Bir dış politika analizi olarak neoklasik realizmin incelenmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 4, 665 - 686, 01.10.2020

Sami Kiraz

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.703693

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde yaşanan kuramsal çeşitlenme neticesinde realist gelenek içerisinde başlayan eleştiri ve sorgulamalara bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan neoklasik realizmin temel argümanları, amaçları ve kullanılma alanları sorgulanmıştır. Disiplinin en baskın kuramı olan yapısal (neo) realizmin özünde bir uluslararası politika kuramı olması ve temel belirleyiciliği uluslararası sistemin yapısına vermesi, devletlerin münferit dış politikalarının yarattığı etkilerin incelenmesinde eksikliklere neden olmuştur. Esasen bir dış politika analizi yaklaşımı olan neoklasik realizm de bu eksikliğin giderilmesi amacıyla uluslararası sistemin baskısı ile yerel dinamiklerin belirleyiciliğini birleştirerek dış politika davranışlarının anlaşılması için kuramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Makalede, neoklasik realizmin diğer realist kuramlardan nasıl ayrıldığı, kurguladığı dış politika analizi modelinin bileşenleri olan bağımsız, bağımlı ve ara değişkenler üzerinden incelenmiş ve nihayetinde neoklasik realizme yönelik eleştiriler yeni çalışmalar üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak da özellikle değişen uluslararası politika koşullarının çözümlenmesi noktasında realist bakış açısından devletlerin dış politikalarının analiz edilmesinin alana sağladığı katkı açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

Neoklasik Realizm, Dış Politika Analizi, Ara Değişkenler

Evaluation of neoclasiccal realism as a foreign policy analysis approach

Abstract

In this study, the main arguments, aims and application areas of neoclassical realism which emerged as a result of the criticism and questioning within the realist tradition due to the theoretical diversification experienced after the Cold War in the discipline of international relations are questioned. The fact that the dominant theory of the discipline, structural (neo) realism, indeed is an international policy theory and that it gives the fundamental determinants to the structure of the international system has caused deficiencies in examining the effects of individual foreign policies of the states. Neoclassical realism, which is essentially a foreign policy analysis approach, provides a theoretical framework for understanding foreign policy behaviors by combining the determinism of local dynamics with the pressure of the international system in order to overcome this deficiency. In the article, how neoclassical realism differs from other realist theories is examined through independent, dependent and intervening variables which are the components of the foreign policy analysis model it has constructed, and ultimately criticisms of neoclassical realism are discussed through new studies. And finally, the contribution the analysis of the foreign policies of the states from the realist point of view has made especially to the analysis of the changing international policy conditions has been tried to be explained.

