Needed: A more rich,textured and nuanced view of the role of geography in international politics

The following comments divide into three sections. The first section questions Professor Spiegel's use of the traditional space vs. cyberspace dichotomy and the high‐technology/nationalistic/transitional states trichotomy as conceptual devices well‐suited ‘to illustrate the complexity of the new era’ (115). Contra Spiegel, I argue that the dynamic and multi‐faceted complexity characteristic of contemporary world affairs can not be readily captured by such crude analytical tools. The second section refers to what is omitted or missing in the Spiegel's article. Here, I question whether best‐known authors (such as Thomas Friedman, Robert Kaplan and Samuel Huntington) are also those best‐suited to assess the current state of IR geographical knowledge. I answer in the negative and call attention to the work of some lesser‐known scholars whose works reflect the beginning of serious reflection on the changing role of geography in international politics. Finally, I conclude by reiterating the need for sustained dialogues and collaborations between the spatial and the political disciplines.