| Popis: |
The current paper aims to offer an analytical description of the legacy and the challenges that modern theory is inclined to face vis–à–vis systemic geopolitical approach and neo–positivism.3 Having different intellectual bases (i.e. geography and political science), systemic geopolitical analysis and structural realism follow parallel routes and struggle to manage common challenges in the light of the upmost epistemological aim; describing and analysing the international system without blinkers and any kind of ideological bias. What is the crux of the matter when analysing international politics? Has geography answered to the questions posed by political science considering the inclusion of human behaviour into the analysis of international system? Without any doubt, systemic geopolitical analysis and structural realism represent complementary theoretical proposals for decoding the causes and the effects of antagonism, balance of power, hegemonism, Great Powers‟ strategic behaviour, interdependence, the role of international institutions and cooperation. Therefore, they can co–exist for the sake of description and even prediction of certain trends of behaviour and correlation of power. |
