Sorin LEARSCHI, PhD^

Abstract. Territorial and economic enclaves have acquired unprecedented strategic relevance in the dynamics of contemporary international relations. This study analyses the complexity of enclaves as geopolitical and geoeconomic instruments used by major actors such as the United States, Russia, and China in the context of the transformation of the post-bipolar global order. Territorial enclaves – such as Kaliningrad, Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla, Northern Cyprus, and the Kashmir Valley – are assessed in terms of their functions of military projection, regional control, and strategic buffer against competing actors. The article argues that the militarization of these enclaves and their use as strategic pressure points generate regional instability and risks of military escalation, particularly in sensitive areas of Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, and South Asia. At the same time, offshore economic enclaves – such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, or the new enclaves created through the Belt and Road Initiative – are seen as playing a crucial role in reconfiguring capital flows, tax optimization, and strengthening the economic influence of major emerging powers. Although significant, international efforts to increase financial transparency have not eliminated these territories’ strategic role in global economic competition. The article also addresses the relevance of enclaves in the European Union’s strategies for securing external borders, Turkey’s use of the Cypriot enclave as a strategic outpost in the Mediterranean, and Kashmir’s function as a geostrategic hub in the Indo-Pakistani rivalry. The analysis highlights several major trends: the accelerated militarization of enclaves, the instrumentalisation of migration for geopolitical pressure, the expansion of digital security networks around enclave borders, and the consolidation of control over offshore energy and logistics infrastructure. In conclusion, enclaves are not mere geographical exceptions, but key elements of global strategic competition, simultaneously bastions of power, laboratories of tension, and indicators of the reconfiguration of the world order. In a world characterized by fluid multipolarity, whoever controls the enclaves controls the vital networks of strategic flows: military, energy, financial, and informational.

Keywords: Territorial enclaves, economic enclaves, geopolitics, geoeconomics, international security, militarization, migration, regional strategies, US, Russia, China, European Union, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Belt and Road Initiative, external borders, strategic control

ASJC classification: 3320

INTRODUCTION

The concept of enclave in geopolitics refers to a territory entirely surrounded by the territory of another state. Initially geographical and political studies emphasise this phenomenon as isolated “pockets” – for example the enclaves of the states of India or Bangladesh until 2015.¹ As great powers redefine their regional influences, enclaves are acquiring greater strategic importance. This article examines both classic territorial enclaves (e.g. Russian Kaliningrad, British Gibraltar, Spanish cities Ceuta and Melilla) and modern economic enclaves (offshore financial centres such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, as well as the global financial metropolises Hong Kong and Singapore). The objective is to highlight the role of these enclaves in contemporary geopolitics and their impact on the security and economic policies of the main global players.

Since the 20th century, related notions such as “semi-enclaves” or “counter-enclaves” have appeared for complex situations, but current work emphasises the essence of territorial isolation. The concept has been discussed in terms of political geography for over a century, emphasising that enclaves always raise issues of governance, security and economics.

The enclave phenomenon has ancient roots (e.g. city-states, walled colonies), but modern examples abound after the 19^th century. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) created the British Gibraltar on Spanish territory, and after the First World War intricate enclaves in Europe and Asia resulted. After 1947, the partition of India created hundreds of reciprocal enclaves between India and Pakistan / Bangladesh, further complicated by the existence of enclaves (one state within another state’s enclave). An illustrative example: the India-Bangladesh enclaves, where land “crowned” between the two countries was virtually uncontrolled and inhabited by people neglected by both rulers². Historical problems generated by enclaves include lack of public services, illicit cross-border trafficking and territorial disputes. Conceptually, the enclave has always been seen as a border anomaly, but also as a potential point of strategic tension – a ‘bleeding pore’ (not infrequently a military weak spot) in regional geopolitics.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MAIN ENCLAVES

 Kaliningrad (Russian Federation)

The former Prussian region became a Soviet enclave after the Second World War, lying between Lithuania and Poland on the Baltic Sea. NATO strategists and military analysts emphasise the enclave’s strategic-military importance: Kaliningrad is Russia’s only unfrozen Baltic port and a stronghold of the Baltic Fleet.

In November 2024, Reuters reported an intercept of US B-52 bombers in the vicinity of Kaliningrad, noting that the aircraft were “near Russia’s enclave on the Baltic Sea”³. In practical-operational terms, Kaliningrad is dependent on its strained relations with the EU / NATO (Poland and Lithuania) for land communications and supplies. Recently, Russia has increased the region’s military equipment (e.g. anti-aircraft and ballistic missile systems), which has condensed Kaliningrad into the role of a strategic escalation point in Eastern Europe. In conclusion, Kaliningrad illustrates how a small enclave can become a major geopolitical actor: a forbidden Russian bastion, anachronistic from a post-1990 border perspective.

