Devlet Egemenliği ve Diplomaside Yaşanan Değişim: Paradiplomasi (Ulus-Altı Diplomasi) Üzerine Bir Analiz / Change in State Sovereignty and Diplomacy: An Analysis on Paradiplomacy (Subnational Diplomacy)

Abstract

Devlet egemenliği ve diplomasi, modern uluslararası siyasal sistemin birbiriyle yakından ilişkili iki önemli yapı taşı görünümündedir. Modern uluslararası siyasal sistemde, egemenliklerini karşılıklı olarak kabul eden temel aktör konumundaki devletlerin yetkili temsilcileri aracılığıyla yürütülen diplomasi yoluyla resmi temaslar kurdukları varsayımı hâkimdir. Bu çalışmada, uluslararası siyasette Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde beliren yeni eğilimlerin etkisiyle dönüşen, devlet egemenliği ve diplomasi arasındaki etkileşim ele alınmaktadır. Söz konusu etkileşim ulus-altı aktörlerin diplomasiye eklemlenmesi anlamına gelen paradiplomasi ve diplomasi pratiği içinde yer alan kişilerle yapılan saha çalışmasından elde edilen verilerden hareketle nitel yöntemle analiz edilmektedir. Çalışmada ilk olarak devlet egemenliği kavramı ve tarihsel dönüşümü üzerinde durulmaktadır. İkinci olarak diplomasinin dönüşümü ve özellikle bu dönüşüm sürecinde paradiplomasinin diplomasinin görmezden gelinemez bir parçası haline gelmesi süreci incelenmektedir. Çalışmada üçüncü olarak devlet egemenliği ve diplomaside yaşanan dönüşümlerin karşılıklı ürettikleri sonuçlar paradiplomasi örneğinden hareketle sunulmaktadır. Çalışma diplomasi ve devlet egemenlik etkileşiminin güncel ve gelecekteki görünümüne dair değerlendirmeler ile sona ermektedir.

Keywords

• Devlet Egemenliği
• Diplomasi
• Paradiplomasi
• Dış Politika
• Uluslararası ilişkiler

Change in State Sovereignty and Diplomacy: An Analysis on Paradiplomacy (Subnational Diplomacy) / Devlet Egemenliği ve Diplomaside Yaşanan Değişim: Paradiplomasi (Ulus-Altı Diplomasi) Üzerine Bir Analiz

Abstract

State sovereignty and diplomacy constitutes the two closely-related building blocks of the modern international political system. In the modern international political system, it is assumed that the states, which are the main actors mutually accepting each other’s sovereignty, establish official contacts through diplomacy carried out through their authorized representatives. In this study, the interaction between state sovereignty and diplomacy, which has been transformed by the effect of new trends that emerged in the post-Cold War period in international politics, is examined. Such interaction is analysed through paradiplomacy, which means the integration of subnational actors to diplomacy, and the qualitative data obtained from interviews with people involved in the practice of diplomacy. The study first focuses on the concept of state sovereignty and its historical transformation. Secondly, the transformation of diplomacy and especially paradiplomacy’s becoming an undeniable part of diplomacy in this transformation process are examined. Thirdly, the mutually produced results of the transformations in state sovereignty and diplomacy are presented in case of paradiplomacy. At the end of the study, an evaluation is made about the current and future view of the interaction of diplomacy and state sovereignty.

Keywords

• State Sovereignty
• Diplomacy
• Paradiplomacy
• Foreign Policy
• International Relation

References

1. Abdurahmanlı, E. (2021). Definition of Diplomacy and Types of Diplomacy Used Between States. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 580-603.
2. Aguirre, I. (1999). Making Sense of Paradiplomacy? An Intertextual Enquiry About a Concept in Search of a Definition. Regional and Federal Studies, 9(1), 185-209.
3. Ağaoğulları, M. A. (2006). Ulus-Devlet ya da Halkın Egemenliği. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayıncılık.
4. Bakan, Z. A. (2002). Soğuk Savaş Sonrasında Devlet Egemenliğinin Sınırlarına Normatif Bir Bakış. Avrasya Dosyası, 8(3), 140-153
5. Bartelson, J. (1995). A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
6. Berg, E. and Kuusk, E. (2010). What Makes Sovereignty a Relative Concept? Empirical Approaches to International Society. Political Geography, 29, 40-49.
7. Berridge, G.R. (2015). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. 5th Edition. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Bodin, J. (2003). On Sovereignty. 6th Edition. (Çev. J. H. Franklin). Cambridge University Press.

