Karmaşık Karşılıklı Bağımlılık Teorisiyle Türkiye'nin AB'ye Katılım Sürecindeki Durgunluğun Üstesinden Gelmek İçin Ulaştırma Merkezli Bir Yaklaşım

Abstract

Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne katılım süreci uzun süreli bir durgunluk aşamasına girmiştir. Tam üyelik müzakerelerinin başlamasından yirmi yıl sonra, 2025 itibarıyla süreç siyasi ivmesinin büyük bölümünü kaybetmiştir. Bu tıkanıklık, çok sayıda siyasi, hukuki, kurumsal, sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik faktör tarafından şekillendirilmiştir. En kalıcı engellerden biri, Türkiye’nin Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti’ni tanımaması ve Kıbrıs bağlantılı ulaştırma kısıtlamalarının devam etmesidir. Bu makale, katılım çerçevesindeki bu özel kurumsal tıkanıklığa ulaştırma merkezli ve analitik olarak sınırlandırılmış bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Yöntemsel olarak çalışma, nitel belge analizi ve karşılaştırmalı vaka analizini kullanmaktadır. Avrupa Komisyonu Türkiye Raporları, Konsey kararları, ulaştırma politikası belgeleri, Ankara Anlaşması ve Ek Protokolü, deniz taşımacılığı bağlantısallık göstergeleri ve seçilmiş karşılaştırmalı vakalar incelenmektedir. Karmaşık karşılıklı bağımlılık teorisine dayanarak makale, Kıbrıs bağlantılı ulaştırma kısıtlamalarının yalnızca diplomatik tanıma meselesi olarak değil, limanlar, gemiler, gümrük süreçleri, AB kurumları, ticari aktörler ve deniz taşımacılığı ağlarını içeren işlevsel bir sorun olarak da anlaşılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Makale ayrıca, tartışmalı veya sınırlı tanıma koşullarında ticari ya da kurumsal angajmanın sürdüğü Tayvan–Çin, İsrail–Arap devletleri ve Kosova–AB üye devletleri vakalarıyla analitik paralellikler kurmaktadır. Çalışma, ulaştırma politikasının Kıbrıs sorununu çözebileceğini veya Türkiye’nin AB’ye katılımını garanti edeceğini iddia etmemektedir. Bunun yerine, dar kapsamlı teknik-ticari bir açılımın belirlenebilir bir ulaştırma bağlantılı engeli azaltabileceğini ve yenilenmiş katılım odaklı angajman için sınırlı bir işlevsel alan yaratabileceğini ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

• Ulaştırma
• Türkiye'nin Üyeliği
• Karmaşık Karşılıklı Bağımlılık Teorisi
• Kıbrıs
• Ortak Ulaştırma Politikası

A Transport-Centric Approach to Overcoming Stagnation in Türkiye's EU Accession Through Complex Interdependence Theory

Abstract

Türkiye’s accession process to the European Union has effectively entered a prolonged phase of stagnation. As of 2025, two decades after the launch of full membership negotiations, the process has lost much of its political momentum. This deadlock has been shaped by multiple political, legal, institutional, social, cultural, and economic factors. One of the most persistent obstacles concerns Türkiye’s non-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus and the continuation of Cyprus-related transport restrictions. This article offers a transport-centred and analytically limited approach to this specific institutional blockage within the accession framework. Methodologically, the study employs qualitative document analysis and comparative case analysis. It examines European Commission Türkiye Reports, Council decisions, transport policy documents, the Ankara Agreement and its Additional Protocol, maritime connectivity indicators, and selected comparative cases. Drawing on complex interdependence theory, the article argues that Cyprus-related transport restrictions should not be understood merely as a diplomatic recognition issue, but also as a functional problem involving ports, vessels, customs procedures, EU institutions, trade actors, and maritime connectivity networks. The article also draws analytical parallels with Taiwan–China, Israel–Arab states, and Kosovo–EU member state cases, where commercial or institutional engagement has continued under contested or limited recognition. The study does not claim that transport policy can resolve the Cyprus dispute or guarantee Türkiye’s EU accession. Rather, it argues that a narrowly framed technical-commercial opening could reduce one identifiable transport-related impediment and create a limited functional space for renewed accession-related engagement.