Gibraltar (United Kingdom)

 Gibraltar is a British territory on the Iberian Peninsula. It is not, as many believe, an island.
Photo by David Alan Harvey, National Geographic
A 6.8 square kilometre British peninsula at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, Gibraltar is of huge strategic value because of its location on the Strait of Gibraltar. National Geographic points out that Gibraltar is home to a British military base, a port and airfield, one of the world’s strategic communications centres, and control of the strait provides vital access to trade and energy transport routes between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.⁴ Spain constantly claims sovereignty over the peninsula (historically captured by the British in 1704 and ceded in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht), so Gibraltar remains a sensitive diplomatic hub. In the context of Brexit, the EU has imposed strict conditions: as the press has reported, it was expressly stipulated in the negotiations on post-Brexit relations that no deal would cover Gibraltar without Spain’s consent. Gibraltar thus functions as a British enclave (where British laws apply, not being part of the common customs with the EU) within the EU (Spain) border, generating effects on trade, immigration and regional security.

 Ceuta and Melilla (Spain / EU)

These two autonomous Spanish cities on the north (Moroccan) coast of Africa are EU enclaves on the African continent. Every year, the issue of border control and migration flows underpins Euro-Moroccan tensions. The EU and NATO governments continually emphasise the need to manage these external borders for community security, while the local community lives in a tense climate (anti-burglary walls, joint EU-Moroccan patrols, etc.). Although we do not specifically cite studies in this case, we note that Ceuta and Melilla demonstrate the pitfalls of upgrading to an enclave status – they are also considered as gateways for unauthorised immigration into the Schengen Area, a fact highlighted in recent EU reports.

Off-shore economic enclaves: Cayman Islands and Bermuda

These British Overseas Territories (Cayman in the Caribbean, Bermuda in the Atlantic) act as leading offshore financial centres. Their economies are highly focussed on banking and insurance, with special tax regimes (0% corporate income tax) designed to attract international companies and investment vehicles. As a result, GDP per capita is comparable to that of highly developed countries, although the number of inhabitants is small. These financial enclaves have also been targeted by international organisations (OECD, EU) to counter money laundering and tax evasion. The pre-servation of their enclave character (distinct legal regime) allows them to become “elastic hotspots” of global capital with a subtle geopolitical impact – their financial influence is disproportionate to their territorial size.

Hong Kong and Singapore

Hong Kong (a former British concession) is now a classic example of a socio-economic enclave: reintegrated under Chinese sovereignty in 1997, it has long remained a semi-autonomous economy, oriented towards the free market and global finance (and remains an “international financial hub”).

In 2020-2022, controversies over the National Security Law imposed by Beijing have reinforced the perception that Hong Kong’s special status is gradually being undermined. A NATO report observes that China’s influence is becoming relevant also for Euro-Atlantic security⁵, emphasising the increasing interdependence between developments in Hong Kong and global strategy. Singapore, on the other hand, is a sovereign city-state, but in the analytical context it can be compared to a model enclave of global integration through its pro-business environment and open finance policies. Both cities demonstrate the soft power and economic dynamics in which urban ‘enclaves’ can function as key bridges of capitalism and global capital flows.

US MILITARY AND STRATEGIC POLICY
TOWARDS TERRITORIAL AND ECONOMIC ENCLAVES

US military policy on territorial enclaves reflects a concern for maintaining access to global strategic points and projecting power in key areas. The United States has created de facto enclaves through international agreements and special pacts so that formal sovereign territories function as basing platforms. An illustrative example is the “free association pacts”⁶ with Palau, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia (FSM), three Pacific island micro-states. Through these treaties, originally signed in the 1980s and re-evaluated in 2023, Washington obtains exclusive military rights indefinitely in vast areas of the Pacific Ocean comparable in surface area to the entire US continent.

In current practice, they give the United States “instruments of neo-colo-nialism”: the right of “strategic interdiction” (prohibition of access for other military forces to these states) and a veto over their political alliances⁷. In return, the local governments receive massive economic assistance (over $7bn over 20 years) and US citizenship for hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of these nations. In this way, political-military trilaterals at the ends of the earth turn federated states into strategic enclaves under continuous US control, providing naval and air access to remote regions in times of crisis. These agreements have recently been reaffirmed (2020-2024) without diminishing American prerogatives and are seen by analysts as practical “ocean empires” with few equals on Earth.

Other key military enclaves are in the form of foreign bases under American control. A notorious example is Diego Garcia Island (Chagos Islands, Indian Oc. Chagos), a British territory officially called the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which provides the United States with a remote naval harbour indispensable for operations in the Indian Ocean and Middle East. The inclusion of BIOT on the list of US administrative tariffs in 2025 was notable because Trump declared a 10 per cent tariff inclusive of imports from this territory⁸ – indirect evidence of military importance. Diego Garcia hosts thousands of troops and serves as a “launching pad” for trans-regional operations. Recent images even show American B-2 nuclear bombers stationed there, emphasising the crucial role in nuclear deterrence.⁹

Similarly, Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, although technically leased, functions as the largest US military base in Africa¹⁰. Positioned at the entrance to the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden), the US base along with others acts as a “headwater” for the naval flow to the Suez Canal. Control of these critical passages is vital for the defence of trade and military routes. Consequently, the United States ties the security of East Africa and the Middle East to its presence there, operating counter-terrorism from this strategic enclave.

