The nation-state system was largely built on the notion of uti possedetis (as you possess, so you may possess) and Western legal traditions of property and ownership. The concept of “indigenous sovereignty” challenges these notions and exposes the racisms embedded in the historical, political, and legal treatment of minority and indigenous land claims. As a result, activists and scholars have called for reconfigurations of power both within and outside a law, right, and sovereignty paradigm. For many, premodern notions of polities, nonhierarchical power structures, and frontiers have no less standing than Western a priori ideals of territory, authority, and boundary. From this perspective, the injustices suffered by minority and indigenous populations during the process of state formation deserve redress.For advocates of indigenous sovereignty, the unacknowledged negative impact of border formation on contemporary intrastate politics constitutes a moral quandary. Put simply, most states formed under highly undemocratic circumstances. The formation of state borders generally results from unequal power relationships that both reflect and cross various social boundaries. Even borders demarcated to facilitate the formation of democratic states and civic nations are rarely the product of democratic processes. Ironically, democratic politics are expected to emerge from democratic institutions tied to modern states despite the fact that there cannot be democracy until democratic institutions and state borders are established. Tension often remains over this original imposition of power by one group over another, which may generate lasting economic and sociopolitical inequalities. These inequalities have fueled numerous international conflicts as well as ethnic resentments and social injustices. In this sense, borders represent the “scars of history” not only in the landscape but also metaphorically in the minds of various populations.Many forms of minority territory resulted from the varying cultural, economic, and political conditions that accompanied state formation. Enclaves and exclaves are good examples. Enclaves are a portion of one state’s territory surrounded by the territory of another state. An exclave is a territory belonging to one state that is not contiguous with the rest of the state. Most exclaves are also enclaves inside another state. Exceptions to these definitions would be exclaves that are not surrounded by another state or enclaves that do not belong to another state…Enclaves and exclaves are quintessentially the “scars of history,” often generating intense emotion among the populations of the adjacent states which can result in fissures and conflicts. But such violence and tension usually result from specific conditions and circumstances, not from territorial structure…Clearly, borders and national, ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities have rarely, if ever, directly aligned with one another. Yet in response to the new realities of global terrorism and migration, many states seek to harden their borders to reassert territorial sovereignty and create an environment favoring cultural purity and government-prescribed loyalty. Such efforts speak to the centrality of security in the twenty-first century, but due to globalization, security is increasingly linked to a range of transnational issues and processes. Recognizing this, some scholars have suggested that for states to be truly secure and profitable, they will have to adopt more internationalist and de-territorialized strategies.Question 11The concept of "scars of history" in the passage refers to:The economic and sociopolitical inequalities from state border formation.The historical documentation of past conflicts and wars.The cultural traditions preserved by minority and indigenous populations.The physical landscape changes due to historical events.