Çatışma Çözümünde AGİT'in Avantajları ve Sınırlılıkları

Abstract

Bu makale, Avrupa Güvenlik ve İşbirliği Örgütü (AGİT) örneğine odaklanarak bölgesel örgütlerin çatışma çözümündeki konumlarını anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Mevcut literatür, bölgesel örgütlerin çatışma çözümündeki konumlarını çoğunlukla avantajları ve sınırlılıkları açısından küresel örgütlerle karşılaştırmaktadır. Makale, özellikle Soğuk Savaşın sona ermesinden sonra bölgesel örgütlerin çatışma çözümündeki konumlarını analiz edebilmek için kurumsallaşma kapasitesi, ortak tarih ve/veya ortak değerlere sahip olma, coğrafi yakınlık, homojenlik, çatışmaya aşinalık, demokratik üyelere sahip olma ve sahip olunan kaynaklar şeklinde yedi spesifik kriter belirlemektedir. Détente döneminde konferanslar serisi olarak ortaya çıkan AGİT, bu yedi kriteri incelemek için güçlü bir bölgesel örgüt örneği sunmaktadır. Makale, üç bölüme ayrılmıştır. Birinci bölüm, uluslararası belgeleri inceleyerek bölgesel örgütlerin çatışma çözümündeki rolüne işaret eder ve çatışma çözümündeki pozisyonlarını analiz etmek için yedi kriter belirler. İkinci bölüm, AGİT’in çatışma çözümü yaklaşımının gelişimini tartışır. Üçüncü bölüm ise belirlenen kriterler çerçevesinde AGİT’in çatışma çözümündeki avantajlarını ve sınırlarını analiz etmektedir. Makale, çatışma çözümünde bölgesel örgütler için avantaj olarak tanımlanan kriterlerin AGİT'in çatışma çözümü eylemlerinde belirleyici bir avantaj oluşturmadığı sonucuna varmaktadır.

Keywords

• AGİT
• Bölgesel örgütler
• Çatışma çözümü
• Saha operasyonları
• Üçüncü taraf aktörler

REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION: AN ASSESSMENT OF OSCE

Abstract

This article seeks to understand the position of regional organizations in conflict resolution by focusing on the example of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The existing literature mostly compares the position of regional organizations in conflict resolution with that of global organizations in terms of their advantages and limitations. The article defines seven criteria, namely the capacity of institutionalization, common history or common values, geographical proximity, homogeneity, familiarity with conflict, having democratic member states, and resources to analyze the position of regional organizations in conflict resolution specifically after the end of the Cold War. Having emerged as Conference Series during the Détente, the OSCE provides a robust example of regional organizations to examine these seven criteria. The article is divided into three parts. The first refers to the role of regional organizations in conflict resolution by examining international documents and defines seven criteria to analyze their position in conflict resolution. The second discusses the development of the conflict resolution approach of the OSCE. The third analyzes the limitations and advantages of the OSCE in conflict resolution in terms of the defined criteria. The article concludes that the criteria determined as an advantage for regional organizations in conflict resolution do not constitute a decisive advantage in the OSCE's conflict resolution practices.

Keywords

• OSCE
• regional organizations
• conflict resolution
• field operations
• Third-party actors

References

1. Abilov, Shamkhal (2018), “OSCE Minsk Group: Proposals and Failure, the View from Azerbaijan”, Insight Turkey, 20 (1). https://www.insightturkey.com/article/osce-minsk-group-proposals-and-failure-the-view-from-azerbaijan (11.12.2021).
2. Aljazeera Turk (2012), “Dağlık Karabağ'da çözüm girişimleri: AGİT Minsk Grubu'nun müzakere çıkmazı”, http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/haber-analiz/daglik-karabagda-cozum-girisimleri-agit-minsk-grubunun-muzakere-cikmazi (11.12.2021).
3. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros (1992), An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. (New York: UN Department of Public Information).
4. Civelek, Jale (2006), “Helsinki Son Senedi, Paris Şartı ve AGİT”, Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14 (1): 1-23.
5. Elgström, Ole, Jacob Bercovitch ve Carl Skau (2003), “Regional Organisations and International Mediation: The Effectiveness of Insider Mediators”, African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 3 (1): 11-27.
6. Eminoğlu, Ayça ve Yeşim Aydın (2021), “ABD ve Rusya Ekseninde Dağlık-Karabağ’da Çatışma Çözümünü Geciktiren Güç Dengesi Sistemi”, Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 21 (2): 245-255.
7. Enuka, Chuka ve Samuel Nwagbo (2016), “Regional International Organizations as Conflict Managers: The Limits and Capabilities”, African Research Review, International Multi-disciplinary Journal, Ethiopia Vol. 10 (2), Serial No.41, Nisan: 16-30.
8. Geçkin, Burak (2013), “Azerbaycan, Ermenistan ve AGİT Minsk Grubu Çerçevesinde Karabağ Sorunu”, Uluslararası Politika Akademisi. http://politikaakademisi.org/2013/09/28/azerbaycan-ermenistan-ve-agit-minsk-grubu-cercevesinde-karabag-sorunu/, (11.12.2021).

