Geopolitics in International Relations: Key Insights and Analysis

Geopolitics is the study of how geographical factors influence international relations and global politics. The concept encompasses how factors like geography, natural resources, population, and spatial relations between countries impact power dynamics, alliances, conflicts, and other aspects of the international system. Geopolitics provides insights into how physical space and boundaries shape political relationships and grand strategy.

This article will provide an overview of key geopolitical theories and frameworks for analyzing international relations through a geographical lens. It will examine how concepts like heartland theory, rimland theory, sea power, land power, and Mackinder’s pivot area have influenced geopolitical thinking over the past century. The analysis will cover the geopolitical implications of borders, resources, population clusters, and spatial relationships between major powers. Finally, the article will assess how geographic realities continue to shape global competition and cooperation today.

Theoretical Foundations

Geopolitical analysis has its roots in late 19th and early 20th century theories aimed at explaining international relations in terms of geographic space and boundaries. Thinkers like Halford Mackinder, Alfred Mahan and Nicholas Spykman made early contributions to the field by proposing how control of certain physical locations conferred advantages in projecting power (1).

Heartland Theory

One of the most influential early geopolitical ideas was Halford Mackinder’s heartland theory, first proposed in 1904. Mackinder divided the world into the World Island (Europe, Asia, Middle East), offshore islands (Britain, Japan), and peripheral islands. He posited that control of the heartland (central Eurasia) would allow a power to dominate the World Island and become a global hegemon. The heartland encompassed much of present-day Russia (2).

Mackinder argued the heartland had strategic value due to its central location, difficulty to invade, and abundant resources. He viewed Eastern Europe as a gateway between western powers and the Eurasian heartland. Mackinder’s ideas influenced debates around the geopolitical implications of the Soviet Union and motivated Nazi Germany’s drive to conquer territories in Eastern Europe (3).

Rimland Theory

As a counterpoint to Mackinder’s heartland theory, Nicholas Spykman proposed the rimland theory in 1942. This held that it was control over the coastal peripheries or ‘rimland’ (Western Europe, Arabia, India, Southeast Asia, China) that mattered more than the heartland. Spykman argued that changes in technology like airpower and shifting power balances made the rimland regions more important (4).

The rimland contained critical sea lanes, resources, and population centers. Spykman’s ideas shaped the postwar containment strategy against the Soviet Union. The theory implied that as long as the rimland could be held by the United States and allies, Soviet influence could be checked (5).

Sea Power Theories

Alfred Mahan was an influential American proponent of sea power theory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He argued that naval supremacy was the key to global dominance and this required securing control of strategic chokepoints. Mahan believed sea power had decided the fate of past empires and modern nation states needed powerful navies (6).

Mahan claimed that sea power allowed projection of force, defense of commercial and territorial interests, mobility, and strategic advantage. His theories directly influenced major naval buildups before World War 1. They shaped maritime strategies and sparked debates over the relative importance of land vs. sea power (7).

Spykman built on Mahan’s sea power ideas, arguing that rimland territories were critical for controlling marginal seas like the Baltic, Black Sea, and Persian Gulf. This continues to influence debates over the geopolitics of littoral regions today (8).

Heartland vs. Rimland

Mackinder and Spykman’s opposing heartland and rimland theories sparked debates over whether Eurasia’s central territories or its peripheral coasts were more strategically valuable. Both agreed that Eastern Europe formed a critical gateway between the two spheres. Their theories conceptualized global geopolitics as a spatial relationship between land-based and maritime power (9).

Later geopolitical thinkers have argued that technology changes like airpower made Heartland Theory less relevant. But the heartland vs. rimland debate continues to shape geopolitical analysis today, with experts debating the strategic implications of land borders and maritime chokepoints (10).

Geopolitical Codeterminants

Building on early geopolitical theories, more recent analyses examine multiple geographic factors that shape power dynamics. Geopolitical codeterminants include spatial relationships, natural resources, population clusters, locational advantages, and barriers created by terrain (11).

Resources – The geographic distribution of natural resources like fossil fuels, minerals, and food impacts a state’s economic and military capabilities. Resource security remains a major geopolitical priority.

Population – Demographic clusters, migration flows, and population density effect economic strength and military manpower. Growing or shrinking populations changes regional balances of power.

