Explaining the Action Pattern of Geopolitical Territorialization of Countries

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant professor, Political Geography - Air Defense University of Khatam Al-Anbia, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor in Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Professor, National Defense University, Tehran, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.


Despite the change in the factors that promote national power, the place and role of geography and its physical elements on power are still irreplaceable, and for this reason, political actors rely on traditional geopolitical ideas in a new approach to realize national interests. They are determined to study their interests beyond national borders. According to Autotile, the geography of the world is the result of the struggle between rival forces that sought to organize, occupy and rule the space. Imperial systems throughout history have imposed order and meaning on  space in this way (Ó Tuathail,1996:2). From the point of view of neo-realists, the distribution of power as the main axis of international politics is considered to be the cause of change in the regional and international behavior of actors (Mossallanejad, 2008: 242); therefore, the collapse of countries and reconstruction Remaking the political map, which shows the human effort to influence, influence, possess and control the land and other spaces (Mohammadi & et al, 2012:89); It has been constantly telling that the territory [resources of geographical values] is directly related to the existence of the country and its impact on the power of the intervening actors in these areas, in such a way that some interpret the importance of territorialization as equal to the air to breathe. Represent (Ansell & Palma, 2004:2). Bozan's statement that "great powers take for granted the right to seek their interests outside their borders" (Buzan, 2000:5) is a sign of the dynamic nature of territorialism in humans and is currently a part of geopolitical strategy of the great powers and the description of their duties, it includes the areas that they can achieve their major interests with geographical influence and monitoring (Abdi & et al, 2020:9). It brought the concept of territory and territorialization with territorial sovereignty, and highlighted the role of governments as the most important political institution of the international system in order to fulfill human aspirations to other spaces. Therefore, the expression of the International Union of Geography in this regard that the conflict over the territory will be one of the research topics of the political geography of the 21st century (Kavianirad, 2014:47) doubles the importance of a new and more accurate understanding of the act of territorialization of countries.
In this research, the descriptive-analytic method has been used to deal with the issue. Research questions are as follows: first, what factors influence the formation of geopolitical territorialization of countries? Second, basically, how and in what manner the geopolitical territory of countries expands. Data gathering procedure is based on library and field findlings. A questionnaire with 46 questions was designed based on the Likert scale. Finally, regarding the influence of the effective factors and methods in the geopolitical territorialization of the countries, the geopolitical territorialization pattern of the countries is explained by classifying the indicators and variables while determining their effectiveness.
Results and Discussion
The results indicate that the geopolitical territorialization of countries is in a way of a continuation of traditional geopolitical thoughts that were generally territorial. Therefore, in this direction, parallel to the growth and evolution of political systems, which have the growth of the needs and desires of the governments, the issue of maintaining the interests and national security for the countries has faced a complexity that is different and undoubtedly simple and sensitive. It is more than the past. Therefore, in the struggle to fulfill the wishes of the countries, the position of variables and structural and functional elements of the geographical space on the politics and the power of the actors has also changed, so the countries in the form of protecting the interests and providing national security as the highest goal demanded by the people by drawing and compiling the collection as part of their geopolitical interests, they adopt and implement various geopolitical strategies to achieve national goals. Although according to the developments of the international system, there are still a few countries (Russia with the occupation of Crimea) that fulfill their wishes with the traditional method, but the governments mainly realize their goals and interests in the form of geopolitical territorialization. This has a far more effective, less stressful and less expensive nature.
On the other hand, the statistical results show that the variables affecting the geopolitical territorialization of countries do not have the same weight. The analysis of the field findings of this research with the help of statistical tests showed that among the variables of the geopolitical territorialization factors, the role of political factors with an average rank of 73. 2. It has been prioritized that this importance is due to the position of indicators related to the issue of security and national interests of political actors in the competitive arena of the international system. Other economic, military and cultural factors are in the next ranks according to the coefficient of influence on the power component of the countries. Contrary to this issue, in the geopolitical territorialization methods of countries, cultural variables with an average rank of 2.23 have a more colorful role in realizing the territorial goals of countries. It seems that the importance of finding this issue in the strategy of the countries is on the one hand due to the complexity and lack of knowledge of the countries on the nature and functioning of these measures in the expansion of the geopolitical territory and on the other hand due to the slow movement of the cultural methods of territorialization. Compared to other methods, it naturally focuses on less sensitivity and position. It should be mentioned that this method is effective in terms of reducing costs, avoiding conflict and creating tension and reaction. The people of the target geographic space are different from other methods and have a more acceptable situation overall. However, other military, economic and political methods are in the next ranks and according to their complementary role, countries draw their geopolitical territory according to their capacity in a combined manner and within the framework of these components to represent.
