Political geography and geography of security.

Political geography is a specific field of study within the more general field of human geography that examines how people in specific locations around the world have organized themselves into distinctive political groups, and how they influence and interact with each other. It is the study of how space is made into territory - that is to say, how political communities divide the world up between themselves. ...

Political geography is a specific field of study within the more general field of human geography that examines how people in specific locations around the world have organized themselves into distinctive political groups, and how they influence and interact with each other. It is the study of how space is made into territory - that is to say, how political communities divide the world up between themselves.

Political geography is a specific field of study within the more general field of human geography that examines how people in specific locations around the world have organized themselves into distinctive political groups, and how they influence and interact with each other. It is the study of how space is made into territory - that is to say, how political communities divide the world up between themselves.

Reinhard Hildebrandt calls this a period of "dual-hegemony", where "two dominant states have been stabilizing their European spheres of influence against and alongside each other."Proxy wars became battle grounds between forces supported either directly or indirectly by the hegemonic powers and included the Korean War, the Laotian Civil War, the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Vietnam War, the Afghan War, the Angolan Civil War, and the Central American Civil Wars.The politics of globalization can be improved, argues Peter Mandelson, former European commissioner for trade in an essay based on a March 2011 keynote speech on the future of globalization. Governments have the capability to tame what seems to be a senseless race to devour resources and amass profits. Collective action is the only way to control dangerous competition, prevent unreasonable behavior of a few and ensure stability, Mandelson contends. Plenty of global institutions and policymaking tools are in place, including the World Trade Organization, the G20, the United Nations and more. Governments can act collectively, achieving balance in competition with social programs to boost social confidence and innovation. As demonstrated by the Scandinavian nations, globalization does not require stark trade-off between competition and social protections. Mandelson concludes that global institutions’ potential and governments’ ability to undertake collective action are underestimated, that the politics of globalization must be reassessed and revamped for a new era.Traditionally politics has been undertaken within national political systems. National governments have been ultimately responsible for maintaining the security and economic welfare of their citizens, as well as the protection of human rights and the environment within their borders. With global ecological changes, an ever more integrated global economy, and other global trends, political activity increasingly takes place at the global level.Under globalization, politics can take place above the state through political integration schemes such as the European Union and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Political activity can also transcend national borders through global movements and NGOs. Civil society organizations act globaly by forming alliances with organizations in other countries, using global communications systems, and lobbying international organizations and other actors directly, instead of working through their national governments.Let’s look another side. The War on Terror, also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States.U.S. President George W. Bush first used the term "War on Terror" on 20 September 2001. The Bush administration and the western media have since used the term to argue a global military, political, legal, and conceptual struggle against both organizations designated terrorist and regimes accused of supporting them. It was originally used with a particular focus on Muslim countries associated with Islamic terrorism organizations including al-Qaeda and like-minded organizations.In 2013, President Barack Obama announced that the United States was no longer pursuing a War on Terror, as the military focus should be on specific enemies rather than a tactic. He stated, "We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror', but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.In 1984, the Reagan Administration used the term "war against terrorism" as part of an effort to pass legislation that was designed to freeze assets of terrorist groups and marshal the forces of government against them. Author Shane Harris asserts this was a reaction to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 U.S. and 58 French peacekeepers.The concept of America at war with terrorism may have begun on 11 September 2001 when Tom Brokaw, having just witnessed the collapse of one of the towers of the World Trade Center, declared Terrorists have declared war on America.On 16 September 2001, at Camp David, President George W. Bush used the phrase war on terrorism in an unscripted and controversial comment when he said, "This crusade – this war on terrorism – is going to take a while, ... " Bush later apologized for this remark due to the negative connotations the term crusade has to people, e.g. of Muslim faith. The word crusade was not used again. On 20 September 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of congress, Bush stated that, "our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."In April 2007, the British government announced publicly that it was abandoning the use of the phrase "War on Terror" as they found it to be less than helpful. This was explained more recently by Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller. In her 2011 Reith lecture, the former head of MI5 said that the 9/11 attacks were "a crime, not an act of war. So I never felt it helpful to refer to a war on terror."U.S. President Barack Obama has rarely used the term, but in his inaugural address on 20 January 2009, he stated "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In March 2009 the Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO). In March 2009, the Obama administration requested that Pentagon staff members avoid use of the term, instead using "Overseas Contingency Operation". Basic objectives of the Bush administration "war on terror", such as targeting al Qaeda and building international counterterrorism alliances, remain in place. In December 2012, Jeh Johnson, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, stated