In the archipelago and the Pacific Ocean, American governments extend their influence through naval and air interests. For example, the bases at Rota (Spain) and Morón provide a US presence in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Although Spain is a sovereign state, these bases function as “official” US military extensions. In particular, Gibraltar – a sovereign British territory – secretly receives US nuclear submarines for refuelling and minimal maintenance. Thus, loss of access to Gibraltar would mean that the US would be unable to refuel its nuclear submarines in the Mediterranean without prior notification¹¹. The US military strategy involves maintaining the status quo: the US relies on the special alliance with the UK to gain unlimited access to NATO enclaves like Gibraltar, avoiding the administrative constraints that would otherwise apply to Spanish bases. Overall, US military policy treats friendly territorial enclaves as vital nodes: either through their own bases (e.g. Diego Garcia, Djibouti) or through privileged arrangements that make foreign territories former American ones (Marshalls, Palau).

US economic and diplomatic interest in offshore enclaves

From an economic and diplomatic perspective, the United States projects its interests into “spaces” considered economic enclaves – that is, areas that grant extensive economic privileges to selected participants. A key area is exclusive rights over maritime resources. Even though the US is not a party to UNCLOS, it claimed in 2023 the huge extension of its continental shelf by ~1 million km²¹². This expansion covers the East Atlantic (up to the border with Canada and the Bahamas), the North Pacific (for an extended area of the West Coast) and even the Arctic region of the Arctic Ocean (along the borders with Russia). The reason is the same: hidden underwater riches (from oil and gas to rare minerals), as well as control of potential new sea routes. For instance, the US Secretary of State has emphasised that the allocation of ownership of these vast underwater plateaus stimulates investment in mining (by qualifying the area as an “enclave” under US control)¹³. Furthermore, the claimed extension includes areas in the Bering and Arctic Seas, where strategic deposits are estimated (e.g. 126 trillion cubic feet of gas and 24 billion barrels of oil in the Bering on the Russian border).¹⁴ In the future, as the Arctic ice melts, these areas could become transport hubs, cutting trade routes to Asia by up to 50%, increasing the economic importance of the claimed plateau. The US thus treats its extended ocean shelves as self-owned economic enclaves with exclusive rights of exploitation, comparable to enclaves in which it monopolises resources or strategic facilities.

 Deep-sea mining companies have found large reserves of key minerals
Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2015 Hohonu Moana
In terms of global economic geopolitics, the United States benefits indirectly from the existence of offshore financial enclaves favourable to international capital. Academic analyses have shown that the major powers (including the US) have encouraged the liberalisation of financial markets and the development of offshore centres (such as Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, etc.) precisely to maintain global access to capital markets¹⁵. Moreover, the “entitlements” in these jurisdictions (low taxes, light regulations, tax privacy) are used by US companies and individuals to optimise profits¹⁶. In other words, through its monetary and financial policy, the US takes advantage of the financial enclaves created by the former British colonial power and others (just as China or Russia reposition their capital through offshore circuits)¹⁷. These offshore enclaves contribute to American global economic power by facilitating investment flows and by structuring international financial chains according to rules favourable to large global players.

At the diplomatic level, the US treats offshore enclaves and economic straits as national security objectives. The American position on the Panama Canal is exemplary: as recent analysts have pointed out, the canal – a historic American project controlled by the US until 1999 – is now seen as a “strategic crow” threatened by China’s influence around it¹⁸. Beijing is investing heavily in the canal’s inlet harbours, bridges and water management systems, consolidating an “economic enclave” that “encircles” the canal. Against this backdrop, some American voices are advocating renationalisation of the canal to secure its trading rights (6% of world trade passes through the canal) and prevent dependence on foreign infrastructure.

In addition, the US is interested in controlling straits and naval routes that play roles equivalent to critical economic enclaves. For example, the flow of energy communications to Europe and Asia involves access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and any change in the political status of Gibraltar or Gibraltar as a point of proximity between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean attracts the attention of US strategists. Similarly, in order to maintain energy security, the US supports offshore gas exploration in the Mediterranean (Leviatan, Tamar) as a tool to counter-balance rival (Turkis).¹⁹

In conclusion, US economic and diplomatic interests in offshore enclaves are geared towards protecting access to scarce resources (minerals, energy), markets and trade routes controlled by state-states, and promoting a global framework favourable to US capital. The United States attaches great importance to maintaining the status quo that favours the status of economic enclaves (e.g. maintaining Gibraltar’s neutral zone and its associated privileges or maintaining tax policies that allow offshore ventures).

Case study: Gibraltar

Gibraltar is a typical example of a strategic territorial enclave. Controlling the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, this British territory has so far been a pillar of NATO’s presence in the region. US military policy has capitalised fully on Gibraltar’s role. For more than two centuries, the Americans have co-operated closely with the UK in the use of the Gibraltar naval base, which has been a node in the Barbary Wars (1801-1805) and in modern interventions (Libya 2011, for example)²⁰. The naval presence at the ‘Rock’ allowed submarines and other US ships to enter the Mediter-ranean quickly, without the red tape imposed by states such as Spain.

