1. Introduction The objective of the study is to analyse the function of borders in contemporary European post-Com- munist countries, as direct and indirect barriers in traffic and cooperation between inhabiting them populations. The shaping of the current borders in the ana- lysed area took place mainly in two periods. The first one occurred immediately after the end of World War II, and its largest beneficiary turned out to be the (former) Soviet Union, when, among others, the Finnish-Soviet border was moved by handing over three so far Finnish regions: Karjala, Petsamo, Saala to the USSR; the borders of Lithuania, Latvia and Es- tonia were taken down because of the incorporation of those states by the Soviet Union; a new border was established in East Prussia (earlier: Germany) due to splitting the land between the USSR and Poland (Wendt, 2004); the Soviet-Polish border was signifi- cantly moved due to taking over large areas of the former Second Polish Republic by the USSR1; similar- ly, the Czechoslovak-Soviet border was moved due to the incorporation of Subcarpathian Ruthenia into the USSR, and the border with Romania due to the incorporation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina into the USSR. The second period in changes of the borders began after the fall of the system of social- ist states as a result of the so-called “Revolutions of 19892”. Its characteristic feature is the emergence of 1 Polish: Kresy Wschodnie, in English: Eastern Borderlands. 2 The period is sometimes called “the Autumn of Nations”. Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2016, 6(2), 7–12 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.16.008.5453 BorderS aS BarrIerS (BaSed on the examPle of euroPean PoSt-CommunISt CountrIeS) Wioletta Szymańska Institute of Geography and Regional Studies, Pomeranian University in Słupsk, Partyzantów 27, 76-200 Słupsk, Poland, e-mail: szymanskaw@apsl.edu.pl Citation Szymańska W., 2016, Borders as barriers (based on example of European post-Communist countries), Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 6(2), 7–12. abstract Functions of political borders as a spatial barriers have been analysed in the paper. A direct and an indirect (through the border region) impact of the borders has been distinguished. It was found that intra-EU borders and one between Belarus and Russia play the least direct role as a spatial barrier. By contrast, the worst situation is on the borders of Ukraine with Transnistria, occu- pied Crimea and the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. When it comes to the borderland areas, the worst situation is in the border regions of Ukraine with Russia. Key words border, barrier, post-Communist countries, Central Europe, Eastern Europe. 8 Wioletta Szymańska a number of new states as a result of the dissolution of the existing federal countries: Czechoslovakia, Yu- goslavia and the USSR. Currently, there is a new qual- ity process which does not involve changes to the course of the borders as much as changes in their significance. This is a consequence of the former post-Communist states joining the European Union and the Schengen Area. During the period of Communism, populations of those countries were subject to increased control, whose one element was great difficulties in cross- ing the state borders. The Iron Curtain, separating countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact from the remaining ones in Europe is a symbol of this period. Changes of a political (Birch, 2003; Michalski, 2010b; Rose, 2009; Szul, 2001; Wendt, 2002, 2004; Wendt, Ilieş, 2001), social (Illner, 1996; Michalski, 2010a, 2015; Radchenko et al., 2014; Sztompka, 1996, 2004, 2008; Wegner, 2000), economic (Bąk, 2006; Grykień, 2004; Stryjakiewicz, 1999; Vančura, 2006; Wendt, Ilieş, 2011), etc. character, which took place in these countries after 1989 also resulted in changing the role and the significance of borders. 