that the military fight will be replaced by a law enforcement operation when speaking at Oxford University, predicting that al Qaeda will be so weakened to be ineffective, and has been "effectively destroyed", and thus the conflict will not be an armed conflict under international law. In May 2013, Obama stated that the goal is "to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America"; which coincided with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget having changed the wording from "Overseas Contingency Operations" to "Countering Violent Extremism" in 2010.Because the actions involved in the "war on terrorism" are diffuse, and the criteria for inclusion are unclear, political theorist Richard Jackson has argued that "the 'war on terrorism' therefore, is simultaneously a set of actual practices—wars, covert operations, agencies, and institutions—and an accompanying series of assumptions, beliefs, justifications, and narratives—it is an entire language or discourse." Jackson cites among many examples a statement by John Ashcroft that "the attacks of September 11 drew a bright line of demarcation between the civil and the savage". Administration officials also described "terrorists" as hateful, treacherous, barbarous, mad, twisted, perverted, without faith, parasitical, inhuman, and, most commonly, evil. Americans, in contrast, were described as brave, loving, generous, strong, resourceful, heroic, and respectful of human rights.Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preventive war, human rights abuse and other violations of international law.The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744) is an immigration reform bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in the United States Senate and co-sponsored by the other seven members of the "Gang of Eight" a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who wrote and negotiated the bill. It was introduced into the United States Senate of the 113th United States Congress on April 16, 2013.The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the bill in April 2013. The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013 and was introduced in Senate. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed this bill 68-32. Whether the United States House of Representatives will even consider it is uncertain.The bill would make it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would also make the border more secure by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also advances talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas have been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers. It also proposes new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also includes a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repeals the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.Some politicians have commented that if this immigration reform does not pass the Congress, and the Senate and the House try to pass their own separate versions with no compromise, it could result in a stalemate with the problem of a broken legal immigration system remaining.The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act was created by a group of eight United States Senators - composed of four Republicans and four Democrats - nicknamed the "Gang of Eight:" Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY).The bill was referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which held hearings and markups about the bill. The Judiciary Committee held hearings about the bill on April 19, April 22, and April 23, 2013. On May 9, May 14, May 16, and May 20, 2013, the committee held consideration and mark up sessions. On May 21, the committee ordered the bill to be reported, with amendments, favorably.Several other committees also held hearings about the bill. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held hearings on May 7. The United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held hearings about the bill on May 16 and May 22.On June 7, 2013, Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed report 113-40 to accompany S. 744. The report included the views of the majority of the committee in favor of the bill, as well as minority views and opinions. The 187-page report includes information about why the new immigration legislation is needed, the history of the bill's consideration by the committee, as section by section summary of the bill, a copy of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the bill, some conclusions, and the minority views on the bill.Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.Derived from Latin through French souveraineté, its attainment and retention, in both Chinese and Western culture, has traditionally been associated with certain moral imperatives upon any claimant. An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the desirability of increased absoluteness.A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these lines, the German sociologist Max Weber proposed that sovereignty is a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force; and thus any group claiming the same right must either be brought under the yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated for sovereignty to be genuine. International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on exclusivity.State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot. A state can achieve de facto independence long after acquiring sovereignty, such as in the case of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Additionally, independence can also be suspended when an entire region becomes subject to an occupation such as when Iraq had been overrun by the forces to take part in the Iraq War of 2003, Iraq had not been annexed by any country, so its sovereignty during this period was not contested by any state including those present on the territory. Alternatively, independence can be lost completely when sovereignty itself becomes the subject of dispute. The pre-World War II administrations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia maintained an exile existence (and considerable international recognition) whilst the entities were annexed by the Soviet Union and governed locally by their pro-Soviet functionaries. When in 1991 Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia re-enacted independence, it was done so on the basis of continuity directly from the pre-Soviet republics. Another complicated sovereignty scenario can arise when regime itself is the subject of dispute. In the case of Poland, the People's Republic of Poland which governed Poland from 1945 to 1989 is now seen to have been an illegal entity by the modern Polish administration. The post-1989 Polish state claims direct continuity from the Second Polish Republic which ended in 1939.