50 years of geopolitics : after leaving the benches of college

Review Hérodote, Number 200-201 (1st and 2nd semesters 2026) in tribute to Yves Lacoste. Available in many libraries.

I. From Scorn to Acclaim: The Long Struggle for Academic Recognition

A Methodology in the Making

While there is now a consensus on the usefulness of geopolitics in its contemporary sense, this represents the culmination of a laborious process of rehabilitation. Established by the so-called “Heartland” theory, formulated by the British geographer Halford John Mackinder in an article published in 1904, this discipline was long despised due to its exploitation in the service of Nazi ideology. On the eve of World War II, the works of German theorists Friedrich Ratzel and later Karl Haushofer were indeed co-opted by the leaders of the Third Reich to legitimize their aggressive foreign policy and inspired, in particular, the concept of “Lebensraum.” Rightly criticized for these associations, geopolitics subsequently faced resistance from geographers who feared that integrating politics into their discipline would deprive it of its scientific rigor.

It was not until the 1980s that it regained a place within the academic community. We owe the revival of this method to the efforts of Yves Lacoste. Born in Fez, Morocco, during the French protectorate, this son of a geologist made significant contributions to the founding principles of geopolitics. Through the thematic journal Hérodote, which he founded in 1976, the geographer experimented and laid the new foundations for what is now known as “Lacostian geopolitics.” Celebrating its 50th anniversary today with a 200th issue paying tribute to its founder, the quarterly journal continues to apply the methods and concepts developed through the lens of numerous conflict situations across the globe.

Several of these pillars have played a key role in establishing geopolitics as a recognized scientific discipline. Among these, the study of the representations held by actors in rivalries is essential in that it allows us to shed light on their motivations and strategies, while also avoiding ideological pitfalls during analysis. Other distinctive features of this methodology include diatopic geographical reasoning and diachronic historical reasoning, which advocate combining different levels of spatial analysis as well as long- and short-term timeframes. Finally, Yves Lacoste departs from the traditional conception found in international relations, according to which power rivalries are solely a matter of debate among leaders. In a broader and more democratic understanding of this concept, he expands the scope of geopolitical analysis to include civil society actors.

Yves Lacoste and the Hérodote team in 2006

As the theoretical foundations of geopolitics were taking shape, its practical application began to extend beyond the pages of the journal. In 1989, the University of Paris XVIII, where Yves Lacoste taught, launched the first advanced studies diploma (DEA in Geopolitics), accompanied by a Center for Geopolitical Research and Analysis (CRAG). In 2002, these pioneering academic centers became the French Institute of Geopolitics (IFG) as we know it today. As France’s only doctoral school in geopolitics, the IFG’s faculty continues to keep Hérodote alive through its instructors and doctoral students.

Winning Over the Youth Through Secondary Education: A Well-Established Popularity

Even as the foundations of geopolitics have been laid and the discipline has found its place in university classrooms, Laurent Carroué, Inspector General Emeritus, takes advantage of this 50th issue to recount his long struggle to extend this recognition of geopolitics to secondary schools. Alongside his peers in the History-Geography Group of the General Inspectorate (IGEN), the geographer has championed his vision for geopolitics for years, despite the uncontested numerical dominance of historians. As the driving force behind the integration of this discipline into secondary school curricula, Laurent Carroué and his colleagues have sought to infuse their vision through exam topics, school curricula, websites, and even the International Geography Festival (FIG). These innovative efforts finally bore fruit in 2019 with the creation of the “History-Geography, Geopolitics, and Political Science” (HHGSP) track in high school. As he describes it, the introduction of this academic discipline thus constitutes a true “intellectual, civic, and pedagogical revolution”: geography is no longer merely subordinate to history and has earned its place in the curriculum thanks to its unique characteristics.

But beyond winning over a reluctant teaching staff, geopolitics is appealing to students. In 2024, nearly 25% of high school seniors are choosing this specialization. Several internal and external factors help explain this growing popularity. Above all, this trend draws its strength from the wide range of engaging materials tailored to a young audience that have been developed in recent years. A series of textbooks for middle and high schools co-edited by Yves Lacoste at Nathan Publishing, the organization of a “Carto Contest” by an association of the same name that has engaged thousands of students since 2010, the creation of the Géoconfluences digital library by the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, and the diversification of media formats with the TV show “Le dessous des cartes” and a variety of magazines on cartography and geopolitics… The ways to stay informed about current events and derive accessible analyses from them are constantly evolving, reinventing themselves, and exerting a significant pull on young people.

