JEOPOLİTİK STRATEJİ

The term geopolitics basically refers to the political significance of geography in the analysis of international relations and thus takes geographical expression of the world as a political construct. A fairly recent phenomenon, international relations (or International RelationsIR as a scholarly discipline and field of study) has been understood mainly through the lens of geopolitics and the geopolitical connotations of the international events and developments for decades. In other words, it is fair to argue that geopolitics has served as the basis and foundation that helped IR scholars better understand and explain the political aspects of the world and conceptualize the interstate affairs. Geopolitical references in the study of international relations have been the norm in many scholarly accounts; more importantly, early theoretical premises seeking to offer a generalizable framework for international politics have heavily relied on assumptions of geopolitics and geopolitical considerations as a whole. For instance, Realism, considered the theory of the IR for a long time, places a great emphasis upon, among other concepts, the term geopolitics which, according to the Realist scholars, holds the potential of properly explaining the root causes of perpetual conflicts between states. For sure, it is no surprise that early IR scholars and theories make much use of geopolitics in their analyses and approaches given that international relations have long been defined in terms of power struggle which eventually makes sense only if territorial gains are examined. Relevance and significance of geopolitics in early stages of the IR as a discipline become more visible when the fact that the IR has evolved out of considerations to put an end to the state of constant warfare is underlined more in stronger terms. In other words, the IR emerged as a response to the challenges posed by the interstate struggle for power which is best reflected in territorial interventions including most notably invasion and conquests which obviously bear relevance only when they are associated with the understanding of geopolitics.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements related to the dynamics of geopolitics in a changing environment of global politics and its relevance to the premises of globalization in the options are correct.

Geography, territory as a political construct, is also relevant from the perspective of international law as well. According to Montevideo Convention which sets out the parameters of a state spells out four aspects for a political entity to be properly called a state: defined territory, permanent people, centralized authority and sovereignty. As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All these aspects and characteristics are basic criteria to define the modern nation state and to distinguish it from other political entities.

Geography, territory as a political construct, is also relevant from the perspective of international law as well. According to Montevideo Convention which sets out the parameters of a state spells out four aspects for a political entity to be properly called a state: defined territory, permanent people, centralized authority and sovereignty. All these aspects and characteristics are basic criteria to define the modern nation state and to distinguish it from other political entities. Both “defined” and “territory” in the term defined territory deserve close attention as they bear significance for a proper definition. Territory refers to a physical space, mostly to land. But it should be noted that territory is not an ordinary type of land and that it is a qualified and political component. As a physical space, territory is an integral element of the state which cannot possibly be separated from it.

Because it is different from an ordinary type of land, territory appears to be a significant criterion to define the state. For this reason, to make distinction between the modern nation state and the states before the arrival of nation state, the first is also referred to as territorial state. The difference is that in the definition of modern nation state, physical space is attributed to the state as an integral and indispensable element. In other words, only a state has territory which holds a political connotation and implies a monopolistic political control. In other words, a state, by definition and out of legal necessity, has to have a territory; and it is not possible to speak of a state without a defined territory.

Additionally, only one state has monopoly and control over a territory; therefore, there is connection between territory and the exclusive jurisdiction of a state. This jurisdiction and monopolistic authority by a state over a certain territory is assured under international law which, by the cardinal principle of non-intervention, protects the territorial integrity of all sovereign states. This means that territory, associated with the state and considered an inseparable part of it, is legally protected and that violations directed against its integrity lead to legal responsibility. Thus, it is fair to argue that territory holds a political, as well as legal meaning.  “Defined” complements the nature of protection and certainty ascribed to the territory under international law. “Defined territory” implies that the borders of a state are properly identified and ascertained and that their inviolability is stressed and protected by the community of states. The borders of nation states are specified with utmost certainty, often by imagined lines that exist as constructions. Ideally, natural sites are taken as points of references; but legally speaking, they are not the borders. So, it is reasonable to take a mountain that separates two states as point of reference in identifying the borders.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements above related to the concept of defined territory are correct.