For example, in 2022, the Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper noted that the US submarine USS Georgia had docked in Gibraltar harbour for supplies, immediately provoking a Spanish diplomatic outcry because Madrid believed Rota (a much larger NATO base) could have done it. The Spanish said they were “uncomfortable” with the US decision, pointing out that Rota harbour would have had the capacity to service that submarine. Also in 2020, an American Seawolf-class submarine was carrying out a “scheduled logistics assistance visit” to Gibraltar. On both occasions, US troops consistently chose Gibraltar, even when NATO partners (Spain) expressed their displeasure.

From a strategic point of view, the US regards Gibraltar as an irreplaceable hub. US military policy aims to preserve the permanence of the Gibraltar facilities, and the Americans insist that they remain under British control in order to maintain freedom of naval operations. In the Spanish analysis, violation of this (e.g. through Spanish claims) would undermine the entrustment of providing logistics for US nuclear submarines. This is why Washington officials have long conveyed public support for British sovereignty over Gibraltar, believing that the dissolution of this arrangement would jeopardise military responsiveness in the Mediterranean.²¹

The diplomatic dimension of US involvement in Gibraltar is complex. The US officially maintains a neutral stance in the dispute between London and Madrid, but its strategic co-operation with the British is unquestionable. The US has often declared itself in favour of respecting the self-determination of Gibraltar’s inhabitants (a fundamental right based on its own recent referendums)²² while asking the Spanish not to impose their will on the enclave. Such a policy reflects not only solidarity with a historic NATO ally, but also a concrete interest in not being left without a convenient naval airfield nearby. Moreover, post-Brexit the issue has been further aggravated by discussions over Gibraltar’s status, and the US has watched closely to ensure that post-Brexit UK – EU trade agreements do not degrade US military access too much.²³

In conclusion, US influence in Gibraltar is the result of the transatlantic alliance with the UK and the practical need for access to the Mediterranean. The American presence in Gibraltar, whether direct (through American submarines and ships) or indirect (logistical and intelligence support), emphasises that this territorial enclave plays a special role in the US regional strategic architecture.

Case study: US – Morocco relations on Ceuta and Melilla

The Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, located on the North African coast, are a sensitive case from the perspective of US – Morocco relations. Historically, both cities were conquered by the Iberian kingdoms centuries before the colonial era in North Africa²⁴, and for Spain they are an integral part of its sovereign territory. Morocco, on the other hand, claims them as a “colonial vestige” of the Middle Ages, a claim periodically renewed in different political contexts.

The United States, although not directly involved in the dispute, has a close bilateral relationship with Morocco, recently strengthened by Western recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara (a step taken by the Trump admi-nistration in 2020). Spanish experts note that this American move has bolstered Moroccan morale to demand further concessions. For example, in 2021 the Moroccan leadership temporarily relaxed border controls at Ceuta in a manner seen as retaliation for Sahara-related events²⁵. Tactically, Rabat has demonstrated that it can influence migrants to the Ceuta enclave, thereby exerting diplomatic pressure.

The Spanish press warned in 2025 that a possible second Trump term could extend recognition to Ceuta and Melilla²⁶. An editorial in El Español signalled that many view Trump as having such “friendly and favourable relations with Morocco” that recognition of any territorial claim is feared²⁷. In fact, some analysis has suggested that Morocco knows how to ‘leverage’ US support to maximise its border benefits²⁸.

The official Spanish reaction, however, was calm. In March 2025, the Spanish foreign minister reaffirmed that the status of Ceuta and Melilla is “completely clear” and “indisputable”, with no intention to change anything under external influence²⁹. He emphasised Morocco’s role as an ally and strategic partner, but insisted that “the United States remains the natural ally of all European countries”. However, his com-ments also referred to close co-operation with Morocco on issues such as managing illegal immigration and fighting terrorism, areas in which Madrid and Rabat are working effectively together. Trade has also reached new records, totalling €25bn, illustrating the mutual dependence of the two countries despite territorial tensions.

Overall, the American role in the Ceuta – Melilla issue is rather indirect. The United States maintains strategic relations with Morocco (reconfirmed in the 2020 partnership agreement), but has never publicly stated that it would support Moroccan claims to the Spanish enclave. But the US stance on the Sahara has raised questions in Spain about what might happen one political cycle from now. On the eve of the 2024 US elections in Madrid, there was speculation that Washington’s “road to Rabat” policy could also influence the status of the enclaves. In reality, however, official US diplomacy – at least publicly – has avoided the subject. The United States seems to consider Ceuta and Melilla part of the recognised international order, and any talk of potential changes has so far been alien to it. Instead, the US is channelling its efforts into broad cooperation with Morocco for regional stability (e.g. border security and humanitarian crises)³⁰, trying to maintain a balance between European allies (Spain) and non-European partners (Morocco).

The US treats strategic and economic enclaves as extensions of its own global projection capability. Thus, through military instruments, special legal agreements and economic policies in support of offshore structures, America secures comparative advantages in areas of strategic interest. In the case of Gibraltar, the direct military interest requires maintaining British control, and in the Ceuta – Melilla situation, the diplomatic interest materialises in tacit support for Spain’s territorial integrity, despite growing relations with Morocco. In all cases, the US is seeking to ensure that these enclaves operate on the side of American interests – either through easy military access or favourable economic relations – strengthening the US global position in the new strategic territories of the 21^st century.