At the same time, the widespread media coverage of current events through immersive, short, accessible, and sometimes entertaining content is helping to dramatically increase interest in this field by fueling a desire to make sense of the vast amount of information consumed daily. The popularity of popular science content such as the videos by Hugo Décrypte or Pascal Boniface attests to this. We can also speculate that young people’s direct exposure to recent geopolitical upheavals, such as the war in Ukraine, through social media, may have led many of them to feel concerned, or even to fear a direct impact on their daily lives. As Pascal Ausseur points out in an interview with Défis Humanitaires, “this return to violence also reminds us of a word we had completely forgotten: vulnerability.”

While the multidisciplinary nature of geopolitics—encompassing history, political science, economics, and sociology—is appealing because it allows students to pursue cross-disciplinary career paths, it should be noted that opportunities to study this discipline in higher education remain limited. In fact, there are currently only two master’s programs in geopolitics in France, one doctoral school, and no bachelor’s degree specifically labeled as such.

Although geopolitics has gained recognition in academic and university circles, among both faculty and students, there is still a long way to go. With this in mind, Défis Humanitaires advocates for greater integration of this discipline into the humanitarian sector.

II. Humanitarian Action Guided by Geopolitical Analysis: Toward Better Risk and Crisis Management in the Field

Founded in 2011 by Alain Boinet, the journal Défis Humanitaires was initially created to highlight the cause-and-effect relationships between geopolitics and humanitarian action. Its aim is to open a space for dialogue and reflection on the innovations needed to optimize the effectiveness of humanitarian action. Through feedback from the field, analyses of conflicts and crises, and a focus on the tools developed by civil society organizations, it seeks to demonstrate that the deployment of NGOs and their programs cannot succeed without a solid understanding of the geopolitical contexts in which they operate.

As a full-fledged player in geopolitics, the humanitarian sector exerts a reciprocal influence on the territories, populations, and crises in which it operates. In the countries of the central Sahel, where Armed terrorist groups (ATGs) are rampant and exploit the failure of under-resourced states, addressing the prevailing precariousness, water stress, and limited access to healthcare can be a way to reverse the dynamics of cooperation between some local communities and these violent actors, who until then had presented themselves as the only alternative. Conversely, global geopolitics exerts a clear influence on the humanitarian sector and can easily restrict its operations. In the United States, the local context of resurgent nationalism, prioritization of domestic interests, and a return to protectionism through the “America First” doctrine championed by Donald Trump has had a crucial impact on public funding: the end of USAID in 2025.

Forced to adapt and reinvent itself due to the economic and political pressures weighing on it, the humanitarian sector would therefore benefit from taking greater account of the geopolitical contexts and environments in which it evolves, operates, and establishes itself.

Solidarités International’s HAACT (Humanitarian Analysis for Access in Challenging ConTexts) service is a perfect example. Created in 2019 to address issues related to field access and staff safety, this unit conducts remote analyses. As described on the NGO’s website, it “provides decision-makers and operational staff with visibility into the humanitarian situation in areas that are very difficult to access” and “shares actionable, conflict-sensitive recommendations on appropriate activities and intervention methods.” In 2021, the HAACT program notably facilitated a humanitarian response in the village of Ikarfane in Niger’s Tillabéri region, on the border with Mali.

© Solidarités International – The HAACT system of distance data collection

Building on the approach initiated by Défis Humanitaires, it is essential to encourage the development of similar frameworks that, by taking better account of geopolitical factors, shed light on the rivalries, strategies, and actors at play, thereby providing a clearer understanding of the risks faced by aid workers, the needs they address, and the obstacles that could hinder their activities. Accurate mapping of sensitive areas, strategic points where intervention is possible, the distribution of conflicting actors across the territory, and the narratives that drive their strategies—some of which may at times clash with the objectives of humanitarian organizations—would help optimize the effectiveness and relevance of humanitarian action.

