عنوان مقاله [English]
In spite of presenting some new insights and relevant critiques on traditional geopolitics, it seems that critical geopolitics is reductionist and consequently is not capable of explanation of current geopolitical situation at the global scale. Roots of this reductionism should be explored in philosophical foundations of critical geopolitics. Considering some of its main arguments and concepts, including positionality, situated-ness, and partiality, critical geopolitics is a poststructuralist and postmodern approach. According to the critical geopolitics, geopolitical practices, forces and processes are indeed reduced to constellations of rival ideas and discourses. This research aims to critically and systematically excavate and evaluate the deficiencies of critical geopolitics. In doing so, it is needed to develop an alternative critical theoretical framework which can provide bases for a systematic critique. Accordingly, I aim to employ Bhaskarian critical realism as a theoretical alternative. It seems that having a stratified ontology, makes these two different but mutually reinforcing approaches appropriate bases to critically understand geopolitics as a multilayered reality. Accordingly, the main goal of the research is to highlight and explain the implicit and explicit ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations of critical geopolitics. Critical geopolitics lacks an independent philosophical foundation and therefore has a non-original philosophical base. To put it more precisely, ontology of critical geopolitics is anthropocentric. Hence, it is an idealist, subjectivist and constructivist approach that reduces reality to discourse, and knowledge to discursive interpretation. Critical geopolitics cannot conceptualize the objectivity of power and geopolitical reality beyond the individual human actors and agents.