Geographical reasoning shows itself at different levels of analysis and on the intersections of multiple spatial assemblies, while historical reasoning integrates the past and the present.3 According to French geographer Yves Lacoste, geopolitics is especially concerned with the “study of power rivalries over a territory (...); and the capacity of a power to project itself outside this territory.”. [...] In other words, the scope of geopolitical issues, shadowed by the ideological conflicts between the two blocs during the Cold War, expanded in terms of both the subject and the actors with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.33 Lacoste began to emphasize that politics and geography affect each other mutually.34 From this, we can think about t. [...] The study of the actors, the understanding of power relations in societies or institutions, is at the heart of geopolitical reasoning, and the description of the actors’ strategies is to be placed in their geopolitical contexts.68 From this point of view, one may also ask the following questions: Are borders important in the context of globalization? Is there a world beyond borders? Or can there b. [...] The reason for this is that, with the effect of the realist/neorealist perspective that dominates the IR field, Turkey’s geopolitical situation and geographical location affect the courses and almost narrow the field of study of geopolitics. [...] From a general point of view, it is very difficult to establish a link between the content of the course and the name given to the course, since a course that can be described as a “regional study” or a “foreign policy of a country” is called “geopolitics.” The most important reason for this can be seen as the denial of the geographical and methodological features of geopolitics, which are seen as.
- Pages
- 18
- Published in
- Türkiye