2. direct and indirect functions of a border as a barrier State borders may directly and indirectly influence the displacement of populations and contacts be- tween communities inhabiting both sides. A direct impact is that any political border serves as a spatial barrier (Maik, Parysek, 1978), namely it is an obstacle for links, traffic and interactions in the physical space (Rykiel, 1991). J. Łoboda (1983) understands the fol- lowing as a barrier effect: • resistance, sometimes identified with psycholog- ical, economic, cultural, etc. barriers; • directional deviation resulting from the diver- sity of space, which means that the innovation stream in different directions takes place with different speed; • barriers, both natural (e.g., mountains, swamps, seas) and artificial (e.g. political, ethnic, linguis- tic). J. Bański (2010) identified many possible criteria of the division of boundaries. This study is based on the classification proposed by A.  Moraczewska3 (2008), based on the criterion of international relations. Accordingly, three main functions of borders have been distinguished: 3 Such a division partly refers to that proposed by R. Domański (1970) into four main types of barriers. • disintegrative (its essence is to close the border to contacts); • fragmentative (characterised by varying degrees of openness, depending on the agent penetrat- ing it); • integrative (characterised by a high degree of openness and the intensity of contacts). On the other hand, the indirect impact of borders on the displacement of the population takes place due to the specifics of the borderland areas. Firstly, their development is clearly affected by the border through the functions it plays (cf. Nowińska, 1997). Secondly, due to their peripheral location, these re- gions are generally considered to be less developed, thereby requiring activation. According to S.  Ciok (1994, 2010), a delay in the development of these areas may be due to two reasons: (1) for a long time this area has been poorly managed or not managed at all, or (2) a delay results from changes in the course of the borders4. 3. the situation in post-Communist countries Looking at the functioning of borders in the ana- lysed region (cf. Cichocki, 2004; Dołzbłasz, Raczyk 2015; Ilieş et al., 2011b; Komornicki, 2001, 2007, 2008; Miszczuk, 2010; Sadowski, 2004; Wendt, 2004; Więckowski, 2001) and referring to the division pro- posed by A.  Moraczewska (2008), we can conclude that in the analysed area borders mainly play the second and the third function, less often the first one5 (Fig. 1): 1. In every sense of the word, the integrative func- tion in this area is played by borders between countries of the Schengen Area and partly the EU borders between Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria6, 4 In the latter case, we deal with an area originally developed economically, and only designating a border in it entails ad- verse effects which often cause stagnation or even regression in regional development. 5 In the proposed division a fragment of the border be- tween Ukraine and Russia (and more specifically, between the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic and the Russian Federation) has been omitted due to the lack of reliable data that would allow including this fragment of the border in one of the three functions listed here (although based on fragmentary data one can venture a statement that this border plays a fragmentative function, but with signifi- cant elements of the disintegrative function). 6 Partly, because these countries do not belong to the Schengen Area, hence intra-EU border controls are in force between them, although they are not as strict as, for example, on the external borders of the EU. Borders as barriers (based on the example of European post-Communist countries) 9 as well as the border between Belarus and Rus- sia7. 2. The fragmentative function is played by most of the borders between the countries not belong- ing to the European Union and by the external borders of the European Union. 3. A border plays a disintegrative function relatively seldom. In the analysed area this is the front line between Ukraine and the so-called Luhansk Peo- ple’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Repub- lic, and partly the border between Ukraine and 7 Due to the fact that these countries make the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Transnistria and between Ukraine and Crimea oc- cupied by Russia8. Referring to the classification of backwardness in the development of the borderland areas proposed by S.  