RUSSIA AND ENCLAVES:
BETWEEN FORCE PROJECTION AND STRATEGIC ISOLATION

Russia utilises the enclave as a complex strategic tool, combining power pro-jection with the vulnerabilities inherent in geographical isolation. This chapter analyses Kaliningrad’s pivotal role in Russia’s military strategy towards NATO, while also addressing the frozen conflicts in Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the economic and energy implications of these enclaves.

Kaliningrad’s role in Russian military strategy towards NATO

Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania, is a crucial military stronghold in Russia’s security strategy in the Baltic region. The enclave is home to Russia’s Baltic Fleet and is equipped with advanced military systems, including Iskander-M missiles, which can quickly reach targets in neighbouring NATO states. This military hardware makes Kaliningrad a direct threat to NATO’s eastern flank, prompting the alliance to take significant defensive measures in the region. According to Roy Allison’s recent analysis, the Russian military build-up in Kaliningrad reflects Moscow’s intentions to limit NATO’s capabilities and strengthen its own strategic position in Eastern Europe.³¹

In addition, Kaliningrad serves as a strategic point for Russian military exercises, such as Zapad, which simulate large-scale conflicts with NATO states. These exercises are perceived as shows of force, designed to intimidate the Baltic states and test the cohesion of the NATO alliance.³²

Russia and frozen conflicts: Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Frozen conflicts are strategic tools used by Russia to expand its geopolitical influence in the post-Soviet space. Transnistria, a breakaway territory of the Republic of Moldova, benefits from a constant Russian military presence, helping to maintain Moscow’s influence in the Eastern European region. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, the presence of Russian troops in Transnistria serves Russian strategic interests by creating a buffer zone that limits Moldova’s integration into Western structures.³³

Similarly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia’s breakaway regions, benefit from Russian military and diplomatic support. The official recognition of these territories by Russia in 2008, after the Russo-Georgian war, reinforced the status of these enclaves as de facto entities under Russian protection. These conflicts keep Georgia outside NATO and prevent the full integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic structures.³⁴

Moscow’s continued economic and military support for these territories demonstrates Russia’s strategy of keeping conflicts “frozen”, allowing the Kremlin to exert pressure on the states and the international community.

Economic and energy implications of Russian enclaves

Kaliningrad’s economy faces significant challenges due to its geographical iso-lation. Despite special facilities designed to attract foreign investment, the enclave’s economy remains dependent on direct budget transfers from Moscow and trade flows constrained by regional political tensions. According to a report published by the Atlantic Council in 2021, sanctions imposed on Russia after the annexation of Crimea and growing international isolation have exacerbated Kaliningrad’s economic vulnerabilities.³⁵

From an energy perspective, the Kaliningrad enclave is highly dependent on electricity and gas supplies from the main Russian territory, transiting through NATO and EU states. In this regard, Russia has endeavoured to reduce the enclave’s energy dependence by developing its own energy infrastructure, including the con-struction of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Kaliningrad, which allows direct gas imports without transit through NATO countries.³⁶

In the case of Transnistria, the region’s economy is heavily dependent on Russian subsidies, which support the local administration and enable economic survival. Similarly, Abkhazia and South Ossetia receive significant financial assistance from Russia, which maintains these regions’ dependence on Moscow and limits opportunities for independent economic development.

Russia’s policy towards its enclaves reflects a strategy of military projection and geopolitical influence, combined with the economic and logistical vulnerabilities inherent in the isolation of these territories. Managing these enclaves continues to pose a challenge for the international community, with direct implications for regional and global security.

CHINA AND THE POLICY OF ECONOMIC AND TERRITORIAL ENCLAVES

China uses enclaves as a sophisticated tool to promote its economic and political objectives globally. In this chapter, the special situation of Hong Kong and Macao, the role of special economic zones and the Belt and Road Initiative, and the geopolitical implications of these enclaves for global politics are analysed.

Hong Kong and Macao:
between economic autonomy and political integration

Hong Kong and Macao are clear examples of enclaves with special status, enjoying extensive autonomy in economic and legislative matters under the “one country, two systems” principle. Hong Kong is a global financial centre and Macao an important centre for gambling and tourism. However, the accelerated political integration promoted by Beijing in recent years has generated domestic and international tensions. Large protests in Hong Kong against the National Security Law (2020) have drawn international attention to the limits of territorial autonomy.

According to an analysis by Chinese-American political scientist Minxin Pei, Beijing has sought to reduce Hong Kong’s political autonomy to strengthen control and eliminate the risk of political instability, but it has also undermined international investor confidence.³⁷

Chinese economic enclaves:
Special Economic Zones and the Belt and Road Initiative

Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are key planks in China’s economic development strategy, operating as enclaves with distinct tax and regulatory facilities designed to attract inward investment and boost regional economic growth. Shenzhen, the first and best-known SEZ, exemplifies the success of this policy, transforming itself from a fishing village into a global technology centre.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) extends China’s economic enclave model internationally by creating economic corridors and logistical hubs that facilitate global trade and expand China’s geopolitical influence. An eloquent example is the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, transformed into a key economic enclave of the BRI, providing China with strategic access to the Indian Ocean, but also the port of Piraeus.³⁸

According to Jonathan E. Hillman, the BRI is a geopolitical tool that allows China to create significant economic and political dependencies among participating states, reinforcing China’s global influence.³⁹

Geopolitical implications of Chinese enclaves on global politics

Chinese economic and territorial enclaves have a major impact on global politics, influencing the regional and international strategic balance. In the case of Hong Kong, the decline of political and economic autonomy has been interpreted as a sign of China’s growing assertiveness, generating pushback from Western states and affecting Sino-US relations.

