HISTORY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: A REVIEW ARTICLE

Öz

This literature review of a number of most cited Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) articles and a number other works delves into the interconnection between history and the discipline of International Relations (IR), with a focus on the Ottoman Empire. The connection between history and IR has been the subject of extensive academic investigation and discussion, as past events and processes have considerably impacted the theoretical and conceptual basis of IR. The study of IR has undergone significant transformations over time, with an increasing acknowledgement of the role of history in shaping the discipline's advancement. Consequently, many scholars have investigated how historical events have impacted IR theory and practice. This review article aims to explore the interaction between history and IR, using the Ottoman Empire as a case study. The Ottoman Empire is a valuable case for examining the relationship between history and IR since it was one of the most influential empires in world history, significantly shaping international politics during its time. Its legacy continues to impact contemporary debates on issues such as nationalism, sovereignty, and state-building. Overall, this review article aims to contribute to a better understanding of the intricate relationship between history and IR and points at the potential for further dialogue between the two fields.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• History
• International Relations
• Ottoman Empire
• Historiography
• Interdisciplinarity.

Tarih, Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Osmanlı İmparatorluğu: Bir Derleme Makalesi

Öz

Sosyal Bilimler Atıf İndeksi’nde (SBAI/SSCI) en çok atıf alan makalelerin ve diğer bazı çalışmaların incelendiği bu literatür taramasında, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'na odaklanılarak tarih ve Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) disiplini arasındaki bağlantı ele alınmaktadır. Tarih ve Uİ arasındaki bağlantı, geçmiş olaylar ve süreçler Uİ'in teorik ve kavramsal temelini önemli ölçüde etkilediğinden, kapsamlı akademik araştırma ve tartışmalara konu olmuştur. Uİ çalışmaları zaman içinde önemli dönüşümler geçirmiş ve tarihin Uİ’nin gelişimini şekillendirmedeki rolü giderek daha fazla kabul görmüştür. Sonuç olarak, birçok akademisyen tarihsel olayların Uİ teori ve pratiğini nasıl etkilediğini araştırmıştır. Bu derleme makale, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nu bir vaka çalışması olarak kullanarak tarih ve Uİ arasındaki etkileşimi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, dünya tarihindeki en etkili imparatorluklardan biri olması ve döneminde uluslararası politikayı önemli ölçüde şekillendirmesi nedeniyle tarih ve Uİ arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için değerli bir örnektir. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun mirası, milliyetçilik, egemenlik ve devlet inşası gibi konulardaki çağdaş tartışmaları etkilemeye devam etmektedir. Genel olarak, bu derleme makale, tarih ve Uİ arasındaki karmaşık ilişkinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamakta ve iki alan arasında daha fazla diyalog potansiyeline işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tarih
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Osmanlı İmparatorluğu
• Tarih Yazımı
• Disiplinlerarasılık

Kaynakça

1. A. Acharya, “Global International Relations and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda For International Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647-659.
2. M. Akkaya, “The Backyard of Slavery: Child and Adolescent Slaves”. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9, 467-479.
3. V. H. Aksan, “Locating the Ottomans Among Early Modern Empires”, Journal of Early Modern History, 3(3), 103-134.
4. Ambartsumyan K. R. “Проблема реформирования армянских вилайетов Турции в политике великих держав в 1908-1914 гг. [The Problem of Reforming the Armenian Vilayets of Turkey in the Politics of the Leading Powers in 1908-1914; in Russian]”. История: факты и символы [History: facts and symbols], (4 (29), 51-60.
5. A., Anievas, and K. Nişancıoğlu, “What’s At Stake in the Transition Debate? Rethinking the Origins of Capitalism and the ‘Rise of the West’”, Millennium, 42(1), 78-102.
6. David Armitage,“The International Turn in Intellectual History”, in Darrin M. Mcmahon and Samuel Moyn (Eds.) Rethinking Modern European Intellectual History (Pp. 232-252). Oxford University Press.
7. S. Aydın-Düzgit, B. Rumelili, and A. E. Topal, “Challenging Anti-Western Historical Myths in Populist Discourse: Re-Visiting Ottoman Empire–Europe Interaction During the 19th Century”, European Journal of International Relations, 28(3), 513-537.
8. A. Balcı, “Bringing the Ottoman Order Back into International Relations: A Distinct International Order or Part of an Islamic International Society?”, International Studies Review, 23(4), 2090-2107.

