Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği

Year 2019, Volume: 7 , 38 - 52, 19.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594401

Abstract

Bölgesinde istikrarın sağlanması, ekonomik, siyasi ve kültürel alanlarda işbirliklerinin geliştirilmesi

hedefiyle kurulan ASEAN, kendine özgü bir bölgeselleşme biçimi olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Özellikle

1997 Asya Krizi’nden sonra ekonomik karşılıklı bağımlılıkların güçlendirilmesine önem veren bölge

ülkeleri iktisadi entegrasyonun yanında normatif ve fikirsel bütünleşme faaliyetlerini arttırmışlardır.

Hem bölgenin oluşumunda hem de faaliyetlerin sürdürülmesinde bağımsızlık, müdahalesizlik,

egemenliğe saygı, kültür ve tarihe yapılan vurgu ortak normları oluşturmakta, örgütün uluslararası

zirve ve platformlarda izlediği politikalar normatif ve fikirsel bölgeselleşmesinin tamamlayıcısı olarak

görülebilmektedir.

Koloni geçmişleri bulunan ülkelerin oluşturduğu ASEAN’ın bölgeselleşmesinin bir motivasyonunu

da Karl Deutsch’un benzer değerleri paylaşan ülkelerin meydana getirebileceği ve “güvenlik

toplumları” olarak kavramsallaştırılan tehditlere karşı ortak hareket etme düşüncesi oluşturmaktadır.

Farklılıklarının bulunmasıyla beraber birçok ortak norma da sahip Güneydoğu Asya ülkelerinin

bir araya gelmeleri hem bu benzer değerlerden kaynaklanmış hem de örgüt, bu normları olası dış

tehditlerden korunmanın bir yolu olarak görmüş ve uluslararası platformlarda savunucusu olmuştur.

ASEAN, diğer birçok organizasyon gibi yapısını Avrupa bütünleşmesinden modellemiştir. Ancak,

bölgenin kendi kültürel özellik ve değerlerini de bu sürece dahil etmesiyle örgütün yerelin, bölgeselin

ve küreselin birleşimi olan normatif bir aktör olarak faaliyet gösterdiği ileri sürülebilmektedir.

Fikirsel ve normatif bölgeselleşme literatürüne katkı sağlamak amacıyla hazırlanan çalışma,

bölgeselleşme araştırmalarının ekonomik ve güvenlikten farklı olarak üçüncü bir boyutuna dikkat

çekmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bununla beraber her ne kadar son dönemlerde Avrupa dışı bölgeselleşme

araştırmalarına yönelik artan bir ilgi gözlemlense de uluslararası ilişkilerin bölgesel analizlerinde

Avrupa merkezlilik hala hakim konumda olmakta, diğer bölgelerin kendi yapı ve özelliklerinin göz

ardı edilmesine neden olmaktadır.

Araştırmanın birinci bölümünde bölgeselleşmenin fikirsel ve normatif boyutu çerçevesinde uluslararası

ilişkiler literatüründeki eski, yeni ve karşılaştırmalı bölgeselleşme çalışmaları ile ekonomik, politik ve

güvenlikten farklı olarak bölgelerin inşasında fikir ve normların etkisi ele alınacaktır. Bu bağlamda inşacı

teori ve İngiliz Okulu’nun norm, ortak değer, kültür ve tarih temelli çalışmalarından yararlanılacaktır.