After 50 years of advocating for the recognition of geopolitics in academic circles, it is essential to continue this substantial work to better integrate the discipline into professional practice.

Salomée Languille.

Intern at Défis Humanitaires and Graduate student at the French Institute of Geopolitics.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

The risk of abandoning all global water-related goals

© Solidarités International – Distribution of water and kits 6 months after hurricane Chido in Mayotte

A Second UN Water Conference in Late 2026

In December 2026, the second UN Water Conference of the 21st Century will take place in Abu Dhabi. This is a very important event, as nations have never before gathered at the United Nations to work together on issues related to inland waters. The first conference took place in January 2023 in New York. That first conference yielded positive results. National leaders realized that they all faced water challenges and concluded that there was a global crisis in this area. Furthermore, a taboo was broken. Thanks to several countries, including France, discussions were able to begin regarding the shortcomings of what has since been termed global water governance. And it was decided to hold a second UN Water Conference focusing on global goals, which had not been the priority in 2023. This new Conference is much better prepared than the first. In particular, all countries met in Dakar last January at the ministerial level to begin discussing together, following the thematic structure planned for the Conference itself. This intergovernmental meeting in Dakar showed that attitudes have shifted significantly since 2023: many countries are now calling for these UN Water Conferences to become a permanent fixture, a far greater number than in 2023. The hope is that water will be managed much more effectively on a global scale in the future.

© Solidarités International – Distribution of water by Solidarités International in Tawila – Darfur, Sudan

The December discussions will be organized around six major themes covering all key water-related issues. For each topic, countries will seek to drive progress. This will be the case for global water governance, which is one of the six major themes. We can hope that this will advance the cause. Several avenues are being explored.

But if we are not careful, it could also regress, as there is a subtle threat that few stakeholders are currently aware of. It is the risk of losing our bearings and having no global water goals left in five years!

To understand and assess this threat, it is helpful to first take stock of recent progress in global water governance.

A headless duck

When it came to water, the international community at the start of the 21st century was like a headless chicken: no shared vision of the issues, no common goals, little shared statistical data, and no collective memory. Many UN agencies were working on water issues but without any real coordination. Countries did not meet at the United Nations to discuss water. The only place where governments discussed water was at the diplomatic conferences organized by the host countries of the World Water Forums. These conferences were very useful—they helped, for example, to establish the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation—but they were short-lived and did not allow for collective decision-making, as such decisions are made at the UN. Countries’ water-related goals were disparate, and their actions rarely addressed global needs. Oh, there was indeed a global goal for access to safe drinking water adopted in 2000, but it was not ambitious and was declared achieved in 2012—three years ahead of schedule—despite the billions of people who still had access only to contaminated water. Without a shared understanding of the issues at stake, without common goals, without a mechanism for tracking progress, and without a forum for regular diplomatic discussions, global water governance was virtually nonexistent compared to many other issues—such as health or food security—which had clear objectives, regular intergovernmental meetings, actionable decisions, and permanent UN structures.

Real Progress in Global Governance

The graph in Figure 1 schematically illustrates the progress made since 2000 and its relative importance in terms of governance. The vertical axis represents a subjective assessment of the quality of global governance relative to that of health or food issues.

Fig. 1: Recent and Expected Progress in “Global Water Governance”

Beyond the existence of the World Water Forums, the first major steps forward were the Millennium Development Goals, which included a target for safe drinking water in 2000 and another for sanitation in 2003. Then, in 2010, access to safe drinking water and sanitation was recognized as a human right. In and of itself, this recognition was very significant. However, for it to serve to improve the lives of the billions of people whose rights are being violated, a large-scale operational implementation program was needed. Such a program, the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), was adopted in 2015. This was an opportunity for all countries to decide, for the first time, that they wanted to ensure universal access to safe drinking water and quality sanitation at affordable prices, thereby largely meeting human rights requirements. Better yet, the 2030 Agenda adopted in 2015 includes some twenty ambitious global water-related goals aimed at addressing all major global water challenges within a clear overarching vision. These global goals thus address issues ranging from population access to pollution control, water resource sustainability, and water-related disasters (see Figure 2). With a clear overarching vision and goals addressing all major challenges, the duck found its way. In 2015, the world found a compass. Better yet, progress indicators were defined and developed, which within a few years provided a much more precise and objective understanding of the global situation regarding these issues. I would point out, for example, that until 2021, no one in the world had the slightest idea of the global proportion of wastewater flows that are treated before being discharged into the environment—a fact that was quite convenient for justifying inaction but did nothing to help us move forward.

