Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımları Açısından Güvenlik Konusunun Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1980’lerin sonlarından itibaren uluslararası ilişkiler disiplini içerisinde yer edinmeye başlayan feminist uluslararası ilişkiler yaklaşımlarının, alanın en temel ve cinsiyetçi kabul edilen konularından güvenliğe ilişkin temel görüşlerini ve eleştiri noktalarını ortaya koymaktır. Feministler, disiplinin geneline hâkim olan erkek bakış açısının ve maskülen değerlerin kendisini en çok güvenlik konusunda hissettirdiğini ve günümüz güvenlik sorunlarında da bu bakış açısının etkili olduğunu ileri sürmektedirler. Ayrıca güvenlik alanında kadınların görünür kılınmasının ve kadın deneyimlerinin dikkate alınmasının disipline çok önemli katkılar sağlayacağını da belirtmektedirler. Bu çalışmada öncelikle, uluslararası ilişkilerde feminist yaklaşımların güvenlik tartışmalarında nasıl yer aldığı ve güvenliğin tanımı, realizmin güvenliğe ilişkin yaklaşımlarını ne çerçevede değerlendirdiği ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır. Daha sonra ise, feminizmin güvenlik konusunun şiddet, savaş ve barış gibi alt başlıklarına ilişkin görüşleri ele alınıp, bu çerçevede eleştirilerinin alana neler katabileceği analiz edilecektir.

Keywords

• Feminizm
• güvenlik
• realizm
• şiddet
• savaş

The Analysis of Security Subject in means of Feminist International Relations Approaches

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the key views and criticism of feminist international relations approaches about security which is accepted as one of the most basic and sexist subjects of the field.
Feminists argue that masculine point of view and values dominating the discipline are mostly found in security subject and this point of view is influential on the current security problems. Besides, they state that if women become more visible in security field and if their experiences are taken into consideration, very important contributions will be provided to the discipline. In this study, initially, the place of feminist international relation approaches in security discussions will be explained; the definition of security will be made; and the approaches of realism and its scope of evaluation will be asserted. Next, the opinions of feminism about violence, war and peace which are subtitles of security subject will be discussed and the possible contributions of their criticisms will be evaluated.

Keywords

• Feminism
• security
• realism
• violence
• war

References

1. Aydın, Mustafa (2004), “Uluslararası İlişkilerin “Gerçekçi” Teorisi: Kökeni, Kapsamı, Kritiği”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 1 (1): 33–60.
2. Binder, Christina, Karin Lukas, Romana Schweiger (2008), “Empty Words or Real Achievement? The Impact of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women in Armed Conflicts”, Radical History Review, 2008 (101): 22-41.
3. Birleşmiş Milletler (2011), http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf (Erişim Tarihi:15.01.2011).
4. Blanchard, Eric M. (2003), “Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory”, Signs, 28 (4): 1289–1312.
5. Booth, Ken (1991), “Security and Emancipation”, Review of International Studies, 17 (4): 320.
6. Brownmiller, Susan (1975), Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, (New York: Simon & Schuster).
7. Burguieres, Mary K. (1990), “Feminist Approaches to Peace: Another Step for Peace Studies”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19 (1): 1–18.
8. Buzan, Barry (1991), People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd ed., (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers).

9. Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, Jaap de Wilde (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner).
10. Casualties of War: Women’s Bodies, Women’s Lives (2004), (London: Amnesty International Publications).
11. Cockburn, Cynthia (2010), “Militarism and War, Shepherd, Laura J. (ed.), Gender Matters in Global Politics- A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, (London: Routledge): 105- 115.
12. Connell, R. W. (1995), Masculinities, (Cambridge: Polity Press).
13. Dougherty, James E. ve Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (1990), Contending Theories of International Relatons, 3rd. Edition, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers).
14. Dökmen, Zehra Y. (2006), Toplumsal Cinsiyet-Sosyal Psikolojik Açıklamalar, (İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık).
15. Enloe, Cynthia (1989), Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, (Berkeley: University of California Press).
16. Enloe, Cynthia (2006), Manevralar-Kadın Yaşamının Militarize Edilmesine Yönelik Uluslararası Politikalar, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları) (Çev.: Serpil Çağlayan).
17. Enloe, Cynthia (1993), The Morning After-Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War, (California: University of California Press).
18. Galtung, Johan (1971), “A Structural Theory of Imperialism”, Journal of Peace Research, 8 (2): 81– 117.
19. Grant, Rebecca ve Kathleen Newland (ed.) (1991), Gender and International Relations, (Bloomington: Open University Press and Indiana University Press).
20. Grant, Rebecca (1992), “The Quagmire of Gender and International Security”, Peterson, V. Spike (ed.), Gendered States-Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, (Boulder&London: Rienner Publishers): 83–97.
21. Hicks-stiehm, Judith (2000), “Neither Male nor Female: Neither Victim nor Executioner”, Brines, Ingeborg vd. (eds.), Male Roles, Masculinities, and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perpective, (Paris: UNESCO): 223–230.
22. Hooper, Charlotte (2001), Manly States: Masculunities, International Relations, and Gender Politics, (New York: Columbia University Press).
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93pre sent) (Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2011).
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties (Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2011).
25. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/cws/article/viewFile/12884/11966 (Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2011).
26. http://www.peacewomen.org/1325inTranslation/1325Turkish.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 01.09.2009).
27. Jaggar, Alison M. (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
28. Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline (2007), “Gender and Security”, Collins, Alan (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, (New York: Oxford University Press): 75-90.
29. Knutsen, Torbjörn L. (1992), A History of International Relations Theory, An Introduction, (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
30. Krause, Keith ve Michael C. Williams (1997), “From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies”, Krause, Keith ve Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies-Concept and Cases, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press): 33–52.
31. Lapid, Yosef (1989), “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era”, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3): 235–254.
32. Leatherman, Janie (2005), “Gender and U.S. Foreign Policy: Hegemonic Masculinity, the War in Iraq, and the UN-Doing of World Order”, Tolleson, Sue ve Rinehart -JYL J. Josephson (eds.), Gender and American Politics, (New York: M. E. Sharpe): 103–126.
33. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (1995), “On Security”, Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (ed.), On Security, (New York: Columbia University Press): 1-23.
34. Locher, Birgit ve Elisabeth Prügl (2001), “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground”, International Studies Quarterly, 45: 111–129.
35. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1985), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Knopf).
36. Murphy, Craig N. (1998), “Six Masculine Roles in International Relations”, Zalewski, Marysia ve Jane Parpart (eds.), The “Man” Question in International Relations, (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press): 93-108.
37. “O Bayrak İnecek”, Hürriyet, 30 Ocak 1996.
38. Pankhust, Donna (2010), “Sexual Violence in War”, Shepherd, Laura J. (ed.), Gender Matters in Global Politics- A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, (London: Routledge): 148-160.
39. Peach, Lucinda J. (1994), “An Alternative to Pacifism? Feminism and Just-War Theory”, Hypatia, 9 (2): 152–172.
40. Peterson, V. Spike (ed.) (1992), Gendered States-Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, (Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers).
41. Peterson, V. S. ve A. S. Runyan (1994), “A Stark Picture: Gendered Politics in a Global Context”, Harvard International Review, 19 (4): 38–43.
42. Peterson, V. Spike (2004), “Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR”, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10 (2): 35–46.
43. Peterson, V. Spike (1992), “Security and Sovereign States: What is at Stake in Taking Feminism Seriously?”, Peterson, V. Spike (ed.), Gendered States-Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, (Boulder&London: Lynne Rienner Publishers): 31-64.
44. Pettman, Jan Jindy (1996), Worlding Women-A Feminen International Politics, (New York: Routledge).
45. Pitkin, Hanna F. (1984), Fortune is a Women: Gender and Politics in the Thought of Niccolo Machiavelli, (Berkeley: University of California Press).