At the same time, the Gwadar economic enclave and other BRI projects are influencing regional geopolitical dynamics by forging new economic and political alliances, particularly in Central Asia, Africa and Europe. These projects are contri-buting to a shift in the global strategic balance, prompting the United States and its allies to reassess regional and international policies.

According to Nadège Rolland’s analysis, these economic and territorial enclaves of China are central elements in Beijing’s long-term strategy to reshape the global order, with profound implications for contemporary international relations.⁴⁰

China’s economic and territorial enclave policy reflects a complex strategy of economic development and geopolitical projection. These special territories have become key instruments through which China is expanding its global influence and consolidating its economic and political leadership on the international stage. The international community is thus confronted with the need to respond strategically to these developments by managing the geopolitical impact of the Chinese enclaves.

Territorial and economic enclaves are no longer just geographical exceptions but real actors in the global geopolitical arena. They reflect profound changes in international relations, becoming simultaneously points of vulnerability and levers of power.

OTHER GEOPOLITICAL ACTORS AND THE RELEVANCE OF ENCLAVES

Enclaves are not only relevant to major global powers such as the US, Russia and China. Geopolitical actors such as the European Union, Turkey, India and Pakistan also manage strategic enclaves, each with profound regional implications. This chapter analyses their policies towards enclavisation and the related geopolitical impact.

Managing territorial enclaves: Ceuta and Melilla

The European Union faces the management of sensitive enclaves, notably Ceuta and Melilla, autonomous Spanish cities on the North African coast. These territories are the EU’s external borders and critical migration hotspots.

In the face of migration pressures from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb, the EU has supported border security measures, including building six-metre-high walls, installing thermal surveillance cameras and reinforcing Frontex patrols.⁴¹

According to the “European Pact on Migration and Asylum” adopted in 2020, strict border control of enclaves is essential for the internal security of the Union⁴². Ceuta and Melilla are legally treated as “externalised access points” in the European protection system.

Although the EU promotes a rhetoric of respect for fundamental rights, nu-merous FRA and Amnesty International reports point to risks of asylum denials and summary expulsions around these enclaves.⁴³

Northern Cyprus is the result of Turkish military intervention in 1974, followed by the unilateral proclamation of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) in 1983, officially recognised only by Ankara⁴⁴. Internationally, the TRNC is considered an illegal enclave within the sovereign territory of the Republic of Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is vital for Turkey for three main reasons:

• Military control of the eastern Mediterranean;

• Political influence in an area rich in offshore energy resources;

• Blocking effective EU and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean.⁴⁵

In recent years, Turkey has beefed up its military presence and begun contested energy explorations in neighbouring waters, fuelling tensions with Greece, Cyprus and the European Union.⁴⁶

 Turkey and Northern Cyprus: a contested enclave
Source: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipru#/media/Fi%C8%99ier:Cy-map.png

India and Pakistan: Kashmir as a geostrategic enclave

Kashmir is one of the oldest and most intense territorial disputes in the world. Following the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the region was de facto partitioned but claimed in its entirety by both states.

The Indian-held Kashmir Valley functions as a strategic enclave wedged between India, Pakistan and China.⁴⁷

Kashmir is now one of the most militarised regions on the planet, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed on both sides of the Line of Control. The situation escalated after the abrogation of Article 370 of India’s Constitution in 2019, which cancelled the region’s special autonomy.⁴⁸

The conflict in Kashmir carries huge risks not only bilaterally but also globally, as India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers.

The management of enclaves by actors such as the EU, Turkey, India and Pakistan shows how enclaves are becoming hubs of tension, militarisation and geo-political contestation in the multipolar era. These cases illustrate that enclaves are not just isolated territorial fragments, but real levers of regional strategic power.
 Source: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca%C8%99mir#/media/Fi%C8%99ier:Kashmir_region_2004.jpg

GLOBAL DYNAMICS AND TRENDS ON ENCLAVES

Enclaves, territorial and economic, have become essential landmarks in the global geopolitical architecture. Far from being mere geographical accidents, they reflect complex dynamics of security, migration, economics and sovereignty. We analyse the main global trends of enclavisation and their impact on contemporary international relations.

In Europe, Kaliningrad has developed into a key A2/AD area on NATO’s eastern flank, hosting Iskander-M ballistic missiles, S-400 anti-aircraft systems and reinforced naval bases⁴⁹. This military concentration limits NATO’s freedom of movement in the Baltic region and increases the risk of accidental escalation.

