ABSTRACT
Simon Dalby asserts that the 'critical' in critical geopolitics usually refers to the problematization of discourse rather than a worked out alternative political project. Nick Megoran argues more forcefully that 'critical geopolitics can be criticised for providing a weak normative engagement with the social institutions and practices of warfare'. Examining the fascinating transformation of Judith Butler's intellectual and political positioning up to 2004, when her earlier attachment to performativity, and non-volitional volition, ceases to rule out political protests of violence as a central part of her analysis. Feminist geographers have yielded rich insights into engaging 'the political' without essentializing 'the project'. Without a transformative feminist politics, McDowell implies, critical geopoliticians and other post-structuralists are left with well-interrogated categories, but no clear way forward in practice. The Paris principles "reflect experience and knowledge from across the globe and are intended to both foster greater programmatic coherence and support and promote good practice".
