We are used to the idea that each state has clearly defined borders, which cleanly separate different nationalities from one another. What, though, were frontiers like before the evolution of the modern nation state? The nine essays in this book seek to answer this question across a thousand years of Eurasian history.

This book explores the idea, psychology and political geography of Northeast India as forged by two interrelated but autonomous meta-narratives. First, the politics of conflict inherent in, and therefore predetermined by physical geography, and second, the larger geopolitics that was unfolding during the colonial period. Unravelling the history behind the turmoil engulfing Northeast India, the study contends that certain geographies — most pertinently fertile river valleys and surrounding mountains which feed the rivers — are integral to nature and any effort to disrupt this cohesion will result in conflict. It comprehensively traces the geopolitics of the region since colonial era — in particular the Great Game; the politics that went into the making of the McMahon Line, the Radcliffe Line and the Pemberton Line; the region’s relations with its international neighbours (China, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Nepal); as well as the issue of many formerly non-state-bearing populations awakening to the reality of the modern state. Lucid and analytical, this book will be of great interest to scholars and researchers of Northeast India, modern Indian history, international relations, defence and strategic studies, and political science.

On both sides of the Atlantic, restrictive immigration policies have been framed as security imperatives since the 1990s. This trend accelerated in the aftermath of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe. In Frontiers of Fear, Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia raises two central questions with profound consequences for national security and immigration policy: First, does the securitization of immigration issues actually contribute to the enhancement of internal security? Second, does the use of counterterrorist measures address such immigration issues as the increasing number of illegal immigrants, the resilience of ethnic tensions, and the emergence of homegrown radicalization? Chebel d’Appollonia questions the main assumptions that inform political agendas in the United States and throughout Europe, analyzing implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of policies in terms of their stated objectives. She argues that the new security-based immigration regime has proven ineffective in achieving its prescribed goals and even aggravated the problems it was supposed to solve: A security/insecurity cycle has been created that results in less security and less democracy. The excesses of securitization have harmed both immigration and counterterrorist policies and seriously damaged the delicate balance between security and respect for civil liberties.

Frontiers in Physics – FPHY – is now in its eighth year. Up to last year, the journal received a slowly increasing trickle of manuscripts, and then during the summer… Boom! The number of manuscripts we receive started increasing exponentially. This is of course a signal to us who are associated with the journal that we are on the right track to build a first-rate journal spanning the entire field of physics. And it is not the only signal. We also see it in other indicators such as the number of views and downloads, Impact Factor and the Cite Score. Should we be surprised at this increase? If I were to describe FPHY in one word, it would be “innovation”. Attaching the names of the reviewers that have endorsed publication permanently to the published paper is certainly in this class. It ensures that the reviewers are accountable; furthermore, the level of transparency this implies ensures that any conflict of interest is detected at the very beginning of the process. The review process itself is innovative. After an initial review that proceeds traditionally, the reviewers and authors enter a back-and-forth dialog that irons out any misunderstanding. The reviewers retain their anonymity throughout the process. The entire review process and any question concerning editorial decisions is fully in the hands of active scientists. The Frontiers staff is not allowed to make any such decision. They oversee the process and make sure that the manuscript and the process leading to publication or rejection upholds the standard. FPHY is of course a gold open access journal. This is the only scientific publication model that is compatible with the information revolution. A journal’s prestige is traditionally associated with how difficult it is to publish there. Exclusivity as criterion for desirability, is a mechanism we know very well from the consumer market. However, is this criterion appropriate for scientific publishing? It is almost by definition not possible to predict the importance of a new idea – otherwise it would not have been new. So, why should journals make decisions on publishing based on predicting the possible importance of a given work. This can only be properly assessed after publication. Frontiers has removed “importance” from the list of criteria for publication. That the work is new, is another matter: the work must be new and scientifically correct. It would seem that removing the criterion of “importance” would be a risky one, but it turns out not to be. The Specialty Chief Editors who lead the 18 sections that constitute FPHY, have made this selection of papers published in FPHY in 2019. We have chosen the papers that we have found most striking. Even though this is far from a random selection, they do give a good idea of what PFHY is about. Enjoy! We certainly did while making this selection. Professor Alex Hansen (Field Chief Editor)

The nine essays in this book seek to answer the questions of what made a "frontier" between the ancient and modern eras, how people imagined their frontiers, and why historians have sometimes had very different ideas of what these frontiers were like. The collection spreads across much of Europe and Asia, familiar frontiers in Western Europe and around the Mediterranean Sea, and includes examples from China, Mesopotamia, and Lithuania. Ranging from the eighth to the seventeenth centuries, the essays challenge us to rethink our modern notions of frontiers as neat lines intended to divide one state from another because frontiers in the past were often far more complex.

Why is it that we so readily accept the boundary lines drawn around nations or around regions like ‘Asia’ as though they were natural and self-evident, when in fact they are so mutable and often so very arbitrary? What happens to people not only when the borders they seek to cross become heavily guarded, but also when new borders are drawn straight through the middle of their lives? The essays in this book address these questions by starting from small places on the borderlands of East Asia and looking outwards from the small towards the large, asking what these ‘minor pasts’ tell us about the grand narratives of history. In the process, it takes the reader on a journey from Renaissance European visions of ‘Tartary’, through nineteenth-century racial theorising, imperial cartography and indigenous experiences of modernity, to contemporary debates about Big History in an age of environmental crisis.

Why has the flow of big, world-changing ideas slowed down? A provocative look at what happens next at the frontiers of human knowledge. The history of humanity is the history of big ideas that expand our frontiers—from the wheel to space flight, cave painting to the massively multiplayer game, monotheistic religion to quantum theory. And yet for the past few decades, apart from a rush of new gadgets and the explosion of digital technology, world-changing ideas have been harder to come by. Since the 1970s, big ideas have happened incrementally—recycled, focused in narrow bands of innovation. In this provocative book, Michael Bhaskar looks at why the flow of big, world-changing ideas has slowed, and what this means for the future. Bhaskar argues that the challenge at the frontiers of knowledge has arisen not because we are unimaginative and bad at realizing big ideas but because we have already pushed so far. If we compare the world of our great-great-great-grandparents to ours today, we can see how a series of transformative ideas revolutionized almost everything in just a century and a half. But recently, because of short-termism, risk aversion, and fractious decision making, we have built a cautious, unimaginative world. Bhaskar shows how we can start to expand the frontier again by thinking big—embarking on the next Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Apollo mission—and embracing change.