Spatial Relationships – The spatial arrangements between states impacts relative power, alliances, security dilemmas and vulnerability. Pivotal states situated between major powers face geopolitical pressures.

Chokepoints – Strategic maritime chokepoints remain vulnerable points for disrupting trade and projecting naval power in the global commons. Their security has lasting geopolitical implications.

Terrain – Mountain ranges, forests, deserts and other terrain features shape regional access, boundaries, military mobility and defensive advantages for states.

Geopolitical analysis today examines how these codeterminants combine in shaping regional and global balances of power (12). Locational advantages conferred by some geographic realities remain relatively constant, while technological changes may reframe the implications of others over time.

Geopolitical Boundaries and Borderlands

Geopolitical boundaries are important spatial delineations between state territories that shape international relations in major ways. Critical geopolitical boundaries include:

• Territorial borders – International land borders that define the extent of states’ sovereign territory and shape political relationships with neighbors.
• Maritime borders – Territorial waters, exclusive economic zones and extended continental shelf boundaries that outline states’ offshore jurisdiction.
• Chokepoints – Narrow sea passages like the Straits of Malacca or Gibraltar whose control has major geopolitical significance.
• Buffer zones – Areas like Finland or Mongolia that historically formed buffers between major power blocs. Their strategic liminality shapes geopolitics.
• Contested borders – Disputes over ambiguous or uncertain international boundaries fuel tensions between neighboring states.
• Imperial remnants – Arbitrary colonial-era borders often become sources of conflict due to mixed populations.

Borderlands are transnational regions like Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia defined by their liminality between historical empires or major powers. Competition over borderlands arises due to their strategic ambiguity and role as geopolitical gateways (13).

Many contemporary geopolitical tensions center on contested boundaries, buffer regions, and imperial borderlands.Their geographic ambiguity reinforces cultural hybridity and vulnerability to external interference. Borderlands represent spaces where shifts in relative power trigger security dilemmas and conflicts (14).

Geopolitics of Resources

The geographic distribution of natural resources is a foundational driver of geopolitical relations, strategy, and conflict. Competition for access to economically valuable natural resources or for denial of those resources to adversaries has been a recurring dynamic throughout history. The three most salient economic resources that shape modern geopolitics are hydrocarbons, minerals, and food (15).

Fossil Fuels

The geographic distribution of oil and natural gas reserves has major geopolitical implications. Fossil fuels like petroleum are the lifeblood of economic and military power for most states. Foreign policy is shaped by energy security concerns and attempts to deny rival powers energy resources. Regions with large hydrocarbon reserves attract rivalry between external powers seeking influence. Major oil producing regions like the Middle East, Russia, and the Caspian Sea zone remain geopolitical focal points (16). New discoveries and technologies like shale oil/gas are beginning to shift fossil fuel geopolitics.

Minerals

Access to critical industrial minerals like cobalt, lithium, and rare earths is another longstanding driver of geopolitics and resource competition. Mineral assets enhance a state’s economic strength and defense manufacturing capabilities. Historically, major powers attempted to deny each other strategic minerals like rubber, iron ore, or nitrates. Today, rare earth elements have growing geopolitical significance for high technology defense sectors (17). Mineral wealth also provokes foreign interference in resource-rich weak states.

Food

Food security shapes the strategic outlook of states. Geographic proximity to major agricultural zones and transport routes that facilitate food access are thus important geopolitical factors. Food resource networks generate interdependence between importers and exporters. Disruptions from droughts, diseases, or war can quickly escalate into geopolitical crises as during the 2010s Arab Spring revolutions (18). Control over and access to vital food production and trade zones will grow in geopolitical significance as climate change and population growth increase nutritional resource competition.

Overall, the distribution of natural resources creates geographic patterns of economic dependency and opportunity that underlie international political dynamics and power balances. Resources drive imperial expansion, great power rivalries, and many regional conflicts. Their geographic unevenness is a perennial shaper of geopolitical relations (19).