In order to explain the pattern of geopolitical territorialization of countries, this research revolves around two issues namely "factors affecting action" and "methods of realizing action". Therefore, in the form of the concept of geopolitics, while defining the related elements and concepts, it was explained that the action of geopolitical territorialization of countries is based on the influence and influence of powerful actors who are able to make maximum use of the physical and structural elements and values of other geographical spaces. Political, economic, military, cultural, etc. are used. On this basis and due to the irreplaceable connection of power with geography and the role of power in resolving challenges and conflicts, the space and geographical territories that have the power sources of basic nature and basic human are always coveted by political actors and are usually tampered with by them. Since the focus of geopolitics is on the control of space and place in order to enhance the geopolitical power and weight and then to use it to reproduce the space to regain power, Sahibnatran considers various variables as the reason and method of action of countries for development. have raised and paid attention to the fact that, generally, due to the cause and method of action, the views were single or multi-variable and limited, and sometimes, as in the past, they focused on the occupation of space in a military manner. Having said that, with the new approach that exists in the planning and policy making of countries to meet their needs and improve their power; We have seen that countries are trying to achieve their goals by knowing their needs and competitors in the framework of the concept of geopolitical territorialization. The way of acting different from the past makes the actions of countries less sensitive. Since the result of geopolitical territorialization is directly related to geopolitical weight, powerful countries both for the extent of their needs to maintain power and for the political, economic, military and cultural capacities they have to influence other geographical spaces in the development. They have been leaders in their geopolitical realm and have a specific geopolitical strategy for each goal. While less capable countries will have a more limited status and less geopolitical territory in terms of goals, mode of action, and sphere of influence. Therefore, according to the lack of importance of the said elements and values on power, the effective variables and indicators in the formation of the territorialization action and the way of action of the countries were determined, and while determining the concrete examples for each variable, the indicators have been approved by the expert statistical community of the research, the weight and importance of the indicators in each component and also the priority of the four components were determined by statistical methods. Finally, the following conceptual model was designed and compiled as the output of the research. Although each group of these geopolitical components affecting the act of territorialization can be examined and studied separately, nevertheless, each of these variables in relation and impact on other components and variables, the expansion of the geopolitical territory. They shape the countries and realize the desired result in a collective function.


Main Subjects

  1. Abdi, M; Farajirad, A.R; Ghorbaninejad, R (2020). Expounding Geopolitical Factors Affecting the Formation of Strategic Relations,  Geographical Researches Quarterly Journal, Vol.16, No 57, PP 1-36. [In Persian]
  2. Afshordi, M.H (2002).Caucasus Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Iran,Tehran, Davos Sepah. [In Persian]
  3. Afzali, R; and et al. (2014). Discourse Territoriality in Geopolitics, Tehran, World Politics Quarterly, Vol.3,No. 4 ,PP 29-55. [In Persian]
  4. Ansell, C.K; Di Palma, G (Eds.) (2004).Restructuring territoriality, Cambridge University Press.
  5. Badiee Azandehie, M; and et al.(2015). A Comparative Study of the Concepts of “Territory” and “Territoriality” in the Constitutional Revolution and Islamic Republic of Iran Constitutions, Tehran, Geopolitics Quarterly, Vol.11,No. 37,PP 101-134. [In Persian]
  6. Bakhtiyarpour, A; Ezzati, E. (2010). Expansion of Iranian geopolitics in Arabic Middle East with a model of expansion of Eastern Middle East, Geographics Quarterly of the Territory, Vol.7, No 27, PP 1-20. [In Persian]
  7. Bashiriyeh, H (2000). Theories of culture in the twentieth century,Tehran, Ayandeh Pouyan Cultural Institute. [In Persian]
  8. Blax, M (2010). Political Geography, translated by Hafeznia. M. Reza, Abdi. A , Rabiee. Hossein., Ahmadi,A. Tehran,Select Publishing -Brzezinski,Z(1990); In Search of National Security, translated by Ebrahim Khalili Najafabadi,Tehran, Safir Publishing. [In Persian]
  9. Bozan, B (2000). Military Security after the Cold War and Existing Theories in the Field of National Security and International Relations, Lecture, Quarterly Journal Scientific of Strategic Defense Studies, Volume 2, Issue 7,Pages 37-52. [In Persian]
  10. Braden, K; Shelley, F (2004). Engaging Geopolitics,Translated by Alireza Farshchia & Hamid Reza Rahnama,Tehran, Payam Spass Publication. [In Persian]
  11. Brzezinski, Z (1990). In Search of National Security, translated by Ebrahim Khalili Najafabadi,Tehran, Safir Publishing. [In Persian]
  12. Buyeh, C (2017). Explaining the Geopolitical Territories of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the Revolution, Tarbiat Modares University Master of Political Geography Thesis under the guidance of Dr. Mohammad Reza Hafezni. [In Persian]
  13. Cohen, S.B (1994). Geopolitics in the New World Era:A new perspective on an old discipline. Reordering the World: Geopolitical Perspectives on the 21st Century,15-48.
