Abstract:

The current paper emphasizes on the debate referring to how historical case studies are processed in social sciences and humanities and which limitations have to be surpassed towards a clear-cut descriptive analysis. Systemic Geopolitical Analysis does offer the necessary set of methodological tools contributing to a reading of causes and effects without any deontological bias. To this aim, it uses a sequence of methodological stages for the description, the standardization, the terminology definition, the synthesis and finally, the draw of conclusions named as “sample of redistributions of power”. This last part is essentially followed by the geostrategic synthesis part; the descriptive and clearly scientific in which the geopolitical framework is given is followed by the subjective geostrategic one in which the challenges, dilemmas, threats and opportunities on behalf of a certain actor are presented. Based on this legacy, processing historical case studies is made with a clear distinction between objectivity and subjectivity or, in other words, between science with ontological reference and geostrategic recommendations. This paper replies to the epistemological legacy Systemic Geopolitical Analysis relying on as well as its core theoretical and methodological contribution.