Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı Bağlamında Türk Birliği’nin İmkânları

Öz

Bu makale, Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’nın (TDT/OTS) 2009 sonrası gelişimini, Avrupa Birliği merkezli doğrusal entegrasyon anlatılarının ötesine geçen, genellenebilir bir nedensel mekanizma çerçevesinde açıklamaktadır: işlevsel–inşacı bölgeselleşme. Bu modele göre, ulaşım bağlantıları, ticaretin kolaylaştırılması, enerji entegrasyonları, dijital kamu altyapısı, eğitim ağları ve afet koordinasyon düzenlemeleri gibi “düşük siyaset” alanlarında geliştirilen çıktılar, işlem maliyetlerini azaltmakta ve öngörülebilirliği artırmaktadır. Bu da üye ülkeler arasındaki etkileşim yoğunluğunu artırmaktadır. Yoğunlaşan bu etkileşim, zamanla metinler, programlar ve bağlı kurumlar aracılığıyla kimlik ve normların kurumsallaşmasını kolaylaştırmaktadır. Bu durum, hükümetler arası karar alma kuralları geçerliliğini korurken dahi, yeni işlevsel girişimlerin benimsenmesinin siyasi maliyetini düşürmektedir. Böylece entegrasyon, dışa taşma (spillover) dinamiklerini ortak kimlik (“biz duygusu”) ile ilişkilendiren tekil bir geri besleme döngüsü aracılığıyla ilerlemektedir. Çalışmada “Türk Birliği”, egemenlik devrini öngörmeyen; derin bir işlevsel ekonomik alanı, yetki devredilmiş uygulama kapasitesini, kurumsallaşmış ortak normları ve barışçıl değişim beklentisine dayanan güvenlik topluluğu niteliğini bir araya getiren, antlaşmaya dayalı hükümetlerarası–konfederal bir düzen olarak operasyonel biçimde tanımlanmaktadır. Çalışma, TDT’yi tipik bir vaka olarak ele almakta ve zirve bildirileri, vizyon belgeleri, kurumsal yapı tercihleri, proje çıktıları ve belirli bağlantısallık göstergeleri üzerinden belge analizi ile vaka içi süreç izleme yöntemini kullanmaktadır. Kanıtlar hiyerarşik olarak değerlendirilmiş; resmî metinler ve bağlayıcı belgeler birincil işaret, medya haberleri ve ekonomik projeksiyonlar ise yalnızca bağlamsal gösterge olarak ele alınmıştır. Analiz kapsamında üç ara mekanizma belirlenmiştir: (1) artan işlem ve bağlantı yoğunluğu, (2) kurumsallaşmış kimlik ve normlar, (3) genişleyen koordinasyon kapasitesi. Elde edilen bulgular, TDT’nin modüler, aşamalı ve seçici derinleşmeyi tercih edilen bir entegrasyon modeli olarak benimsediğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu model, işlevsel entegrasyonu güçlendirmekte ve egemenlik hassasiyetlerini yönetilebilir kılmaktadır. Ayrıca makale, söz konusu yaklaşımın ASEAN, Körfez İşbirliği Konseyi (GCC) ve Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği (EAEU) gibi Avrupa Birliği dışındaki bölgesel yapılarda hangi koşullar altında uygulanabilir olduğunu da açıklığa kavuşturarak, uluslararası örgütler ve uluslararası siyasi ekonomi literatürüne katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT)
• Türk Birliği
• işlevsel–inşacılık
• bölgeselleşme
• süreç izleme
• bağlantısallık
• kimlik ve normlar

THE ORGANIZATION OF TURKIC STATES AND THE PROSPECTS FOR A TURKIC UNION: A FUNCTIONAL–CONSTRUCTIVIST ANALYSIS

Öz

This article explains the Organization of Turkic States (OTS/TDT)’s post-2009 trajectory through a generalizable causal mechanism that moves beyond EU-centered, linear integration narratives: functional–constructivist regionalism. The model argues that low-politics deliverables—transport connectivity, trade facilitation, energy interconnections, digital public infrastructure, education networks, and disaster-coordination arrangements—reduce transaction costs and increase predictability, thereby raising the density of cross-member interaction. Intensified interaction, in turn, facilitates the institutionalization of identity and norms through texts, programs, and affiliated bodies, which lowers the political costs of adopting further functional initiatives even under intergovernmental decision rules. Integration thus proceeds via a reinforcing cycle that links spillover dynamics to shared identity (“we-feeling”) within a single feedback loop. The outcome of interest, a “Turkic Union,” is defined operationally as a treaty-based, intergovernmental–confederal order that combines a deep functional economic area, delegated implementation capacity, institutionalized shared norms, and security-community-level expectations of peaceful change, without supranational transfer of sovereignty. Treating the OTS as a typical case, the study uses document analysis and within-case process tracing across summit declarations, vision documents, institutional design choices, project-level outputs, and selected connectivity indicators. Evidence is weighted hierarchically: official texts and binding instruments serve as primary traces, whereas media reports and