Dünya Politikasında Ne, Kim ve Nerede? İki Farklı ‘Uluslararası’ Anlayışı

Year 2021, Volume: 18 Issue: 70, 103 - 120, 13.08.2021

Neslihan Dikmen-alsancak Mine Nur Küçük

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.985967

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) disiplininin dünyanın merkez dışı yerlerine olan yaklaşımındaki kısıtlar son
yıllarda tartışmaya açılmıştır. Bu makale, bu tartışmaya katkı sunan iki önemli yazın olan Üçüncü Dünya Uİ
ve postkolonyal Uİ perspektiflerine odaklanmaktadır. Makale, bu iki yaklaşımın ‘uluslararasını’ anlamada
farklarının olup olmadığını sorgulamaktadır. Makaleye göre bu analizin önemi ‘uluslararası’ anlayışlarının Uİ’nin
kısıtlarını ve merkez dışının dünya politikasındaki yerini anlamadaki rolünden kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu amaçla
makale, ‘uluslararası’ anlayışlarını oluşturan üç temel soru olan dünya politikasında ne, kim ve nerede sorularına
cevap arar. Makale bu iki yazın arasındaki benzerliklere ve farklılıklara işaret ederken bu bulguların disiplinde
merkez dışını ve dünya politikasını çalışmaya olan etkilerini tartışarak sonuçlanmaktadır.

Keywords

Üçüncü Dünya; Küresel Güney; Merkez Dışı; Uluslararası, Eleştirel Uİ Yaklaşımları

The What, Who and Where of World Politics? Two Different Conceptions of ‘the International’

Abstract

Limitations pertaining to the discipline of International Relations (IR) in its approach to the non-core parts
of the world have been debated over the last several decades. This paper looks at the contributions of two
significant bodies of scholarship, namely Third World IR and postcolonial IR, to this conversation and questions
whether there have been any differences regarding how ‘the international’ is understood in these two bodies of
scholarship. Such an analysis is significant, argues the paper, because their conceptions of ‘the international’
inform how the limitations of IR and the place of the non-core in world politics can be understood. To this end,
the paper looks at questions that constitute conceptions of ‘the international,’ namely, the what, who, and where
of world politics. We conclude by enumerating the commonalities and differences between these two bodies of
scholarship and discussing the implications of our findings for studying non-core and world politics.

