CIAO DATE: 10/2011
Volume: 8, Issue: 29
Spring 2011
Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramında Anarşi Söylemi (PDF)
Faruk Yalvaç
Discourse of Anarchy in the Theory of International Relations
Th is article discusses the development of the anarchy discourse in international relations
theory. It questions the main problematiques around which the discourse of anarchy is
organised and asks whether anarchy is still a valid concept to understand international
relations. Th e mainstream IR theory analyses anarchy from an institutional framework,
and is based on the assumption that state relations is suff icient to describe and understand
anarchy. Post-positivist period have developed diverse criticisms to this conceptualisation.
Th e article evaluates the criticisms of postmodernist, historical sociological, postcolonial and
feminist approaches to the concept of anarchy. One of the main theses of this article is that
the concept of anarchy can meaningfully be used to analyse international relations only if it
is connected to social relations (and more specifically to social relations of capitalism with
respect to understanding present international system). Th erefore, the approach adopted in
this article overlaps with many of the criticisms of anarchy by postmodernism, feminism,
but more specifically with recent historical sociological approaches and the postcolonial
studies. Another argument of the article is that the anarchy/order opposition can not totally
be eradicated unless the social relations sustaining them can be altered.
Anna M. Agathangelou, Barış Karaağaç
Beginning with the epistemological principle, International Relations (IR) critiques “world politics”, we look at the discipline of International Political Economy (IPE) within IR, considering to what extent IPE re-thinks key IR divides. What does IPE mean when the military-industrial complex is a site of power for the accumulation of resources and knowledge production? Can we critically theorize without understanding the international, the military, or the industrial as contested categories? How have critical theories of security and militarization and their racial formations been “globally” and “locally” positioned? Does an assumed segregation of security and property relations preclude making tensions visible in security regimes and among vulture capitalists? Th is essay foregrounds Turkey and its armed forces as sites of critical inquiry into the key divides of IR: national and international; global and local; the economy and state relations; rationality and bodies. We highlight what is produced as viable within the fields of the current model of global power and collective practices instrumental in changing IPE consensus about global processes and relations to dissent.
"Güvenlik İkilemi"ni Yeniden Düşünmek Güvenlik Çalışmalarında Yeni Bir Perspektif (PDF)
Ali Bilgiç
Th is article will discuss the concept of “security dilemma”, which was conceptualized sixty years ago, but has been enriched and recently re-thought, in three periods. In the first period, the concept was formulated based on the security understanding dominating the Cold War era. Th e second period is the one during which the concept was enriched in conjunction with emerging problems in world politics and the broadened security understanding in the discipline of International Relations. In the last period, the concept was completely re-thought and fed by new ideas. Among these new ideas, the concept of “trust” was off ered as a way of transcending security dilemmas. Th e re-generated version of “security dilemma” presents a new perspective to understand, study, and re-think what security and insecurity mean in world politics.
Yirmibirinci Yüzyılda Savaşı Tartışmak: Clausewitz Yeniden (PDF)
Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu
In the post-Cold War era the changing international system, primordial hate and violence motivated by ethnic and religious confl icts, transnationally operating non-state actors, relativization of the state, and rising democratic and liberal values have prompted an ongoing debate on the nature of war. Those commentators who argue that the “new” wars have fundamentally changed the nature of war are of the opinion that the theory of war by Carl von Clausewitz has lost its analytical relevance as a conceptual framework for understanding and explaining war in the twenty-first century. Th e major contention of this article is the following: In some respects, “new” wars are diff erent from the “old” (conventional) ones. Th e depth of this diff erence, however, falls short in changing the nature of war. Th e conceptual framework of Clausewitz, therefore, remains relevant to a great extent. Clausewitzian interpretation of contemporary wars would be useful to reevaluate political and strategic alternatives that are developed to control and terminate them.
Savaş Hukukunda Tecavüz ve Yağmayı Yasakla(ma)yan Rejimler Lahey Sözleşmeleri (1899, 1907) (PDF)
Tuba İnal
Th is article seeks to explain two related theoretical questions by looking at the treatment of two related practices of war, pillage and rape, by international law: How does change, particularly legalized regime change, happen in international relations and what is the role of “gender” as a category in this process of change? Th e argument here is that three conditions are necessary for the emergence of a legalized prohibition regime: Firstly, states must believe that they can comply with the prohibition because non-compliance is costly. Secondly, a normative context conducive to the idea that the particular practice is abnormal/undesirable is necessary. Th irdly, actors actively propagating these ideas to promote the creation of a particular regime should exist. Th e 100-year temporal diff erence between the emergence of the regimes against pillage and rape reveals the role of gender in this process.
Senem Aydın Düzgit
In line with the poststructuralist approach that theorises identity as relationally constructed through discourse, the purpose of this article is to shed light on the diff erent visions of Europe that are constructed in debates on Turkey’s accession to the EU among German politicians. Th e article focuses on the political party debates on Turkish accession in Germany, a key member state in EU integration and the debate on Turkish membership to the EU, and subjects them to critical discourse analysis. In doing that, it also brings forward the importance of the concept of discourse from a poststructuralist perspective.