Keywords

• Transportation
• Türkiye's Accession
• Complex Interdependence Theory
• Cyprus
• Common Transport Policy

Ethical Statement

The research is based on publicly available data, adhering to ethical standards. All sources are properly attributed and cited.

Thanks

Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi'nin başta editörü olmak üzere makalemize emek veren tüm çalışanlara ve akademisyenlere teşekkür ederiz.

References

1. Aydın-Düzgit, S., & Kaliber, A. (2016). Encounters with Europe in an era of domestic and international turmoil: Is Turkey a de-Europeanising candidate country? South European Society and Politics, 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2016.1155282
2. Aloui, A., Hamani, N., Derrouiche, R., & Delahoche, L. (2021). Systematic literature review on collaborative sustainable transportation: Overview, analysis and perspectives. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 9, 100291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100291
3. Christidis, P., Cawood, E. N., & Fiorello, D. (2022). Challenges for urban transport policy after the Covid-19 pandemic: Main findings from a survey in 20 European cities. Transport Policy, 129, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.10.007
4. Council of the European Union. (2005). Presidency conclusions: Brussels European Council, 16/17 December 2004 (Document No. 16238/04). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/83201.pdf
5. Council of the European Union. (2006). 2770th Council Meeting, General Affairs and External Relations, General Affairs, Brussels, 11 December 2006 (Press Release 16289/06, Presse 352). Brussels: Council of the European Union.
6. Council of the European Union. (2018). A new strategic agenda for the EU 2019–2024 (ST 10555/18). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35863/st10555-en18.pdf
7. Dittmer, L. (Ed.). (2017). Taiwan and China: Fitful embrace (1st ed.). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1w76wpm
8. Düzgit, S. A. (2009). Constructing Europe through Turkey: French perceptions on Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Politique Européenne, 3, 47–82. https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-europeenne-2009-3-page-47.htm?lang=en