9. Brown, D., E. Fry, and Groen, J. (1993). States and Provinces in the International Economy. Berkley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
10. Chan, D. K. (2016). City Diplomacy and Local Governance: Revitalizing Cosmopolitan Democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 29(2), 134-160.
11. Chatterjee, C. (2007). International Law and Diplomacy. Londra: Routledge Press.
12. Chatterjee, C. (2007). International Law and Diplomacy. Londra: Routledge.
13. Chatterji, R. and Saha, S. (2017). Para-diplomacy: Concept and the Context. India Quarterly, 73(4), 375-394.
14. Cornago, N. (2010). On The Normalization of Sub-State Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5, 11-36.
15. Cornago, N. (2012). Diplomacy within States? State Fragmentation, Agonistic Respect and Diplomatic Culture. ECPR Antwerp Joint Research Sessions.
16. Cornago, N. (2018). Paradiplomacy and Protodiplomacy. G. Martel (Der.), Encyclopedia of Diplomacy (s. 1-8). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.
17. Dickson, F. (2014). The Internationalisation of Regions: Paradiplomacy or Multi‐level Governance?. Geography Compass, 8(10), 689-700.
18. Dittgen, H. (1999). World without Borders? Reflections on the Future of the Nation‐State. Government and Opposition, 34(2), 161-179.
19. Doğan, M. (2023). The Westphalian System of the Modern International Relations: Violation of Sovereignty, Ignoration of Indigenous Rights, and Extension of Medieval Practices in the Case of Mosul Occupation. Alternatif Politika, 15(2), 368-384.
20. Erdoğan, S. (2020). Dönüşen Diplomasinin Yeni Yüzü: Paradiplomasi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 24(3), 495-509.
21. Fosson, G. (2007). The Evolution of Westphalian Sovereignty. Journal of International Relations, 9, 31-41.
22. Frens-String, J. (2007). Particular Fragmentation in the Age of a New Globalization: An Opportunity for Deepened Democracy. International Relations, 9, 1-10.
23. Görüşme 1, Emekli Diplomat, 25 Mayıs 2023 tarihinde online görüşme yapıldı.
24. Görüşme 3, Görevde Diplomat, 11 Haziran 2023 tarihinde online görüşme yapıldı.
25. Görüşme 5, Diplomasi Araştırmacısı, 6 Temmuz 2023 tarihinde Ankara’da yüz yüze görüşüldü.
26. Görüşme 8, Görevde Diplomat, 27 Temmuz 2023 tarihinde Ankara’da yüz yüze görüşüldü.
27. Grimm, D. (2019). Post-Sovereignty. Bas Leijssenaar and Neil Walker (Der.). Sovereignty in Action (s. 17-30) Cambridge University Press.
28. Hamilton, K. and Langhorne, R. (2011). The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory, and Administration. New York: Taylor & Francis.
29. Henrikson, A. K. (2014). Sovereignty, Diplomacy and Democracy: The Changing Character of “International Representation” -From State to Self. Comparative Politics Russia, 5(2), 15-16.
30. Jackson, J. H. (2003). Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept. The American Journal of International Law, 97(4), 782-802.
31. Jha, P. C. (2014). Federalism, Regionalism and States’ Paradiplomacy in India. Federalism in India. L. Lobo ve J. Shah (Der.), Towards a Fresh Balance of Power, Rawat Publication (s. 1-27), Jaipur: Rawat Publication.
32. Kennan, G. F. (1997). Diplomacy without Diplomats?. Foreign Affairs, 76(5), 198-212.
33. Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
34. Krischer, A. J. and Thiessen, H. V. (2019). Diplomacy in a Global Early Modernity: The Ambiguity of Sovereignty. The International History Review, 41(5), 1100-1107.
35. Kuznetsov, A. S. (2015). Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy: Subnational Governments in International Affairs, New York: Routledge.
36. Lecours, A. (2008). Political Issues of Paradiplomacy: Lessons from The Developed World. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations' Clingendael'.
37. Lee, D. (2021). Defining the Rights of Sovereignty?. American Journal of International Law, 115, 322-327.