Ciok (1994, 2010), in the analysed area there are regions which for a long time both have been poorly managed or not managed at all, e.g. the borderland area between Czechoslovakia and Hungary and Austria, and also with borderland areas whose back- wardness results from changes in the course of the 8 Due to a stable situation, the border between Transnis- tria and Moldova has been included among those playing a fragmentative role, which does not mean that a conflict can reignite there at any time, and thus this border will serve as a disintegrative barrier. Fig. 1. General division of functions of borders in European post-Communist countries, state at the beginning of 2016 Source: own study, based on A. Moraczewska (2008). 10 Wioletta Szymańska borders, as is for example the situation in the former East Prussia after the end of World War II (cf. Wendt, 1999). After the negative impact of a border on the frontier region ceases, usually its development takes place. A model of such a development was presented by M.  Miszczuk (2013). However, even if the border stops having damaging effects on the borderland re- gion, making up for the delays requires time and fi- nancial outlays. Still one can clearly see that making up for this backwardness is much more efficient on the internal borders of the European Union than on its external borders or on borders between countries not belonging to the EU (cf. Ilieş et al., 2009, 2011a; Komornicki, Miszczuk, 2010; Vlad, Ilieş, 2014; Wendt, 2007; Węcławowicz et al., 2006). If during the period of Communism borders clearly divided populations inhabiting both its sides, today Z. Chojnicki’s (1998) observation that a border not only separates the two neighbouring areas but it also connects them is becoming increasingly more valid on most borders. A release of possibilities of their activities which happened after the fall of com- munism (cf. Bafoil, 1999) is of major importance in playing not only a function of a barrier but also of a link between the communities living on both sides of a „permeable” border. Its institutional dimension manifests itself the creation and functioning of euroregions. Yet, it should not be forgotten that the fall of communism and the „opening” of borders also en- tails risks, such as: an increase in crime, emergence of sex tourism and smuggling on a previously un- known scale, a decrease in epidemiological safety (cf. Dziecięca…, 2011; Michalski, 1999, 2003, 2008; Perkowska, 2010, 2013). Looking at the current (the beginning of 2016) situation in European post-Communist countries, it seems that the worst situation now is on most ex- ternal borders of Russia and the border areas of its neighbouring countries (cf. Gogsadze, 2011; Gurzu, 2015; Saldžiūnas, 2016; Горбулін et al. 2015) as well as in Transnistria (Całus et al., 2014; Rodkiewicz (ed.), 2011). This is largely a derivative of the neo-imperial- ist policy pursued by that country. 4. Summary The analysed group of countries is diverse in many ways, also in terms of the barrier effect on their borders. Looking at the direct impact of a border as a barrier, the best situation occurs on intra-EU borders, although in this respect a little worse situ- ation is on EU borders between Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania because these countries do not belong to the Schengen Area. Theoretically, the barrier func- tion is not played by the border between Belarus and Russia either. On the opposite side, there are parts of the borders between Ukraine and regions directly or indirectly linked with Moscow, i.e. the borders with the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic and occupied Crimea (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea plus Sevastopol). On the other hand, look- ing at the indirect impact of a border as a barrier, one can see its most negative impact on