Even though international law prescribes territory as a major component of statehood without adding any certain elements or attributes, the nature of the territory often determines the quality of geopolitical advantage associated with the geography. Among other things, the natural resources, proximity or remoteness to conflict areas, the climatic characteristics, neighborhood with prosperous or politically stable (or unstable) nations are all factors that contribute to the geopolitical inventory. Some of these factors might be controllable or changeable through implementation of certain policies, especially by use of innovative tools in this age of information and globalization whereas some others remain as constant and unchangeable. Innovative strategies, for instance, might be devised to make better use of natural resources which could be made an integral part of a coherent policy of industrialization and development. On the other hand, geopolitical disadvantages associated with being located in a fairly precarious area might be addressed by a constructive policy vis-à-vis the neighboring states.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements related to dynamics of geopolitics and its relevance in a changing global world in the options are correct.

Hence, it is fair to argue that in a changing world and in an era of complex interdependence, the geopolitical assets and accumulation of the state will not remain constant and unchanged. Political actors have to be creative in order to improve their geopolitical status and advantages. This tells us that geopolitics is not all about territory per se. Even though international law prescribes territory as a major component of statehood without adding any certain elements or attributes, the nature of the territory often determines the quality of geopolitical advantage associated with the geography. Among other things, the natural resources, proximity or remoteness to conflict areas, the climatic characteristics, neighborhood with prosperous or politically stable (or unstable) nations are all factors that contribute to the geopolitical inventory.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the factors in the options are among the factors that contribute to the geopolitical inventory. Some of these factors might be controllable or changeable through implementation of certain policies, especially by use of innovative tools in this age of information and globalization whereas some others remain as constant and unchangeable. Innovative strategies, for instance, might be devised to make better use of natural resources which could be made an integral part of a coherent policy of industrialization and development. On the other hand, geopolitical disadvantages associated with being located in a fairly precarious area might be addressed by a constructive policy vis-à-vis the neighboring states.

Diversification and complexity in the international affairs further led to specialization and compartmentalization in the definitions and the contents of other relevant areas and disciplines, including geopolitics. By nature, geopolitics is already associated with a number of relevant fields; but this connection and association became stronger in the era of globalization. While this could be an asset for the discipline itself, divisions have also emerged among analysts studying different aspects of geopolitics. For instance, who study the classical geopolitics, placing emphasis upon the deterministic nature of geography, are of the view that the field focuses on space, land, water and outer space because these are the vital elements for the political supremacy in the world (Cohen, 1964). For others, geopolitics is a research field that pays particular attention to not only geography but also dynamics leading up to clashes and rivalries between great powers. In fact, this is how particular strands of geopolitics came into life: the geopolitics of oil (Klare, 2009), the geopolitics of religion (Dijkink, 2006), the geopolitics of water (Selby, 2005), the geopolitics of propaganda and the geopolitics of internet (Hlihor, 2014).

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of them are strands of geopolitics led by specialization and compartmentalization in the definitions and the contents of geopolitics.

In case the community of states has developed common agreements and strong norms, sovereignty is transformed into a source of responsibility. The term responsible sovereignty refers to this novel advancement in the understanding of international politics (KiMoon, 2008). Responsible sovereignty is based on a prior idea of sovereignty as responsibility which deals with the notion of sovereignty from a normative perspective rather than a free pass for the independent states in the conduct of their foreign policies (Deng et al., 1996). This approach suggests that a state is responsible vis-à-vis its people in terms of honoring the universal human rights rules in all practices and actions and complying with its international legal and moral obligations. More concretely, the minimum requirement of fulfilling this responsibility is to comply with the humanitarian norms for legitimacy, to build capacity in an effort to protect the people against severe threats and to offer proper conditions for their survival and betterment (Falk, 2000: 60-65). Sovereignty as responsibility led to the emergence of the concept of human security which is based on the recognition of freedom from fear, freedom from want and human dignity (Gasper and Gomez, 2015).

As also udnerstood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements in the options related to responsible soverieignty are correct.

Association between geopolitics and globalization can be maintained in three different levels in the era of globalization. The first is the geopolitics of globalization. There is a need to focus on globalization as a term that can be analyzed from a geopolitical perspective. The second takes place at the national level where geopolitics develops with reference to the difference between states and can be called geopolitics of development. The third is an increasingly complex system governed by globalization which can be called “low geopolitics.” This is the type of geopolitics without consideration of military strategies but with real impacts on everyday life of the people.

As aslo understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements above related to the association between geopolitics and globalization are correct.