Keywords

Third World, Global South, Non-Core; International, Critical IR Approaches

References

• Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2007). “Why is There no Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 287-312.
• Acharya, Amitav (2014). “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 647-659.
• Agathangelou, Anna M. and L. H. M. Ling (1997). “Postcolonial Dissidence within Dissident IR: Transforming Master Narratives of Sovereignty in Greco-Turkish Cyprus”, Studies in Political Economy, Vol. 54, No. 1, p. 17-38.
• Agathangelou, Anna M. and L. H. M. Ling (2004). “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism”, International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 21-49.
• Ayoob, Muhammed (1995). The Third World Security Predicament: State-Making, Regional Conflict and International System. Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
• Ayoob, Muhammed (1998). “Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World”, Stephanie G. Neuman (ed.), International Relations and the Third World. Basingstoke, Macmillan, p. 31-54.
• Ayoob, Muhammed (2002). “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism”, International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 27-48.
• Barkawi, Tarak (2004). “Connection and Constitution: Locating War and Culture in Globalization Studies”, Globalizations, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 155-170.
• Battaglia, Michael P. (2008). “Purposive Sample”, Paul J. Lavrakas (ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
• Bilgin, Pinar et al. (1998). “Security Studies: The Next Stage?”, Naçao Defesa, Vol. 84, No. 2, p. 131-157.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2004). Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective. London, Routledge.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2008). “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 5-23.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2010). “Looking for ‘the International’ Beyond the West”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 817-828.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2014). “Critical Investigations into the International”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 1098-1114.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2016). The International in Security, Security in the International. London, Routledge.
• Booth, Ken (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, William (2006). “Africa and International Relations: A Comment on IR Theory, Anarchy and Statehood”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 122.
• Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Chen, Boyu et al. (2009). “Lust/Caution in IR: Democratizing World Politics with Culture as a Method”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 37, No. 3, p. 743-766.
• Chowdhry, Geeta and Sheila Nair (2002). “Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World: Race, Gender, and Class in International Relations”, Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class. London, Routledge, p. 1-32.
• Clapham, Christopher (1996). Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Çapan, Zeynep Gülşah (2016). Re-Writing International Relations: History and Theory beyond Eurocentrism in Turkey. London, Rowman and Littlefield.
• Goldgeier, James M. and Michael McFaul (1992). “A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the Post-Cold War Era”, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2, p. 469-491.
• Grovogui, Siba N. (2006). Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. London, Palgrave MacMillan.
• Grovogui, Siba N. (2010). “Postcolonialism”, Tim Dunne et al. (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 238-256.
• Gruffydd Jones, Branwen (ed.) (2006). Decolonizing International Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Harkavy, Robert E. and Stephanie G. Neuman (2001). Warfare and the Third World. New York, Palgrave.
• Hobson, John M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, John M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Hobson, John M. and Alina Sajed (2017). “Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-Western Agency”, International Studies Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 547-572.
• Jabri, Vivienne (2013). The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in Late Modernity. London, Routledge.
• Krishna, Sankaran (1993). “The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 385–417.
• Küçük, Mine Nur (2018). “Conceptions of ‘the International’ beyond the Core: Turkey in the post-Cold War Era”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 571-592.
• Ling, L. H. M. (2002). Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ling, L. H. M. (2002). “Cultural Chauvinism and The Liberal International Order: ‘West versus Rest’ in Asia’s Financial Crisis”, Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class. London, Routledge, p. 115-141.
• Ling, L. H. M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations. London, Routledge.
• Nayak, Meghana and Eric Selbin (2010). Decentering International Relations. New York, Zed Books.
• Neuman, Stephanie G. (1986). Military Assistance in Recent Wars. The Washington Papers/122, New York, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University.
• Neuman, Stephanie G. (ed.) (1998). International Relations and the Third World. Basingstoke, Macmillan.
• Neuman, Stephanie G. (1998). “International Relations Theory and the Third World: An Oxymoron?”, Stephanie G. Neuman (ed.), International Relations and the Third World. Basingstoke, Macmillan, p. 1-30.
• Nkiwane, Tandeka C. (2001) “Africa and International Relations: Regional Lessons for a Global Discourse”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 279-290.
• Paolini, Albert J. (1999). Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity, and International Relations. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Puchala, Donald J. (1998) “Third World Thinking and Contemporary International Relations”, Stephanie G. Neuman (ed.), International Relations and the Third World. Basingstoke, Macmillan, p. 133-158.
• Rosenau, James N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
• Rosenau, James N. (1997). Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Rutazibwa, Olivia U. and Robbie Shilliam (2018). “Postcolonial Politics: An Introduction”, Olivia Rutazibwa and Robbie Shilliam (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Postcolonial Politics. Oxon, Routledge, p.1-15.
• Sabaratnam, Meera (2020). “Postcolonial and Decolonial Approaches”, John Baylis et al. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p.160-175.
• Shilliam, Robbie (ed.) (2011). International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. London, Routledge.
• Smith, Karen and Arlene B. Tickner (2020). “Introduction: International relations from the Global South”, Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith (eds.), International Relations from the Global South: Worlds of Difference. Abingdon, Routledge, p. 1-14.
• Sorensen, Georg (1998). “States are not Like Units: Types of State and Forms of Anarchy in the Present International System”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 79-98.
• Thomas, Caroline (1987). In Search for Security: The Third World in International Relations. Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
• Thomas, Caroline (1989). “Conclusion: Southern Instability, Security and Western Concepts- On an Unhappy Marriage and the Need for a Divorce”, Caroline Thomas and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu (eds.), The State and Instability in the South. New York, St. Martin’s Press, p. 174-191
• Thomas, Caroline (1997). “Globalization and the South”, Caroline Thomas and Peter Wilkin (eds.), Globalization and the South. London, Macmillan Press, p. 1-17.
• Thomas, Caroline and Peter Wilkin (2004). “Still Waiting After All These Years, ‘The Third World’ on the Periphery of International Relations,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 241-258.
• Tickner, Arlene B. (2003). “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 295-324.
• Tickner, Arlene B. and David L. Blaney (eds.) (2012). Thinking International Relations Differently. London, Routledge.
• Tickner, Arlene B. and David L. Blaney (eds.) (2013). Claiming the International, London, Routledge.
• Waever, Ole and Arlene B. Tickner (2009). “Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies”, Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Waever (eds.), International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London, Routledge, p.1-31.
• Walker, R. B. J. (2010). After the Globe, Before the World. Abingdon, Routledge.