Written by Yung Lin.
Image credit: Flags of Turkey and Northern Cyprus, Kyrenia Castle, Kyrenia, Northen Cyprus by Michal Klajban/ Wiki Commons, license: CC BY-SA 4.0.
De Facto States Dilemma: border control is for state-building or people-protecting?
While globalisation has been increasingly associated with the erosion of traditional state borders through flows of goods, people, and information, this phenomenon has not diminished border control practices in the de facto states. These border regions are usually seen as conflict zones, and the de facto state enforces the border control measures as a symbol of its state-building for both internal and external legitimacy. However, these border control practices neglect the economic benefits, cultural nourishments, and emotional memories for those people whose lives depend on cross-border mobility. This tension highlights a central dilemma for de facto states in executing their border control practices: Is border control implemented to establish state legitimacy or to protect its people’s lives?
To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the de facto states’ border control from the perspective of a social process. For example, in certain post-Soviet states, border regions engender economic benefits, such as trade and tourism, for the people relying on cross-border mobility. Viewing border control through this lens shifts the focus from the state to civil society as the central actor. In Abkhazia, for example, it is not the state regime but the civil society organisations that manage cross-border measures, provide social services on the local scale, and mobilise resources from international organisations.
Framing de facto states’ border control as a social process brings people into the focal point.
This article compares Taiwan and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) to explore how human security can offer de facto states an alternative approach to securing legitimacy and protecting their people in the global environment. This article concludes by proposing new directions for Taiwan Studies that emphasise human security as a bridge between domestic experiences and international engagement.
From Statehood to Civil Society in TRNC
One of the border measures in the TRNC is issuing identity documents to its citizens and immigrants. While this measure asserts the state’s capacity, it also reinforces the isolation from the outside world. The people begin to perceive that they belong in it, but they are circumscribed in this territory, excluded from the international community.
Moreover, the TRNC granted the Turkiyeli settlers citizenship and material resources such as land and housing, but they often lacked the cultural and social capital for full inclusion. The boundaries they faced were not only ethnic but also socio-economic and spatial. This suggests that sovereignty-building efforts alone are insufficient, but the policy should enable inclusion, belonging, and mobility.
Another border practice is territorial making. In 1974, the TRNC started the dehellenisation and Turkification, such as erasing the blue shutters against white houses and painting instead dark green and brown. While the state pushes for nation-building, the people actually seek familiarity, continuity, and rootedness. The key challenge is to ensure this pursuit of belonging does not come at the expense of others’ rights.
A sense of belonging is usually attained from cultural nourishment through civil society organisations. For example, the heritage conservation and management of cultural assets in Northern Cyprus are managed by civil society rather than the state, even though there are concerns over cultural competition amid lingering conflict.
Examining the de facto states’ border practices as a social process and shifting the focus to the civil society, it points out the significant concepts in human security – survival, livelihood, inclusion, continuity, and dignity.
Call for Human Security Practices
The United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 66/290) defines human security as “an approach to identify and address widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood, and dignity of their people.” It calls for “people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all people.”
While human rights are legally codified, human security is a normative concept without institutional mechanisms of enforcement. However, it provides a bridge between safeguarding national security and legalising human rights. Human rights, often defined in opposition to national security, still cannot fully account for the broad societal vulnerabilities. For example, the human rights law can have a positive impact on the Cypriots’ peacebuilding, but fails on the ground due to limited enforcement of reconciliation, justice, and psychological recovery.
An individual needs stable routines and coherent narratives to feel safe in society. A peaceful society that provides security for its people to build a life of dignity requires a comprehensive measure, one that integrates political, socio-economic, and psychological dimensions. This comprehensive approach must also address military, political, societal, economic, and environmental concerns. In this sense, securitisation is not inherently negative but can be used to elevate human security concerns to political priority. Achieving this goal requires long-term ethical governance, civil society engagement, and education.
