Douglas M. Gibler argues that threats to homeland territories force domestic political centralization within the state. Using an innovative theory of state development, he explains patterns of international conflict and democracy in the world over time.

Federal Ground depicts the haphazard and unplanned growth of federal authority in the Northwest and Southwest Territories, the first U.S. territories established under the new territorial system. The nation's foundational documents, particularly the Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance, placed these territories under sole federal jurisdiction and established federal officials to govern them. But, for all their paper authority, these officials rarely controlled events or dictated outcomes. In practice, power in these contested borderlands rested with the regions' pre-existing inhabitants-diverse Native peoples, French villagers, and Anglo-American settlers. These residents nonetheless turned to the new federal government to claim ownership, jurisdiction, protection, and federal money, seeking to obtain rights under federal law. Two areas of governance proved particularly central: contests over property, where plural sources of title created conflicting land claims, and struggles over the right to use violence, in which customary borderlands practice intersected with the federal government's effort to establish a monopoly on force. Over time, as federal officials improvised ad hoc, largely extrajudicial methods to arbitrate residents' claims, they slowly insinuated federal authority deeper into territorial life. This authority survived even after the former territories became Tennessee and Ohio: although these new states spoke a language of equal footing and autonomy, statehood actually offered former territorial citizens the most effective way yet to make claims on the federal government. The federal government, in short, still could not always prescribe the result in the territories, but it set the terms and language of debate-authority that became the foundation for later, more familiar and bureaucratic incarnations of federal power.

This study focuses on territorial autonomy, which is often used in different conflict-resolution and minority situations. Four typical elements are identified on the basis of the historical example of the Memel Territory and the so-called Memel case of the PCIJ; distribution of powers, participation through elections and referendums, executive power of territorial autonomy, and international relations. These elements are used for a comparative analysis of the constitutional law that regulates the position of six currently existing special jurisdictions, the Åland Islands in Finalnd, Scotland in the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico in the United States of America, Hong Kong in China, Aceh in Indonesia and Zanzibar in Tanzania. The current sub-state entities examined can be arranged in relation to Memel in a manner that indicates that Hong Kong and the Åland conform to the typical territorial autonomy, while Puerto Rico and Aceh should probably not be understood as territorial autonomies proper. At the same time, the territorial autonomies can be distinguished from federally organized sub-state entities.

An analysis of international human rights law's applicability and effectiveness in geographic areas where the State has lost territorial control.

Rudolf Kjellén, regularly referred to as “the father of geopolitics,” developed in the first decade of the twentieth century an analytical model for calculating the capabilities of great-power states and promoting their interests in the international arena. It was an ambitious intellectual project that sought to bring politics into the sphere of social science. Bringing together experts on Kjellén from across the disciplines, Territory, State and Nation explores the century-long international impact, analytical model, and historical theories of a figure immensely influential in his time who is curiously little-known today.