravenes international laws and obligations
regarding the allowance of entry for those with genuine reasons for fleeing oppression or
hardship. Another key concern is that border walls that do not align with previously established
geographical boundary demarcations can also breed border tensions because they give an
impression of encroaching on territory, as has been the case with ethnic groups separated by
current border structures across regions in Central Asia to the occupied Palestinian territories.
Since it concerns issues of national sovereign prerogative, international human rights law, and
conventions regarding refugees, indigenous people, as well as against extrajudicial taking of
territories in between nations, border walls cannot but give rise to multiple concerns from the
international legal perspective, not only as for their construction but their mere existence is likely
to foster diplomatic crises rather than just the construction of the walls themselves. As countries
nowadays increase the control of their borders due to the trends of migration, instability of
neighbors, or uncertain borders, these issues of international law will become even more burning
points of conflict in the future years.
Multilateral cooperation complications in transnational issues
The cooperation on the transnational matter like migration has been raising complex over
past few years because of the rise in nationalist attitudes and mentality of individualism.
Page 22 of 27
Immigration has thus become a domestic political issue with diplomatic consequences where
building walls and other mechanisms of curtailing immigration remain contentious issues in
many countries. Every time some countries decide to behave according to what they deem their
national interest as a basis, this obstructs many partnership strategies. New border walls also
decrease possibilities of safe and orderly migration which was witnessed by the border wall that
began in 2018 between Mexico and the United States. They also disclosed the probability of
aggravating the relations with other neighboring countries not to mention worsening them. But
the supporters of using border walls state that border walls will improve principles of the
territorial state and security needs of countries. These two contrary theories illustrate why and
how immigration and border matters are problematic for the multilateralism structures. Even
though it lays ground in legislation, the sustainable and legally permissible management of
migrations is also managing tensions between several domestic interests of several countries and
their national and diplomatic duties on the international level. However, in better conditions,
when the multilateral migration compacts reached collectively are non-binding and require
domestic action, and do not imply internationalization nationalist pressures can be dominant.
These issues have thus brought out the need to address the challenges that hinder the chances of
international relations in the attainment of goals that affect multiple countries in midst of
domestic politics, national self-interest and continuing of the relations despite the differences.
This means fixing the problems of mixed migration flows in the countries of origin with proper
respect for sovereignty. Also to improve the ability of asylum systems to fairly and within
reasonable time processes the claims made by refugee. However, it is quite logical to say that the
current policies to construct the wall and minimize the number of legal entries into first-world
countries aggravate the situation rather than improving it and insulting partners in the region.
Page 23 of 27
Such spill-over effects help to explain why Laird‟s inconsistent unilateral policies fail to promote
correct multilateral cooperation in the area, especially regarding the interdependent transnational
problems. Intersectional and intracompound entangled relationships of sensitive policy issues
like restricted migration and border walls lead to multifaceted diplomatic implications resulting
from nationalism and internationalism within domestic and foreign contexts as seen through
multiple faces of different countries‟ intersections.
Conclusion
Border walls: complex tools with multifaceted security implications
The utility of constructing border walls cannot be reduced to the fact that they are
security features with no drawbacks; they possess positives as well. On one hand, physical
barriers are culture erections of walls at the border in order to inhibit cross border movement and
crimes. Of course, it will be appropriate to state that physical barriers do contribute to the
enhanced effectiveness of the given method in a way that the search for those individuals who
attempt to immigrate to the United States through an unauthorized route is facilitated and they
are redirected to the checkpoints, what allows the border enforcement personnel focus on those
sections. Walls also restrain illegitimate crossings and, although momentarily as a matter of fact,
also slow down legitimate crossers, thus leaving sufficient time for the agents to arrest the
violators. However, there are some disadvantages that people have to encounter while having
some walls as well. The permanent people have proved that they can avoid and evade the
barriers by scaling, or even boring through or even getting through the walls. Walls compel
border crossers to make risks in desert or mountains; this explains why many perish while
crossing the borders. One should also know that Barriers are just one among the multiple
elements of the strategy in borders protection. Security guards, equipments and other
Page 24 of 27
requirements which are required for covering up the long borders and keeping a watchful eye on
the areas which are most sensitive in nature. Wall structure has been greatly condemned by the
sceptics because it produces a sense of security while what is physically erected can easily be
jumped over. As to supporters‟ opinion, enforcement constructs a strong barrier and
„„deterrence‟‟ together with the infrastructural investments. However, the issue of available
funds it means that one has to decide, whether one wants to invest more in walls or in various
other security assets. In regard to accommodating this risk based method, perhaps the most
effective way could be to use traffic volumes and crime rates from certain areas. The walls are
significant for the regional security, relations between countries, death of migrants, and habitats
of natural living forms near borderlines. In cases where such issues of efficiency are being
debated, humanitarian and environmental ones should also be taken into consideration.