economic projections are treated only as contextual signals. The analysis specifies three intermediary mechanisms: (1) rising transaction/connectivity density, (2) institutionalized identity and norms, and (3) expanded coordination capacity. Findings suggest that modular, staged, and selective deepening has become a preferred design choice in the OTS, enabling functional integration while managing sovereignty sensitivities. The article also clarifies scope conditions under which this framework is likely to travel to EU-external regionalisms such as ASEAN, the GCC, and the EAEU, thereby contributing to the literatures on international organizations and international political economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organization of Turkic States (OTS)
• Turkic Union
• functional–constructivism
• regionalism
• process tracing
• connectivity
• identity and norms

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024
2. Acharya, A. (2016). Regionalism beyond EU-centrism. In T. A. Börzel & T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism (pp. 109–130). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682300.001.0001
3. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
4. Adler, E., & Barnett, M. (Eds.). (1998). Security communities. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598661
5. Akçay, N. (2022, November 23). Do Turkic Republics Organization make China and Russia anxious? The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2022/11/does-the-organization-of-turkic-states-worry-china-and-russia/
6. Akıllı, E. (2019). TURKSOY, Turkic Council and cultural diplomacy: Transactionalism revisited. Bilig, (91), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.9101
7. Akın, C. (2025a). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’nın Türk Birliği’ne dönüşme potansiyeli üzerine bir değerlendirme [An evaluation of the potential of the Organization of Turkic States to transform into a Turkic Union]. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(3), 73–103. https://doi.org/10.25272/icps.1812835
8. Akın, C. (2025b). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’nın Türk Birliği’ne dönüşme imkânı [The possibility of the Organization of Turkic States transforming into a Turkic Union]. TESAM Yayınları.

9. Akın, C. (2026a). A new integration approach in the context of the OTS: Functional-constructivism. Reforma, (103), 1–15.
10. Akın, C. (2026b). TDT üyelerinin iş birliklerinde işlevsel-inşacı işbirliği modeli: Budapeşte Gayriresmî Zirvesi bağlamında bir değerlendirme [Functional-constructivist cooperation model in the collaborations of OTS members: An assessment in the context of the Budapest Informal Summit]. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 8(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21022166
11. Akıncı, H. (2021). “The geopolitics of the Turkic world and its place in Turkish foreign policy,” Kriter Magazine, https://kriterdergi.com/dosya-turk-dunyasi/turk-dunyasinin-jeopolitigi-ve-turk-dis-politikasindaki-yeri (Access Date: 15.03.2024).
12. Anadolu Ajansı. (2020, August 22). Ukrayna, Türk Konseyinde gözlemci ülke olmak istiyor. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/ukrayna-turk-konseyinde-gozlemci-ulke-olmak-istiyor/1950345 (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
13. Anadolu Ajansı. (2024, September 11). “The Turkic World Common Alphabet Commission reached consensus on the proposed Common Turkic Alphabet consisting of 34 letters,” https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/turk-dunyasi-ortak-alfabe-komisyonu-34-harften-olusacak-ortak-turk-alfabesi-onerisi-uzerinde-uzlasti/3009485 (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
14. Astana Times, The. (2022, August 10). Kazakhstan and Türkiye expand cooperation in military intelligence information sharing. https://astanatimes.com/2022/08/kazakhstan-and-turkiye-expand-cooperation-in-military-intelligence-information-sharing/ (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
15. Avcu, S. A. (2025). Evaluation of the Organization of the Turkic States in the light of integration theories. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1645742
16. Aydın, E. M., & Liu, Y. (2024). Organization of Turkic States: Diverse motivations for a common aim. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 33(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2024.33.1363769
17. Aydilek, E. (2022). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatının siyasi ve ekonomik potansiyeli [The political and economic potential of the Organization of Turkic States]. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 5(3), 716–728.