9. A. Balcı, “Algeria in Declining Ottoman Hierarchy: Why Algiers Remained Loyal to the Falling Patron”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 35(3), 375-393.
10. A. Balcı, and T. Kardaş, “The Ottoman International System: Power Projection, Interconnectedness, and the Autonomy of Frontier Polities”. Millennium, 51(3), 866-891.
11. A. Balcı, T. Kardaş, İ. Ediz, and Y. Turan, “War Decision and Neoclassical Realism: The Entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War”, War in History, 27(4), 643-669.
12. A. Balcı, T. Kardaş, Y. Turan, and I. Ediz, “When Doves Feed Hawks: Ottoman War Decision and European Powers Towards the Crimean War”, Alternatives, 47(2), 67-83.
13. A. Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, “One Word, Many Implications: The Term “Kızılbaş” in the Early Modern Ottoman Context”. In Vefa Erginbaş (Ed.) . Ottoman Sunnism (Pp. 47-70) . Edinburgh University Press.
14. T. Barkawi, and M. Laffey, “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations”, Millennium, 31(1), 109-127.
15. T. Barkawi, and M. Laffey, “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies”, Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
16. K. Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
17. J. Bartelson, “War and the Turn to History in International Relations”, In De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J. C., and Leira, H. (Eds.) . Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations (Pp. 127-137) . Routledge.
18. D. Bell, “Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond”, International Affairs, 85 (1), 3-22.
19. G. K. Bhambra, “Historical Sociology, International Relations and Connected Histories”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 127-143.
20. P. Bilgin, “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge For the Global Transformation”, International Theory, 8(3), 492-501.
21. J. Burbank, and F. Cooper, “Empires After 1919: Old, New, Transformed”, International Affairs, 95(1), 81-100.
22. C. R. Butcher, and R. D. Griffiths, “Between Eurocentrism and Babel: A Framework For the Analysis of States, State Systems, and International Orders”, International Studies Quarterly, 61(2), 328-336.
23. B. Buzan, and G. Lawson, “The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations”, International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), 620-634.
24. B. Buzan, and G. Lawson, “Rethinking Benchmark Dates in International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 20(2), 437-462.
25. Z. G. Capan, “Beyond Visible Entanglements: Connected Histories of the International”, International Studies Review, 22(2), 289-306.
26. N. Clayer, “The Bektashi Institutions in Southeastern Europe: Alternative Muslim Official Structures and their Limits”. Die Welt des Islams, 52, 183-203.
27. T. W. Crawford, “The Alliance Politics of Concerted Accommodation: Entente Bargaining and Italian and Ottoman Interventions in the First World War”, Security Studies, 23(1), 113-147.
28. N. Davutyan, “The Penetration of European Banking into Ottoman Lands During the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 25(3), 322-339.
29. B. De Carvalho, H. Leira, and J. M. Hobson, “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You About 1648 and 1919”, Millennium, 39(3), 735-758.
30. B. De Carvalho, J. C. López, and H. Leira, “Introduction: Historical International Relations”, In De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J. C., and Leira, H. (Eds.) . Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations (Pp. 1-14) . Routledge.
31. E. De Lange, “The Congress System and the French Invasion of Algiers, 1827–1830”, The Historical Journal, 64(4), 940-962.
32. A. Delatolla, and J. Yao, “Racializing Religion: Constructing Colonial Identities in the Syrian Provinces in the Nineteenth Century”, International Studies Review, 21(4), 640-661.
33. E. Düzgün, “Capitalism, Jacobinism and International Relations: Re-Interpreting the Ottoman Path to Modernity”, Review of International Studies, 44 (2): 252–278.
34. E. Düzgün, Property, “Geopolitics, and Eurocentrism: The ‘Great Divergence’ and the Ottoman Empire”, Review of Radical Political Economy, 50 (1), 24–43.
35. E. Düzgün, “Debating ‘Uneven and Combined Development’: Beyond Ottoman Patrimonialism”, Journal of International Relations and Development, 25(2), 297-323.
36. İ. Ediz, “A Neoclassical Realist Explanation of the Balfour Declaration and the Origins of the British Foreign Policy in Palestine”. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 34(1), 99-122.
37. F. Ejdus, “The Expansion of International Society After 30 Years: Views from the European Periphery”, International Relations, 28(4), 445-478.
38. C. Elman, and M. F. Elman, “Diplomatic History and International Relations Theory: Respecting Difference and Crossing Boundaries”, International Security, 22(1), 5-21.