46. Reardon, Betty A. (1985), Sexism and the War System, (New York: Teachers Collage Press).
47. Reardon, Betty A. (1993), Women and Peace-Feminist Visions of Global Security, (Albany: State University of New York).
48. Reardon, Betty (1990), “Feminist Concepts of Peace and Security”, Smoker, Paul vd. (eds.), A Reader in Peace Studies, (Oxford: Pergamon Press): 136-143.
49. Rehn, Elisabeth ve Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2002). Women, War and Peace: Progress of the World’s Women, (New York: UN Development Fund for Women)
50. (http://www.wunrn.com/news/2006/04_09_06/041506_women_war.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 15.01.2011).
51. Richardson, Henry J. (2003), “U.S. Hegemony, Race, and Oil in Deciding United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq”, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 17 (1): 27–83.
52. Roberts, David (2008), Human Insecurity: Global Structures of Violence, (London: Zed Books).
53. Ross-Sheriff, Fariyal ve Mary E. Swigonski (2006), “Women, War, and Peace Building”, Affilia, 21 (2): 129–132.
54. Runyon, Anne Sisson ve V. Spike Peterson (1991), “The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory”, Alternatives, 16 (1): 67–106.
55. Shepherd, Laura J. (2009), “Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies”, Political Studies Review, 7: 208–219.
56. Sinopoli, Richard C. ve Nancy J. Hirschmann (1991), “Feminism and Liberal Theory”, The American Political Science Review, 85 (1): 221–233.
57. Sjursen, Helene (2003), Security and Defence, (ARENA Working Paper): 11–14.
58. Skjelsbaek, Inger (2001), “Sexual Violence in Times of War: A New Challenges for Peace Operations”, Olsson, Louise ve Torunn L. Tryggestad (eds.), Women and International Peacekeeping, (Portland, Oreg: Frank Cass): 69-84.
59. Steans, Jill (1998), Gender and International Relations-An Introduction, (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press).
60. Sylvester, Christine (2002), Feminist International Relations-An Unfinished Journey, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
61. Sylvester, Christine (1994), Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
62. Tanrısever, Oktay F. (2005), “Güvenlik”, Eralp, Atila (der.), Devlet ve Ötesi-Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar, (İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık): 107-123.
63. Terriff, Terry vd. (1999), Security Studies Today, (Cambridge: Polity Press).
64. Thorburn, Diana (2000), “Feminism Meets International Relations”, SAIS Review, (Summer-Fall): 1–10.
65. Tickner, Ann J. (1992), Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, (New York: Columbia University Press).
66. Tickner, J Ann ve Laura Sjoberg (2007), “Feminism”, Dunne, Tim vd. (eds.), International Relations Theories, (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 185–202.
67. Tickner, J. Ann (1994), “Feminist Perspectives on Peace and World Security in the Post-Cold War Era”, Klare, Michael T. (ed.), Peace & World Security Studies-A Curriculum Guide, (Boulder&London: Lynne Rienner Publishers): 43–54.
68. Tickner, J. Ann (1999), “Searching for the Princess? Feminist Perspectives in International Relations”, Harvard International Review, 21 (4): 44-48.
69. Tickner, J. Ann (1997), “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists”, International Studies Quarterly, 41 (4): 611–632.
70. Tobias, Sheila (1990), “Shifting Heroisms: The Uses of Military Service in Politics”, Elshtain, Jean Bethke ve Sheila Tobias (eds.), Women, Militarism, and War-Essays in History, Poliics, and Social Theory, (Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers): 163–185.
71. Tür, Özlem ve Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu (2010), “Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımı: Temelleri, Gelişimi, Katkı ve Sorunları”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7 (26): 3-24.
72. Türker, Haşim (2007), Avrupa Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikası, (Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık).
73. Viotti, Paul R. ve Mark V. Kauppi (1993), International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, 2nd edition, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company).
74. Wadley, Jonathan D. (2010), “Gendering the State-Performativity and Protection in International Security”, Sjoberg, Laura (ed.), Gender and International Security-Feminist Perspectives, (London: Routledge): 38-58.
75. Waever, Ole (1998), “Insecurity, Security and Asecurity in the West European Non-War Community”, Adler, Emmanuel ve Michael Barnett (eds.), Security Communities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 48, 67.
76. Waever, Ole (1995), “Securitization and Desecuritization”, Lipchutz, Ronnie D. (ed.), On Security, (New York: Columbia University Press): 46–86.
77. Walt, Stephen M. (1991), “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, 35 (2): 211–239.
78. Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics, (MA: Addison-Wesley).
79. Whitworth, Sandra (1994), Feminism and International Relations-Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non-Governmantel Institutions, (London: Macmillan).
80. Wolfers, Arnold (1952), “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol”, Political Science Quarterly, 67 (4): 481–502.
81. Zalewski, Marysia (1995), “Well, What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia”, International Affairs, 72 (2): 339–356.
82. Zalewski, Marysia ve Cynthia Enloe (1995), “Questions about Identitiy in International Relations”, Booth, Ken ve Steve Simith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, (Cambridge: Polity Press): 279-305.
83. Zalewski, Marysia ve Jane Parpart (1998), The “Man” Question in International Relations, (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press).