Fransa’daki Uluslararası İlişkiler Anlayışının Temel Nitelikleri: Disiplini Anglo-Amerikan Yaklaşımların Ötesinde Düşünmek

Abstract

Fransa’daki üniversite yapısı ve akademik ortamın genel özellikleri, ayrıca Uİ alanında üretilen çalışmaların kuramsal ve metodolojik olarak birbirinden kopuk olması Uluslararası İlişkiler’in (Uİ) ‘marjinal’ bir disiplin olarak tanımlanmasına yol açtı. 2000’lerle beraber bir yandan Fransız Jeopolitika Okulu’nun disiplin üzerindeki etkileri belirginleşmeye diğer yandan Bertrand Badie, Marie-Claude Smouts, Guillaume Devin ve Didier Bigo gibi araştırmacıların çalışmaları frankofon dünyanın sınırlarını aşmaya başladı. Adı geçen araştırmacıların Fransız sosyoloji geleneğinin kimi yapı taşlarını Uİ disiplininde analitik araçlar hâline getirmeleriyle Fransız Uİ yazını dünyadaki Uİ çalışmalarıyla bütünleşti ve dahası disiplinde kendine özgü bir yer edindi. Bu makale, Fransa’daki Uİ çalışmalarının ana niteliklerini ortaya koymakta ve söz konusu çalışmaların disipline kattığı kavramsal ve metodolojik yenilikleri incelemektedir.

Keywords

• Fransa
• Uluslararası İlişkiler Sosyolojisi
• Paris Güvenlik Okulu
• Fransız Jeopolitika Okulu
• Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler

Fundamental Characteristics of IR Thought in France: Reconsidering the Discipline Beyond Anglo-American Approaches

Abstract

The institutional structure of the university and the general characteristics of the academic environment in France, as well as the theoretical and methodological disconnection between studies produced in the field of IR have led scholars to define IR in France as a ‘marginal’ discipline. In the 2000s, the French School of Geopolitics started to influence the discipline. Moreover, scholars such as Bertrand Badie, Marie-Claude Smouts, Guillaume Devin, and Didier Bigo transformed some of the constitutive elements of the French sociological tradition into conceptual tools for analyzing IR. Thus, their studies went beyond the borders of the francophone world. This article reveals the main characteristics of IR studies in France and it aims to analyze their conceptual and methodological contribution into the general debates within the discipline.

Keywords

• France
• Sociology of International Relations
• Paris School of Security Studies
• French School of Geopolitics
• Global International Relations

References

1. Adler-Nissen, R. (2012) Introduction: Bourdieu and International Relations theory. In R. Adler-Nissen (Ed.), Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR (pp. 1-23). Abingdon: Routledge.
2. Badie, B. ve Smouts, M.-C. (1995). Le Retournement du monde: Sociologie de la scène internationale, Paris: Presse des Sciences Politiques & Dalloz.
3. Balzacq, T., Cornut, J. & Ramel, F. (2017). Global International Relations as Alternative to the American Mainstream: The Case of International Relations in France. Critique internationale, 74, (2), 69-93.
4. Battistella, D. (2012). Théories des relations internationales, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
5. Bigo, D. (1997). Polices en réseaux. Paris: Presses de Science Po.
6. Bigo, D. (1998a). L’Europe de la sécurité intérieure: penser autrement la sécurité. In A.-M. Le Gloannec (Ed.), Entre union et nations, L’Etat en Europe (pp. 55-90), Paris: Presses de Sciences-Po.
7. Bigo, D. (1998b). Sécurité et immigration: vers une gouvernementalité par l’inquiétude? Cultures et conflits, 31-32, Printemps-Eté, 1-19.
8. Bigo, D. (2000). When two become one: Internal and external securitisations in Europe. In M. Kelstrup & M. C. Williams (Eds.). International Relations and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security and Community (pp. 171-204). London: Routledge.

