Kyushu University Academic Staff Educational and Research Activities Database
List of Papers
Edward Boyle Last modified date:2019.07.22

Assistant Professor / Faculty of Law / Department of Political Science / Faculty of Law

1. Edward Kieran Boyle, Cartographic exchange and territorial creation
Rewriting Northern Japan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, 10.1007/978-3-319-61515-8_6, 198039, 75-98, 2018.01, The Tokugawa era (1603–1868) witnessed a dramatic expansion in the creation and circulation of maps, which moved from being comparatively rare items at the beginning of the period to banal objects of mass-circulation at the end. Yet the shape of Japan being represented on these maps was greatly altered over the course of this period, particularly with regards to the amorphous area north of Japan, known as Ezo. This transformation in geographical representation similarly affected visions of Japan held beyond its shores, which were partially the product of an increasingly, if punctuated and inconsistent, global circulation of geographic materials in comprehensible forms. The geography of these northern areas of Japan was gradually clarified by the early nineteenth century, as European efforts at mapping the region were combined with the results of a succession of Tokugawa state-sponsored exhibitions that explicitly aimed to increase the state’s knowledge of its diffuse northern reaches. It will be argued here that the relational aspect of cartographic exchange is crucial to the demarcation of this territory as being Japanese and under the authority of the Tokugawa state. Greater appreciation for the exchange involved in cartographic territorial creation not only allows for the transnational process of state demarcation to be recovered, but also hints at the inherently relational nature of the imperial sovereignty that came to literally remap vast areas of the globe during the nineteenth century..
2. Edward Kieran Boyle, A "Little Berlin Wall" for all: discursive contruction across scales, Europa Regional, 24, 1/2, 80-92, 2017.10, Since 2013, Russian Border Security Forces have been constructing
border fences at various points along the Administrative
Boundary Line that separates the de facto state of South
Ossetia from the remainder of Georgian territory. This process
of ‘borderization’ materializes what was formerly an administrative
fiction on the ground, seeking to territorially demarcate
the divide between the two communities. The fence in question
has come to be referred to as the “Little Berlin Wall” inherently
comparing some comparatively insubstantial stretches of fencing
and barbed wire with the imposing concrete fortifications
that served to divide East and West Berlin at the height of the
Cold War.
This article argues for the utility of the notion of a discursive
construction in analysing this border. The notion will be used to
clarify how this superficially unjustifiable comparison indicates
that the Administrative Boundary Line is both shaped by and
restructuring the regional geography of Europe. The invocation
of the Berlin Wall emphasizes that this material fencing
divides Georgia. The effects of its deployment are felt at various
scales, from how this boundary is seen as an illegitimate division
of sovereign Georgian territory, to its role in constructing
Europe’s outer edge. The geographical and temporal division
of Tbilisi-controlled Georgia from what lies on the other side
of the “illegal” boundary works to incorporate Georgia firmly
within Europe.
This discursive construction at Europe’s outer edge also indicates
both the importance of border processes occurring at
the margins of a regional geographic entity and how the local,
national and wider regional scales are able to be tied together
within Europe’s post-Cold War borders..
3. Edward Kieran Boyle, Borderization in Georgia
Sovereignty Materialized, Eurasia Border Review, 10.14943/ebr.7.1.1, 7, 1, 1-18, 2016, This paper shall examine the process of borderization that has been proclaimed as occurring along theGeorgian-South Ossetian boundary. This boundary is one that remains largely unrecognized, as the claims of theGeorgian state to sovereignty over South Ossetia are accepted by the majority of the international community.The crucial exception to this is Russia, under whose aegis this process of borderization is occurring. The result isthe creation of a physical barrier around the territory of South Ossetia, one that seeks to materialize what waspreviously an administrative fiction on the ground, halting the movement of people and goods across this borderand dividing people from their livelihoods. The paper shall consider what meaning this fencing has within thecontext of Georgia's borders, and reflect upon the larger lessons that can be drawn for the concept of sovereigntyand the status of borders in the contemporary world..
4. Edward Kieran Boyle, Book Review: India–China Borderlands: Conversations beyond the Centre by Nimmi Kurian, China Report, 10.1177/0009445515597802, 51, 4, 347-350, 2015.
5. Edward Kieran Boyle, Imperial Practice and the making of modern Japan’s territory: Towards a reconsideration of Empire’s boundaries, Geographical Review of Japan, Series B, 10.4157/geogrevjapanb.88.66, 88, 2, 66-79, 2015, A renewed focus on the notion of empire has prompted an interest in questions of modern Japanese imperialism after the Meiji Restoration, both in Japan and abroad. It has also focused attention on the issue of comparing empires across Eurasia during the early modern period, under the rubric of ‘global history’. Japan has not really been incorporated into this latter discussion. This article begins by examining the reasons for this lack of incorporation, before moving on to discuss the value of considering early modern Japan as an imperial formation. The lens it adopts is one of cartography, that quintessentially imperial practice that has featured heavily in discussions of a Eurasian early modernity. The article examines the cartographic incorporation of Japan’s northern region of the Yezo into Japan itself, culminating in the area being newly designated as Hokkaido in the early Meiji period, the newest circuit within Imperial Japan’s administrative map. This political outcome was the result of varied practices that found reflection across the Tokugawa–Meiji divide. Yet this intense variety of practices, constantly shifting in response to contingency, served to form the state-effect, through which the land of Yezo was granted its unity and represented on the map. The territory on the map provided the visual, graphic representation of the demarcation of authority of the state that authorized the practice of its own mapping. In this manner, the state mapped itself into Hokkaido and from this perspective, the division between the early modern and modern eras is far less significant than is frequently assumed..
6. Edward Kieran Boyle, New Civic Neighborhood
Cross-border Cooperation and Civil Society Engagement at the Finnish-Russian Border, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 10.1080/00291951.2014.904403, 68, 3, 196-197, 2014.
7. Edward Kieran Boyle, BOOK REVIEWS Japan's National Identity and Foreign Policy: Russia as Japan's Other, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 10.1080/08865655.2013.796219, 28, 1, 149-150, 2013.
8. Edward Kieran Boyle, Stuart Elden, Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN: 2009, 257p., ISBN: 978-0-816-65484-0, Eurasia Border Review, 3, 2, 2012.
9. The Tokugawa Creation of the ezochi : States, Territories and Maps.