Geopolitics and discourse Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy

Tuathail, Gearóid Ó; Agnew, John

doi:10.4324/9781315246512-12

Cited by 68 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While it is widely accepted that ‘Geography is about power’ (Toal, : 1), a clear definition of geopolitics is rather difficult (Kristoff, ). In this article, we adopt the conventional academic understanding of geopolitics that concerns the geography of international politics, in particular, the relationship between physical location, territory, resources, and the conduct of foreign policy (Tuathail and Agnew, ). The geopolitical perspective emphasizes the role of states in potential conflicts with each other to gain control of geographic space and associated resources and to sustain and increase their power relative to other states.…”

Section: Conceptual Background On Geopolitical Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Geopolitical Perspective into the Opposition to Globalizing State‐Owned Enterprises in Target States

Shi

Hoskisson

Zhang

2016

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plain language summary Geopolitical concerns are one of the important factors influencing multinational enterprise (MNE) location choices. This is particularly true for globalizing state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) because of their direct ties with governments. Because of geopolitical concerns, SOEs may face a strong level of opposition in foreign countries which neighbor SOEs’ home countries, have different religious beliefs and political regimes from SOEs’ home countries or countries do not lack resources that SOEs can provide. Such opposition is particularly strong in countries where domestic politicians find it in their interests to arouse nationalistic feelings and oppose foreign SOEs’ investments. This study highlights the importance of considering geopolitical factors in MNE location choices. Technical summary The emergence of globalizing state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) requires revisiting the assumption that multinational enterprises (MNEs) are focused on economic not political objectives because SOEs tend to be perceived as political entities as well. We develop a geopolitical perspective into how geographic distance, religious similarity, and political regime similarity between two nation states, as well as resource complementarity between globalizing SOEs and target states, explain the level of opposition that globalizing SOEs face in target states. We also investigate how the salience of nationalist politics moderates the influence of these geopolitical factors on the level of opposition that globalizing SOEs face. This theoretical model developed in this study sheds new light on understanding the role of geopolitics in affecting MNEs’ location choices. Copyright © 2016 Strategic Management Society.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Background On Geopolitical Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Geopolitical Perspective into the Opposition to Globalizing State‐Owned Enterprises in Target States

Shi

Hoskisson

Zhang

2016

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 The practitioners of statecraft, statespersons, politicians and military commanders-namely, the agents-employ practical geopolitical reasoning to make sense of crises, construct stories to explain these crises, develop strategies for dealing with such situations and conceptualize potential solutions for them according to the means at their disposal and the values which they hold. 9 The geopolitical reasoning process is operational not only in domestic but also in foreign policy decisions in interrelated ways, with the latter affecting the former and vice versa.…”

Section: Geopolitical Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring

Pala¹,

Aras²

2015

Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The far‐reaching scope of research in political geography sits at the nexus of “bottom‐up” and “top‐down” epistemologies, and nowhere in the sub‐discipline is this more apparent than in the study of geopolitics which has experienced resurgence since the late 1980s. The resultant field of “critical geopolitics” built on post‐structuralist foundations to define geopolitics as “a discursive practice by which intellectuals of statecraft ‘spatialize’ international politics and represent it as a ‘world’ characterized by particular types of places, peoples and dramas” (Ó Tuathail & Agnew, , p. 190). As the field has grown, a significant methodological and ontological breadth has emerged which can offer a unique, multi‐scalar perspective on paradiplomacy.…”

Section: The Multi‐scalar Geopolitics Of Regional Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradiplomacy and political geography: The geopolitics of substate regional diplomacy

Jackson

2017

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political geographers have increasingly engaged with "alternative" diplomatic practices, actors, cultures, and sites which transcend traditional state-centric modalities. Despite this growing interest, the term paradiplomacy, referring to the international activities of substate regions, has not featured heavily in the geographical literature. This paper brings debates surrounding the nature and practices of paradiplomacy into conversation with recent political geography scholarship on diplomacy and, in particular, geopolitics. It begins by introducing the increasingly plural understandings of diplomacy that have challenged dominant state-centric discourse and foregrounded the inherent spatiality of diplomatic practices. This is followed by an examination of the dynamic evolution of the term "paradiplomacy." The paper goes on to suggest how theoretical and methodological insights from political geography could be productively interwoven with the study of paradiplomacy. The final section exemplifies this through an exploration of the geopolitics of substate diplomacy. It is argued that by building on methodological insights from critical readings of geopolitics, it is possible to offer a multi-scalar analysis of paradiplomacy which contributes to an ongoing project of political geography-to unsettle and challenge ingrained imaginaries which underpin our understandings of the region, the state, and the international political system. | INTRODUCTIONDefining diplomacy is becoming an increasingly difficult task as the widely held and deeply ingrained statist perspective is challenged by the growing significance of alternative actors in the international political system. While there has been plentiful discussion in the academic literature about the rise of "new" non-state diplomacies, including that of substate regions (paradiplomacy), the popular framing of diplomacy remains attached to the state in two key ways. First, diplomacy is done by states. The actors, processes, materials, and sites of diplomatic practice includingThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Geopolitics and discourse Practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy

Cited by 68 publications

References 1 publication

A Geopolitical Perspective into the Opposition to Globalizing State‐Owned Enterprises in Target States

A Geopolitical Perspective into the Opposition to Globalizing State‐Owned Enterprises in Target States

Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring

Paradiplomacy and political geography: The geopolitics of substate regional diplomacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About