Fig. 2: The 2030 Agenda includes targets directly related to water (blue arrows) in many of the SDGs

And then countries finally began to come together at the UN, holding a first Conference on Water in All Its Aspects in January 2023, followed by a second one in December 2026. Since the UN serves as the secretariat for these conferences, the debates are recorded and accessible, decisions are implemented and at least partially monitored, and progress reports are produced regularly. At the same time, UN-Water has grown in strength, and a UN Water Strategy has emerged, which has greatly improved internal coordination among UN agencies. Today, the duck knows much better where it needs to go and whether it is getting there.

However, progress is far too slow. Setting goals such as universal access to truly safe drinking water, halving the volume of untreated wastewater discharged, and ensuring the sustainability of water resources helps guide policy. But the results achieved in relation to these goals are woefully inadequate. Défis Humanitaires published two of my articles[1] detailing this shortfall in drinking water and sanitation in its March 22, 2025, issue. Subsequent updates to global statistics have confirmed the trends described in these articles.

Further Progress Expected at Abu Dhabi 2026

However, there is still work to be done to achieve a level of global governance comparable to that in the fields of health or food. By virtue of its very existence, the December 2026 Conference will already represent further progress, as for the first time, nations will come together to assess their woefully inadequate progress toward global water-related goals. The need is enormous, as there is a gaping gap between the goals and the sum of the results of national policies. Could this discussion finally trigger the corrective measures and the political acceleration process that is absolutely necessary? Will this enable all sectors to be mobilized toward achieving the water goals by engaging the Ministers of Finance, Agriculture, Energy, Industry, and Cities? Will this Conference help us understand and acknowledge that if the goals are not being met, it is simply because many national policies today do not aim to achieve them, and that ambitious goals are not achieved by chance? Many of us hope so.

The Risk of Losing Everything by 2030

When we look at all the progress made since 2000, it becomes clear that the coherent and balanced vision, the ambitious goals, and the statistical indicators established in 2015 represent a fantastic collective treasure. These are, of course, global public goods, but in reality they are much more than that. Because they are shared by all, they are what enable the duck—pardon me, the international community—to know where it needs to go, where it is heading, and whether it is actually getting there.

© Solidarités International – Distributions of kits and construction/rehabilitation of waterholes on the Al Mokha base in Yemen

This treasure is largely invisible because, with the exception of international donors, most water sector actors refer to the SDGs only symbolically and do not incorporate the SDG targets into their concrete objectives and operational activities. Even at the national level, many countries enthusiastically endorsed the SDGs in 2015 but have never sought to adapt their national policies to ensure their contributions to achieving these shared goals.

This treasure, created in 2015, holds great political value, and I am proud to have been able to make a modest contribution to it. But it is fragile, as it will disappear in 2030. It is, in fact, tied to the 2030 Agenda, which, as its name suggests, will come to an end in late 2030. The value of this collective treasure is currently greatly underestimated in international reports and debates. It is only when it disappears in 2030 that this value will become apparent to everyone.

So, of course, those familiar with the inertia of large UN structures are confident that a new global 2030–2045 agenda will be adopted and assume that this new agenda will include goals for water. This is indeed a possibility, as negotiations on post-2030 global goals will begin in July 2027. But will they succeed in the current geopolitical context? And if they do succeed, how ambitious will the water-related goals be? Will they ensure continuity of efforts by maintaining the same goals? No one knows, of course.

