Geçiş Sürecindeki İngiliz Okulu: Diyalog, Uyum ve Sınırlamalar

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 49, 315 - 329, 26.12.2024

Mürsel Doğrul

https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1568202

Abstract

Bu makale, İngiliz Okulu'nun sistemik çerçevesini, tarihsel gelişimini ve normatif teorik odağını eleştirel bir şekilde analiz ederek Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler'in (Küresel Uİ) gelişimine katkılarını incelemektedir. Manning, Wight ve Bull gibi isimlerin temel metinlerinin yanı sıra ilgili ikincil literatürün niteliksel ve tarihsel analizi yoluyla çalışma, İngiliz Okulu ile Küresel Uİ arasındaki etkileşimi vurgulamaktadır. Temel bulgular, İngiliz Okulu'nun Avrupa-merkezci mirasının teorik kısıtlamalar getirse de normlara, uluslararası topluma ve adalete odaklanmasının çağdaş küresel zorlukları ele almak için değerli çerçeveler sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma ayrıca, yükselen güçlerin ve Batılı olmayan perspektiflerin entegrasyonunu, İngiliz Okulu'nun çoğulcu bir küresel düzene uyum sağlayabileceğinin kanıtı olarak tanımlamaktadır. Metodolojik olarak, tarihsel analize ve nitel yaklaşımlara dayanması, çalışmanın daha geniş ampirik genellemeler sağlama kabiliyetini sınırlarken, teorik kapsamı da farklı bakış açılarını tutarlı bir çerçevede uzlaştırmanın zorluklarını yansıtmaktadır. Bu sınırlamalara rağmen makale, İngiliz Okulu ile Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler arasındaki dönüştürücü diyalog potansiyelinin altını çizmekte, kapsayıcı küresel yönetişimi teşvik etmek ve gelecekteki disiplinler arası araştırmalar için yollar sağlamak için pratik sonuçlar doğurmaktadır.

Keywords

İngiliz Okulu, Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler, Uluslararası Toplum, Avrupa Merkezcilik, Normatif Teori

The English School in Transition: Dialogues, Adaptations, and Limitations

Abstract

This article examines the contributions of the English School to the development of Global International Relations (Global IR) through a critical analysis of its systemic framework, historical development, and normative theoretical focus. By undertaking a qualitative and historical analysis of foundational texts by figures such as Manning, Wight, and Bull, as well as relevant secondary literature, the study illuminates the interaction between the English School and Global IR. The study's key findings indicate that, while the English School's Eurocentric legacy presents theoretical constraints, its focus on norms, international society, and justice offers valuable frameworks for addressing contemporary global challenges. Furthermore, the study identifies the integration of emerging powers and non-Western perspectives as evidence of the English School's adaptability in a pluralistic global order. Methodologically, the study's focus on historical analysis and qualitative approaches constrains its capacity to offer broader empirical generalisations. Additionally, its theoretical scope reflects the challenges of reconciling diverse perspectives within a cohesive framework. Despite these limitations, the article highlights the potential for transformative dialogue between the English School and Global IR, with practical implications for fostering inclusive global governance and providing pathways for future interdisciplinary research.

