Bordering standards: The politics of verifying the Korean military demarcation line

Abstract

The Military Demarcation Line (MDL) on the Korean Peninsula is often treated as the archetype of a clear, militarized border. Yet it is increasingly described as ‘unclear,’ a puzzling claim for a boundary long regarded as rigid and well enforced. This article argues that such ‘unclearness’ does not reflect the absence of a border, but rather uncertainty in its operational reference: which baseline is actionable, which representations and markers can be relied upon, and which institution can authoritatively verify and reconcile discrepancies. Bringing border studies into dialogue with science and technology studies, the article reframes border clarity as an ongoing infrastructural achievement sustained through the alignment of maps, markers, records, and verification procedures. Drawing on armistice texts and annex maps, Military Armistice Commission records, operational regulations, and subsequent geospatial updating efforts, it shows why the MDL is a critical case: militarization sustains strong behavioral prohibitions while simultaneously constraining inspection, maintenance, and supervised access—the practical work that keeps representational layers mutually useable. When these conditions deteriorate, the line does not disappear; it persists through partial, contested, and sometimes incompatible operational versions. The article develops the concept of versioned demarcation to capture how demarcation is repeatedly reassembled across changing technical systems and institutional routines. It demonstrates that disputes that appear to concern ‘where the line is’ are often conflicts over verification, access, and custodianship, and offers a framework for analyzing ‘unclear borders’ beyond the Korean case.