İkinci bölümde tarihsel süreçte ASEAN incelenerek Güneydoğu Asya bölgesindeki bölgeselleşme

çalışmalarına değinilecektir. Dekolonizasyon dönemi sonrası bölge ülkelerinin geliştirdikleri ilişkilerin

siyasi, ekonomik ve güvenlik boyutlarının olduğu ortaya koyulacaktır. Son bölümde ise, ASEAN’ın

önceki bölümde ele alınan başlıklardan farklı olarak organizasyonun temelinde ASEAN tarzı olarak

adlandırılan fikirsel ve normatif bir bölgeselleşmesinin de bulunduğu açıklanacak, örgütün geliştirdiği

norm ve kuralların bölge inşası ve uluslararası girişimlere etki ettiği sonucuna ulaşılacaktır.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2008) “Regional Worlds in a Post-Hegemonic Era”, 3rd GARNET Annual Conference, Bordeaux, http://amitavacharyaacademic.blogspot.com.tr/2008/10/regional-worlds-in-post-hegemonic-era. html, (Erişim 02.01.2018). Acharya, A. (2012a) “Ideas, Norms and Regional Orders”, içinde T.V.Paul (Ed.) International Relations Theory and Regional Transformations, NY: Cambridge University Press, 183-209. Acharya, A. (2012b) “Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47 (1), 3-15. Acharya, A. ve Layug, A. (2012) “Collective Identity Formation in Asian Regionalism: ASEAN Identity and the Construction of the Asia-Pacific Regional Order”, IPSA, http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/ paper_7151.pdf, (Erişim 01.01.2018). Adler, E. (1997) “Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 26 (2), 249–277. Adler, E. ve Crawford, B. (2002) “Constructing a Mediterranean Region: A Cultural Approach”, The Convergence of Civilizations? Constructing a Mediterranean Region Konferansı, Portekiz. ASEAN (2017) “An Overview of ASEAN-UN Cooperation”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/storage/2012/05/ Overview-of-ASEAN-UN-Cooperation-As-of-1-August-2017-clean.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). ASEANa, t.y., “ASEAN Overview”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/overview/, (Erişim 01.01.2018). ASEANb, t.y., “ASEAN History”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/history/, (Erişim 01.01.2018). ASEANc, t.y., “Community Vision”, ASEAN http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2015/November/aecpage/ ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). ASEANd, t.y., “ASEAN External Relations”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/external-relations/, (Erişim 03.01.2018). Baldwin, R.E. (2007) “Managing the Noodle Bowl: The fragility of East Asian Regionalism”, The ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration, 7, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ publication/28464/wp07-baldwin.pdf, (Erişim 29.12.2017). Baogang, H. (2017) Contested Ideas of Regionalism in Asia, NY: Routledge. Börzel, T., T. Risse (2009) “Diffusing (Inter-) Regionalism The EU as a Model of Regional Integration”, KFG Working Paper, 7, Berlin: Freie Universitat. Börzel, T.A. (2016) “Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance”, içinde T.A.Börzel ve T.Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press. Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society. NY: Palgrave Checkel, J. (2016) “Regional Identities and Communities”, içinde T.A.Börzel ve T.Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press, 559 – 578. Dedeoğlu, B. (2004) “Yeniden Güvenlik Topluluğu: Benzerliklerin Karşılıklı Bağımlılığından Faklılıkların Birlikteliğine”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1 (4), 1 – 21. Elliott, L. (2003) “ASEAN and Environmental Cooperation: Norms, Interests and Identity”, The Pacific Review, 16 (1), 29-52. Fawcett, L. (2012) “The History and Concept of Regionalism”, Euopean Society of International Law. Conference Paper, 4, 13-15 September, Spain. Fierke, K.M. (2013) “Constructivism”, içinde T. Dunne, M. Kurki ve S. Smith (Ed.), International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity, UK: Oxford University Press, 187-205. Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press. He, J. (2016) “Normative Power in the EU and ASEAN: Why They Diverge”, International Studies Review, doi: 10.1093/isr/viv028, (Erişim 30.12.2017). Hoffman, A.R., R. Kfuri (2007) “The role of external actors upon regional integration: the US, the EU and Mercosur”, ECPR. Hurrell, A. (2006) “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in The Study Of International Society”, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London: Chatham House. Jetschke, A., S.N. Katada (2016) “Asia”, içinde T.A. Börzel ve T. Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press, 225-248. Katsumata, H. (2006) “Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing A ‘Talking Shop’ Or A ‘Norm Brewery’?”, The Pacific Review, 19 (2), 181-198. Koga, K. (2010) “The Normative Power of The ASEAN Way, Potentials, Limitations and Implications for East Asian Regionalism”, SJEAA, 80-95. Mitrany, D. (1948) “The Functional Approach to World Organization”, International Affairs, 24(3), 350-363. Panikkar, K.M. (1999) “Regionalism and World Security”, SAGE Journals, 55, 131-136. Paul, T.V. (2012) “Regional Transformation in International Relations”, içinde T.V. Paul (Ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformations, NY: Cambridge University Press, 3-22. Pempel, T.J. (2005) Remapping Asia: The Construction of a Region, NY: Cornell University Press. Pollard, V.K. (1970) “ASA and ASEAN, 1961-1967: Southeast Asian Regionalism”, Asian Survey, 10 (3), 244- 255. Ravenhill, J. (2009) “East Asian regionalism: Much Ado about Nothing?”, Review of International Studies, 35, 215-235. Simon, S.W. (2013) “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Beyond the Talk Shop?”, NBR Analysis Brief, http://nbr. org/publications/analysis/pdf/Brief/071113_Simon_ARF.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). Söderbaum, F. (2015) “Early, Old, New and Comparative Regionalism: The Scholarly Development of The Field, The Transformative Power of Europe”, KFG Working Paper Series, 64, Berlin: Freie Universität. Stubbs, R. (2002) “ASEAN Plus Three Emerging East Asian Regionalism?”, Asian Survey, 42 (3), 440-455. UNAPRCM, t.y., “ASEAN-UN Partnership”, United Nations Asia Pasific Regional Coordination Mechanism, http://www.unaprcm.org/asean-un-partnership, (Erişim 01.01.2018). Viner, J. (1950) The Customs Union Issue. NY: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Wheeler, N.J. (2003) Saving Strangers Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. NY: Oxford Wight, M. (1977) Systems of States, UK: Leichester University Press.

