Introduction

The language of conflict and security is saturated with the term geopolitics. It appears in government briefings, media headlines, academic discourse, and public commentary, all with increasing frequency. Yet despite its ubiquity, geopolitics remains an ambiguous and contested concept (Kovac 2023). It is invoked to describe territorial disputes, technological rivalries, economic sanctions, cyber operations, and even cultural narratives. While some scholars view this conceptual breadth as a weakness, it more accurately reflects the evolving nature of conflict itself. As the character of human conflict shifts beyond conventional warfare into economic, informational, and technological domains, the frameworks used to interpret it must also adapt.

This article argues that geopolitics should be understood not as a static theory that is tied solely to land and borders, but as a dynamic interpretive framework through which human conflict and security can be perceived, mediated, and acted upon. While classical geopolitical thought remains relevant, contemporary security environments demand a broader lens of analysis, one that recognises the interplay between territory, technology, institutions, and narratives. In doing so, geopolitics becomes less of a predictive formula and more of a means to understand how power, space and human experience intersect.    

Definitional Ambiguity and Conceptual Framing

Geopolitics lacks any single agreed-upon definition. Scholars across political science, geography, international relations and security studies all employ the term differently, depending on their analytical position and purpose. This definitional plurality does not merely exist as an academic disagreement; instead, it reflects the reality that geopolitics operates across multiple domains simultaneously. 

Attempting to impose any form of rigid universal definition risks narrowing true analytical value in terms of use, while stifling forms of interdisciplinary dialogue. Instead, geopolitics is best approached operationally, defined clearly within the context of a given study while acknowledging alternative interpretations (Scholvin 2016). Such flexibility allows the concept to function as a bridge between material and conceptual dimensions of conflict. It also enables analysis of both state and non-state actors (NSAs), whose interactions increasingly shape contemporary security environments, particularly in conflicts involving hybrid warfare, proxy militias, and cyber operations (Dodds 2019; Flint 2016).

For the purposes of this work, geopolitics is understood as the relationship between political power and spatial conditions (material, technological and representational), through which actors interpret and pursue security interests. This definition maintains continuity with classical traditions while also accommodating a range of modern complexities.

Classical Foundations: Territory and Power

Classical geopolitical theory emphasised geography as a foundational determinant of state behaviour (Spykman 1969; Cohen 1973). These early geopolitical thinkers, such as Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Nicholas Spykman, argued that physical terrain, access to resources and strategic positioning all shaped foreign policy decisions and long-term patterns of conflict (Spykman 1969; Cohen 1973; Kearns 2009). From this perspective, borders, trade routes and chokepoints were not merely lines on maps, but structural conditions that influenced  security calculations.

Importantly, classical geopolitics did not imply strict determinism (Scholvin 2016). Geography presented opportunities and constraints rather than predetermined outcomes. Political leadership, economic capability and technological innovation remained critical variables. Nonetheless, territorial control and resource acquisition often lay at the heart of inter-state conflict, reinforcing the view that security was primarily tied to land and sovereignty.

Historical examples ranging from imperial expansion to maritime competition illustrate how territorial ambition and strategic geography have long shaped global power relations (Kearns 2009; Chamberlain 2014). These patterns continue to inform contemporary disputes over borders, maritime rights and regional influence. Classical geopolitics, therefore, remains analytically relevant, particularly in understanding persistent forms of territorial conflict.

Beyond Territory: Expanding Domains of Conflict

While territorial disputes persist, modern conflict increasingly extends beyond the physical realm (Owens 1999). Economic interdependence, digital infrastructure and information flows have all created new arenas of competition that operate alongside, and sometimes independent of, geographic boundaries. Supply chains, semiconductor production, energy storage technologies and Rare Earth Element (REE) access now carry strategic significance comparable to traditional military assets in strategic competition (Owens 1999; Gatica 2025).