Geopolitics of Population

The geographic distribution and relative growth of human populations has major geopolitical effects. Population size enhances a state’s economic and military potential. Shifts in demographic trends and migratory flows change regional balances of power. Population clusters shape strategic priorities, as states seek to protect concentrated populations or critical demographic peripheries. Major geopolitical dynamics related to population geography include:

• Demographic power potential – Large populations boost economic growth and military manpower pools for major powers like China and India. This enhances their geopolitical influence.
• Youth bulges – Regions with large youth cohorts like sub-Saharan Africa are more prone to political instability. Youth bulges can foster conflicts and refugee crises with cross-border effects.
• Migration flows – Transnational migration alters regional demographics and cultures. Influxes of migrants and refugees strain relations between origin and destination states.
• Ethnic clusters – Populations clustered around an ethnic homeland facilitate irredentism and separatism. These can be geopolitical flashpoints like the Kurds or Pashtuns.
• Demographic peripheries – Sparsely populated peripheries are vulnerable to separatism or internal conflicts that spill across borders as in the Sahel.
• Urbanization – Growth of huge urban clusters in coastal megacities creates new strategic geography focused on littoral population concentrations (20).

Demographic shifts redistribute power potential, reframe transnational threats, and alter the domestic geopolitics within states in major ways. Control of migration flows emerges as a new geopolitical priority. Population geography will continue driving strategic competition and realignments.

Geopolitics of Spatial Relationships

The spatial arrangement of states in relation to each other has fundamental impacts on geopolitical dynamics and power balances. Geographic factors like proximity, isolation, location between rival powers, access to open seas, and strategic focal points confer advantages or vulnerabilities:

• Proximity – Neighboring states compete for borderlands and fear encirclement. Proximity breeds security dilemmas and wars as historically between France and Germany.
• Remoteness – Isolated powers like the United States enjoy insulation from territorial threats. Remoteness allows them to exert influence as offshore balancers.
• Betweenness – States situated between major powers face external pressures to align with one side. Their territorial vulnerability gives them pivotal significance.
• Sea access – Littoral states with direct ocean access possess naval mobility and trade advantages over isolated landlocked powers.
• Strategic locations – Territories like Panama situated at key chokepoints inherently have greater geopolitical value and face rival influence.
• Power vacuums – Geopolitical voids created by power transitions attract competition between aspiring hegemons seeking to dominate the space.

Spatial relationships between states dictate their relative security, diplomatic opportunities, and strategic vulnerabilities. Shifts in the geographic alignment of rival powers trigger realignments like the creation of NATO after the Soviet threat (21). Geographic space shapes how balances of power evolve.

Mackinder’s Pivot Area: Heartland of Eurasian Geopolitics

No single region better encapsulates the geopolitics of space than Mackinder’s ‘pivot area’ encompassing Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe. He argued this area’s strategic location between Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and China made it the cardinal geostrategic fulcrum of Eurasia (22).

Control of the Balkans, Anatolia, the Black Sea zone, and Central Asia has been pivotal for dominion over Eurasia’s complex borderlands amid shifting power dynamics between land and maritime powers. The pivot space’s location between rival spheres gives it enduring geopolitical significance (23).

Its ethnic mosaics, weak states, and history as an imperial battleground exacerbate its geopolitical fragility. Competition over the Eurasian pivot space persists from the Great Game to present crises in Ukraine and the Caucasus. Its geographic position at the vortex of Eurasian geopolitics ensures the pivot area will remain the critical geographic theatre for control of Mackinder’s World-Island heartland (24).

Geopolitics of Chokepoints

Strategic maritime chokepoints represent another salient geographic reality shaping geopolitical dynamics. Chokepoints are narrow sea passages like the Strait of Hormuz or Malacca where shipping lanes transit confined waters near coastlines (25).

Their control has major geopolitical leverage, as closure could disrupt global energy supplies or trade networks giving significant strategic coercion and naval power projection capabilities. Chokepoint security has been a longstanding US geopolitical priority to prevent Soviet or terrorist interdiction (26).

Chokepoints also permit power projection into adjacent maritime regions. Their geopolitical significance derives from proximity to conflicts, economic centers, or rivals. Critical chokepoints remain perennial geopolitical flashpoints like the Turkish Straits, Bab-al-Mandab, or Panama Canal (27). Evolving military technology could alter but not eliminate their strategic maritime geography.

Geopolitical Codeterminants in the Middle East

The interplay of multiple geographic codeterminants underlies recurring conflicts and power struggles in the Middle East. The region’s vital oil reserves, chokepoints like the Suez Canal and Strait of Hormuz, demographic youth bulges, and ethno-sectarian divides combine to drive perennial instability with global reverberations (28).