Ideational and Normative Regionalism: The Case of ASEAN

Year 2019, Volume: 7 , 38 - 52, 19.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594401

Abstract

ASEAN, which was established for achieving stability, developing economic, political and cultural

cooperation in the region, was evaluated a sui generis pattern of regionalism. Especially after 1997

The Asia Financial Crisis, countries of the region who give importance to strength the economic

interdependence, increased normative and ideational integration activities besides economic

integration. Both creating the region and sustaining activities, the emphasize of independence, nonintervention,

respect to sovereignty, culture and history constitutes common norms and it can be seen

that the policies of organization’s in international summits and platforms are complementary of its

normative and ideational regionalism.

One of the motivations behind ASEAN’s regionalism which has formed by formerly colonized

countries is the idea of the joint action which may constitute by countries that share common valuesto

the threats,which is identified as “security communities” by Karl Deutsch. Beside having differences,

Southeast Asian countries have a lot of common norms and their cluster is rooted by this similar

values and the organization sees these norms as a tool to protect themselves from outer threats and

championed them in international platforms. Like other organizations, ASEAN modeled its structure

from European integration. However, with including regions own cultural characteristics and values,

it can be argued that the organization operates as a normative actor which unites local, regional and

globalfeatures.

This research is prepared to make a contribution to ideational and normative regionalism literature and

aimed to take attention to the third dimension of regionalism that differs from economic or security

regionalism studies. Additionally, although there is a remarkable increase in attention to non-European

regionalism researches recently, the Euro-centrism on regionalism analysis remains dominant in the

international relations field and it causes to ignore the other regions own structures and characteristics.

