The (Critical) Geopolitics of Seapower

Abstract

Geography is an important determinant of international politics and security. Human and states’ agency is inevitably limited by geographical constraints. Some scholars have claimed that geography constitutes one of the factors influencing the development of seapower. For example, Colin S. Gray stressed that the capacity of the US to exercise its power abroad derives ‘inexorably from the enduring facts of physical, political, and strategic geography’ (Gray, 1994: 165). Michael S. Lindberg emphasises the role of geography ‘to determine a state’s relationship with the sea, its maritime importance, its vulnerability to threats emanating from seaward and its need for naval power’ (Lindberg, 1998: 38). According to Jakub Grygiel, ‘geography, from geological factors such as the layout of a coastline to more ephemeral characteristics such as geography-influenced strategic culture, shapes the ability of a state to develop a navy and to wield seapower’ (Grygiel, 2012: 35). Here, the influence of Mahan’s writings seems evident; three of the six ‘elements of seapower’ he defined in his Influence of Seapower have directly to do with geography or geopolitics (i.e. geographical position, physical conformation, extent of territory), and two others with geography-informed ideational dispositions (i.e. national character, character of governments) (Mahan, 2007: 29–81). This could lead us to believe that Mahan was deterministic in his account of geography.