  14. Collins, J. M (1998). Military Geography: For Professionals and the Public.
  15. Collins, J.M (1991). The Great Strategy, Principles and Procedures, translated by Cyrus Binder,Office of Political and International Studies Publications.
  16. Dalman, C.T. and et al. (2011). Basic Concepts in Political Geography, translated by Nami M.H. & Mohammadpour.A.,Tehran,Zaytoun Sabz Publications. [In Persian]
  17. Deheshyar, H (2017). Trump and the centrality of economic and military capabilities in foreign policy, International Relations Research,Vol. 6,No. 22,pp 15-34. [In Persian]
  18. Dehghani Firoozabadi, S. J. (2015). Principles and fundamentals of international relations (1), Tehran: Samt. [In Persian]
  19. Dougherty, J; Faltzgraff, R (2004). Conflicting Theories in International Relations,translated by Alireza Tayeb and Vahid Bozorgi, Tehran, Qoms Publishing. [In Persian]
  20. Dougherty, J; Faltzgraff, R (2017). Conflicting Theories in International Relations,translated by Alireza Tayeb and Vahid Bozorgi, Tehran, Qoms Publishing. [In Persian]
  21. Einbinder, M (2013). Cultural diplomacy harmonizing international relations through music,Master of Art Thesis Gallatin School of Individual Studies New York University.
  22. Elahi, H (2004). Understanding the nature of imperialism,Tehran, Qoms Publishing.
  23. Ezzati, E (2001). Geopolitics in the 21st Century, Tehran,Samat. [In Persian]
  24. Finizadeh Bidgoli, J (2017). Provide a model for enhancing penetration in the security environment in transition, Journal National Security ,Volume 7, pp. 85-120. [In Persian]
  25. Flint, C (2011). Introduction to Geopolitics, translated by Qalibaf, M. B. & Pooyandeh,M.H, Tehran, Qoms Publishing. [In Persian]
  26. Ghorbaninejad, R (2013). The Model of Geopolitical Factors of Tension and Conflict in Countries Relations,Tarbiat Modares University PhD Thesis under the guidance of Dr. Mohammad Reza Hafeznia. [In Persian]
  27. Hafeznia, M.R. (2010). National Power and Interests - Surcees, Concepts &Methods - Tehran, Select Edition.
  28. Hafeznia, M.R; Kavianirad, M (2012). New Horizons in Political Geography,Tehran, Samat Publishing. [In Persian]
  29. Hafeznia, M.R (1917). Principles and Concepts of Geopolitics, Mashhad, Papli. [In Persian]
  30. Hafeznia, M. R (2013). "Research methods in social sciences",Tehran: Samt Publications Vol.19. [In Persian]
  31. Hagget, P (2003). Geography: a modern synthesis, Translatio: Shapur Goodarzi Nejad. Tehran, Samat Publishing, Sixth edition.
  32. Held, D (1999). The transformation of political community: rethinking democracy in the context of globalization, Democracy’s edges,84-111.
  33. Hobson, J. A (1965). Imperialism: A Study. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  34. Holsti, K.G (1995). Fundamentals of International Policy Analysis, translated by Bahram Direct and Massoud Tarom Sari, Tehran, Office of Political and International Studies. [In Persian]
  35. Hosseini, S.M (2017). US Political-Military Interventions in the Persian Gulf, Vol.30, No.4,PP 7-41. [In Persian]
  36. Hudson, R; Smith, E.A (1978). Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassessment, V0L. 80, No.1, PP 21-41- https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1978.80.
