Geoeconomics in the context of restive regional powers

被引:14
作者
Mattlin, Mikael [1 ]
Wigell, Mikael [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Turku, Dept Polit Sci & Contemporary Hist, Turku 20014, Finland
[2] Finnish Inst Int Affairs, POB 400, Helsinki 00161, Finland
关键词
CHINA; GEOPOLITICS; INDIA;
D O I
10.1007/s10308-015-0443-9
中图分类号
D81 [国际关系];
学科分类号
030207 ;
摘要
Geoeconomic power and its use appear to be a crucial, albeit understudied aspect of today's international relations. Traditionally, international power has been thought of in geopolitical rather than geoeconomic terms. Indeed, ever since the famous debate about sea power and land power between Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford MacKinder at the cusp of the twentieth century, scholars have linked geography with the pursuit of political and military power. However, the term "geoeconomics" is of a more recent origin, and also more vexing than geopolitics. The term is commonly associated with Edward Luttwak's writings in the early 1990s Luttwak (Natl Interes 20:17-24, 1990, Int Econ 7/5:18-67, 1993), although it did not spin a major scholarly discussion at the time. For Luttwak, geoeconomics denoted the successor system of interstate rivalry that emerged in the aftermath of Cold War geopolitics. As a consequence of the rise of major new economic powers, such as China, India and Brazil, there is renewed interest in the concept. Yet, an overview of the literature indicates that there seems to be no agreement on what exactly the term means. This special issue tackles the different ways in which the term geoeconomics is used, in the context of the policies pursued by major regional powers (e.g. China, Russia and Germany). How are we to understand the actions of these regional powers in contexts where economic interests, political power and geography intersect? In the introductory article, we overview the literature and summarise the main arguments of the individual papers.
引用
收藏
页码:125 / 134
页数:10
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
Aaltola M., 2014, CHALLENGE GLOBAL COM
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, COMPANION POLITICAL
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1890, INFLUENCE SEAPOWER H
[4]  
Baracuhy B, 2013, NEW EC DIPLOMACY DEC, P341
[5]  
Brattberg E., 2014, Global Flow Security-A New Security Agenda for the Transatlantic Community in 2030
[6]  
Bremmer Ian., 2012, EVERY NATION ITSELF
[7]   Competing hegemons? Chinese versus American geo-economic strategies in Africa [J].
Carmody, Padraig R. ;
Owusu, Francis Y. .
POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, 2007, 26 (05) :504-524
[8]  
Cosgrove DenisE., 2008, Geography and Vision: Seeing, Imagining and Representing the World, DOI DOI 10.5040/9780755620791
[9]  
Couloumbis T A., 2003, Strategic Developments in Eurasia After 11 September, P17
[10]   After Geopolitics? From the Geopolitical Social to Geoeconomics [J].
Cowen, Deborah ;
Smith, Neil .
ANTIPODE, 2009, 41 (01) :22-48