Technological innovation has accelerated this shift. Cyber operations, artificial intelligence (AI) data infrastructures, and global communication platforms increasingly shape national security decision-making by influencing how states collect, interpret, and act upon strategic information. Conflict can manifest through disruptions to financial systems, manipulation of digital narratives, or control of communication networks. These developments illustrate that the “battlefield” is no longer confined to territory but is distributed across interconnected technological systems that individually and collectively serve to shape daily life (Owens 1999; Dodds 2019).

Human conflict, therefore, is experienced not only through armed confrontation but through economic instability, digital vulnerability and informational uncertainty. Security becomes multidimensional, encompassing resilience, trust, and adaptability alongside territorial defence. This evolution necessitates a reconceptualisation of geopolitics as a framework capable of accounting for both the physical and virtual spaces.

Critical and Representational Dimensions

Critical geopolitical scholarship challenges purely territorial interpretations of geopolitics. Here, rather than viewing geopolitics as an objective reflection of spatial reality, critical approaches emphasise how power is constructed through language, imagery, and representation (Dalby 2010; Dodds 2019). Political maps, media narratives, and cultural symbols are now viewed through critical geopolitics as shaping perceptions of threat and legitimacy just as much as physical borders.

Within this perspective, the concept of ‘place’ may refer not only to states and regions but also to communities, identities, and even the human body (Hyndman 2001; Dalby 2010). Under such a broadened definition, conflict can now be understood as a contest over meaning as well as material control. Popular culture, journalism, and digital media all now contribute to shared geopolitical ‘common sense’, influencing how societies interpret global events and security risks.

These distinctions are commonly described as the following layers of geopolitical discourse: formal, practical, and popular geopolitics (Ó Tuathail 2000; Dodds et al. 2013). Formal geopolitics is best described as that which is produced by academics and strategists; practical geopolitics by policymakers and military institutions; and popular geopolitics by media and cultural discourse. Together, these three layers come to shape how conflicts are framed and understood by both elites and the general public. Recognising these representational processes is thus essential in the modern era, where information itself functions as a strategic resource.

Neo-Classical and Technological Geopolitics

Building on both classical and critical traditions, contemporary analysis increasingly integrates classical territorial insights with critical attention to discourse and technology. This synthesis, often described as neo-classical or narrative geopolitics, acknowledges that spatial power operates simultaneously through physical control and informational framing (Gatica 2025; Dodds 2014). Territory remains important, but its significance is mediated by technological capability and narrative influence.

AI, data infrastructures and global communication platforms exemplify this hybrid dynamic. Strategic advantage is no longer measured solely by landmass or military size but by the ability to process information, shape narratives, and maintain technological superiority. Control over semiconductor supply chains or digital ecosystems can exert geopolitical leverage comparable to some forms of traditional territorial dominance. Such developments also blur distinctions between states and NSAs. Corporations, technological consortia and transnational networks increasingly influence geopolitical outcomes. Conflict is becoming less a singular event and more an ongoing process of competitive positioning across multiple domains. The stability and governance of these interconnected systems, in turn, shape human security.

Geopolitics as Interpretation and Institution

A key implication of the neoclassical geopolitical perspective outlined above is that geopolitics should not be viewed as a mechanical structure that dictates behaviour. Instead, it functions as an interpretive environment mediated by institutions. Political actors do not respond uniformly to geographic or technological pressures; they interpret them through organisational cultures, governance structures and shared narratives of perceived risk and responsibility (Hay 2009; Schmidt 2008).     

Institutions, whether states, alliances or international organisations, translate external conditions into policies and priorities (Hay 2009; Schmidt 2008). The same spatial or economic environment may yield divergent responses depending on institutional norms and decision-making processes. This interpretive mediation explains why comparable geopolitical pressures produce varied outcomes across different societies.

Understanding geopolitics as an institutional and interpretive process also highlights its evolving character. Policies and narratives, once embedded within organisations, can now reshape future perceptions of threat and opportunity, creating feedback loops of adjustment. Geopolitics is therefore neither static nor deterministic; it is a continual negotiation between material conditions and human agency (Flint 2016; Dodds 2019).