  37. Huntington, S. (2005). the clash of civilizations,Huntington and His Critics, Translated by Mojtaba Amiri Vahid, Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Publications, sixth edition. [In Persian]
  38. I Lee, B; Walling, K.F (Eds.) (2003). Strategic logic and political rationality: Essays in honor of Michael I. Handel. Psychology Press.‏
  39. Ismailpour Roshan, A .A. (2017). Geopolitical Analysis of Power Networks in Post-ISIL Iraq: A Model for Preventing US Regional Influence, Journal of New Attitudes in Human Geography,Vol.9 ,No.3 ,pp 79-99. [In Persian]
  40. Jahantab, M (2006). Survey Factor Cultural of National Power and Rol of Armed Forces at That, Quarterly of Danesh-E-Entezami, Police University,Vol.8,No4. [In Persian]
  41. Jamshidi, M.H; Naghdi, F (2017). Culture and Power in International Relations, World Politics Quarterly, Vol.6, No. 1 , PP 7-46. [In Persian]
  42. Jones, M; Rice woods, M (2007). Introduction to Political Geography, translated by Zahra Pishgahifard and Rasoul Akbari, University of Tehran Press.
  43. Karimipour,Y (2000). Introduction to Iran and its Neighbors: Sources -of Tension and Threat, Tehran, Trbit Moalm University Jihad. [In Persian]
  44. Kavianirad, M. (2014). Processing the concept of "territory" from the perspective of political geography, Journal National Security ,Vol. 17,No 4, PP 43-62. [In Persian]
  45. Kazemi, A (1994). International Relations in Theory and Action, Tehran, Ghoomes Publications. [In Persian]
  46. Kelly, R.E (2007). "Security Theory in the New Regionalism", International Studies Review, Vol,9.
  47. Khorasani, R (2008). The position and role of cultural power in foreign policy and its impact on global developments, Political Science Quarterly, Vol.41,PP 47-72. [In Persian]
  48. Koolaee, E; Abed, A (2018). Geopolitical Components of the Russian Foreign Policy, Geographical Researches Quarterly Journal, Vol.14 ,No 49, PP 1-25. [In Persian]
  49. Lorre, P; Tuval, F (2002).The Keys to Geopolitics, translated by Hassan Sadoughi Venini, Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University.
  50. Luttwak, E.N (1990). From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammarto Commerce. The National Interest.Vol 20. PP17-24.
  51. Magdoff, H; Camp, T (1999). Imperialism: Theory- History - Third World, Translated by Houshang Moghtadar, Tehran, Kavir Publishing. [In Persian]
  52. Mirheydar, D (2005). A Study of the Concept of Territoriality from the political geography Point of View,Geopolitics Quarterly,vol.1,No:1,pp 6-18.
  53. Mirhaidar, D; and et al. (2015). Fundamentals of Political Geography,Tehran, Samat Publications, 21st Edition. [In Persian]
  54. Modirshanechi, M (2015). The Role of Culture in the Development of National Power; Interaction Discourse, the Strategy for Confronting Extremism. Journal of Cultural Relation, Vol.1, No.1, pp129-141. [In Persian]
  55. Modelski, G (1978). The long cycle of global politics and the nation-state, Comparative studies in society and history, 20(2), 214-235.
  56. Mohammadi, H.R; and et al (2012). Globalization and Territoriality in Political Geography, Quarterly Journal of Human Geography Research, Vol. 44,No. 80 ,PP 85-102. [In Persian]
  57. Mojtahedzadeh, P (2002). Political Geography and Geographical Policies, Tehran, Samat Publications. [In Persian]
  58. Moshirzadeh, H (2005). Development in International Relations Theories, Tehran, Samat Publications, 10th edition. [In Persian]
  59. Mousavi Zare, S.J; Zarghani, S.H; Aazami, H (2018). Analysis and Survey the Position of Science and Technology in National Power,Geographical Researches Quarterly Journal, Vol.13, No. 47 , PP.103-138. [In Persian]
  60. Muir, R (2000). A New Introduction to Political Geography, translated by Dorreh Mir Haidar Mohajerani and Yahya Rahim Safavi, Tehran, Geographical Organization of the Armed Forces Publications. [In Persian]
  61. MossallaNejad, A (2008). Evolations of us Foreing Policy After  The Cold War ,Politics Quarterly,Volume 38, Issue 1, pag 241-265.
