| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
160636
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the end of World War II, classical geopolitics as a particular form of realism has been disengaged from the development of mainstream realist theories. This disengagement has not only concealed the value of classical geopolitics as a framework of analysis for policy and strategy, but also created an increasing rift between theory and policy in contemporary realist theories. This paper seeks to reengage classical geopolitics with mainstream realist theories by clarifying its realist traits and analytical characteristics, (re)stating its core propositions and probing into its potential contribution to the development of mainstream realist theories. This paper contends that classical geopolitics, while having a distinctive pedigree, can arguably be considered an integral part of the family of realist theories in view of its basic theoretical assumptions concerning international anarchy, the unit of analysis and power politics. As a framework of analysis, classical geopolitics incorporates three interrelated strategic propositions. Those three propositions not only constitute the theoretical core of classical geopolitics, but also manifest a peculiar balance-of-power conception that is essentially distinct from those proposed by mainstream realist theories. This paper argues that those three propositions combined promise to fill in prominent lacuna in the balance-of-power research programme, and also have significant implications for contemporary world politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
071312
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
103748
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Undead, unkillable and uncannily, unceasingly trendy, 'geopolitics' strikes again. Marxist geopolitics could have been a good idea - for Marxists at least. This version doesn't work for two reasons: first, its emphasis on the inter-relationship between territory, capitalism and power makes it virtually indistinguishable from Marxism writ large; and second, it re-legitimates some of the familiar yet noxious tropes of classical geopolitics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
111708
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
143263
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
First published in 1999 in the Naval War College Review, this article is republished unchanged here as an example of how geopolitical reasoning can be used to make predictions about the future. The article first reviews the development and critique of classical geopolitics, defending it as a legitimate approach to understanding international relations, and then uses geopolitics as a lens to predict trends in the world of the twenty-first century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
155289
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores three themes related to classical geopolitics: first, it presents reasons why scholars and commentators abandoned geopolitical analysis after World War II, and then reengaged with geopolitical factors after the Soviet Union’s collapse; second, it suggests how Mackinder’s geopolitical concept of the heartland illuminates the strategic goals of Russia and China, the leading powers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; and, third, it introduces utility of classical geopolitical thought for how the United States might respond to the potential domination of Mackinder’s heartland by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
103749
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
143251
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Every few years, scholars and strategists rediscover the importance of geography. Interest in the terrestrial setting of international politics has grown again in the last few years, with classical geopolitics, in particular, receiving a fresh look from a variety of angles. Scholars, journalists and strategists have abetted geography's “revenge” against perceptions of obsolescence in the face of changing technology.1 This article discusses this most recent regeneration, evaluating the descriptive, predictive and prescriptive contributions of classical geopolitics, from Kjellen to Kaplan, in order to help determine whether the revival is to be welcomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
103751
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
103747
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article argues for a Marxist geopolitics that moves beyond both critical geopolitics and the discredited classical geopolitics. It underlines the valorisation of territory by capital across three levels of abstraction: that of social infrastructure, class conflict and ground-rent proper. The recent Russian-Ukrainian gas wars are briefly analysed by way of illustrating the application of this distinctive approach to geopolitics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|