Taiwan’s COVID-19 measures exemplify the significance of human security, and it is thanks to the evolving state-society relations cultivated throughout the past years of democratisation.
Taiwan: Ethical governance, civil society engagement, generational vitality education
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan’s border control measures prioritised not only national health security but also the well-being of individuals. Early responses included strict airport screenings and real-time digital tracking of cross-strait travellers. As soon as the coronavirus broke out in Wuhan during the Chinese New Year in 2020, Taiwan’s government quickly implemented border control at the airport to monitor the flow of people travelling across the strait for business or tourism. The government deployed official apps to track COVID-19 cases and potential exposures, while tech-savvy civil society actors developed additional tools to monitor local risk and promote safe behaviours. Taiwan avoided full lockdowns and maintained economic stability. Its GDP even grew during the pandemic years, largely due to the cooperation between the government and civil society. Taiwan’s success in containing the outbreak is due to the collaborative governance and widespread voluntary compliance fostered trust between the state and society. While trust is bonded between the state and society, it then projects externally due to a transparent two-way communication channel facilitating the legitimisation of government measures such as the campaign “#Taiwan Can Help.”
There were concerns over the breach of privacy, such as the public reporting of anonymised daily movement routes for individuals returning from high-risk areas. However, the society’s compliance is rooted in the collective memory of SARS in 2003, the maturation of Taiwan’s digital governance, and a social contract of mutual vigilance. These border measures reflect a context in which human rights are balanced with broader human security objectives and where public consent legitimises exceptional governance.
The COVID-19 pandemic tested the world and de facto states on the global nature in modern times, that no individuals, societies, or states can be excluded from this world that we live in. Rather, global dynamic reinforces the need for states to reinterpret border practices through the lens of human security, as seen in Taiwan’s COVID-19 response.
Inclusionism as a Solution
Evaluating the ethics of states’ COVID-19 response, the concept of inclusionism captures the ethical foundations of human security: (1) People have an intrinsic value, (2) People only derive that value from interactions with each other, and (3) People are owed some equity in the proliferation of value from those interactions. In de facto states research, Taiwan Studies is a milestone for a vibrant society’s resilience and its survival in international relations. The key is the concept of inclusionism, embodied in themes of human security, civic engagement, and ethical governance. Therefore, I propose the following directions for both policy and scholarship.
First, for policymaking in de facto border measures, it is necessary to examine the people’s lived experiences because building trust with the civil society requires long-term cultivation. Taking the perspective of human security, it safeguards national security as well as human rights. Protecting the people’s psychological security reinforces the legitimacy of government by implementing ethical governance, transparent communication between the state and society, and empowering civil society to be a vibrant actor.
Second, for the sustainable development of Taiwan Studies, it is promising to expand from domestic particularism to international inclusionism on themes of democracy and peacebuilding with the bridging concept of human security. Human security reframes Taiwan not just as a case of contested sovereignty, but as a contributor to global debates on public health, civic resilience, and inclusive governance. By engaging with shared concerns such as pandemic response, climate adaptation, and migration, Taiwan Studies can build transnational relevance and foster scholarly dialogue beyond the usual geopolitical lens.
Together, the TRNC and Taiwan illustrate two different trajectories for how de facto states navigate border control, legitimacy, and human security. While the TRNC demonstrates how state-centred security can reinforce isolation and internal fragmentation, Taiwan shows how integrating civil society and prioritising human security can strengthen resilience and international engagement. Comparing these two cases suggests that de facto states are not merely passive actors in global politics, but potential sites for rethinking security from the ground up.
Yung Lin is a PhD candidate in the Institute of Security and Global Affairs and a lecturer for the BA International Studies program at Leiden University. Her work focuses on the intersection of identity politics, foreign policy, and security dynamics in East Asia, with particular attention to Taiwan’s evolving role in the region.
This article was published as part of a special issue on ‘Taiwan Research Hub Early Career Scholars Workshop‘.
Taiwan Insight 