In the first chapter of the research, old, new and comparative regionalism studies in international

relations literature will be examined on the ideational and normative regionalism framework

and different from economic, political and security dimensions, the impact of norms and ideas to

constructing regions will be evaluated. In this context, researches on the norm, common values, culture

and history of constructive theory and English School will be used. After this section, South East Asian

regionalism studies will be expressed by examining ASEAN on the historical process and after the era

of decolonization the dimensions of political, economic and security relations of region’s states will

be explained. In the final chapter, as distinct from topics of the previous chapter the ideational and

normative regionalism stands as one of the key features of the organization’s which is so-called ASEAN

Way will be shown and it will be reached as a result that the norms and rules that organizations have

developed have influence on region building and international initiatives.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2008) “Regional Worlds in a Post-Hegemonic Era”, 3rd GARNET Annual Conference, Bordeaux, http://amitavacharyaacademic.blogspot.com.tr/2008/10/regional-worlds-in-post-hegemonic-era. html, (Erişim 02.01.2018). Acharya, A. (2012a) “Ideas, Norms and Regional Orders”, içinde T.V.Paul (Ed.) International Relations Theory and Regional Transformations, NY: Cambridge University Press, 183-209. Acharya, A. (2012b) “Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, 47 (1), 3-15. Acharya, A. ve Layug, A. (2012) “Collective Identity Formation in Asian Regionalism: ASEAN Identity and the Construction of the Asia-Pacific Regional Order”, IPSA, http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/ paper_7151.pdf, (Erişim 01.01.2018). Adler, E. (1997) “Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 26 (2), 249–277. Adler, E. ve Crawford, B. (2002) “Constructing a Mediterranean Region: A Cultural Approach”, The Convergence of Civilizations? Constructing a Mediterranean Region Konferansı, Portekiz. ASEAN (2017) “An Overview of ASEAN-UN Cooperation”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/storage/2012/05/ Overview-of-ASEAN-UN-Cooperation-As-of-1-August-2017-clean.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). ASEANa, t.y., “ASEAN Overview”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/overview/, (Erişim 01.01.2018). ASEANb, t.y., “ASEAN History”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/about-asean/history/, (Erişim 01.01.2018). ASEANc, t.y., “Community Vision”, ASEAN http://www.asean.org/storage/images/2015/November/aecpage/ ASEAN-Community-Vision-2025.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). ASEANd, t.y., “ASEAN External Relations”, ASEAN, http://asean.org/asean/external-relations/, (Erişim 03.01.2018). Baldwin, R.E. (2007) “Managing the Noodle Bowl: The fragility of East Asian Regionalism”, The ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration, 7, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ publication/28464/wp07-baldwin.pdf, (Erişim 29.12.2017). Baogang, H. (2017) Contested Ideas of Regionalism in Asia, NY: Routledge. Börzel, T., T. Risse (2009) “Diffusing (Inter-) Regionalism The EU as a Model of Regional Integration”, KFG Working Paper, 7, Berlin: Freie Universitat. Börzel, T.A. (2016) “Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance”, içinde T.A.Börzel ve T.Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press. Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society. NY: Palgrave Checkel, J. (2016) “Regional Identities and Communities”, içinde T.A.Börzel ve T.Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press, 559 – 578. Dedeoğlu, B. (2004) “Yeniden Güvenlik Topluluğu: Benzerliklerin Karşılıklı Bağımlılığından Faklılıkların Birlikteliğine”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1 (4), 1 – 21. Elliott, L. (2003) “ASEAN and Environmental Cooperation: Norms, Interests and Identity”, The Pacific Review, 16 (1), 29-52. Fawcett, L. (2012) “The History and Concept of Regionalism”, Euopean Society of International Law. Conference Paper, 4, 13-15 September, Spain. Fierke, K.M. (2013) “Constructivism”, içinde T. Dunne, M. Kurki ve S. Smith (Ed.), International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity, UK: Oxford University Press, 187-205. Haas, E.B. (1964) Beyond the Nation-State. Functionalism and International Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press. He, J. (2016) “Normative Power in the EU and ASEAN: Why They Diverge”, International Studies Review, doi: 10.1093/isr/viv028, (Erişim 30.12.2017). Hoffman, A.R., R. Kfuri (2007) “The role of external actors upon regional integration: the US, the EU and Mercosur”, ECPR. Hurrell, A. (2006) “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in The Study Of International Society”, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London: Chatham House. Jetschke, A., S.N. Katada (2016) “Asia”, içinde T.A. Börzel ve T. Risse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, UK: Oxford University Press, 225-248. Katsumata, H. (2006) “Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing A ‘Talking Shop’ Or A ‘Norm Brewery’?”, The Pacific Review, 19 (2), 181-198. Koga, K. (2010) “The Normative Power of The ASEAN Way, Potentials, Limitations and Implications for East Asian Regionalism”, SJEAA, 80-95. Mitrany, D. (1948) “The Functional Approach to World Organization”, International Affairs, 24(3), 350-363. Panikkar, K.M. (1999) “Regionalism and World Security”, SAGE Journals, 55, 131-136. Paul, T.V. (2012) “Regional Transformation in International Relations”, içinde T.V. Paul (Ed.), International Relations Theory and Regional Transformations, NY: Cambridge University Press, 3-22. Pempel, T.J. (2005) Remapping Asia: The Construction of a Region, NY: Cornell University Press. Pollard, V.K. (1970) “ASA and ASEAN, 1961-1967: Southeast Asian Regionalism”, Asian Survey, 10 (3), 244- 255. Ravenhill, J. (2009) “East Asian regionalism: Much Ado about Nothing?”, Review of International Studies, 35, 215-235. Simon, S.W. (2013) “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Beyond the Talk Shop?”, NBR Analysis Brief, http://nbr. org/publications/analysis/pdf/Brief/071113_Simon_ARF.pdf, (Erişim 02.01.2018). Söderbaum, F. (2015) “Early, Old, New and Comparative Regionalism: The Scholarly Development of The Field, The Transformative Power of Europe”, KFG Working Paper Series, 64, Berlin: Freie Universität. Stubbs, R. (2002) “ASEAN Plus Three Emerging East Asian Regionalism?”, Asian Survey, 42 (3), 440-455. UNAPRCM, t.y., “ASEAN-UN Partnership”, United Nations Asia Pasific Regional Coordination Mechanism, http://www.unaprcm.org/asean-un-partnership, (Erişim 01.01.2018). Viner, J. (1950) The Customs Union Issue. NY: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Wheeler, N.J. (2003) Saving Strangers Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. NY: Oxford Wight, M. (1977) Systems of States, UK: Leichester University Press.
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Political Science
Journal Section International Journal of Political Science & Urban Studies
Authors

Nilay Tunçarslan

Publication Date July 19, 2019
Submission Date December 19, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 7

Cite

APA Tunçarslan, N. (2019). Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, 7, 38-52. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594401
AMA Tunçarslan N. Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği. IPSUS. July 2019;7:38-52. doi:10.14782/ipsus.594401
Chicago Tunçarslan, Nilay. “Fikirsel Ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7, July (July 2019): 38-52. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594401.
EndNote Tunçarslan N (July 1, 2019) Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7 38–52.
IEEE N. Tunçarslan, “Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği”, IPSUS, vol. 7, pp. 38–52, 2019, doi: 10.14782/ipsus.594401.
ISNAD Tunçarslan, Nilay. “Fikirsel Ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies 7 (July 2019), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.14782/ipsus.594401.
JAMA Tunçarslan N. Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği. IPSUS. 2019;7:38–52.
MLA Tunçarslan, Nilay. “Fikirsel Ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği”. International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies, vol. 7, 2019, pp. 38-52, doi:10.14782/ipsus.594401.
Vancouver Tunçarslan N. Fikirsel ve Normatif Bölgeselleşme: ASEAN Örneği. IPSUS. 2019;7:38-52.