Search results

This collection brings together work from international relations, politics science, history, geography and law into a definitive collection that covers three dimensions of the geopolitical: classic geopolitics, critical geopolitics and popular geopolitics

What can be the goal for a state that is no more an empire in an environment where empire cannot be a goal anymore? In this paper, it is argued that there is a classic French geopolitical stance that has conserved a large part of its characteristics over centuries & can be compared to the attitudes of other European states. It is precisely because this long-lasting, consistent set of ideas & behaviors is coming apart that it is urgent to put it in the perspective of its own historical development. After some general remarks on the particular part played by France on the European geopolitical checkerboard, the fate of the "special relationship" between France & Africa, as a dramatic case study of the widening gap between the traditional imperial stance & newly emerging realities, is considered. The third aspect of this reflection is an analysis of the original characteristics of the European Union in terms of international relations & the impact of this new context on the evolution of the French state. 1 Figure. Adapted from the source document.

(First published in French as "La Geopolitique dans l'histoire," in Espaces temps 68-69-70, pp 187-201.) Geopolitical representations are not only located but also dated. As a geohistoric rationale for a political plan, geopolitics is as old as the political "discourse" on territory & power. But while geopolitics has been discernible since ancient times, this mode of action only became incontestable with the Westphalian state that, on its creation, bore the mark of three principles: the primacy of politics, unity of identity, & territory. During the following centuries, three different stances can be noted: the imperial model, the state model, & the universal model. In each case a historical situation (imperial competition, war, redistribution) leads to the setting up of an explanatory model of itself, & this dynamic is the basis for a representation that becomes the starting point for assessments of competition that will themselves be translated in a new way. A fourth family of models, "neo-geopolitics" has recently emerged. Supplemented with ethnopolitics, neo-geopolitics is making way for dubious entrepreneurs who have reinvested anti-imperialist & anticapitalist phraseology in a process of justifying "rebirths" & other fundamentalisms. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines the role of geopolitics in modern Czech political thinking. It draws on the distinction between geopolitics & anti-geopolitics to argue that the dominant tradition of Czech political thinking is anti-geopolitical. This anti-geopolitics is presented by a review of four central figures of Czech political thought since the nineteenth century (Palacky, Masaryk, Nejedly & Havel). However, it also shows that geopolitics represents an important undercurrent in Czech political thinking which tends to dominate for brief periods of turmoil. Three such periods are addressed: the early 1920s, the late 1930s & the early 1990s. Tables. Adapted from the source document.

"Critical Geopolitics" published on by Oxford University Press.