9. EC–Turkey Association Council. (1995). Council Decision No. 1/95 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:21996D0213(01)
10. Eldani, M. H. (2022). Accession journey of Turkey to the EU membership. Academic Knowledge, 5(1), 210–221.
11. Erşen, E., & Çelikpala, M. (2019). Türkiye and the changing energy geopolitics of Eurasia. Energy Policy, 128, 584–592.
12. EU–Türkiye Association Agreement. (1963). The Ankara Agreement. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/delegations/en/d-tr/documents/eu-texts
13. European Commission. (2011). A partnership for democracy and shared prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean (COM(2011) 112 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:en:PDF
14. European Commission. (2018). Transport in the European Union: Current trends and issues. Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-06/2018-transport-in-the-eu-current-trends-and-issues.pdf
15. European Commission. (2020a). Sustainable and smart mobility strategy: Putting European transport on track for the future (COM(2020) 789 final). https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/mobility-strategy_en
16. European Commission. (2020b, December 9). A fundamental transport transformation: Commission presents its plan for green, smart and affordable mobility. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/mobility-strategy_en
17. European Commission. (2020c). Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition: Investing in a climate-neutral future for the benefit of our people (COM(2020) 562 final). https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/communication-com2020562-stepping-europe%E2%80%99s-2030-climate-ambition-investing-climate_en
18. European Commission. (2023). Türkiye 2023 report: Commission staff working document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2023 Communication on EU enlargement policy (SWD(2023) 696 final). Brussels: European Commission.
19. European Commission. (2024). Türkiye 2024 report: Commission staff working document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2024 Communication on EU enlargement policy (SWD(2024) 696 final). Brussels: European Commission.
20. Grabbe, H. (2006). The EU’s transformative power: Europeanization through conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Grigoriadis, I. (2006). Turkey’s accession to the EU: Debating the most difficult enlargement ever. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 26(1), 147–160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26999305
22. Hussain, E. (2021). The Belt and Road Initiative and the middle corridor: Complementarity or competition? Insight Turkey, 23(3), 233–252. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/the-belt-and-road-initiative-and-the-middle-corridor-complementarity-or-competition
23. İlksoy, A. (2017). Energy sources in the Eastern Mediterranean: Contributor to solve the problems in Cyprus, Türkiye, and Israel triangle? Athens Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 4(1), 36–46.
24. Joubran, R. (1995). The economic reality of the Arabs in Israel. International Journal on World Peace, 12(2), 67–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752032
25. Judgment of the Court. (1983). Case 266/81, Società Italiana per l’Oleodotto Transalpino (SIOT) v. Ministero delle finanze. Court of Justice of the European Communities.
26. Judgment of the Court. (1997). Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, Case C-265/95. European Court Reports, I-06959.
27. Judgment of the Court. (2003). Case C-112/00, Schmidberger v. Austria. European Court Reports, I-5659.
28. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.
29. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1987). Power and interdependence revisited. International Organization, 41(4), 725–753.
30. Keskin, M. H. (2016). Logistics handbook: Logistics practices of international players. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. https://www.nobelyayin.com/lojistik-el-kitabi-kuresel-aktorlerin-lojistik-pratikleri-4429.html
31. Keskin, M. H. (2021). Turkey’s accession to the EU: Tainted but irrevocable affinity with facts from fiction. Sharp and Sharp Publishing.
32. Loizides, N., & McGarry, J. (2019). 2002–2004 Annan plan in Cyprus: An attempted UN-mediated constitutional transition. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836544.003.0003
33. McLaren, L. M. (2000). Turkey’s eventual membership of the EU: Turkish elite perspectives on the issue. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(1), 117–129.
34. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye. (2005). Turkish declaration of 29 July 2005 regarding the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/statement-by-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-turkiye.en.mfa
35. Mišík, M., & Nosko, A. (2023). Each one for themselves: Exploring the energy security paradox of the European Union. Energy Research and Social Science, 99, 103074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103074
36. Müftüler-Baç, M. (2008). Turkey’s accession to the European Union: The impact of the EU’s internal dynamics. International Studies Perspectives, 9(2), 201–219. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44218542
37. Pedi, R., & Kouskouvelis, I. (2019). Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean: A small state seeking for status. In S. N. Litsas & A. Tziampiris (Eds.), The new Eastern Mediterranean (pp. 151–176). Springer.
38. Pellegrini, P., & Rodriguez, J. (2013). Single European sky and single European railway area: A system level analysis of air and rail transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 57, 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.09.004
39. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004). Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000248089
40. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (Eds.). (2005). The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press.
41. Shaelou, S. L. (2011). Market freedoms, fundamental rights, and the European public order: Views from Cyprus. Yearbook of European Law, 30(1), 298–355.
42. Strategy and Budget Directorate. (2022). 2019–2023 strategic plan. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Stratejik-Plan-2019-2023.pdf
43. Streimikiene, D., Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., & Lekavicius, V. (2023). Energy diversification and security in the EU: Comparative assessment in different EU regions. Economies, 11(3), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11030083
44. Takman, J., & Gonzalez-Aregall, M. (2023). Public policy instruments to promote freight modal shift in Europe: Evidence from evaluations. Transport Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2279219
45. Talmon, S. (2006). The EU–Türkiye controversy over Cyprus or a tale of two treaty declarations. Chinese Journal of International Law, 5(3), 579–616.
46. Tzeiranaki, S. T., Economidou, M., Bertoldi, P., Thiel, C., Fontaras, G., Clementi, E. L., & Rios, F. D. L. C. (2023). The impact of energy efficiency and decarbonisation policies on the European road transport sector. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 170, 103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103623
47. UN Security Council. (2003). Report of the Secretary-General on his mission of good offices in Cyprus (S/2003/398). https://www.cyprusun.org/?p=2568
48. UNCTADSTATa. (2024). Liner shipping bilateral connectivity index, quarterly. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/
49. UNCTADSTATb. (2024). Port liner shipping connectivity index, quarterly. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/
50. Vakil, S., & Quilliam, N. (2023). The Abraham Accords and Israel–UAE normalization: Shaping a new Middle East. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/2023-03-28-abraham-accords-israel-uae-normalization-vakil-quilliam-1.pdf
51. Vickerman, R. (2021). European transport policy 60 years on. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 55(2), 85–103.
52. Visier, C. (2009). Turkey and the European Union: The sociology of engaged actors and of their contribution to the candidacy issue. European Journal of Turkish Studies, 9. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejts.3910
53. World Bank. (2022). Country profiles: Turkey trade summary 2022. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/TUR/Year/LTST/Summary
54. Yahuda, M. (1996). The international standing of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The China Quarterly, 148, 1319–1339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/655526
55. Zisser, E. (2023). Israel in the Middle East 75 years on. Israel Affairs, 29(3), 459–472. https:/doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2023.2206209