Keywords

Neoclassical Realism, Foreign Policy Analysis, Intervening Variables

References

• Arı, T. (1996). Uluslararası ilişkiler ve dış politika. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
• Brown, M. E., Lynn-Jones S. M. & Miller, S. E. (Eds.) (1996). Debating the democratic peace. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Carr, E. H. (1939). The Twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of international relations. London: Macmillian.
• Christensen, T. J. (1996). Useful adversaries: grand strategy, domestic mobilization, and Sino-American conflict, 1947-1958. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Christensen, T. J. (1997). Perceptions and alliances in Europe, 1860-1940. International Organization. 51(1), 65-97.
• Çetin, H. (2011). Siyasal iktidar ve meşruiyet. H. Çetin (Editör). Siyaset Bilimi. Ankara: Orion Kitabevi.
• Çıtak, E. (2014). Uluslararası ilişkilerde gerçekçilik. M. Şahin ve O. Şen (Eds.) Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri Temel Kavramlar. Ankara: Kripto, 29-63.
• Demir, A. F. (2007). Dış politikada lider ve Türkiye. A. F. Demir (Editör). Türk Dış Politikasında Liderler. Ankara: Bağlam Yayınları, 11-24.
• Doyle, M. W. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3), 205-235.
• Dunne, T. Cox, M. & Booth, K. (1998). The Eighty years’ crisis: international relations 1919-1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Evangelista, M. (1997). Domestic structures and international change. M. Doyle and G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.). New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Evans, P., Jacobson, H. & Putnam, R. (Eds.) (1993). Double-Edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics, Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hagan, J. D. (1998). Domestic political systems and war proneness. L. Neack, J. A. K. Hey & P. J. Haney (Eds.). Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 117-144. Hermann, M. G. & Hagan, J. D. (2008). International decision making: leadership matters. Foreign Policy. 110, 14-137. Hobbes, T. (2016). Leviathan. S. Lin (Çeviren). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kahler, M. (1997). Inventing international relations: international relations theory after 1945. M. Doyle ve G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Kaplan, M. A. (1957). System and process in international politics. New York: John Viley.
• Keohane, R. (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Lapid, Y. (1989). The Third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254.
• Lebow, R. N. (1994). The Long peace, the end of the cold war, and the failure of realism. International Organisations. 48(2), 249-277.
• Legro, J. W. ve Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is anybody still a realist?. International Security. 24(2), 5-55.
• Levy, J. S. (1988). Domestic politics and war. R. Rotberg ve T. K. Rabb (Eds.). The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lobell, S. E. (2009). The Assesment, the state, and foreign policy: a neoclassical realist model. S. E. Lobell., N. M. Ripsman & J. W. Taliaferro. Jeffrey W. (Eds.). Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42-74.
• Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.) (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Machiavelli, N. (1992). The Prince (Reprint edition). N. H. Thompson (Çev.). London: Dover Publications.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513-553.
• Moravcsik, A. (2003). Liberal international relations theory: a scientific assessment. C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.). Progress in International Relations Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. 159-204.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1985). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace (6th Edition), New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Özyılmaz Kiraz, B. (2019). Klasik realizm bakış açısından savaş ve barış. E. Çıtak ve S. Kiraz (Eds.). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramlarında Savaş ve Barış. Ankara: Orion, 2019, 81-100.
• Rathbun, B. (2008). A Rose by any other name: neoclassical realism as the logical and necessary extension of structural realism. Security Studies. 17(2), 294-321.
• Ripsman, N. M. (2009). Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups. S. E. Lobell., N. M. Ripsman & J. W. Taliaferro. Jeffrey W. (Eds.). Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 170-193.
• Ripsman, N. M., Taliaferro, J. W. & Lobell, S. E. (2016). Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
• Rosecrance, R. & Stein, A. A. (Eds.) (1993). The Domestic bases of grand strategy. New York: Cornell University Press.
• Schweller, R. L. (1998). Deadly imbalances: tripolarity and Hitlers strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Skidmore, D ve Hudson, V. M. (Eds.). (1993). The Limits of State Autonomy: Societal Groups and Foreign Policy Formulation. Boulder: Westview.
• Smith, S. (1995). The Self-images of a discipline: a genealogy of international relations theory. K. Booth ve S. Smith (Eds.). International Relations Theory Today (3rd Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press, 1-37.
• Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited. International Security. 25(3), 128-161.
• Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). Neoclassical realism and resource extraction: state building for future war. S. E. Lobell., N. M. Ripsman & J. W. Taliaferro. Jeffrey W. (Eds.). Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 194-226.
• Thucydides (1972). The History of the Peloponnesian war (Revised edition). M. I. Finley (Ed.). R. Warner (Çev.). London: Penguin Classics.
• Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state and war a theoritical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Wohlforth, W. C. (1993). The elusive balance: power and perceptions during the Cold War. New York: Cornell University Press.
• Zakaria, F. (1995). Realism and domestic politics a review essay. M. E. Brown, S. M. Lynn-Jones ve S. E. Miller (Eds.). Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. Cambridge: MIT Press, 462-483.
• Zakaria, F. (1998). From wealth to power: the unusual origins of americas world role. Princeton: Princeton University Press.