What is Geopolitics? Which streams can be identified?
Moisi 2015
Geopolitics is a scholarly practice, often regarded as a subfield of political geography, political science and IR
Geopolitics is a political practice that brings together power, place, “world” and subjects in unique combinations
not only academic theorizing of politics also political action of all sorts of actors
frequently misused as tool for power politics, hegemony and imperialism
Today Geopolitics as power-political rivalries and competitions on global and regional level, which may be intensified by certain policies and actions of national states
Steams:
classical geopolitics = neo-classical geopolitics: geography as “a cause of underdevelopment and conflict” -> dominant in security studies
critical geopolitics: as tool to deconstruct stereotyped discourses
The space/ geo dimension in International Relations
After Cold War, a debate started on how the spatial structure (UdSSR/West) in international relations have developed
Today we see spatial structures that have developed in the anarchic international system and have became a different significance (spatial turn)
The space (earth) is the outcome of social relations and interactions and serves certain interests
spaces of power, zones of influence and areas of power
Concept keeps changing as spacce is always produced and reproduced
An alternative suggestion to the term geopolitics made by scholars was e.g.
geo-economics, to describe that the world is now shabped by economic competition and cooperatian and no longer by politics
What are the roots and core assumptions of Classical Geopolitics?
Continental-Europe:
1899 Swedish politician and political scientist Rudolf Kjellén geopolitics as academia about the state as geographical organism or picture of the space
Socio-biological approach in the 20th century
State is not only bound by earth but also determined by it
Anglo-Saxon World: Halford Mackinder (British conservative)
States were no longer seen as organisms
Mackinder never used the term but his theory mainly bases on global competition between leading states
Shaped by spatial binaries naval power/land power and cultural distinctions
During Cold War geopolitical in strategic studies
Ukraine war (2014) from a geopolitical perspective: liberal Anglo-Saxon civilisation vs. conservative continental civilisation (Russia) with different value system (money and trade vs. conservative and herorism
Classical Geopolitics:
Based on objective political reality and existing power structures
Uses geographical factors and circumstances (location of state, region and resources) to explain the evolution and action of a countries’ foreign policy
geographical factors and circumstances define the spatial placement
The “size of power” of a spatial placement (defined by those geographical f+c) is always relative to the environment
binaries are basic patterns of geopolitical thinking, most prominet the land vs. sea power
If geographical factors count for power, which side of a binarity/ which geographical factors are promotive or not for becoming a global power
=> assumption that opportunity for global power would depend on the spatial position (land or sea) of a country
Geography as cause of underdevelopment and conflict
! BUT works in a narrowingand simplifying way as it leaves out other factors e.g. economical e.g. way of production; new approach geo-economics!
In how far is Classical Geopolitics informed by realism? How do the two approaches differ?
Unterschiede
CG: Focuses on the spatial placement, defined by real geographic factors that shape their spatial placement
States foreign policies are based and shaped by an assessment of their spatial placement
Developes a lot of theories about which geographical factors are promotive or not
R: Priority goal is to secure the survival of the state in a dangerous anarchy and lawlessness international system
Focuses on solving a security dilemma -> individual states have to defend themselves without any protection from international institutions
Developes fewer theories more about security policies and management of power
In some They do intersect:
R/CG: one condition of power is the size, sometimes also the geographical circumstances of a nation
R/CG: Priority goal is the survival of the state and the question for security in an anarchy international system
CG when the position is always assessed relative you can only win or loose so you have to take action
security dilemma
Power Balance or hegemony
What are the roots and core assumptions of Critical Geopolitics?
Misio
established in the late 1980s and early 1990s
first was influenced by the world political developments and the rise of leftism in Anglo-American academia in 1970s-80s
early critical geopolitics builds on postmodern writing and and the focous involves identity and differende, feminsim or postcolonialism
came down to the question which socio-economic resources made some nations more powerful than others
deals with topics like immigartion, borders, development, war, environment
Geopolitics as culturally embedded spational practices of statecraft
looks at reality from a subjective point of view
objective reality is almost impossible
≠ classical geopolitics OBJECTIVE
spatial structure as the result of language and politicial socio-cultural actions
They are also the inspiration for their critics about classical geopolitics
geopolitical practice doesn’t base on neutral geographically resources
they are socially embedded and the dichotomy araises from different national identity building
Which role do geography and space play in Critical Geopolitics?
Crititcal geopolitics puts the socio-economic resources in the focus.
≠ classical geopolitics, it is impossible to assess a state’s power objectively by its “spatial placement”
Often the motivation for political actions lay in deeper laiers not observable spaces
“geography” is socially from a subjective view constructed and has no universal trouth
bound to larger questions, regarding identity, postcolonialism or feminism e.g., than questioning after location or resources
Space and spatial structures are constructed for political purposes via discourses and narratives on the basis of power structures/ hegemonies/ great powers
geopolitics misused to establish dominance
Thus, critical geopolitcs directly criticises the classical geopolitics because they see a narrowing in understanding the space as a geographically defined one which is far to neutral.
realistic geographical attribute of a nation matter in world politics but are less important in political practice e.g. evolution of foreign policy
Does Classical Geopolitics have the potential to challenge Global Governance as a paradigm in International Relations?
No. Classical Geopolitics completely leaves out the importance of international and multinational institutions and non-state actors
For GG those institutions are a prerequisite for the function of the system
WTO, World Bank, IMF, UN as well as NGOs have great influence on the development of global but also local policies
Geopolitics does play a role but more as a strategic measure in different global fields: analysing of wars (Ukraine) or development policies (China)
GG also is kind of eroded as the institutions looses in power and are mainly shaped by power asymmetric so they don’t really hold what they pretend to be
Last changed3 months ago