YES: Various global and regional developments have increasingly rendered national boundaries geographically and economically irrelevant.
Our increasingly integrated global economy makes economic isolation or autarky highly disadvantageous to economic growth for many countries and encourage instead the deepening of trade ties that increase the flow of goods and finance across borders.
The constant movement of people across borders to find employment represents countless business opportunities to expand the labor pool, making itadvantageous for countries to ease traveler identification procedures at border and immigration checkpoints.
Increasing emphasis on cooperation by regional and international bodies make national boundaries irrelevant to the solving of collective and geographically widespread problems such as environmental hazards and natural disasters which are cross-border in nature.
NO: Various global and regional developments accentuate the continued relevance and importance of national borders in geographical and economic terms.
National boundaries remain the most useful means to physically demarcate different areas of financial jurisdiction and law, allowing local governments some means of limiting their exposure to global economic fluctuations.
National boundaries remain highly relevant the more trans-border movement becomes the norm today, as it encourages both the flow of legitimate and illegitimate travelers, and failure to manage the latter will bring in disastrous economic and social consequences, such as black market activities in vice, unlicensed workers and human trafficking.
National boundaries remain important geostrategic assets for many countries as they demarcate both the expanse and limit of a country’s geopolitical influence, hence justifying the case for continued dialogue and diplomatic resolution over controversial sovereignty claims such as those in the Spratlys.