| Course Objectives: |
Drawing on critical geopolitics, political geography, and political economy, the course explores how space is produced, governed, contested, and transformed in international politics. Key themes include the historical formation of territorial states, the resurgence of borders under contemporary security regimes, the spatial organization of war and violence, the geopolitics of resources and infrastructure, and the role of cities, maps, and popular culture in shaping geopolitical knowledge. Throughout the course, students are encouraged to critically interrogate dominant geopolitical narratives and to analyze international political processes as spatially embedded and contested. |
| Course Content: |
This course introduces Political Geography as a critical and conceptual intervention into International Relations (IR). While mainstream IR approaches have often treated space, territory, and borders as neutral backdrops to political action, political geography demonstrates how spatial arrangements actively shape power relations, sovereignty, security practices, and global order. The course examines how core IR concepts—such as the state, territory, sovereignty, borders, war, security, and global governance—are constituted through spatial practices and geopolitical imaginaries. While grounded in International Relations debates, the course is informed by critical political geography and political economy perspectives, enabling students to develop a spatially sensitive and critically informed understanding of global politics. |
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) are those describing the knowledge, skills and competencies that students are expected to achieve upon successful completion of the course. In this context, Course Learning Outcomes defined for this course unit are as follows:
|
|
|
|
| Knowledge
(Described as Theoritical and/or Factual Knowledge.)
|
1) Explain key concepts and approaches in political geography and evaluate their relevance for understanding international politics.
|
2) Critically assess the spatial assumptions of International Relations theories, particularly regarding territory, sovereignty, and the state.
|
| Skills
(Describe as Cognitive and/or Practical Skills.)
|
| Competences
(Described as "Ability of the learner to apply knowledge and skills autonomously with responsibility", "Learning to learn"," Communication and social" and "Field specific" competences.)
|
1) Interrogate geopolitical knowledge production, including maps, policy discourses, and popular representations, as political practices rather than neutral descriptions.
|
2) Analyse international issues through a spatial lens, identifying how power operates through borders, territories, infrastructures, and scales.
|
3) Develop theoretically informed and critically grounded arguments that connect spatial analysis to broader debates in International Relations.
|
| Week |
Subject |
Materials Sharing * |
|
Related Preparation |
Further Study |
| 1) |
Introduction: Why Space Matters in International Relations |
- Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.
- Ó Tuathail, G. (1999). Understanding critical geopolitics: Geopolitics and risk society. Political Geography, 18(1), 107–124.
|
|
| 2) |
Geopolitics and the Spatial Imagination of World Order |
- Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.
- Dalby, S. (1990). Creating the second Cold War: The discourse of politics. Guilford Press. (Chapter 1)
|
|
| 3) |
Territory, Boundaries, and the Modern State |
- Elden, S. (2013). The birth of territory. University of Chicago Press. (Introduction).
- Tilly, C. (1992). War making and state making as organized crime. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 169–191). Cambridge University Press.
|
|
| 4) |
Sovereignty, Space, and the Politics of Exception |
- Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press. (Chapter 1)
- Weizman, E. (2007). Hollow land: Israel’s architecture of occupation. Verso. (Chapter 1)
|
|
| 5) |
Borders Resurgent: Security, Migration, and the War on Terror |
- Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1), 63–92.
- De Genova, N. (2017). The borders of “Europe.” Cultural Politics, 13(3), 228–247.
|
|
| 6) |
Power Beyond Territory: From Foucault to Global Governmentality |
- Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. Palgrave Macmillan. (Lecture 1)
- Walters, W. (2012). Governmentality: Critical encounters. Routledge. (Chapter on global governance)
|
|
| 7) |
Knowledge, Space, and Global Governance |
- Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press. (Introduction)
- Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. University of California Press. (Ch.1)
|
|
| 8) |
Midterm week |
|
|
| 9) |
War, Violence, and Spatial Control |
- Gregory, D. (2004). The colonial present. Blackwell. (Chapter 1)
- Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
|
|
| 10) |
Cities, Urban Space, and Global Politics |
- David Harvey (2001). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Routledge. Chapter: “Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’”
- Neil Brenner (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press. (Introduction).
|
|
| 11) |
Natural Resources, Environment, and Geopolitical Space |
- Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232.
- Bridge, G. (2014). Resource geographies I: Making carbon economies, old and new. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 111–129.
|
|
| 12) |
Spatial Crises of the Contemporary World Order |
- Bruff, I. (2014). The rise of authoritarian neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism, 26(1), 113–129.
- Brown, W. (2010). Walled states, waning sovereignty. Zone Books. (Conclusion).
|
|
| 13) |
Presentations I |
|
|
| 14) |
Presentations II |
|
|
| Course Notes / Textbooks: |
Agnew, J., Mitchell, K., & Toal, G. (eds.) (2003). A Companion to Political Geography. Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism. Verso.
Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of Experts. University of California Press.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (eds.) (2010). The Dictionary of Human Geography (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Flint, C., & Taylor, P. J. (2018). Political Geography: World-Economy, Nation-State and Locality (7th ed.). Routledge.
|
| References: |
Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.
Dalby, S. (1990). Creating the second Cold War: The discourse of politics. Guilford Press. (Chapter 1)
Elden, S. (2013). The birth of territory. University of Chicago Press. (Introduction).
Tilly, C. (1992). War making and state making as organized crime. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 169–191). Cambridge University Press.
Week 4 – Sovereignty, Space, and the Politics of Exception
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press. (Chapter 1)
Weizman, E. (2007). Hollow land: Israel’s architecture of occupation. Verso. (Chapter 1)
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. Palgrave Macmillan. (Lecture 1)
Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. University of California Press. (Ch.1)
Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
David Harvey (2001). Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Routledge. Chapter: “Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’”
Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232.
Brown, W. (2010). Walled states, waning sovereignty. Zone Books. (Conclusion).
|
| |
Programme Learning Outcomes |
Contribution Level (from 1 to 5) |
| 1) |
Explains the fundamental and theoretical knowledge required for business management. |
|
| 2) |
Approaches problems encountered in the field of business administration with an analytical mindset and produces solutions. |
|
| 3) |
Develops problem-solving and decision-making abilities through individual and team work. |
|
| 4) |
Demonstrates the ability to manage employees and processes in a dynamic business environment. |
|
| 5) |
Acquires the skill of writing a thesis that contributes to the field by examining a current problem in business administration from a scientific perspective. |
|
| 6) |
Evaluates existing norms and standards in tasks undertaken with a critical perspective, and develops innovative and entrepreneurial ideas. |
|
| 7) |
Enhances professional-level competencies beyond undergraduate qualifications in accordance with the expectations of the business world and society, as well as the institutional outcomes defined by our university, and applies them in professional or academic life. |
|
| 8) |
Possesses cultural awareness and conveys it to groups both within and outside the field. |
|
ECTS Information Package / Course Catalogue
