Year 2015, Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 21 - 48 2015-12-01

KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?
COSMOPOLITAN-COMMUNITARIAN DICHOTOMY: TOWARDS A THIRD WAY?

Nilüfer Karacasulu [1] , İrem Aşkar Karakır [2]

408 1081

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinindeki başlıca güncel çalışma alanlarından bir tanesi de farklı yaklaşımlar barındıran normatif kuramdır. İki tane başlıca yaklaşım vardır: 1980’lerdeki felsefi tartışmalara dayanan Kozmopolitan yaklaşım ve Toplulukçu yaklaşım. Üçüncü bir grup 1990’lı yılların başından beri bu ayrımı sorgulamaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, Kozmopolitan-Toplulukçu ikilem hakkındaki son otuz yıldır devam etmekte olan kuramsal literatürü eleştirel olarak incelemektir. Bu makalede, zor olduğu kabul edilmekle birlikte üçüncü bir yaklaşımın olabileceği iddia edilmektedir. Özellikle Kozmopolitan yaklaşımdaki ahlaksal ve siyasal olmak üzere ikili ayrıma odaklanılarak, üçüncü bir yaklaşımın olabilirliği ve bununla beraber evrensel ahlak olasılığı araştırılmaktadır
One of the current challenging study areas in International Relations discipline is normative theory which involves variety of approaches. There are two main groups: cosmopolitan and communitarian based on the philosophical concerns of the 1980s. A third group began to question this dichotomy since the 1990s. The aim of this article is to present a critical review of the theoretical literature about cosmopolitan-communitarian dichotomy over the past three decades. It is argued that though it is difficult there can be a middle ground. By particularly focusing on two of the dominant articulations of cosmopolitanism, that are moral and political cosmopolitan approaches, this article attempts to analyze the possibilities and limitations inherent in the search for ethical universalism through a third way
  • Beitz, C. R. (1975). Justice and International Relations. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4 (4), 360-389.
  • Beitz, C. R. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Beitz, C. R. (2000). Rawls’s Law of Peoples. Ethics, 110(4), 669-696.
  • Beitz, C. R. (2005). Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice. The Journal of Ethics, 9(1-2), 11-27.
  • Bray, D. (2009). Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: A Deweyan Approach to Democracy beyond the Nation-State. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(3), 683-719.
  • Bray, D. (2013). Pragmatic Ethics and the Will to Believe in Cosmopolitanism. International Theory, 5(3), 446-476.
  • Brock, G. and Brighouse, H. (Eds.) (2005). The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, C. (1992). International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. London: Harvester.
  • Brown, C. (2001). Ethics, Interest and Foreign policy. K. E. Smith and M. Light (Eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (pp. 15-32). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, C. (2010a). Practical Judgement in International Political Theory. New York: Routledge.
  • Brown, C. (2010b). International Political Theory Then and Now: The Fate of the Ethical Middle Ground? Paper presented in ECPR –SGIR 7th Pan‐European IR Conference, Stockholm, September 9‐11. Accessed net.org/bebruga/eisa/files/events/stockholm/ECPR%20Middle%20 Ground%20Ethics.pdf 2015, http://www.eisa
  • Buchanan, A. (2000). Rawls’s Law of Peoples: Rules for a Vanished Westphalian World. Ethics, 110(4), 697-721.
  • Bulley, D. (2004). Foreign policy as Ethics: Toward a Re-Evaluation of Values. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(2), 165-180.
  • Caney, S. (2005). Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chen, X. (2012). Introduction: the boundary of our nation can only be measured by the sun: cosmopolitanism and humanity. Journal of East-West Thought, 4(2), 1-8.
  • Cochran, M. (1999). Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cochran, M. (2001). A Pragmatist Perspective on Ethical Foreign Policy. K. E. Smith and M. Light (Eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (pp. 55- 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cochran, M. (2009). Charting the Ethics of the English School: What ‘Good’ is there in a Middle-ground ethics? International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 203-225.
  • Donaldson, T. (2002). Kant’s Global Rationalism. T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (Eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (pp. 136-157). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Dufek, P. (2013). Why strong moral cosmopolitanism requires a world- state. International Theory, 5(2), 177-212.
  • Ellis, A. (2002). Utilitarianism and International Ethics. T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (Eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (pp.158-179). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Erskine, T. (2001). Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: The Case of States and Quasi-States. Ethics and International Affairs, 15(2), 67-85.