39. C. Emrence, “Imperial Paths, Big Comparisons: The Late Ottoman Empire”, Journal of Global History, 3(3), 289-311.
40. B. Erozan, “A Distant History of the International Relations Discipline in Turkey: International Law (1859-1945) /Türkiye'de Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Uzak Tarihi: Hukuk-I Düvel (1859-1945)”, Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations, 11(43), 53-81.
41. P. Finney, “Still ‘Marking Time’? Text, Discourse and Truth in International History”, Review of International Studies, 27(3), 291-308.
42. A. M. Genell, “Autonomous Provinces and the Problem of ‘Semi-Sovereignty’in European International Law”, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 18(6), 533-549.
43. M. Ghorbani, Mousavi Shafaee, M. Shariatinia, and, M. Eslami, “Applying the Historical Method in International Relations Research”, International Relations Researches, 12(3), 7-38.
44. A. N. Gilbert, “International Relations and the Relevance of History”, International Studies Quarterly, 12(4), 351-359.
45. A. Glencross, “From ‘Doing History’to Thinking Historically: Historical Consciousness Across History and International Relations”, International Relations, 29(4), 413-433.
46. John M. Hobson, “What’s at Stake in “Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International Relations?” Transcending “Chronofetishism” and “Tempocentrism. In International Relations”, in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson (Eds.). Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 3-41). Cambridge University Press. J. M. Hobson, and G. Lawson, “What Is History in International Relations?”, Millennium, 37(2), 415-435.
47. S. Hock, “Waking Us from This Endless Slumber”: The Ottoman–Italian War and North Africa in the Ottoman Twentieth Century”, War in History, 26(2), 204-226.
48. C. Hoffmann, “The Balkanization of Ottoman Rule: Premodern Origins of the Modern International System in Southeastern Europe”, Cooperation and Conflict, 43(4), 373-396.
49. R. S. Horowitz, “International Law and State Transformation in China, Siam, and the Ottoman Empire During the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of World History, 445-486.
50. A. Hurrell, “Beyond Critique: How to Study Global IR?”, International Studies Review, 18(1), 149-151.
51. P. Illing, “The Brabant Revolution and the Western Question (1787–1790)”, Dutch Crossing, 33(1), 64-79.
52. H. İnalcık, “The Turkish Impact On the Development of Modern Europe”, In Karpat, K. H. (Ed.). The Ottoman State and Its Place in World History (Pp. 51-60). Brill.
53. J. B. Isacoff, “On the Historical Imagination of International Relations: The Case for Adeweyan Reconstruction'“, Millennium, 31(3), 603-626.
54. G. Işıksel, “Hierarchy and Friendship: Ottoman Practices of Diplomatic Culture and Communication (1290s–1600)”, The Medieval History Journal, 22(2), 278-297.
55. C. Isom-Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel: The Ottoman and French Alliance in the Sixteenth Century. Bloomsbury Publishing.
56. B. Kadercan, “Strong Armies, Slow Adaptation: Civil-Military Relations and the Diffusion of Military Power”, International Security, 38(3), 117-152.
57. B. Kadercan, “Territorial Design and Grand Strategy in the Ottoman Empire”, Territory, Politics, Governance, 5(2), 158-176.
58. K. H. Karpat, “Introduction”, In Karpat, K. H. (Ed.). The Ottoman State and Its Place in World History (Pp.1-14) . Brill.
59. K. H. Karpat, “The Stages of Ottoman History: A Structural Comparative Approach”, In Karpat, K. H. (Ed.). The Ottoman State and Its Place in World History (Pp. 79-106). Brill.
60. R. Kasaba, “From Moveable Empire to Immovable State: Ottoman Policies Towards Nomads and Refugees in the Modern Era”. New Perspectives on Turkey, 45, 227 - 236.
61. T. Kayaoğlu, “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory”, International Studies Review 12 (2), 193–217.
62. D. R. Khoury, and D. K. Kennedy, “Comparing Empires: The Ottoman Domains and the British Raj in the Long Nineteenth Century”, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 27(2), 233-244.
63. F. Kratochwil, “History, Action and Identity: Revisiting the ‘Second’ Great Debate and Assessing its Importance for Social Theory”, European Journal of International Relations, 12(1), 5-29.
64. C. A. Kupchan, “The Normative Foundations of Hegemony and the Coming Challenge to Pax Americana”, Security Studies, 23(2), 219-257.
65. G. Lawson, “The Eternal Divide? History and International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 18 (2), 203-226.