Keywords

English School, Global IR, International Society, Eurocentrism, Normative Theory

References

• ACHARYA Amitav (2016). “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions”, International Studies Review, 18:1, 4-15.
• ACHARYA Amitav (2011). “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West”, Millennium Journal of International Studie, 39:3, 619-637.
• ACHARYA Amitav (2014). “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds”, International Studies Quarterly, 58:4, 647-659.
• ACHARYA Amitav (2022). “Race and Racism in the Founding of the Modern World Order”, International Affairs, 98:1 23-43.
• ACHARYA Amitav and BUZAN Barry (2019). The Making of Global International Relations Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• ACHARYA Amitav and BUZAN Barry (2007). “Why is there no non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7:3, 287-312.
• AYDINLI Ersel and BİLTEKİN Gonca (2017). “Widening the world of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy Peace, 7:1, 45-68.
• BİLGİN Pınar (2016). “‘Contrapuntal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR”, International Studies Review, 18:1, 134-146.
• BİLGİN Pinar (2016). “How to remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A complement and a challenge for The Global Transformation”, International Theory, 8:3, 492-501.
• BULL Hedley (1966). “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach”, World Politics, 18:3, 361- 377.
• BULL Hedley (1977). The Anarchical Society: A study of order in world politics, London: Palgrave.
• BULL Hedley (1995). “The Theory of International Politics, 1919–1969 (1972)”, International Theory: Critical Investigations, James Der Derian (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, 181-211.
• BUTTERFIELD Herbert and WIGHT Martin (ed.) (1966). Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in International Politics, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
• BUZAN Barry (2014). An Introduction to the English School of International Relations, Polity Press, Oxford, UK.
• BUZAN Barry (2016). “Could IR Be Different?”, International Studies Review, 18:1. 155-157.
• BUZAN Barry (1993). “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, 47:3, 327-352.
• BUZAN Barry (2001). “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR”, Review of International Studies, 27:03, 471–488.
• BUZAN Barry and ZHANG Yongjin (ed.) (2014). Contesting International Society in East Asia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• CLARK Ian (2009). “Towards an English School Theory of Hegemony”, European Journal of International Relations, 15:2, 203-228.
• COSTA BURANELLI Filippo and TAEUBER Simon F. (2021). “The English School and Global IR – A Research Agenda”, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 11:1, 87-105.
• COSTA-BURANELLI Filippo (2015). “‘Do You Know What I Mean?’ ‘Not exactly’: English School, Global International Society and the Polysemy of Institutions”, Global Discourse, 5:3, 499-514.
• CUI Shunji and BUZAN Barry (2016). “Great Power Management in International Society”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9:2, 181-210.
• DEVLEN Balkan, JAMES Patrick Macgill and ÖZDAMAR Özgür (2005). “The English School, International Relations, and Progress”, International Studies Review, 7, 171-97.
• DUNNE, Tim (1998). Inventing International Society, A History of the English School. MacMillan Press, London, UK.
• DUNNE Tim (2011). “The English School”, Oxford Handbooks, online edition, Oxford Academic.
• DUNNE Tim, KURKI Milja and SMITH Steve (ed.) (2020). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 5, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
• EPP Roger (2013). “The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics and Its Central Figures”, Guide to the English School in International Studies, Cornelia Navari and Daniel M. Green (ed.), John Wiley, 25-36.
• GREEN Daniel M. (2013). “Introduction to the English School in International Studies”, Guide to the English School in International Studies, Cornelia Navari and Daniel M. Green (ed.), John Wiley, 1-6. KAUPPI Mark V and VIOTTI Paul R. (2019). International Relations Theory, 6.b., Rowman & Littlefield.
• KEENE Edward (2020). “Three Traditions of International Theory”, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.
• LINKLATER Andrew and SUGANAMI Hidemi (2006). The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• LITTLE Richard (2000). “The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 6:3, 395-422. NAVARICornelia(ed.)(2020).“TheDevelopmentofEnglishSchoolTheory:AnIntroduction”,International Society, Cornelia Navari (ed.), Springer International Publishing, 1-13.
• PARRAT Charlotta Friedner and SPANDLER Kilian (2020). “Using the English School to Understand Current Issues in World Politics”, International Society, Cornelia Navari (ed.), Springer International Publishing, 145-160.
• PORTER Brian (ed.) (1972). The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919-1969, Oxford University Press, London, UK.
• SUGANAMI Hidemi (2001). “Alexander Wendt and the English School”, Journal of International Relations and Development, 4:4, 403-423.
• SUGANAMI Hidemi (2010). “The English School in a Nutshell”, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, 9, 15-28. SUGANAMI Hidemi (2001). “C. A. w. Manning and the Study of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 27:1, 91-107.
• SUGANAMI Hidemi (2002). “The International Society Perspective on World Politics Reconsidered”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2:1, pp. 1-28.
• SUGANAMI Hidemi (1983). “The Structure of Institutionalism: an Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations”, International Relations, 7:5, 2363-2381.
• TICKNER Arlene B. (2013). “Core, Periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 19:3, 627-646.
• WÆVER Ole (1992). “International Society - Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?”, Cooperation and Conflict 27, No. 1, 97-128.
• WANG Jiangli, Barry BUZAN (2014). “The English and Chinese Schools of International Relations: Comparisons and Lessons”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7:1, 1-46.
• WIGHT Martin (1977). Systems of States, Bloomsbury, London, UK.
• WIGHT Martin, H. BULL and C. HOLBRAAD (1979). Power Politics, Penguin Books, London, UK.
• WIGHT Martin (1992). International Theory, Gabriele Wight & Brian Porter (eds.), Leicester University Press, London, UK.
• WIGHT Martin (2022). “Western Values in International Relations”, Martin Wight and David S. Yost (ed.), International Relations and Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 49-87.
• WIGHT Martin (2022). “Why Is There No International Theory?”, Martin Wight & David S. Yost (eds.), International Relations and Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 22-38.
• YURDUSEV A. Nuri (1994). “The Concept of International System as a Unit of Analysis”, METU Studies in Development, 21:1, 143-174.