Political Subjectivity of Borderlands in the Context of the Transformation of the World Order: A Comparative Analysis

Borderlands are contested spaces at the intersection of hegemonies, jurisdictions, and identities — poised between the potential for dialogue and the risk of conflict — where the transformations of the contemporary world order are most conspicuous. In prior research conducted jointly with colleagues, the author delineated three types of border territories and proposed scenarios under which borderlands of different kinds may acquire political subjectivity. This article employs comparative analysis across six indicators: geographic and geopolitical position; settlement history; neighborhood; the status and regime of the state‑holder; resources and forms of capital (economic, human, symbolic, social); and the format of centre-periphery policy.The analysis focuses on borderlands that have already attained sovereignty or have declared a course toward it and have substantially enhanced their political subjectivity (Kosovo, South Sudan, and Greenland). This design enables verification of the earlier typology of borderlands, specification of its limits of applicability, refinement of scenarios for the acquisition of political subjectivity by different types of border regions, and examination of their developmental trajectories after separation from—or along a declared path toward separation from the state to which they belonged.The findings indicate that the dynamics of subjectivity are determined by a configuration of variables. Geography and neighborhood shape long-term opportunities and constraints; the regime of the state‑holder sets the logic of interaction (dialogue vs. confrontation); and the resource and institutional base determines resilience after a change of status. Kosovo converted a cohesive civic identity and external support into a declaration of statehood yet remains in a condition of “contested” subjectivity and external dependence. South Sudan demonstrates that a frontier can acquire sovereignty, but typically under conditions of a central state crisis and sustained external intervention, while retaining high institutional and economic fragility. Greenland illustrates an alternative trajectory — gradual empowerment, incremental institutional capacity‑building, and targeted diversification designed to minimise the shocks of a potential transition to full statehood.Theoretically, the study confirms the validity of a three-tier typology (self-sufficient spaces; monoethnic/monoreligious borderlands; geographic frontiers), provided it is applied flexibly and with attention to the unequal “weights” of indicators across cases. Practically, the results outline policy parameters that reduce the conflict propensity of borderlands: institutionalised dialogue, predictable devolution of competences, and prior economic preparation for status change.