66. H. Leira, Justus Lipsius, “Political Humanism and the Disciplining of 17th Century Statecraft”, Review of International Studies, 34(4), 669-692.
67. H. Leira, “International Relations Pluralism and History—Embracing Amateurism to Strengthen the Profession”, International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 23-31.
68. H. Leira and B. De Carvalho, “Construction Time Again: History in Constructivist IR Scholarship”, European Review of International Studies, 3(3): 99–111.
69. T. Lemke, A. A. Szarejko, J. Auchter, Barder, A. D., D. Green, S. Pampinella, and S. Srivastava, “Doing Historical International Relations”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 36(1), 3-34.
70. A. Linklater, “World History and International Relations”, International Relations, 21(3) : 355–359.
71. A. Linklater, “Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness”, European Journal of International Relations, 16(2): 155–178.
72. A. B. Lorca, “Universal International Law: Nineteenth-Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation”, Harvard International Law Journal, 51, 475-552.
73. M. Low, “Ottoman Infrastructures of the Saudi Hydro-State: The Technopolitics of Pilgrimage and Potable Water in the Hijaz”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 57, 942 - 974.
74. J. Mackay, “International Politics in Eighteenth-and Nineteenth-Century Central Asia: Beyond Anarchy in International-Relations Theory”, Central Asian Survey, 32(2), 210-224.
75. K. Matin, “Redeeming the Universal: Postcolonialism and the Inner Life of Eurocentrism”, European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), 353-377.
76. J. B. Mattern, and A. Zarakol, “Hierarchies in World Politics”, International Organization, 70(3), 623-654.
77. D. M. Mccourt, “What’s at Stake in the Historical Turn? Theory, Practice and Phronēsis in International Relations”, Millennium, 41(1), 23-42.
78. W. H. Mcneill, “The Ottoman Empire in World History”, in Karpat, K. H. (Ed.). The Ottoman State and Its Place in World History (Pp. 34-50). Brill.
79. A. Mikhail, and C. M. Philliou, “The Ottoman Empire and the Imperial Turn”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54(4), 721-745.
80. J. Mulich, “International Relations in the Archive: Uses of Sources and Historiography”, in De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J. C., and Leira, H. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations (Pp. 488-502). Routledge.
81. W. Mulligan, and J. S. Levy, “Rethinking Power Politics in an Interdependent World, 1871–1914”, Journal of İnterdisciplinary History, 49(4), 611-640.
82. I. B. Neumann, and J. M. Welsh, “The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum to the Literature On International Society”, Review of International Studies, 17 (4), 327–348.
83. I. B. Neumann, and E. Wigen, “The Importance of the Eurasian Steppe to the Study of International Relations”, Journal of International Relations and Development, 16, 311-330.
84. K. Nişancıoğlu, “The Ottoman Origins of Capitalism: Uneven and Combined Development and Eurocentrism”, Review of International Studies, 40(2), 325-347.
85. A. Ohanyan, “Regional Fracture and Its Intractability in World Politics: The Case of the Late Ottoman Empire”, Nationalities Papers, 50(3), 589-610.
86. A. Osiander, “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth”, International Organization, 55(2): 251–287.
87. O. Özavcı, “A Priceless Grace? the Congress of Vienna of 1815, the Ottoman Empire and Historicising the Eastern Question”, The English Historical Review, 136(583), 1450-1476.
88. G. Özcan, “From Politics to International Relations: A Conceptual History of the International Relations Discipline in Turkey”, Uluslararası İlişkiler-International Relations, 17(66), 3-21.
89. F. Özkan, “Uluslararası İlişkilere Disiplinlerarası Yaklaşım: Tarih ve Teori Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 16(61), 5-22.
90. M. S. Palabıyık, “The Emergence of the Idea of ‘International Law’in the Ottoman Empire Before the Treaty of Paris (1856) ”, Middle Eastern Studies, 50(2), 233-251.
91. A. Patrick, “Woodrow Wilson, the Ottomans, and World War I”, Diplomatic History, 42(5), 886-910.
92. A. Phillips, “The Global Transformation, Multiple Early Modernities, and International Systems Change”, International Theory, 8(3), 481-491.
93. B. Powel, “Blinkered Learning, Blinkered Theory: How Histories in Textbooks Parochialize IR”, International Studies Review, 22(4), 957-982.
94. D. J. Puchala, “The Pragmatics of International History”, Mershon International Studies Review”, 39 (Supplement 1), 1-18.