But the risk of failing to reach consensus on a post-2030 agenda—or of adopting a post-2030 agenda that is different and less ambitious than the 2030 Agenda—is inherently significant. Indeed, we must remember that the consensual adoption in 2015 by representatives of the entire global population of ambitious goals designed to address humanity’s greatest challenges was a historic event. This had never happened before in history. The likelihood of such an event recurring is inherently low. But obstacles have also accumulated, and the risk of a lack of consensus or reduced ambitions has become very high. There are many factors that could contribute to failure: a major country that disparages multilateralism has declared that the SDGs are contrary to its policies and interests[2]; national policymakers are not truly interested in the SDGs, preferring to communicate their progress rather than what remains to be done to achieve ambitious medium- or long-term goals; thinkers and decision-makers in 2030 will, as usual, want to do things differently from their predecessors in order to gain personal visibility without concern for maintaining continuity in goals, indicators, and actions; the many purists who see flaws in the content of the current SDG targets will want to rewrite them with the aim of improving them, without realizing that calling for a rewrite is the surest way to end up with nothing at all, since the historic consensus reached in 2015 is highly unlikely to be replicated in 2020, given the current context of severely weakened multilateralism. This could lead to a convergence of interests that ultimately results in the 2030–2045 agenda either not existing at all or being significantly scaled back, with goals and indicators that differ from those in place today.

© Solidarités International – Women gathering water in Darfur, Sudan

For water, this would be a disaster, as the only global water goals currently exist within the SDG framework. Without continuity in vision, goals, and indicators, global water governance would be back to square one. This would represent a major setback (see Figure 1).

The insurance policy offered by the French Water Partnership

Since nothing is certain regarding the post-2030 global agenda, there is a real risk of losing the collective asset described above by the end of 2030. The French Water Partnership (PFE), which brings together French stakeholders of all kinds interested in international water issues—and which some call the French National Water Team—is deeply concerned about this potential disaster. Therefore, while fighting for the adoption of a new, ambitious post-2030 agenda that retains at least the same twenty specific water-related goals and their indicators, the French Water Partnership has devised a precautionary measure to safeguard global goals without subjecting them to a game of Russian roulette in these highly uncertain post-2030 negotiations. It recommends that the United Nations General Assembly adopt a resolution on water as early as 2027, through which it would establish global goals modeled on the existing goals without any modification and without linking them to a broader global agenda with a fixed timeframe. This is the approach taken in many areas—such as biodiversity, climate, disasters, and health—where goals were established outside the 2030 Agenda but integrated into the SDGs. The same 2027 resolution would also decide to continue statistical monitoring of water-related SDG indicators. Why 2027?

Because this could be a logical follow-up to the December 2026 Conference, provided that countries recognize the risk of losing their goals and indicators and their responsibility to secure them before the major negotiations on the post-2030 goals. Why the same goals as the SDG targets? Because opening negotiations on the content of new goals risks taking years to reach a conclusion or resulting in less ambitious goals.

I had the honor of presenting this proposal on behalf of the PFE last January in Dakar to all the governments gathered to prepare for the UN Water Conference in Abu Dhabi this December.

Given the worsening water-related challenges around the world, this Conference will only be a success if it leads to progress and prevents any setbacks. Let us therefore hope that this Conference will enable States to recognize both the significant gap between the cumulative results of their national water policies and their global objectives, and their collective responsibility to intensify their efforts toward these objectives while ensuring that these objectives remain on track even after the Conference concludes.

Gérard Payen.

[1] Eau potable : que nous apprennent les statistiques mondiales au-delà des rapports officiels ?, G.Payen, Défis Humanitaires n°86 of March 6th, 2024 ; Eau potable et assainissement : Atteindre les objectifs, dans quels délais ?, G. Payen, PCM n°919 of December 2024

[2] The United States have announced their withdrawal from the UNESCO in July 2025 for 2 official reasons among which one was “The UNESCO is working to promote divisive social and cultural causes and places undue emphasis on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist and ideological agenda for international development that runs counter to our “America First” foreign policy“.

Gérard Payen

Gérard Payen has been working for over 40 years to address water-related issues in countries around the world. As Water Advisor to the United Nations Secretary-General (member of UNSGAB) from 2004 to 2015, he contributed to the recognition of the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, as well as to the adoption of numerous water-related Sustainable Development Goals. Today, he continues to work toward mobilizing the international community for better management of water-related issues, which requires more ambitious public policies. As Vice President of the French Water Partnership, he also advises United Nations agencies that produce global water statistics. Impressed by the number of misconceptions about the nature of water-related issues—misconceptions that hinder public authorities in their decision-making—he published a book in 2013 to debunk these myths.

Discover the other articles of this edition :

Share :

Share :