the entire area of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Re- public and the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts still remaining in Ukraine. However, a negative im- pact of a border as a barrier can also be noted in the remaining borders of Ukraine with Russia (including Crimea). references Bafoil F., 1999, Post-Communist Borders and Territories: Con- flicts, Learning and Rule-Building in Poland, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(3), 567–582. Bąk  M., 2006, Europa Środkowa i Wschodnia wobec wy- zwania transformacyjnego, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk. Bański  J., 2010, Granica w badaniach geograficznych – defi- nicja i próby klasyfikacji, Przegląd Geograficzny, 82(2), 489–508. Birch S., 2003, Electoral Systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe, Palgrave Macmillian, Hampshire- New York. Całus K., Kosienkowski M., Oleksy P., Pieńkowski J, Rajczyk R., 2014, Naddniestrze. Historia – polityka – gospodarka, EastWest Analytics, Poznań. Chojnicki  Z., 1998, Uwarunkowania rozwoju regionu nad- granicznego. Koncepcje i założenia teoretyczne, [in:] J. J. Parysek, B. Gruchman (eds.), Studia rozwoju i zagospo- darowania przestrzennego, T. 2, Centrum Badania Gospo- darki Regionalnej Akademia Ekonomiczna w Poznaniu, Poznań, 11-48. Cichocki  B., 2004, Wschodnia granica rozszerzonej Unii Euro- pejskiej, series: Prace OSW/CES Studies, Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich, Warszawa, 5–25 Ciok S., 1994, Obszary peryferyjne państwa i ich przeobraże- nia, Prace Instytutu Geograficznego, Seria B, Geografia Spo- łeczna i Ekonomiczna, X, 5–19. Ciok S., 2010, Pogranicze polsko-ukraińskie. Wsparcie współ- pracy transgranicznej, [in:] S.  Ciok, P.  Migoń (eds.), Prze- kształcenia struktur regionalnych. Aspekty społeczne, ekonomiczne i przyrodnicze, Instytut Geografii i Rozwoju Regionalnego Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wrocław, 373– 382. Borders as barriers (based on the example of European post-Communist countries) 11 Dołzbłasz  S., Raczyk  A., 2015, Different Borders-Different Cooperation? Transborder Cooperation in Poland, Geo- graphical Review, 105(3), 360–376. Domański  R., 1970, Syntetyczna charakterystyka obszaru na przykładzie okręgu przemysłowego Konin-Łęczyca-Inowro- cław, PWN, Warszawa. Dziecięca prostytucja na polsko-niemieckiej granicy, 2011, http://www.tvn24.pl/kultura-styl,8/dziecieca- prostytucja-na-polsko-niemieckiej-granicy,171815.html [02.02.2016]. Gogsadze  G., 2011, 2008 Georgia-Russia war: Geopolitical implications and international law, [in:] K.  Heffner (ed.), Historical regions in the structures of European Union. Historical divisions of the territory in Central Europe nad in different states of the world, Region and Regionalism, 10(2), 213–221. Grykień S., 2004, Przekształcenia w rolnictwie Europy Środowo- -Wschodnie ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem nowych kra- jów związkowych Niemiec, Polski i Ukrainy, series: Studnia Geograficzne, 76, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocław- skiego, Wrocław. Gurzu  A., 2015, Baltics threaten to unplug Russian region, Po- litico, http://www.politico.eu/article/baltics-threaten- to-unplug-russian-region-power-kaliningrad-electricity- interconnectors-lithuania-poland-sweden/ [28.04.2016] Ilieş  A., Grama  V., Wendt  J., Bodocan  V., 2009, Geographical management of a Borderless Area at the internal/exter- nal border of NATO and EU. Romanian Case (I), Revista Română de Geografie Politică, XI(2), 166–175. Ilieş A., Wendt J., Ilieş D., Grama V., 2011a, Romanian/Ukrain- ian borderland (Northern Sector) Typology determined by the administrative territorial units (NUTS 3), Central European Policy and Human Geography, I(2), 7–13. Ilieş A., Wendt J., Ilieş D.C., Grama V., 2011b, Structures and ty- pology of the Romanian borderland, [in:] K. Heffner (ed.), Historical regions in the structures of European Union. Historical division of the territory in Central Europe and in different states of the world, Region and Regionalism, 10(2), 117–131. Illner  M., 1996, Post-Communist Transformation Revisited, Czech Sociological Review, 4(2), 157–169. Janura  M., 2006, Foreign Direct Investment in the Countries of Central Europe with the Empasis on the Czech Repub- lic, [in:] T.  