Human Conflict and Security Reconsidered

Viewing geopolitics through this multidimensional lens reveals its relevance to human conflict and security. Conflict today rarely manifests solely as declared war (Dodds 2019). Instead, it appears as persistent uncertainty: economic volatility, cyber intrusion, disinformation campaigns and technological competition. These phenomena influence daily life, shaping how individuals perceive safety and stability even in the absence of conventional war or violence.

Security must therefore be understood not only as territorial protection, but as the capacity to sustain social cohesion, institutional trust and technological resilience (Flint 2016). Human conflict operates at multiple scales, from international rivalries to local communities and even at the individual experience. Geopolitics, when treated as an interpretive and institutional framework, provides a means of analysing these interactions without reducing them to single causes.

This perspective also underscores the importance of narrative and perception. How societies interpret geopolitical developments influences policy responses and public behaviour. Conflict is not merely fought; it is framed, communicated and internalised. Recognising this representational dimension allows for more nuanced approaches to security that can be used to account for psychological and cultural factors alongside material conditions.

Conclusion

Geopolitics remains a vital concept for understanding contemporary conflict, but only when approached as a flexible and evolving framework rather than a fixed territorial doctrine. Classical insights into geography and power continue to illuminate persistent forms of inter-state rivalry. However, they must be complemented by attention to technology, institutions, and narratives. Modern human conflict should now be viewed as unfolding across a host of interconnected domains where physical borders intersect with digital networks and symbolic representations.

By treating geopolitics as an interpretive and institutional process, analysts can better account for both continuity and change within the global security environment. Such an approach recognises that conflict is no longer confined to battlefields but embedded within the systems that make up everyday life. In this context, geopolitics becomes less about predicting where power resides and more about understanding how that power is perceived, structured and experienced (Scholvin 2016). Security, consequently, is measured not only in territorial defence but also in resilience, adaptability, and the capacity to navigate uncertainty. In this sense, geopolitics functions as a lens through which the complex relationship between space, technology and human agency can be examined, an essential perspective for interpreting the shifting architecture of conflict and security in the twenty-first century.

Bibliography

• Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn. 2014. The Scramble for Africa. 3rd ed. Seminar Studies. Taylor and Francis.
• Cohen, Saul Bernard. 1973. Geography and Politics in a World Divided. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
• Dalby, Simon. 2010. ‘Recontextualising Violence, Power and Nature: The next Twenty Years of Critical Geopolitics?’ Political Geography 29 (5): 280–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.01.004.
• Dodds, Klaus. 2014. Global Geopolitics: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.
• Dodds, Klaus. 2019. Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. 3rd ed. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press.
• Dodds, Klaus, Kuus, Merje, and Sharp, Joanne P. Sharp, eds. 2013. The Ashgate Research Companion to Critical Geopolitics. Ashgate.
• Flint, Colin. 2016. Introduction to Geopolitics. 0 edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640044.
• Gatica, Juan Pablo Soriano. 2025. ‘Geopolitics in the Digital Age: The U.S.-China Competition through Their Narratives on Digital Technologies’. IDP. Journal of Internet, Law and Politics 43: 1–17.
• Hay, Colin. 2009. ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, 1st edn, edited by Sarah A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, and Bert A. Rockman. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0004.
• Hyndman, Jennifer. ‘Towards a Feminist Geopolitics’. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes 45, no. 2 (2001): 210–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2001.tb01484.x.
• Kearns, Gerry. 2009. Geopolitics and Empire. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230112.001.0001.
• Kovac, Igor. 2023. ‘Definitions of Geopolitics’. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, by Igor Kovac. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.823.
• Ó Tuathail, Gearóid Ó. 2000. Critical Geopolitics. 0 edn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203973059.
• Owens, Mackubin Thomas. 1999. ‘In Defense of Classical Geopolitics’. Naval War College Review 52 (4): 59–76.
• Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. ‘Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse’. Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 303–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.
• Scholvin, Sören. 2016. Geopolitics: An Overview of Concepts and Empirical Examples from International Relations. With Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti. UPI Working Papers 91. Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti.
• Spykman, Nicholas J. 1969. The Geography of the Peace. Archon Books.