Suchergebnisse

Though the author admires Gerard Dussouy's attempt to model the range & complexity of contextual influences on geopolitics, the very breadth & intricacy of Dussouy's conceptualization raise heuristic & practical issues that may limit its potential to reshape geopolitics as a field of study. The article notes that Dussouy's model does to little to address the view that geopolitics might be better represented as a set of structural, ideological & behavioral scales that privilege certain influences over others. However, the author believes that Dussouy's model represents a powerful contribution to the study geopolitics, as it challenges scholars to consider carefully the relationship between discrete developments & large-scale structures & processes. Adapted from the source document.

"Intersecting Geographies of Institutions and Sovereignty" published on by Oxford University Press.

An attempt is made to illuminate the territorial logic of the modern state system & to explicate its role in different types of conflicts, focusing on the level of the mesoscale & the institutions, practices, & discourses that comprise "regimes of territorial legitimation" within states. Data from a study by A. B. Murphy (2002), which offered a geographical perspective on national claims to territory in the modern state system, are drawn on to develop a typology of "geographically rooted ideologies" that help demarcate a state's boundaries. Mesoscale circumstances that influence territoriality are also delineated & their impacts on interstate boundary conflicts are evaluated. References. K. Hyatt Stewart

Recent research has focused on the efforts of national leaders to legitimize & strengthen national identity through the construction of uncomplicated, linear national histories. Paralleling, & in some respects advancing, these efforts are initiatives aimed at staking national claims to particular territories. These claims are the product of "regimes of territorial legitimation" that reflect the norms of the modern state system. They are fundamentally influenced by two geographic circumstances: the political-territorial status of states at the time of entry into the modern state system & prevailing ideas about the cultural-historical character of state territory. A comparative framework focused on the intersection of these two circumstances provides insights into some basic features of national senses of territory as articulated by those in power within existing states. 2 Tables. Adapted from the source document.