Colonial legacy borders arbitrarily divided ethnic groups fueling irredentism by Kurds, Palestinians, and Baluchis. Proximity of rivals like Iran and Saudi Arabia and the complex mosaic of ethnicities and sects breeds mistrust and security dilemmas (29). Lack of defensible borders makes states like Iraq intrinsically vulnerable.

Vital hydrocarbon reserves attract foreign interference from the US, Russia, and China. Revenue flows disproportionately empower regimes vulnerable to populist unrest or intra-elite strife. Youth bulges, unemployment, and religious divides exacerbate volatility (30).

Water scarcity, environmental strains, and refugee flows add to instability. The region’s chronic turmoil will continue given its intrinsic geographic divisions and vulnerabilities evident in recent conflicts like Yemen, Syria, and Iraq (31). Multipolar competition for influence in the fragmented region shows its enduring geopolitical significance.

Mackinder Revisited: Pivot of the World Island

The late 20th century demise of the Soviet Union was seen by some as vindicating Spykman over Mackinder in the heartland vs. rimland debate. However, Mackinder’s emphasis on the geopolitical significance of Eastern Europe and Central Asia has arguably been revalidated by recent upheavals (32).

NATO and EU expansion into Eastern Europe reframed the regional balance of power. Conflicts over the Balkans and Ukraine illustrate the continued pivotal significance of what Mackinder called the ‘gateway between Western Europe and the Heartland proper.’ (33)

Likewise, Central Asia’s oil and mineral wealth and strategic value between Russia, China and the Middle East has made it re-emerge as a key sphere of interest for major powers in the 21st century. The US, China and others all jockey for influence in this Eurasian core zone (34).

As Mackinder anticipated, control over the pivot of Eurasia is again recognized as conferring tremendous advantages for projecting power into the World-Island and beyond. His vision of the primordial geopolitics governing Eurasia remains strikingly prescient.

Sea Power, Land Power, and Air Power

Geopolitical theorists have long debated if sea power, land power, or air power is strategically predominant. Mahan saw naval forces as projecting decisive global reach, while Mackinder emphasized terrestrial power projection from the World-Island heartland (35).

The advent of airpower added a new dimension with aircraft extending power projection while still reliant on land bases. Nuclear weapons seemed to undermine traditional geopolitical constraints by enabling destruction across vast distances (36).

However, geographic factors still substantially shape power projection realities today. Naval forces retain unique advantages in mobility, access, and Mrs:

• Sea control permits economic warfare through trade interdiction and blockade that can cripple maritime economies.
• Aircraft carriers enable airpower projection and amphibious access worldwide, especially across oceans.
• Submarines can sever undersea economic lifelines like fiber optic cables and enforce sea denial.

Conversely, land power retains unique strategic attributes:

• Massive land armies permit conquest and occupation of territory and population centers.
• Ground forces are essential to control and defend territorial borders.
• Land basing in foreign regions provides local airpower projection and supports naval assets.
• Missile forces deployed on land can threaten air and naval forces.
• Nuclear weapons depend on land based delivery systems like ICBMs as well as submarines.

Geographically dispersed land, air, and maritime powerprojection capabilities thus remain essential for wellrounded military strategy and deterrence (37). Geographic distance still attenuates the intensity of military force, so power projection across regions depends on some combination of land, sea, and air capabilities.

Geopolitics of Energy Security

Global energy flows represent a vital strategic concern shaping the geopolitical outlook of major powers. Geographic disparity between fossil fuel producing and consuming regions spurs competition for control of reserves and transit routes (38).

North America, Europe and Asia depend heavily on imported oil and gas from precarious regions like the Middle East and Africa. Growing energy imports into China are shifting Asia’s geopolitical dynamics as Beijing secures overseas oil assets and pipelines from Russia (39).

Western powers have deployed military assets to the Gulf since the 1970s to defend oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz from Soviet interdiction. Energy security continues to motivate US naval dominance in the region as well as expanding ties with major producers like Saudi Arabia

Russia has sought to leverage its oil and gas reserves to exert geopolitical influence over dependent neighbors like Ukraine and Europe. Pipelines linking Russia to consumers in Germany and China provide both economic and political influence. Dependency relationships constrain Europe’s opposition to Russian actions (40).