18. Ayhan, B. (2025). “The International Turkic States University became operational through cooperation between Türkiye and Uzbekistan,” Anadolu Ajansı, https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gundem/turkiye-ile-ozbekistan-isbirliginde-uluslararasi-turk-devletleri-universitesi-faaliyete-gecti/3180458 (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
19. Azernews. (2024, November 30). OTS announces simplified customs corridor for Turkic nations. https://www.azernews.az/nation/234556.html (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
20. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://press.umich.edu/Books/P/Process-Tracing-Methods
21. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
22. Boyraz, H. M. (2023). Organization of Turkic States: Its history, structure, opportunities, and limitations. In H. M. Boyraz & F. Cicioğlu (Eds.), International organizations: History, theory, and cases (pp. 307–328). Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları.
23. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682300.001.0001
24. Büyüktanır, D. (2015). Toplumsal inşacı yaklaşım ve Avrupa bütünleşmesinin açıklanmasına katkıları. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 14(2), 1–24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296683083
25. Coldoşev, A. (2019). Kimlik ve sınır: Türkistan’da sınır sorunları [Identity and border: Border problems in Turkestan]. Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 19(2), 303–326.
26. Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021). Art. 10.
27. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (1995). Art. 7.
28. Coşkun, G. (2023). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’nın sosyal inşacı teori çerçevesinde analizi [Analysis of the Organization of Turkic States within the framework of social constructivist theory] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
29. Çınar, Y., & Uzun, Y. U. (2023). Köklü geçmişten güçlü geleceğe Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı: Küresel ekonomik-siyasal potansiyeli ve teşkilatın geleceğine dair öngörüler [From a deep-rooted past to a strong future: The Organization of Turkic States—its global economic-political potential and projections about its future]. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(Özel Sayı), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1296831
30. Daily Sabah. (2025, December 7). Turkic Investment Fund announces launch of operational activities. https://www.dailysabah.com/business/economy/turkic-investment-fund-announces-launch-of-operational-activities (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
31. Demir, C. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States: Implications for the regional balance of power. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, (39), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1104776
32. Demircan, N. (2022). Turks in the changing world order: The Organization of Turkic States. The Defence Horizon Journal. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-81345-8 (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
33. Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S. A., Kann, R. A., Lee, M., Jr., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R. E., Loewenheim, F. L., & Van Wagenen, R. W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area: International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton University Press.
34. Dosbolov, A., & Sönmez, G. (2023). The Organization of Turkic States and postcolonialism in Central Asia: Possible contributions, prospects, and limitations. Insight Turkey, 25(4), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2023254.7
35. Emeklier, B., Taner, T., & Kubilay, Ç. Y. (2022). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı: Bütünleşme sürecine nereden başlamalı ve ne yapmalı? [Organization of Turkic States: Where should the integration process start and what should be done?]. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi (TDT Özel Sayısı), 73–107. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1112874
36. Ercan, M., & Altındağ, N. (2023). Constructivism theory in the discipline of international relations: A review on the European Union and Türkiye. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 152–161.
37. Ertem, A. V. (2023). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı üzerine mütalaalar [Opinions on the Organization of Turkic States]. Göçebe Dergisi, (18), 79–82.
38. Findley, C. V. (2005). The Turks in world history. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-turks-in-world-history-9780195177268
39. Golden, P. B. (1992). An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples: Ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East (Turcologica 9). Otto Harrassowitz. https://www.academia.edu/12545004
40. Gök, M. (2024). Türk Devletler Teşkilatı Bünyesinde Yürütülen Türk Dünyasının Entegrasyon Sürecinin Ernest B. Haas’ın Spill-over Yaklaşımı Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Strateji Dergisi, 6(2), 63-77.
41. Gündoğdu, S. (2023). Türkiye’nin Jeopolitik Açılımı: Bir Uluslararası Örgüt Olarak Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(3), 266-279.
42. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.