38. Leguey-Feilleux, J. R. (2009). The Dynamics of Diplomacy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
39. McConnell, F., Moreau, T., and Dittmer, J. (2012). Mimicking State Diplomacy: The Legitimizing Strategies of Unofficial Diplomacies, Geoforum, 43, 804-814.
40. Mingus, M. S. (2006). Transnationalism and Subnational Paradiplomacy: Are Governance Networks Perforating Sovereignty?. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(8), 577-594.
41. Mohammed, H. K. and Owtram, F. (2014). Paradiplomacy of Regional Governments in International Relations: The Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan Regional Government (2003 – 2010). Iran and the Caucasus, 18, 65-84.
42. Morgenthau, H. J. (1978), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
43. Nijman, J. (2004). Leibniz’s Theory of Relative Sovereignty and International Legal Personality: Justice and Stability or the Last Great Defence of the Holy Roman Empire. International Law and Justice Working Papers, 2.
44. Perrez, F. X. (2000). Sovereignty as Independence: Cooperative Sovereignty from Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law. Kluwer Law International, 13-67.
45. Phillpott, D. (1999). Westphalia, Authority and International Society. R. J. Jackson, (Der.), Sovereignty at the Millennium (s. 144-167), Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
46. Piirimäe, P. (2010). The Westphalian Myth and The Idea of External Sovereignty. H. Kalmo ve Q. Skinner (Der.), Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept (s. 64-80), Cambridge University Press.
47. Pinos, J. C. and Sacramento, J. (2022). Sabotaging Paradiplomacy: A Typological Analysis of Counter-paradiplomacy. Ethnopolitics, Access Address: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ epdf/10.1080/17449057.2022.2137290?needAccess=true
48. Rayanova, K. (2021). The Foreign Policy Role of the State (between "Aging" and "Restoring" Sovereignty). Proceedings of University of Ruse, 60, 20-24.
49. Roth, B. R. (2004). The Enduring Significance of State Sovereignty. Florida Law Review, 56(5), 1017-1050.
50. Satow, E. M. (1979). Diplomacy/Diplomat–Derivation of the Concepts. E, Plischke (Der.), Modern Diplomacy: The Art and the Artisans (s. 24-26), Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
51. Schrijver, N. (1999). The Changing Nature of State Sovereignty. British Yearbook of International Law, 70 (1), 65-98.
52. Spies, Y. K. (2006). Whither Professional Diplomacy?. Politeia, 25(3), 287-309.
53. Spruyt. H. (1994). The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
54. Srivastava, S. (2022). Hybrid Sovereignty in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
55. Stankiewicz, W. (2010). A Rigid View of Sovereignty in International Diplomacy. Polish Political Science, 39, 273-291.
56. Şeyşane, V. (2020). Diplomasinin Dönüşümü: Yeni Kavramlar, Yeni Aktörler ve Yeni Kulvarlar. O. Bingöl ve S. Şekercioğlu (Der.), Diplomaside Değişim: Kuramlar, Kavramlar ve Uygulamalar (s. 295-332), Ankara: Barış Kitap.
57. Tătar, R. G. and Moiși, A. (2022). The Concept of Sovereignty. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 24, 292-303.
58. Thomson, J. E. (1995). State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Empirical Research. International Studies Quarter, 39, 213-233.
59. Weisbrode, K. (2014). Old Diplomacy Revisited: A Study in the Modern History of Diplomatic Transformations. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan.
60. Wright. Q. (1963). The Decline of Classic Diplomacy. Journal of International Affairs, 17(1), 18-28.
61. Yaylı, H. ve Gönültaş, Y.C. (2018). Uluslararasılaşan Yerel Yönetimler: Yerel Dış Politika (Paradiplomasi) Kavramına Teorik Bir Bakış. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 271-288.
62. Zadeh, Y. A. and Kirmanj, S. (2017). The Para-Diplomacy of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq and the Kurdish Statehood Enterprise. Middle East Journal, 71(4), 587-606.