Correct option is A
Boundaries are ‘de facto’ while frontiers are ‘de jure’: This statement is
incorrect. It is the opposite:
Boundaries are de jure (legally recognized and formally established), while
frontiers are de facto (informal, practical zones that may not have legal recognition).
Frontiers occupy a fixed position and their boundaries cannot be altered: This statement is
incorrect. Frontiers are flexible, shifting zones between two areas or nations, and they do not have a fixed position, unlike formal boundaries, which are often legally defined.
Information Booster:
·
Boundaries are fixed, legally recognized divisions that are typically marked on maps and agreed upon by states through treaties or agreements. They are
de jure in nature.
·
Frontiers are more ambiguous and act as transition zones between political entities, such as states or empires. Historically, they represented areas with limited state control and are
de facto.
· Boundaries often have a
material existence, such as walls, fences, or signs, while frontiers do not have such strict demarcation.
·
De jure refers to something that is legally recognized, whereas
de facto refers to something that exists in practice, even if not legally recognized.
Additional Knowledge:
Boundaries are two-dimensional while frontiers are three-dimensional: This is correct. Boundaries are represented as two-dimensional lines on maps, while frontiers are understood as broader three-dimensional zones in the physical world.
Boundaries are maintained by state and have no material existence: This statement is
correct. While boundaries are enforced by the state, the statement refers to boundaries as conceptual legal constructs. Boundaries are political and legal agreements that, while often marked, are not always physically present (e.g., an open border).