43. Heywood, A. (2014a). Politics (B. B. Özipek et al., Trans.; 3rd ed.). Adres Yayınları. (Original work published 1997). Heywood, A. (2014b). Political theory: An introduction (H. M. Köse, Trans.; 6th ed.). Küre Yayınları.
44. İhlas Haber Ajansı. (2025, October 19). AK Party Deputy Chair Zorlu: Intra-trade among Turkic states is at the level of 70 billion dollars as of 2024. https://www.iha.com.tr/ankara-haberleri/ak-parti-genel-baskan-yardimcisi-zorlu-turk-devletlerinin-kendi-aralarindaki-ticareti-2024-yili-itibariyla-70-milyar-dolar-seviyesindedir-309998633 (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
45. İlbaş, M. (2023). Türk birliği yolunda Türk dünyası enerji işbirliği [Energy cooperation of the Turkic world on the road to Turkic unity]. Demokrasi Platformu, 12(38), 43–51.
46. İstikbal, D. (2022). “The economic future of the Turkic World: Vision 2040,” Kriter Magazine, https://kriterdergi.com/dosya-turk-devletleri-teskilati/turk-dunyasinin-ekonomik-gelecegi-2040-vizyonu (Access Date: 10.03.2024).
47. Janes. (2021, October 25). Kyrgyzstan to acquire Bayraktar TB2 UAVs from Turkey. https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/kyrgyzstan-to-acquire-bayraktar-tb2-uavs-from-turkey (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
48. Kaplan, M., Yuvacı, A., & Amanov, S. (2015). One nation, many voices? External cohesion of the Turkic Council states in the United Nations General Assembly, 1993–2011. Bilig, (74), 125–149.
49. Kocatepe, Ö. F. (2020). Neoklasik realist çerçevede politik ve askerî iş birliğinin incelenmesi: Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı [Examining political and military cooperation within a neoclassical realist framework: The Organization of Turkic States] (Doctoral dissertation). Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.
50. Kocatepe, Ö. F. (2022). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı: Politik ve askerî iş birliği [Organization of Turkic States: Political and military cooperation]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
51. Koçak, M. (2023). Potential of Organization of Turkic States in the international system: Promises and vulnerabilities. Insight Turkey, 25(4), 115–137. https://www.insightturkey.com/file/1625/potential-of-organization-of-turkic-states-in-the-international-system-promises-and-vulnerabilities
52. Köstem, S. (2017). When can idea entrepreneurs influence foreign policy? Explaining the rise of the “Turkic World” in Turkish foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(3), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw016
53. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1993.tb00477.x
54. Musabay Baki, P. (2022). Turkic World Vision-2040: A step forward for the resilience of Turkic cooperation. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 26–52.
55. Mustofaev, M. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States: A new approach to global and regional challenges. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 105–120.
56. Niemann, A., & Schmitter, P. C. (2009). Neofunctionalism. In A. Wiener & T. Diez (Eds.), European integration theory (2nd ed., pp. 45–66). Oxford University Press.
57. Nordic Monitor. (2023, February). Turkey to ratify a military agreement with Hungary that includes intelligence sharing. https://nordicmonitor.com/2023/02/turkey-to-ratify-a-military-agreement-with-hungary-including-intelligence-sharing/ (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
58. Organization of Turkic States. (2021a). Turkic World Vision 2040. https://turkicstates.org/u/d/news/5-ek--turk-dunyasi-2040-vizyonu.pdf (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
59. Organization of Turkic States. (2021b). Declaration of the Eighth Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (Istanbul, 12 November 2021). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/eighth-summit-declaration-15-en.pdf (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
60. Organization of Turkic States. (2022). Samarkand Declaration of the Ninth Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (11 November 2022). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/ninth-summit-declarataion-16-en.pdf (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
61. Organization of Turkic States. (2025a). Budapest Declaration of the Informal Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (21 May 2025). https://turkicstates.org/u/f/budapest-declaration.pdf (Access Date: 01.10.2026).