Michalski (ed.), The Geographical Aspects of the Transformation Process in Central and East-Central Europe, Wydawnictwo Bernardinum, Gdynia-Pelplin, 171–180. Komornicki T., 2001, Changes in the role and permeability of Polish borders, Geographia Polonica, 74(1), 77–100. Komornicki T., 2007, External Border of the European Union – Permeability, Co-operation, Perspectives, [in:] Region- ality and/or Locality, series: Discussion Papers, Centre for Regional Studies, Pécs, 89–103. Komornicki  T., 2008, Granica polsko-białoruska jako bariera przestrzenna, [in:] D. Świątek, M. Bednarek, P. Siłka (eds.), Współczesne problemy badawcze geografii polskiej – Geo- grafia człowieka, series: Dokumentacja Geograficzna, 26, IGiPZ PAN, PTG, Warszawa, 55–61. Komornicki T., Miszczuk  A., 2010, Eastern Poland as the Bor- derland of the European Union, Quaestiones Geographi- cae, 29(2), 55–69. Łoboda  J., 1983, Rozwój koncepcji i modeli przestrzennej dy- fuzji innowacji, series: Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, No  585, Studia Geograficzne, XXXVII, Wydawnictwo Uni- wersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław. Maik W., Parysek J., 1978, Klasyfikacja i charakterystyka barier wzrostu w gospodarce przestrzennej, Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 99, 2–57. Michalski T., 1999, Granica państwowa jako bariera w dyfuzji chorób zakaźnych (na przykładzie północno–wschodniej i wschodniej granicy Polski, [in:] J.  Kitowski (ed.), Proble- matyka geopolityczna Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej, se- ries: Rozprawy i Monografie Wydziału Ekonomicznego, 18, Rzeszów, 331–342. Michalski  T., 2003, The enlargement of the European Union vs. epidemiological safety (case study of the northern aspect of the integration), [in:] T.  Palmowski, G.  Fedorov, V.  Korneevets (eds.), Economic, geopolitical and social problems of co-operation between Kaliningrad and Poland, series: Coastal Regions, 6, Wydawnictwo „Bernardinum”, Gdynia-Pelplin, 130–141. Michalski  T., 2008, Global, continental and regional context of the functioning of new European Union borders, Tiltai- Bridges-Brücken, 1(42), 7–13. Michalski T., 2010a, Sytuacja zdrowotna w europejskich krajach postkomunistycznych w dobie transformacji, Wydawnict- wo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk. Michalski  T., 2010b, International transitions in Central Eu- rope after 1989, [in:] T.  Michalski, A.  Kuczabski (eds.), Se- lected aspects of transformational in countries in Central and Central-Eastern Europe. A Book elaborated to professor Oleh Shabliy upon the 50th anniversary of scientific work, Wydawnictwo “Bernardinum”, Pelplin, 117–128. Michalski T., 2015, Diversity in the standard of living among populations in European post-comunist countries, Envi- ronmental & Socio-economic Studies, 3(3), 11–19. Miszczuk  A., 2010, Polish-Ukrainian order as a methodologi- cal, cognitive and applicational challenge, Europa XXI, 20, 75–87. Miszczuk  A., 2013, Uwarunkowania peryferyjności regionu przygranicznego, Norbertinum, Lublin. Moraczewska A., 2008, Transformacja funkcji granic Polski, Wy- dawnictwo UMCS, Lublin. Nowińska  E., 1997, Strategia rozwoju gmin: na przykładzie gmin przygranicznych, Akademia Ekonomiczna w Pozna- niu, Poznań. Perkowska  M., 2010, Zjawisko przemytu na wschodniej gra- nicy Polski w latach 2000-2008 (przestępczość ujawniona przez straż graniczną), Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Mary- narki Wojennej, 51(181A), 251–270. Perkowska  M., 2013, Przestępczość graniczna cudzoziemców, Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, Warszawa. Radchenko  O., Kuczabski  A., Michalski T., 2014, Main factors affecting the social transformation process in Ukraine, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 4(1), 7–17. Rodkiewicz W. (ed.), 2011, Transnistrian Conflict after 20 years. A Report by an International Expert Group, Centre for East- 12 Wioletta Szymańska