Therefore, in the case of such extensive expenses, other segments within the context of security
could carry a higher return, as compared to the physical and spatial density of the infrastructure.
When the director‟s strategy is not entirely unambiguous or not entirely uncontested, rigorous
study becomes paramount when confronting conflicting stakes in the border security and the
border wall policy.
Need for comprehensive approaches balancing security and cooperation
The issue of security and cooperation is complex and it can only be answered by
presenting global views that associate various actors to the above questions. Excessive use of the
hard security that bases on the use of threats and force hampers cooperation while complete
rejection of hard security and going for only cooperation makes one weak. In each of these areas,
there has to be a middle ground as considered in the strategy. The rationale for the policy
approach should identify risks and opportunities of different groups and interest in order to
Page 25 of 27
determine where cooperation can be of value. Unlike where the short-term is brought to bear in
relation to the issues as a threat, patience in relation and comprehension can mean that more
interests on which positive interaction can be built are created. Of course, there are some threats
that require immediate measures with physical protection, however, purely military solutions
always create future insecurity. It is impossible for there to be cooperation with people and
constant distrust of them simultaneously. Mentioned types of measures regarding structural
settings for low-conflict communication and balanced developmental can better secure the
environment in the long term. Project-based does not ignore dependencies and is oriented to
obtain policies that have many connections. This is so because cooperation itself becomes a
security in as much as it creates the openings through which diplomacy may be carried. Italo
CALIGARI, Shared growth creates stakes in continued stability European Central Bank. In the
format of help, trade and exchange of culture, relationships are built reducing factors that cause
antagonism. Thus, hard power maintains fundamental stability as an environment for cooperation
is being cultivated. In the context of the concept of security and cooperation being interrelated
and two sides of the same process, as part of the concept of the complex approach to security and
cooperation, policymaking does not view security and cooperation as diametrically opposed aims
but rather look for the best solution for both. Investments to build knowledge of different
interests for the establishment of good faith exchange and reciprocation of growth can be made
to offer foundational. Measurable security policy enables protection against the raveling threats.
Since cooperation in the context of the given cooperation is built through partnerships, it also
introduces a way of managing the conflict before violence is involved. It is only the strategy that
will ensure the search for security and cooperation at the same time and all these aspects, which
Page 26 of 27
is, admittedly, more challenging, but more adequate to make the interstate relations effectively
safe, stable, and peaceful in terms of mutually beneficial interdependence.
Importance of addressing root causes of conflicts beyond physical barriers
Neighbors tend to view conflict resolution between countries in a limited way, primarily
based on the demarcation of the border such as the construction of a wall. But building walls or
fences along the borders do not address the root causes of creating tension and violence. Physical
barriers are able to temporarily alter and minimize the interactions between countries, but they
are not as effective in addressing the socio-economic, political, or environmental forces that may
cause tensions. For instance, construction of a wall on the Mexico–United States border can help
prevent unauthorized immigration and illicit drug smuggling but does not address root factors
such as poverty, crime, or climatic effects on Mexican or other Central American states. As long
as these factors remain a part of the scenario, disputes will remain unavoidable irrespective of the
physical walls built. Therefore, border nations should pay more attention and approach these
issues diplomatically as the core causes can lead to conflicts than enforcing barriers. This is
refers to governments engaging in coordinating in order to solve similar problems through policy
agreements like treaties. For instance, numbers of work visas between USA and Mexico might
be improved or they could upgrade the trading relationships in order to combat poor economic
status that is root of immigration issues. Such nations could also come to an agreement and be
able to find out how to deal with matters which lead to the occurrence of refugee‟s situations
including crime, violence, or instability. Borders pressure should be decreased as nations should
cooperate on climate change mitigation and disaster risk reduction. Despite this, developmental-
economic approaches such as an integrated economic development plan and violence prevention,
conflict drivers and mitigation, climate change preventive measures, or the like are viable long-
Page 27 of 27
term solutions to fostering real and lasting peace between bordering nations. For this reason,
efforts at forming barriers along the borders will not address the root cause of conflicts or
prevent animosity between two neighboring countries in the absence of efforts to look beyond
the barriers to work on the issues that are causing conflict in the first place.