9. Bigo, D., Walker Rob, B. J. & chercheurs ELISE (2006). Liberté et Sécurité en Europe: enjeux contemporains. Cultures & Conflits, 61 (1), 103-136.
10. Bigo, D. (2008). International Political Sociology. In Paul D. Williams (Ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (pp. 116-129). London: Routledge.
11. Bigo, D. (2020). Adjusting a Bourdieusian Approach to the Study of Transnational Fields. Transversal Practices and State (Trans)Formations Related to Intelligence and Surveillance. In Christian Schmidt-Wellenburg & Stefan Bernhard (Eds.), Charting Transnational Fields. Methodology for a Political Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 55-78). London: Routledge.
12. Boniface, P. (2017). La Géopolitique. Paris: Eyrolles.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1989). La noblesse d’État. Grandes écoles et esprit de corps. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
14. Brauch, H. G. (2012). Güvenliğin yeniden kavramsallaştırılması: Barış, güvenlik, kalkınma ve çevre kavramsal dörtlüsü. M. Aydın, H. G. Brauch, N. Polat, M. Çelikpala, ve U. O. Spring (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkilerde çatışmadan güvenliğe seçme makaleler içinde (s. 167-197). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları. Breitenbauch, H. (2013) International Relations in France. Writing Between Discipline and State. Abingdon: Routledge.
15. Buzan, B. (2012). Askeri güvenliğin değişen gündemi. M. Aydın, H. G. Brauch, N. Polat, M. Çelikpala, ve U. O. Spring (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkilerde çatışmadan güvenliğe seçme makaleler içinde (s. 323-335). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
16. C.A.S.E. COLLECTIVE (2006). Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37 (4), 443-487.
17. Chillaud, M. (2014). IR in France: State and costs of a disciplinary variety. Review of International Studies, 40 (4), 803-824.
18. Constantin, F. (2002). Les relations internationales dans le champ scientifique français ou les pesanteurs d'une lourde hérédité. Revue internationale et stratégique, 47 (3), 90-99.
19. Cornut, J. & Battistella, D. (2013). Des RI françaises en émergence? Des internationalistes français dans le sondage TRIP 2011. Revue française de science politique, 63 (2), 303-336.
20. D’Aoust, A.-M., Grondin, D. & Macleod, A. (2007). Les études de sécurité. In Alex Macleod & Dan O’Meara (Eds.), Théories des Relations Internationales. Contestations et résistances (pp. 351-375). Outremont (QC): Athéna éditions.
21. Dedeoğlu, B. (2014). Uluslararası Güvenlik ve Strateji. İstanbul: Yeni Yüzyıl Yayınları.
22. Defay, A. (2005). Jeopolitik. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
23. De Montbrial, T. & Gomart, T. (2014). Think tanks à la française. Le Débat, 181 (4), 61-76.
24. Desforges, A., Loyer, B., Rocques, J., Boucher, J., Mathelin, J., Verluise, P. (2019, 19 Ekim). Vidéo. B. Loyer: Existe-t-il une méthode géopolitique? Diploweb.com: la revue géopolitique. Erişim adresi: https://www.diploweb.com/Video-B-Loyer-Existe-t-il-une-methode-geopolitique.html
25. Devin, G. (2002). Sociologie des relations internationales. Paris: La Découverte.
26. Devin, G. (2013). L’International comme dimension compréhensive dans l’enseignement de la science politique. In Thierry Balzacq & Frédéric Ramel (Eds.), Traité de relations internationales (pp. 1073-1080). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
27. Devin, G. (Ed.) (2015), Dix concepts sociologiques en relations internationales. Paris: CNRS Editions.
28. Devin, G. (2016). Méthodes de Recherche en Relations Internationales. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
29. Dodds, K. (2007). Geopolitics. A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Dogan, M., & Pahre, R. (1991). L’innovation dans les sciences sociales: la marginalité créatrice. Paris: PUF.
31. Encel, F. (2011). Comprendre la géopolitique. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Floyd, R. ve Croft, S. (2011). European Non-Traditional Security Theory: From Theory to Practice. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 3 (2), 152-179.
32. Friedrichs, J. (2001). International Relations Theory in France. Journal of International Relations and Development, 4, (2), 118-137.
33. Friedrichs, J. (2004). European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions, London: Routledge.
34. Gaïti, B. & Scot, M. (2017). Une science sans savants? Les paradoxes de l’émergence de la science politique entre 1945 et 1968. Revue française de science politique, 67 (1), 13-42.
35. Geuens, G. (2009). Les principaux think tanks français. Quaderni, 70, 79-88.
36. Gorski, P.S. (2013). Bourdieu and Historical Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