In the eastern Mediterranean, Northern Cyprus remains under Turkish military control, with around 30,000 troops stationed⁵⁰. This militarised enclave serves as a strategic point in energy disputes in the eastern Mediterranean.

In South Asia, Kashmir remains one of the most militarised regions in the world, divided between India, Pakistan and partly China⁵¹. The dispute over the territory continues to fuel regional rivalry and is a flashpoint in the Asian strategic balance.

Enclaves often function as “buffer zones” or strategic “leverage”. For example, Russia uses Transnistria to maintain pressure on Moldova and project instability in the Black Sea region.⁵²

The European enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa are hotspots of illegal migration. In May 2021, more than 8,000 migrants entered Ceuta in just 48 hours as Morocco relaxed border controls⁵³. This event highlighted the use of migration as a tool for geopolitical pressure on Spain and the EU.

In response to the migration waves, host states have resorted to drastic measures to secure the enclave’s borders. Around Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish government has built six-metre-high walls⁵⁴, equipped with motion sensors, thermal surveillance cameras and electronic detection networks.⁵⁵

These measures, described by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), illustrate a generalised trend of militarisation of the EU’s external borders.⁵⁶

Offshore enclaves – Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Jersey – today manage more than 10% of global private wealth⁵⁷. These territories act as tax optimisation hubs, allowing multinational companies to avoid taxation in their home jurisdictions.

After the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers scandals, organisations such as the OECD and the EU initiated reforms to make tax havens more transparent, including BEPS standards and tax blacklists⁵⁸. However, many enclaves have implemented only minimal measures, keeping the real benefit structure opaque.⁵⁹

In a world of trade, energy and data networks, control of enclaves becomes cri–tical. Gibraltar plays a vital role in the security of transatlantic cables, and the Chinese-developed Gwadar harbour in Pakistan is redefining access to the Indian Ocean.⁶⁰

Digital surveillance has expanded massively around enclaves, combining facial recognition technologies, drones and artificial intelligence. This trend is creating electronic security enclaves with major implications for human rights and privacy.

Contemporary enclaves are at the centre of the tensions between integration and fragmentation in the global order. They are not just isolated territories, but strategic instruments that shape power relations, border security and the distribution of global resources.

In the age of extended strategic competition, who controls the enclaves controls the vital networks of global power.

CONCLUSIONS

Enclaves, be they territorial or economic, are increasingly becoming vital stra-tegic pieces in a world characterised by fierce geopolitical competition and global economic interdependence. The dynamics of militarisation, migratory pressures, offshore financial networks and new surveillance technologies are transforming enclaves into nerve centres of international politics.

Militarily, enclaves serve both as defensive bastions and as subtle offensive tools. On migration, they are pressure points that can rapidly destabilise the regional order. In finance, offshore enclaves are key nodes of globalised capital flows.

A two-pronged trend is clearly emerging: on the one hand, states are tightening their control over enclaves through militarisation and digital surveillance; on the other, international regulatory efforts (especially on financial enclaves) are intensifying, without completely cancelling their strategic role.

The complexity of territorial enclaves and their geopolitical implications serve as a microcosm of the broader dynamics of international relations. Throughout this exploration, we have dissected the multifaceted nature of enclaves – entities that exist within the borders of a sovereign state but possess unique legal, political and cultural characteristics. Examining case studies such as the Kaliningrad region, the British overseas territories, and various enclaves in the Caucasus and Southeast Asia, we illuminated the ways in which these regions function as points of contention and collaboration between nations. The strategic positioning of enclaves often makes them both valuable assets and sources of tension, highlighting the need for nuanced diplomatic strategies.

The analysis also highlighted how enclaves can influence regional stability by serving as points of conflict or as facilitators of co-operation. The economic interactions they promote, often characterised by trade agreements and cross-border policies, illustrate the potential of enclaves to act as bridges between disparate national interests. Conversely, the political vulnerabilities they face raise questions about sovereignty, governance and national integrity. By promoting a better understanding of these dynamics, we equip decision-makers with the information needed to navigate the complexities of territorial disputes and promote a more stable international environment.

Originating in science fiction, the idea of “accelerationism⁶¹” predicts the inevitable acceleration of technology leading to an acceleration of economy, lifestyle and political orientation, asserting that change is inevitable and coming. In this context, new cyber enclaves are becoming a reality that we have to get used to recognising, legally legalising and regulating their status. It is still a philosophical concept – quite an old one – but one that seems to be being applied by the new American administration.

In conclusion, the complicated web of relations around territorial enclaves illustrates the delicate balance of power in international relations. Recognising the dual nature of these regions – combining elements of cooperation and conflict – can inform diplomatic approaches that prioritise engagement over isolation. As we move forward in an increasingly interconnected world, the study of enclaves remains vital, shedding light on the pressing need for collaborative strategies that take into account both local identities and national interests. Thus, the discourse around enclaves transcends mere territorial negotiations and invites a broader dialogue on coexistence and mutual benefit, charting a course towards a more harmonious global society.

In the decade to come, enclaves will continue to play a role disproportionate to their physical size, serving as barometers of global power balances.