62. Organization of Turkic States. (2025b). Gabala Declaration of the Twelfth Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (7 October 2025). https://turkicstates.org/u/gabala-declaration-.pdf (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
63. Organization of Turkic States. (n.d.-a). Economic cooperation. https://turkicstates.org/en/areas-of-cooperation-detail/2-economic-cooperation (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
64. Organization of Turkic States. (n.d.-b). Key documents [Including the Charter of the Turkic World, 2024]. https://turkicstates.org/en/key-documents-section (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
65. Overt Defense. (2021, October 26). Kyrgyzstan purchases Bayraktar TB2 UAVs from Turkey. https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/10/26/kyrgyzstan-purchases-bayraktar-tb2-uavs-from-turkey/ (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
66. Overt Defense. (2023, November 1). Kyrgyzstan receives first Bayraktar Akıncı & TAI Aksungur unmanned aerial vehicles. https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/11/01/kyrgyzstan-receives-first-bayraktar-akinci-tai-aksungur-unmanned-aerial-vehicles/ (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
67. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2025, February 7). Ankara Declaration on the outcomes of the Second Trilateral Meeting of Türkiye, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-azerbaycan-ve-ozbekistan-ikinci-uclu-toplantisi-nin-sonuclari-hakkinda-ankara-bildirisi.tr.mfa (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
68. Rosamond, B. (2005). The uniting of Europe and the foundation of EU studies: Revisiting the neofunctionalism of Ernst B. Haas. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500043928
69. Salihi, E., & Mehmetcik, H. (2025). Institutionalization of relationship and voting cohesion: A case study of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) at the UN General Assembly. Bilig, (112), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.7668
70. Sarı, B. (2022). Anarşik uluslararası sistem içinde Türk dünyası güvenlik topluluğu [The Turkic world security community within the anarchic international system] (Rapor No. 02). Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Uluslararası Türk-Kazak Üniversitesi.
71. Sarı, B. (2023). Security aspect of the integration in Turkic world under the Organization of Turkic States. Insight Turkey, 25(4), 139–161. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/security-aspect-of-the-integration-in-turkic-world-under-the-organization-of-turkic-states
72. Schmitter, P. C. (1970). A revised theory of regional integration. International Organization, 24(4), 836–868. https://cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/revised-theory-of-regional-integration/C5912FF0A1B0846DC34AF42304A4548D
73. Schmitter, P. C. (2005). Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500043951
74. SpecialEurasia. (2025, March 31). Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan’s leaders signed a historical agreement in Khujand. https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/03/31/khujand-declaration-central-asia/ (Access Date: 01.10.2026).
75. Tavukcu, S. (2026). Yükselen Özbekistan–Türkiye ilişkileri. SDE (Sosyal, Ekonomik ve Siyasi Araştırmalar Vakfı). https://www.sde.org.tr/sinan-tavukcu/genel/yukselen-ozbekistan-turkiye-iliskileri-kose-yazisi-62725 (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
76. TRT Haber. (2023). Zengezur Koridoru: Ermenistan ya da İran üzerinden açılacak [Zangezur Corridor: To be opened via Armenia or Iran]. https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/zengezur-koridoru-ermenistan-ya-da-iran-uzerinden-acilacak-799331.html (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
77. Turan. (2022, May 10). Turkey and Kazakhstan have signed a number of cooperation agreements. https://www.turan.az/ext/news/2022/5/free/politics_news/en/4717.htm (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
78. Turkic Investment Fund. (n.d.). About us. https://turkicfund.org/about-us/ (Access Date: 30.09.2026). TURKPA. (2025). Gabala hosted the 12th Summit of the Organization of Turkic States. https://turkpa.org/news/1855-gabala-hosted-the-12th-summit-of-the-organization-of-turkic-states (Access Date: 30.09.2026).
79. Usta, B. (2024, April 6). Strong diplomacy, strong Türkiye! Structural transformation in foreign affairs. Sabah. https://www.sabah.com.tr/gundem/2024/04/06/guclu-diplomasi-guclu-turkiye-hariciyede-yapisal-donusum (Access Date: 21.10.2025).
80. Ünver, R. D. (2023). The analysis of the Organization of Turkic States from a neofunctionalist perspective (Master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/104744
81. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
82. Yüce, M. (2022, 1 Kasım). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatına üye ülkeler arasında ikili ilişkilere bakış. Kriter Dergi. https://kriterdergi.com/dosya-turk-devletleri-teskilati/turk-devletleri-teskilatina-uye-ulkeler-arasinda-ikili-iliskilere-bakis