37. Groom, J. R. (2002). Les relations internationales en France: un regard d’outre-Manche. Revue internationales et stratégiques, 47 (3), 108-117.
38. Grosser, A. (1956). L'étude des relations internationales, spécialité américaine. Revue française de science politique, 6 (3), 634-651.
39. Harsgor, M. (1985). Idéologie et praxis dans la politique étrangère du Général de Gaulle. In Élie Barnavi (Ed.), La Politique étrangère du général de Gaulle (pp. 43-60). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
40. Jansen, S. (2017). Les Boîtes à idées de Marianne. État, expertise et relations internationales en France. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
41. Jansen, S. & Scot, M. (2019). Les relations internationales à Sciences Po: la naissance du CERI et l’essor d’un champ disciplinaire (1945-1968). Revue historique, 691 (3), 669-704.
42. Keohane, R. & Nye, J. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics: An introduction. International Organizations, 25 (3), 329-349.
43. Küçük, M. N. (2020). Göç-Güvenlik Bağlantısını Yeniden Düşünmek: Eleştirel Güvenlik Yaklaşımları, Özgürleşme ve Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Mülteciler. Uluslararası İlişkiler, Çevrimiçi Erken Yayım, 1-26.
44. Lacoste, Y. (1959). Les Pays sous-développés. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
45. Lacoste, Y. (1965). Géographie du sous-développement, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
46. Lacoste, Y. (1992). Dictionnaire de géopolitique. Paris: Flammarion.
47. Lacoste, Y. (1998). Vive les nations. Paris: Fayard.
48. Lacoste, Y. (2003). Dictionnaire de géographie. De la géopolitique au paysage. Paris: Armand Colin. Lacoste, Y. (2009). Géopolitique. La longue histoire d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Larousse.
49. Lacoste, Y. (2010). La question post-coloniale. Paris: Fayard.
50. Lacoste, Y. (2012). La géographie, ça sert, d’abord, à faire la guerre. Paris: La Découverte.
51. Laurens, H. (2013). Comment affronter le passé? La France et ses historiens face aux violences du premier XXe siècle. Le Débat, 174 (2), 171-186.
52. Lechervy, C. (2018). Les think tanks, des aides à l’action diplomatique de la France. Revue internationale et stratégique, 110 (2), 20-32.
53. Lequesne, C. (2017). Ethnographie du Quai d’Orsay. Les pratiques des diplomates français. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
54. Menard, E., Gobin, L. & Mihoubi, S. (2018, 4 Ekim). Entretien avec Yves Lacoste: Qu’est-ce que la géopolitique? Diploweb.com: la revue géopolitique, Erişim adresi: https://www.diploweb.com/Entretien-avec-Yves-Lacoste-Qu-est-ce-que-la-geopolitique.html
55. Nora, P. (2013). Présentation. Le Débat, 177 (5), 3-5.
56. Ragaru, N. (2002). L’état des relations internationales en France. Revue internationales et stratégiques, 47 (3), 77-81.
57. Roche, J.-J. (2002). L'enseignement des relations internationales en France: les aléas d'une ‘discipline- carrefour’. Revue internationale et stratégique, 47 (3), 100-107.
58. Saint-Geours, Y. (2016, 26 Ekim) Rapport sur les think tanks français: mission d’information et de recommandations, Ministère des Affaires étrangères (Fransa Avrupa ve Dışişleri Bakanlığı). Erişim adresi https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/le-ministere-et-son-reseau/le-centre-d-analyse-de-prevision-et-de-strategie/pour-aller-plus-loin/article/le-rapport-saint-geours
59. Schmidt-Wellenburg, C. & Bernhard S. (2020). Charting Transnational Fields. Methodology for a Political Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
60. Sevim, H. (2014). Pierre Bourdieu’nün Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramlarına Olası Katkıları. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 43 (11), 7-32.
61. Smouts, M.-C. (2002). Entretien. Les relations internationales en France: regard sur une discipline. Revue internationale et stratégique, 47 (3), 83-89.
62. Subra, P. (2012). La géopolitique, une ou plurielle? Place, enjeux et outils d'une géopolitique locale, Hérodote, 146-147 (3-4), 45-70.
63. Tickner, A. B. & Blaney, D. L. (2012). Thinking International Relations Differently. New York: Routledge. Wæver, O. (1998a) Insécurité, identité, une dialectique sans fin. In Anne-Marie Le Gloannec (Ed.), Entre Union et Nation. L’Etat en Europe (pp. 91-138). Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.
64. Wæver, O. (1998b). The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developpements in International Relations. International Organization, 52 (4), 687-727.
65. Wæver, O. (2004, Mart). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New ‘Schools’ in Security Theory and Their Origins Between Core and Periphery, International Studies Association 45. Yıl Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Montreal.