ern Studies, Institute for Development and social Initia- tives “Viitorul”, Warsaw-Chisinau http://www.osw.waw.pl/ pl/publikacje/raport-osw/2011-10-07/transnistrian-con- flict-after-20-years [26.04.2016] Rose R., 2009, Understanding post-communist transformation. A bottom up approach, Routledge, Abingdon. Rykiel  Z., 1991, Rozwój regionów stykowych w teorii i bada- niach empirycznych, series: Prace Habilitacyjne IGiPZ PAN, IGiPZ PAN, Warszawa. Sadowski  R., 2004, Współpraca transgraniczna na nowej gra- nicy wschodniej Unii Europejskiej, series: Prace OSW/CES Studies, Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich, Warszawa, 26–41. Saldžiūnas  V., 2016, Reason behind Russian border provoca- tions: something bad is coming, Postimees, http://news. postimees.ee/3663581/reason-behind-russian-border- provocations-something-bad-is-coming [02.05.2016] Stryjakiewicz  S., 1999, Adaptacja przestrzenna przemysłu w Polsce w warunkach transformacji, Wydawnictwo Na- ukowe UAM, Poznań. Sztompka P., 1996, Looking back: the year 1989 as a cultural and civilizational break, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 29(2), 115–129. Sztompka  P., 2004, Eastern Europe: At the Crossroads of Three Historical Processes, [in:] M.  Niezgoda (ed.), The Consequences of Great Transformation, Wydawnictwo UJ, Kraków, 14–19. Sztompka P., 2008, The Ambivalence of Social Change in Post- Communist Societies, [in:] A. Śliz, M.S. Szczepański (eds.), Czy koniec socjalizmu?, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa, 36–57. Szul  R., 2001, Central and Eastern Europe in the process of global political and economic transformation, [in:] A. Ilieş, J.  Wendt (eds.), Political geography studies in Central and Eastern Europe, Editura Universităţii din Oradea, Oradea, 97–106. Vlad I., Ilieş A., 2014, Soviet heritage at the Romanian-Ukrain- ian borderland in post-socialist Maramureş Land, Revista Română de Geografie Politică, XVI(2), 160–169. Węcławowicz  G., Degórski  M., Komornicki T., Korzeń  J., Bań- ski J., Korzeń J., Soja R., Śleszyński P., Więckowski M., 2006, Studia nad przestrzennym zagospodarowaniem obszaru wzdłuż granicy polsko-niemieckiej, series: Prace Geogra- ficzne IGiPZ PAN, 207, Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyńkiego, Warszawa. Wegner B., 2000, Political Culture and Post-Communist Tran- sition—A Social Justice Approach: Introduction, Social Justice Research, 13(2), 75–82. Wendt J., 2004, Changes in the geopolitical and geostrategi- cal position of the Kaliningrad district, [in:] T. Palmowski, G. Fedorov, V. Korneevets (eds.), Economic, geopolitical and social problems of co-operation between Kalinin- grad and Poland, series: Coastal Regions, 6, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, 5–15. Wendt J., Ilieş A. (eds.), 2001, Chosen problems of Political Ge- ography in Central Europe, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk. Wendt J., Ilieş A., (eds.), 2011, Regional Development Studies in Poland and Romania, Editura Universităţii din Oradea, Oradea. Wendt  J., 1999, Political regionalization of East Prussia, [in:] Multicultural regions and cities, Region and Regionalizm, 4, 52–56. Wendt  J., 2002, Diffusion du processus democratique de l`Union Europeenne a Europe centrale: comparison de la Pologne et de la Roumanie, Mosella, XXVI(3–4), 53–58. Wendt  J., 2004, Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie i uwarunkowania przenikania systemu demokratycznego w Polsce i w Rumu- nii, Carta Blanca, Warszawa. Wendt  J., 2007, Romanian Euroregions in the process of Eu- ropean integration – case study of the Serbian border, [in:] M.  Koter, K.  Heffner (eds.) Regions in the process of European integration. Dilemmas of regional policy in the European Union, Region and Regionalism, 8(2), 14–26. Więckowski M., 2001, Granica polityczna jako bariera dla roz- woju i funkcjonowania transportu w Karpatach Zachod- nich, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 7, 201–221. Горбулін  В.П., Власюк  О.С., Кононенко  С.В., 2015, Україна і Росія: дев’ятий вал чи Китайська стіна, Національний інститут стратегічних досліджень, Київ.