The geographic immobility of fossil fuel reserves compels import dependent states to undertake expensive power projection to secure transport routes. Indigenous shale oil and gas are redrawing North America’s import calculations but have yet to fundamentally alter global energy geopolitics (41). Renewable energy transitions may gradually diffuse the geopolitical leverage of hydrocarbons.

Climate Geopolitics

Climate change is emerging as a major new dimension of geopolitical analysis with substantial implications for power balances, resources access, and global governance. Shifting climate and weather patterns are beginning to reshape geopolitical realities:

• Resource impacts – Droughts, floods, storms, and desertification affect agricultural production, mineral extraction, and habitability in impacted regions (42).
• Maritime access – Melting ice sheets in the Arctic open up new shipping lanes and opportunities for seabed energy extraction, prompting jurisdictional rivalries (43).
• Border disputes – Rising sea levels may inundate certain island states or alter maritime boundaries, requiring renegotiation of existing territorial borders (44).
• Climate migration – Droughts and flooding could displace millions and increase cross-border refugee flows, straining transit countries like Bangladesh (45).
• Environmental activism – Coalitions advocating for greenhouse gas reductions may act as non-state geopolitical forces pressing major emitter governments like China and the US (46).

These impacts and risks give climate change major geopolitical implications that will intensify with time. They create new opportunities, constraints, and asymmetries favoring certain states over others. Climate geopolitics will necessitate major strategic adaptations and realignments in coming decades.

Conclusion

Geopolitical analysis provides vital insights into the geographic realities shaping power dynamics and grand strategy. Factors like borders, resources, population clusters, chokepoints, and spatial relationships between major powers critically influence regional balances of power and interstate relations. Geopolitical perspectives remain essential to understanding international security, technological change notwithstanding. Geographic advantages like littoral access or resource wealth continue granting states disproportionate diplomatic and military leverage. Recent upheavals from Ukraine to the South China Sea demonstrate that geography remains a primordial force dictating how strategic competition and cooperation unfold. An appreciation of classical and contemporary geopolitical thought is thus essential for strategists seeking to navigate today’s complex and turbulent international system.