95. C. Reus-Smit, “Reading History Through Constructivist Eyes”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37 (2), 395-414.
96. I. Z. Ruacan, “Classical English School Theory and the Ottoman/Turk: Reimagining an Exclusionary Eurocentric Narrative”, Alternatives, 43(3), 157-172.
97. J. D. Savage, “The Stability and Breakdown of Empire: European Informal Empire in China, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt”, European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 161-185.
98. S. C. Sazak, “Bad Influence: Social Networks, Elite Brokerage, and the Construction of Alliances”, European Journal of International Relations, 26(1_Suppl), 64-90.
99. T. W. Smith, History and International Relations. Routledge.
100. S. Srougo, “Core–Periphery Interactions in the Late and Post-Ottoman Periods: Dependency and the Uneven Development of Thessaloniki: 1870–1936”, European Review, 21(3), 422-434.
101. H. Suganami, “Narrative Explanation and International Relations: Back to Basics”, Millennium, 37(2), 327-356. C. B. Tansel, “Geopolitics, Social Forces, and the International: Revisiting the ‘Eastern Question’”, Review of International Studies, 42 (3), 492–512.
102. C. G. Thies, “A Pragmatic Guide to Qualitative Historical Analysis in the Study of International Relations”, International Studies Perspectives, 3 (4), 351-372.
103. C. Thorne, “International Relations and the Promptings of History”, Review of International Studies, 9(2), 123-135.
104. D. Todd, “Beneath Sovereignty: Extraterritoriality and Imperial Internationalism in Nineteenth-Century Egypt”, Law and History Review, 36(1), 105-137.
105. Ö. Togral, “Akdeniz Adalarına Sürgün Edilen Kırım Hanları”. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 8 (1), 355-366.
106. C. Tuck, “‘All Innovation Leads to Hellfire’: Military Reform and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century”, Journal of Strategic Studies, 31(3), 467-502.
107. N. Tzouvala, “‘These Ancient Arenas of Racial Struggles’: International Law and the Balkans, 1878–1949”, European Journal of International Law, 29(4), 1149-1171.
108. İ. S. Üstün, “The Ottoman Dilemma in Handling the Shi‘i Challenge in Nineteenth-Century Iraq”, in Ofra Bengio and Meir Litvak (Eds.), The Sunna and Shi’a in History: Division and Ecumenism in the Muslim Middle East (pp. 87-103) New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
109. N. Vaughan-Williams, “International Relations and ‘the Problem of History’”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34(1): 115–136.
110. M. Venzke, The Case of a Dulgadir-Mamluk Iqtā': A Re-Assessment of the Dulgadir Principality and its Position within the Ottoman-Mamluk Rivalry. Journal of The Economic and Social History of The Orient, 43, 399-474.
111. C. Vergerio, “Context, Reception, and the Study of Great Thinkers in International Relations”, International Theory, 11 (1), 110-137.
112. R. B. Walker, “History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations”, Millennium, 18(2), 163-183.
113. T. C. Walker, “The Forgotten Prophet: Tom Paine's Cosmopolitanism and International Relations”, International Studies Quarterly, 44(1), 51-72.
114. D. A. Welch, “Why International Relations Theorists Should Stop Reading Thucydides”, Review of International Studies, 29(3), 301-319.
115. E. Wigen, “Ottoman Concepts of Empire”, Contributions to the History of Concepts, 8 (1), 44–66.
116. E. Wigen, “Two-Level Language Games: International Relations as Inter-Lingual Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 427-450.
117. W. C. Wohlforth, Et Al “Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History”, European Journal of International Relations, 13(2), 155-185.
118. S. Yetiv, “History, International Relations, and Integrated Approaches: Thinking About Greater Interdisciplinarity”, International Studies Perspectives, 12 (2), 94-118.
119. A. N. Yurdusev, “Introduction”, in A. N. Yurdusev (Ed.). Ottoman Diplomacy: Conventional or Unconventional? (Pp. 1-4). Springer.
120. A. Zarakol, “A Non-Eurocentric Approach to Sovereignty. in: Forum: In the Beginning There Was No Word (For It): Terms, Concepts and Early Sovereignty”, International Studies Review, 20: 506–509.
121. A. Zarakol, “Linking Up the Ottoman Empire With IR's Timeline”, in De Carvalho, B., Lopez, J. C., and Leira, H. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Historical International Relations (Pp. 464-476) Routledge.