Bibliography

1. Allison, Roy. “Russia, NATO, and Kaliningrad: Security and Geopolitics in the Baltic Region.” European Security 30, no. 2 (2021).

2. Amnesty International, Pushed Back, Violations at Europe’s Borders (London, 2022).

3. Atlantic Council. “Sanctions and the Economic Isolation of Kaliningrad.” Economic Report (2021).

4. European Commission, New Pact on Migration and Asylum (Brussels, 2020).

5. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Fundamental Rights at Europe’s Southern Sea Borders (Vienna, 2022).

6. German, Tracey. “The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Strategic Perspective.” Journal of Strategic Studies 43, no. 7 (2020).

7. Hancox, Emily, ‘Brexit and the Special Status of Gibraltar’, European Public Law 27, no. 2 (2021).

8. Happymon Jacob, Line on Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India-Pakistan Escalation Dynamics, Oxford University Press, (2021).

9. Hillman, Jonathan E. The Emperor’s New Road: China and the Project of the Century, Yale University Press, 2020.

10. International Crisis Group, Eastern Mediterranean: New Energy Frontiers and Regional Tensions (Brussels, 2021).

11. International Crisis Group. “Moldova and the Transdniestrian Conflict.” Europe Report no. 249 (2022).

12. Ker-Lindsay, James, The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).

13. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Zapad Exercise Analysis. Riga: NATO StratCom COE, 2022.

14. Noorani, A.G., Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir, Oxford University Press, (2020).

15. Pei, Minxin. “China’s Hong Kong Dilemma: The Challenge of Autonomy.” Journal of Democracy 31, no. 1 (2020): 5-19.

16. Pirani, Simon. Energy Dependence and Russian Enclaves: The Case of Kaliningrad. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, OIES Paper NG 168 (2022)

17. Rolland, Nadège. China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative. The National Bureau of Asian Research, 2021.

18. Tocci, Nathalie, “Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean: The New Geopolitics of Energy,” Institute of International Affairs Policy Brief, 2022.

19. Transparency International, Offshore Financial Centres and the Threat to Global Financial Integrity (Berlin, 2023).

20. Zucman, Gabriel, The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (2016).

Web sources

1. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sambandh-blog-india-and-bangladesh-exchanging-border-enclaves-re-connecting-with-new-citizens/ – accessed on 25 April 2025.

2. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-bombers-intercepted-by-russian-jets-near-kaliningrad-monday-2024-11-26/ – accessed on 25 April 2025.

3. https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/04/04/what-is-the-gibraltar-dispute/ – accessed 26 April 2025.

4. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/11/22/natos-china-and-indo-pacific-conundrum /index.html – accessed 27 April 2025.

5. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pacific-islands-us-military/ – accessed 2 May 2025.

6. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/not-just-penguin-islands-trump-tariffs-target-us-military-bases-too-8084254 – accessed 27 April 2025.

7. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/not-just-penguin-islands-trump-tariffs-target-us-military-bases-too-8084254 – accessed 27 April 2025.

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lemonnier#:~:text=Camp%20Lemonnier%20%20was%20originally,4 – accessed 27 April 2025.

9. https://www.chronicle.gi/submarine-uss-georgia-sails-into-gibraltar/ – accessed 27 April 2025.

10. https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2024/08/manifestdestinyinthedeep theunitedstatesclaimsamassivenewextendedcontinentalshelfacrosstwooceans.pdf – accessed 27 April 2025.

11. https://mine.nridigital.com/mine_nov24/us-territory-expansion-2024 – accessed 27 April 2025.

12. https://oms-www.files.svdcdn.com/production/downloads/academic/AfricaOffshoreWorld WP2021_10June.pdf – accessed 27 April 2025.

13. https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2025/01/29/the_panama_paradox_a_call_for_american_strategic_reclamation_1087586.html – accessed on 28 April 2025.

14. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/19/why-is-americas-middle-east-strategy-undermining-its-own-global-influence/#:~:text=,as%20Qatar%20and%20Turkey – accessed on 28 April 2025.

15. https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/self-determination-and-national-security-why-the-us-should-back-british – accessed on 28 April 2025.

16. https://www.chronicle.gi/us-navy-submarine-docks-in-gibraltar/ – accessed on 28 April 2025.

17. https://warontherocks.com/2016/08/as-brexit-looms-troubled-seas-around-gibraltar-should-have-washingtons-attention/ – accessed on 28 April 2025.

18. https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/why-do-ceuta-and-melilla-matter-to-spain-and-morocco/?cf-view – accessed on 28 April 2025.

19. https://en.yabiladi.com/articles/details/160704/spain-dismisses–morocco-ties-threat.html – accessed on 28 April 2025.

20. https://sport.walaw.press/en/articles/trumps_foreign_policy_sparks_spanish_fears_over_ceuta_and_melilla/GMLLLFXPRSXL – accessed on 28 April 2025.

21. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/moroccos-tougher-stance-emboldened-by-us-sahara-move-2021-05-19/ – accessed on 28 April 2025.

22. https://en.yabiladi.com/articles/details/160704/spain-dismisses–morocco-ties-threat.html – accessed on 28 April 2025.