  62. Naeni, A. M (2010 ). Comparative study of hard, semi-hard and soft triple threats, Vol .8, No 30, pp 157-177. [In Persian]
  63. Naghibzadeh, A (2005). History of Diplomacy and International Relations from Westphalia to the Present,Qoms. [In Persian]
  64. Nourbakhsh, S.N; Ahmadi, F (2021). Geopolitics and Territorial Expansionism in Nazi Germany: The influence of Haushofer Ideas on Hitler, Geographical Researches Quarterly Journal, Vol. 17, No. 63,PP142-169. [In Persian]
  65. Nye, J (2003). The use of soft power, translated by Seyed Reza Mirtaher, Tehran, Qoms Publishing. [In Persian]
  66. Nye, J (2008). Power in the global information age: from realism to globalization (S. Mir Torabi, Trans.).Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studie. [In Persian]
  67. Nye, J. (2010). Soft power: the means to success in world politics (S.M.Zolfaghari and M. Rouhani,Trans.).Tehran: Imam Sadiq University Press. [In Persian]
  68. Oneal, J.R; Russett, B; Berbaum, M.L (2003). Causes of Peace:Democracy, Interdependence ,and International Organizations, 1885-1992- https://www .jstor.org/ stable/ 3693591.
  69. Ó Tuathail, G. (1996). Critical Geopolitics: the Politics of Writing Global Space,Routledge.
  70. Ravasani, S (2001). False Hypotheses of Aryan,Sami & Turk Races, Tehran, Information Publishing. [In Persian]
  71. Rezaei, D; and et al. (2015). A Study of Effective Factors in Promoting Saudi Geopolitical Weight and Its Impact on National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Middle East Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, No 3, pp 47-62. [In Persian]
  72. Rezaei, D; Hafeznia, M.R; Afshardi, M.H; Ahmadi, S.N (2021). A Study and Critique of the Theories of Territorializing Countries Geopolitically and an Explanation of a Theoretical Model,Journal political Defense,Vol 29, No 113 ,Pages 195-232. [In Persian]
  73. Roshandel, J (2005). National Security and the International System, Tehran, Samat. [In Persian]
  74. Sack, R (1986). Human Territoriality:Its Theory and History. Vol. 14, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,pp 16-18.
  75. Salimi, H (2005).Various theories about globalization ,Tehran, Samat. [In Persian]
  76. Salami, H; Rahmati Poor, L (2015). Comparison of Energy Strategy between China and the United States And its Impact on the Persian Gulf, Strategic Research of Policy, Vol.3, No11, pp 129-60. [In Persian]
  77. Schweller, R.L (1996). Neorealism's status‐quo bias:What security dilemma?Security Studies, vol.5,No 3,pp 90-121.
  78. Shams Dolatabadi, S.M.R; Nasirzadeh, A; MirSamiei, S.M (2018). Explaining the geopolitical consequences of NATO territory national security on the National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Scientific Quarterly, Vol 8, No 27, pp 105-136. [In Persian]
  79. Tabatabai, S.M (2002). US Foreign Policy from:Continental Imperialism to Global Imperialism, Basij Strategic Studies Quarterly,Vol. 5, No 17,PP 51-95. [In Persian]
  80. Vasegh, M; Ahmadi, S.A (2013). Islamic Attitude toward the Role of Culture in Expanding Countries’ Sphere of Influence, Geopolitics Quarterly, 9(29), 60-90. [In Persian]
  81. Zaki, y; Gholami, M (2018). NATO’s Geopolitical Territory Extension in the Geopolitical Territories to the West of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Journal of Defense Policy, Vol. 26, No 101,pp 9-43. [In Persian]
  82. Vahidi, M (2008). International Systems Based on Single Power: Unipolarism, Hegemony and Empire. Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol.10, No.38,pp 697-724. [In Persian]
  83. Wagnsson, Ch (2012). NATO’s Role in the Strategic Concept Debate: Watchdog, Fire-Fighter, Neighbour or Seminar Leader?”,Cooperation and Conflict, Available at: http://cac.sagepub.com/content/46/4/482.htm. Accessed on: 2012 /04/21.
  84. Wallerstein, I (1998). Geopolitics and geoculture Essays on the changing world-system, Translated by Pirooz Izadi, Tehran, Ney Publishing. [In Persian]
  85. Yaqouti, M.M (2012). The Legal Exceptions of Prohibition of Use of Force in International Relations. The Journal of Foreign Policy,Vol.25, No 4,pp113-132. [In Persian]
  86. Yelatskov, A.B (2012). Territorial-political and regional geopolitical systems: correlation of concepts. Baltic Region, (1), 60-65.