An Examination of the National Security Paradigms Within the International Relations Discipline As On And Post-Cold War

Year 2022, , 182 - 198, 30.09.2022

Murat Şengöz

https://doi.org/10.32579/mecmua.1116126

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Today, the concept of national security is expanding and deepening in terms of its framework and dimensions, and threat perceptions evolve and take on an asymmetric and uncertain nature. In this context, it can be stated that conceptualizations related to national security become more complex with its interdisciplinary, pluralistic, and multidimensional structure. Thus, today's national security issues require a multidimensional and holistic understanding that balances military and non-military methods, considers cyber and asymmetric threats, and envisages comprehensive approaches. Therefore, this article presents a holistic approach to security conceptualizations that should be considered in the context of a rational and real-political foreign policy. In this study, the mainstream approaches related to national security within the discipline of international relations are discussed, and in this context, an examination of the aforementioned schools to national security within the international relations discipline are elaborated and summarized as of the cold war era and after. In this context, an analytical study is presented about the factors and components affecting national security issues, considering both current and future security paradigms, and national security issues are explained through different aspects of national security.

Keywords

Regional and Global Stability and Challenges, National Security Debates, Postmodern Security Approach

An Examination of the National Security Paradigms Within the International Relations Discipline As On And Post-Cold War

Abstract

Günümüzde ulusal güvenlik kavramı çerçeve ve boyut olarak genişlemekte, derinleşmekte ve tehdit algıları ise evrimleşerek asimetrik ve belirsiz bir hüviyete bürünmektedir. Bu kapsamda ulusal güvenlikle alakalı kavramlaştırmaların, disiplinler arası, çoğulcu ve çok boyutlu yapısıyla daha da karmaşıklaştığı ifade edilebilir. Böylece günümüzde ulusal güvenlikle ilgili hususlar, askeri ve askeri olmayan yöntemler arasında denge kuran, siber ve asimetrik tehditleri dikkate alan ve kapsamlı yaklaşımlar öngören çok boyutlu ve bütüncül bir anlayışı gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu makalede, rasyonel ve reelpolitik bir dış politika bağlamında dikkate alınması gereken güvenlik kavramlaştırmaları ile ilgili bütünsel bir yaklaşım ortaya koyulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada uluslararası ilişkiler disiplini içinde genel olarak ulusal güvenlikle alakalı ana akım yaklaşımlar ele alınmakta, bu kapsamda mezkur ekollerin güvenlikle ilgili disiplin içi farklılıklarının bir incelemesi soğuk savaş ve sonrası itibariyle ortaya koyulmakta ve özetlenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, ulusal güvenlik konularını etkileyen faktörler ve bileşenler hakkında hem güncel, hem de gelecekteki güvenlik paradigmaları dikkate alınarak analitik bir çalışma sunulmakta ve ulusal güvenlikle ilgili hususlar ulusal güvenliğe dair farklı yaklaşımlar üzerinden açıklanmaktadır.

Keywords

Bölgesel ve Küresel İstikrar ve Sınamalar, Ulusal Güvenlik Tartışmaları, Postmodern Güvenlik Yaklaşımları

References

• Ahmed, F. and Syed, A. (2020). International Relations Theories and Security, Modern Diplomacy, 5(1), 1-7.
• Ang, L., Isar, Y. R. and Mar, P. (2016). Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
• Bails, J. (2008). The Concept of Security in International Relations, International Relations, 5(18), 69-85.
• Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P. (2011). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Birdişli, F. (2017). International Security in Theory and Practice Concepts-Theory-Practice, Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (2017). Jürgen Habermas, Stanford: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Booth, K. (2012). World Security Theory, Istanbul: Küre Publications.
• Buzan, B. (2008). The Changing Agenda of Military Security, International Relations, 5 (18), 107-123.
• Buzan, B. (2015). People, States, and Fear: Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, Istanbul: Relay Academic Publishing.
• Edwards, C. (2007). The case for national security, Demos Report.
• Ekbladh, D. (2011). Present at the Creation: Edward Mead Earle and the Depression-era Origin of Security Studies, International Security, 36 (3), 107-141.
• Fearon, J. (1995), Rationalist Explanations for War, International Organization. 49, 379-414.
• Friedman, T.L. (2000). The Lexus and The Olive Tree, London: HarperCollins Publishers.
• Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of The Globalised World in The Twenty-First Century, London: Allen Lane.
• Huntington, S. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs. 72(3): 22– 49.
• Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster.
• İbrahim, T. (2020). Opinion – Non-Military Threats and the Limits of National Security, Bristol: E-International Relations.
• Jackson, Robert and Sorensen Georg (2013), Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Judge, E. H. (2012). The Cold War: A Global History With Documents, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1987). Power and Interdependence by International Organization, MIT Press Stable, 41(4), 725-753.
• Kiltz, L. (2011). The Challenges of Developing a Homeland Security Discipline to Meet Future Threats to the Homeland, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2).
• Kingston, R. (2016). Russia Completes CFE Treaty Suspension. http://www. Russia Completes CFE Treaty Suspension | Arms Control Association.
• Kober, S. (2016). The Changing Nature of War: Is a philosophy of doubt the better counsel in deciding to go to war? The Globalist. http://www. The Changing Nature of War - The Globalist.
• Kolasi, K. (2013). Peaceful End of the Cold War and Theories of International Relations, Ankara University Journal of Social Sciences, 68 (2), 149 -179.
• Kolasi, K. (2014). Critical Theory and Security: Security for Whom? International Security Theoretical Evaluations, Istanbul: Tarcan Printing House.
• Kuhn, S. T. (1982). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, İstanbul: Alan Publishing.
• MacKenzie, M. (2010). Securitization and de-Securitization: Female Soldiers and the Reconstruction of Women in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone, in Gender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives, London: Routledge.
• McGlinchey, S. (2022). Foundation of International Relations, London: Bloomsbury.
• McGlinchey, S., Walters, R. and Scheinpflug, C. (2017). International Relations Theory, Bristol: E-International Relations.
• McGlinchey, S. (2017). International Relations, Bristol: E-International Relations.
• Mimiko, N. and Oluwafemi, N. (2012). Globalization: The politics of global economic relations and international business, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
• Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs Ltd.
• Rothschild, E., Buzan, B. and Hansen L. E. (2007). What is Security? London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Ryakhovskaya, A. (2014). Transformation of Crisis Management in Crisis, Management Business. Jour, 2: 102.
• Sandıklı, A. (2012). Security, War, Peace and Conflict Solutions in the Light of Theories, Istanbul: Bilge Adam Center for Strategic Research.
• Sandıklı, A. and Emeklier, B. (2012). Change and Transformation in Security Approach, Security in the Light of Theories, War, Peace and Conflict Solutions, Istanbul Bilge Adam Strategic Research Center Publications, 3-71.
• Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Snowdon, B. and Vane, H. R. (2006). Modern Macroeconomic, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Suloviç, V. (2010). Meaning of Security and Theory of Securitization, Belgrade Centre of Security Policy, 1-7. Ripsman, Norrin M., and Paul, T. V. (2010). Globalization and the National Security State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Waever, 0. and Flockhart, T. (2014). Cooperative Security: A New Concept? DIIS Report, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies.
• Waewer, O. (2008). The Changing Agenda of Social Security, International Relations, 5(18), 51-178. , Weber, C. (2016). Queer International Relations, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wolfers, A. (1952). National Security as an ambiguous symbol, Political Science Quarterly, 67, 481-502.