9. Freedom House (2021), “Global Freedom Status Freedom House”, https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021, (11.02.2022).
10. Göksedef, Ece (2020, 10 Kasım), “Dağlık Karabağ: Ateşkes anlaşması sonrası Türkiye'nin rolü ne olacak, arka planda neler yaşandı?” BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-54873432 (20.02.2022).
11. Günther, Mirco (2022, 15 Şubat), “We have an institution to ensure peace in Europe. International Politics and Society”, https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/foreign-and-security-policy/we-have-an-institution-to-ensure-peace-in-europe-5716/ (20.02.2022).
12. Hansen, E. Holley, Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, ve Stephen C. Nemeth (2008), “IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts Moving Beyond the Global versus Regional Dichotomy”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52 (2): 295-325.
13. Hdynck, Wilhelm (1995), “From the CSCE to the OSCE: The challenges of building new stability”, Helsinki Monitor, 3: 11–22.
14. Hettne, Björn ve Fredrik Söderbaum (2006), “The UN and Regional Organizations in Global Security: Competing or Complementary Logics?”, Global Governance 12: 227–232.
15. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Istanbul Summit (1999), “Istanbul Document”, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/5/39569.pdf (20.02.2022).
16. Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı (2020), “İnsani Kalkınma Raporu”, Erişim Adresi http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-human-development-index-ranking (20.02.2022).
17. Karabulut, Bilal (2011), “Helsinki’den Astana’ya Avrupa Güvenlik ve İşbirliği Örgütü (AGİT): AGİT’in Geleceği Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Gazi Akademik Bakış, 4 (8): 69-93.
18. Liechtenstein, Stephanie (2022, 3 Şubat), “Exclusive: Polish OSCE Chairmanship to launch European security dialogue in Vienna next week”, Security and Human Rights Monitor, https://www.shrmonitor.org/exclusive-polish-osce-chairmanship-to-launch-european-security-dialogue-in-vienna-next-week/ (21.02.2022).
19. Meyers, B. David (1974), “Intraregional Conflict Management by the Organization of African Unity”, International Organization, 28 (3): 345-373.
20. OSCE (1991), “Valletta Mechanisms, Report of the CSCE Meeting of Experts on Peaceful Settlement Of Disputes”, Valletta 1991, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/d/30115.pdf. (02.03.2022).
21. OSCE (1992), “Decision on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes”, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/6/16240.pdf. (20.12.2021).
22. OSCE (2016), “Regional Organizations in Conflict Mediation: Lessons of Experience & Cooperation With The United Nations”, OSCE, Vienna, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/OSCE_ThirdFourthMeetingRegOrgs_2016_0.pdf (02.02.2022).
23. OSCE, https://www.osce.org/history, (02.02.2022).
24. OSCE Annual Report 2012 (2013), https://www.osce.org/secretariat/100193, (02.02.2022).
25. OSCE Annual Report 2013 (2014), https://www.osce.org/secretariat/116947, (02.02.2022).
26. OSCE Annual Report 2014 (2015), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2014, (02.02.2022).
27. OSCE Annual Report 2015 (2016), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2015, (02.02.2022).
28. OSCE Annual Report 2016 (2017), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2016, (02.02.2022).
29. OSCE Annual Report 2017 (2018), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2017, (02.02.2022).
30. OSCE Annual Report 2018 (2019), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2018, (02.02.2022).
31. OSCE Annual Report 2019 (2020), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2019, (02.02.2022).
32. OSCE Annual Report 2020 (2021), https://www.osce.org/annual-report/2020, (02.02.2022).
33. OSCE Conflict Prevention and Resolution, https://www.osce.org/secretariat/conflict-prevention, (02.02.2022).
34. OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, https://www.osce.org/hcnm/107878, (02.02.2022).
35. OSCE Minsk Group, https://www.osce.org/mg, (02.02.2022).
36. OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, https://www.osce.org/mission-to-bosnia-and-herzegovina/conflict-prevention-and-resolution, (02.02.2022).
37. OSCE Mission to Moldova, https://www.osce.org/mission-to-moldova/104529, (02.02.2022).
38. OSCE Mission to Skopje, https://www.osce.org/mission-to-skopje/conflict-prevention-and-resolution, (02.02.2022).
39. OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine, (02.02.2022).
40. Peck, Connie (1998), Sustainable Peace: The Role of the UN and Regional Organizations in Preventing Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
41. Peck, Connie (2001), “The Role of Regional Organizations in Preventing and Resolving Conflict”, Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, Pamela Aall (Ed.), Turbulent Peace: The Challenges of Managing International Conflict, (Washington D.C.: United States Institutes of Peace Press).
42. Smolnik, Franziska (2019), Cooperation, Trust, Security? The Potential and Limits of the OSCE’s Economic and Environmental Dimension. (Berlin: SWP Research Paper), https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/research_papers/2019RP16_smk_WEB.pdf.
43. Stenner, Christina (2016), “Understanding the Mediator: Taking Stock of the OSCE’s Mechanisms and Instruments for Conflict Resolution”, Security and Human Rights, 27: 256-272.
44. US Department of State (2022), Online Press Briefing with Ambassador Michael R. Carpenter, U.S. Permanent Representative to the OSCE, https://www.state.gov/online-press-briefing-with-ambassador-michael-r-carpenter-u-s-permanent-representative-to-the-osce/ (02.03.2022).
45. Wehr, Paul ve John P. Lederach (1991), “Mediating Conflict in Central America”, Journal of Peace Research, 28(1): 85-98.
46. Wulf, Herbert (2009), “The Role of Regional Organisations in Conflict Prevention and Resolution”, Herbert Wulf (Ed.) Still Under Construction: Regional Organisations' Capacities for Conflict Prevention, INEF Report, No. 97, (Duisburg: the University of Duisburg-Essen Institute for Development and Peace): 5-19.