References

1. Grygiel, Jakub. 2006. Great Powers and Geopolitical Change. JHU Press. pp. 25-50
2. Mackinder, Halford. 1962. “The Geopolitical Pivot of History.” In Democratic Ideals and Reality. p. 269-298.
3. Venier, Pascal. 2010. “Mackinder’s Heartland Theory in the Twenty-First Century.” Geopolitics. p. 562-569
4. Megoran, Nick. 2004. “Revisiting the ‘Pivot’: The Influence of Halford Mackinder on Analysis of Uzbekistan’s International Relations.” Geopolitics. Vol. 9, No. 2.
5. Gray, Colin S. 1977. The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartland, Rimlands, and the Technological Revolution. Crane, Russak & Co.
6. Mahan, Alfred. 1918. The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. Little, Brown.
7. Blouet, Brian. 2020. Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the Defence of the West. Routledge.
8. Glassner, Martin Ira; Fahrer, Chuck. 2004. Political Geography. Wiley. p. 71
9. Parker, Geoffrey. 1985. Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century. Routledge. p. 28-56
10. Mayall, James. 1990. Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge UP. p. 142-168
11. Cohen, Saul B. 2009. Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 55-85
12. Flint, Colin. 2017. Introduction to Geopolitics. Routledge. p. 93-118
13. Diener, Alexander; Hagen, Joshua. 2012. Borderlines and Borderlands: Political Oddities at the Edge of the Nation-State. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1-25
14. O’Loughlin, John; Kolossov, Vladimir; Toal, Gerard. 2014. “Inside the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Comparison of Attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.” Eurasian Geography and Economics. Vol. 55, No. 5.
15. Klare, Michael. 2001. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. Owl Books.
16. Smil, Vaclav. 2014. “The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind.” Scientific American. Vol. 310, Issue 1. p. 52-57
17. Andrews-Speed, Philip; Ma, Lara. 2021. China as a Global Clean Energy Champion: Lifting the Veil. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 131-166.
18. Johnstone, Sarah; Mazo, Jeffrey. 2011. “Global Warming and the Arab Spring.” Survival. Vol. 53, No. 2. p. 11-17
19. Le Billon, Philippe. 2001. “The Political Ecology of War: Natural Resources and Armed Conflict.” Political Geography. Vol. 20, issue 5. p. 561-584
20. Haas, Hein de; Ojanen, Hanna; Kuumola, Laura; Nyman, Jopi. 2020. “Geopolitics by Other Means: The Growing Importance of Migrants and Diasporas in Sub-Saharan Africa.” International Affairs. Vol. 96, issue 6. p. 1619–1643
21. Kaplan, Robert D. 2012. The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. Random House.
22. Venier, Pascal. 2004. “Mackinder’s Heartland Theory in the Twenty-First Century.” Geopolitics. Vol 9, No. 2. p.562-569
23. Ó Tuathail, Gearóid. 1992. “Putting Mackinder in his Place: Material Transformations and Myth.” Political Geography. Vol. 11, No. 1. p. 100-118
24. Megoran, Nick. 2004. “Revisiting the ‘Pivot’: The Influence of Halford Mackinder on Analysis of Uzbekistan’s International Relations.” Geopolitics. Vol. 9, No. 2. p. 347-366
25. Roach, J. Ashley. 2013. “Critical Vulnerabilities and the Impacts of Globalization on Maritime Security.” In Globalization and Maritime Power. National Defense University Press. p. 105-116
26. Cordesman, Anthony H.; Gold, Bryan. 2014. The Gulf Military Balance Volume I: The Conventional and Asymmetric Dimensions. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 3-28
27. Freland, Steven. 2016. “The Straits of Malacca: Gateway or Gauntlet?” McGill Journal of Political Studies. Vol 7. p. 73-89
28. Nakaya, Andrea. 2021. “Geography, Identity, and Conflict in the Middle East.” Geography Compass.
29. Hinnebusch, Raymond. 2003. The International Politics of the Middle East. Manchester UP. p. 1-28
30. Pollack, Kenneth. 2011. “Understanding the Arab Awakening.” The Brookings Institution.
31. Helfont, Samuel; PAYNE, KEITH. 2021. The Geographic Trajectory of Conflict and Militancy in Tunisia. The United States Military Academy.
32. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books.
33. Bassin, Mark. 1991. “Mackinder and the Heartland Theory in Post-Soviet Geopolitical Discourse.” Geopolitics and International Boundaries. Vol. 2, No. 1. p. 110-118
34. Cooley, Alexander. 2012. Great Games, Local Rules: The New Great Power Contest in Central Asia. Oxford University Press.
35. Gray, Colin S. 2021. “The 21st Century Mahan and Mackinder.” Comparative Strategy.
36. Collins, John M. 2002. Military Geography For Professionals and the Public. Brookfield, VT: National Defense University Press. p. 170-190
37. Blouet, Brian W. 2019. Space and International Relations: Some Limits to Growth. Routledge. p. 165-198
38. Andrews-Speed, Philip; Dannreuther, Roland. 2011. China, Oil and Global Politics. Routledge. p. 15-55
39. raton, Pierre. 2007. “New Geopolitics of Central Asia and the Caucasus.” Caspian Energy Politics: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Routledge. p. 9-25
40. Stulberg, Adam. 2015. Well-Oiled Diplomacy : Strategic Manipulation and Russia’s Energy Statecraft in Eurasia. SUNY Press. p. 1-30
41. Goldthau, Andreas; Witte, Jan Martin. 2010. Global Energy Governance: The New Rules of the Game. Brookings Institution Press.
42. Steinbruner, John; Stern, Paul; Husbands, Jo. 2012. Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis. National Academies Press. p. 125-156
43. Borgerson, Scott G. 2008. “Arctic Meltdown.” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 87, No. 2. p. 63-77
44. Schofield, Clive; Arsana, I Made Andi. 2020. “Indonesia’s “Impossible” Maritime Borders.” Maritime Studies. 19(2). p. 163-177
45. Belal, Sophia. 2021. Climate Change, Development and Migration: An Existential Threat to Bangladesh. Springer Nature. p. 15-38
46. Oels, Angela. 2012. “From ‘Securitization’ of Climate Change to ‘Climatization’ of the Security Field: Comparing Three Theoretical Perspectives.” In Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict. Springer. p. 185-205