Within the study of geopolitics, national security, particularly the military security of the state, could be evaluated from the perspective of several major factors including historical territory, nationalities, the structure of the state, the possession of and ability to use natural, material and human resources as effectively as possible (Logunov, 1993, 20-22). In other words, these factors shape the national security issues of each nation state and significantly impact upon the formulation and realization of its national interests. Without taking geopolitics into consideration, a definition of national interest will be missing some core components.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of them are several major factors from which national security, particularly the military security of the state, could be evaluated within the study of geopolitics.

One general premise of the scholarship of international relations underlines that the international system is anarchic as there is no centralized authority to make and enforce the rules that would apply to the actions of the states. A corollary of this premise is that in such an anarchic environment, states will have to rely on their own resources to survive, often referred to in the IR literature as “self-help.” For a very long time, nation states have counted on nothing but themselves. Because every state had similar motivations and considerations, the domain of international relations has been depicted as a venue of constant warfare or power struggle.

As also understood from the information given, the answer is E. All of the statements above related to interplay between geopolitics and interests of nation states are correct.

On the other hand, Russia which, as opposed to The Netherlands, is relatively unstable in economic terms is considered a big power because of its
military influence, and its vast geography. India
is even a more illustrative case

This tells us that geopolitics is not all about territory per se. Even though international law prescribes
territory as a major component of statehood without adding any certain elements or attributes, the nature
of the territory often determines the quality of geopolitical advantage associated with the geography. Among
other things, the natural resources, proximity or remoteness to conflict areas, the climatic characteristics,
neighborhood with prosperous or politically stable (or unstable) nations are all factors that contribute to the geopolitical inventory

The post-Cold War period, particularly the
1990s, is marked with growing interest in the
study and understanding of geopolitics. Geography
has been made a part of political discussions and
analyses. The reason for enthusiasm and interest
is the uncertain direction of world politics after
the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the
bipolar world and the rush to identify the possible
trajectory of global developments under the new
circumstances.

For others, geopolitics is a research field that
pays particular attention to not only geography but also dynamics leading up to clashes and rivalries
between great powers. In fact, this is how particular strands of geopolitics came into life: the geopolitics
of oil (Klare, 2009), the geopolitics of religion (Dijkink, 2006), the geopolitics of water (Selby, 2005), the
geopolitics of propaganda and the geopolitics of internet (Hlihor, 2014).

This argument can be confirmed by the recent popular
uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region where unconnected masses were
organized through social media and initiated a
process called the Arab Spring (Khondker, 2011).

Fukuyama’s seminal book The End of History (1992) argued that
the battle between major ideologies ended with the obvious victory of liberal democracy, suggesting that the liberal values are the ultimate achievement
of mankind. A similar postulate has been offered by
Samuel Huntington (1996) who argued that
a potential clash between major civilizations
replaced the ideological rivalry during the Cold
War. Huntington’s famous clash of civilizations
argument suggests that ideology is no longer
the source of conflicts and disputes in interstate
politics which would be from now on characterized
by the disagreements associated with desires
for domination by different civilizations.

The term responsible
sovereignty refers to this novel advancement in
the understanding of international politics (KiMoon, 2008). Responsible sovereignty is based
on a prior idea of sovereignty as responsibility
which deals with the notion of sovereignty from
a normative perspective rather than a free pass
for the independent states in the conduct of their
foreign policies (Deng et al., 1996). This approach
suggests that a state is responsible vis-à-vis its people
in terms of honoring the universal human rights
rules in all practices and actions and complying
with its international legal and moral obligations.

Human security refers to a shift from emphasis
upon state’s own national security concerns to
the protection of the security of the individuals
in international politics. In other words,
individuals have, to a certain degree, become a
subject of interstate relations and international
law particularly when their survival as groups of
people is at stake.

Russia, no longer relying on ideology as the driving force of foreign policy, recognizes geopolitics as
... the political concept, that uses natural-geographical data (configuration and the size of the territory and
aquatory, climate, material and natural resources, racial and ethnical composition of the population for
explanation of national interests of the states and coalition interests of military-political alliances (Sinayskiy,
1992, 2).

Interdependence is a term referring to the
intricate ties and bonds between the states and
intergovernmental organizations that cannot be
possibly ignored in the analysis of world politics.
The theory of interdependence basically suggests
that due to the inevitable engagement between
states in political, military and economic realms, international cooperation is a must and a wise move for the overall betterment of all states and
of the international system.