  • Erskine, T. (2008). Locating Responsibility: The Problem of Moral Agency in International Relations. C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 699-707). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Fine, R. (2007). Cosmopolitanism. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Forde, S. (2002). Classical Realism. T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (Eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (pp. 62-84). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Frost, M. (1986). Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Frost, M. (1996). Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Frost, M. (1998). A turn not taken: Ethics in IR at the Millennium. Review of International Studies, 24(5), 119-132.
  • Frost, M. (2001). The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention: Protecting Civilians to
  • Make Democratic Citizenship Possible. K. E. Smith and M. Light (Eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (pp. 33-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Frost, M. (2009a). Ethical Competence in International Relations. Ethics and International Affairs, 23(2), 91-100.
  • Frost, M. (2009b). Global Ethics: Anarchy, Freedom and International Relations. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Griffiths M. and O’Callaghan, T. (2002). International Relations: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Hayden, P. (2009a). Cosmopolitan Past and Present. P. Hayden (Ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations (pp. 43-62). Surrey, Ashgate Publishing.
  • Hayden, P. (2009b). Ethics and International Relations. Surrey, Ashgate Publishing.
  • Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Held, D. (2005). Principles of Cosmopolitan Order. G. Brock and H. Brighouse (Eds.) The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (pp. 10-27) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Hollis M. and Smith, S. (2003). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Hurrell, A. (2002). Norms and Ethics in International Relations. W. Carlsnaes, B.A. Simmons and T. Risse (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (pp.147-154). London, Sage Publications.
  • Hutchings, K. (1999). International Political Theory: Re-thinking Ethics in a Global Era. London: Sage Publications.
  • Kleingeld, P. and Brown, E. (2013). Cosmopolitanism. E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed June, 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/cosmopolitanis m/.
  • Linklater, A. (1981). Men and Citizens in International Relations. Review of International Studies, 7(1), 23-37.
  • Linklater, A. (1995). Neo-realism in Theory and Practice. S. Smith and K. Booth (Eds.) International Relations Theory Today (pp. 241-262). Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
  • Nagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113-147.
  • Nardin, T. (2008). International Ethics. C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 594-612). New York, Oxford University Press.
  • Odysseos, L. (2002). Dangerous Ontologies: the Ethos of Survival and Ethical
  • Theorizing in International Relations. Review of International Studies, 28(2), 403- 418.
  • Pierik, R. and Werner, W. (Eds.) (2010). Cosmopolitanism in Context: Perspectives from International Law and Political Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Pogge, T. W. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48-75.
  • Pogge, T. W. (1994). An Egalitarian Law of Peoples. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 23(3), 195-224.
  • Pogge, T. (2012). Cosmopolitanism: a Path to Peace and Justice. Journal of East-West Thought, 4(2), 9-32.
  • Rawls, J. (1993). The Law of Peoples. Critical Inquiry, 20(1), 36-68.
  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Reus-Smit, C. (2009). On IR Cultures, Re-thinking IR and Bridging the Normative-Empirical Divide. Theory Talk, No. 27. Accessed, August, 27.html.
  • Shorten, A. (2007). Borders and Belonging: Recent Work in Cosmopolitan Philosophy. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(2), 227-238.
  • Smith, S. (1992). The Forty Years’ Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21(3), 489-506.
  • Smith, M. J. (2002). Liberalism and International Reform. T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (Eds.), Traditions of International Ethics (pp. 201- 224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed August, 2014, http://plato.standford.edu/entries/communitarianism.
  • Thompson, J. (2002). Justice and World Order: A Philosophical Inquiry. London: Routledge.
  • Walker, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walzer, M. (1977). Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.
  • Walzer, M. (1990). The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism. Political Theory, 18(1), 11-12.
  • Weber, E. T. (2013). On Pragmatism and International Relations. S. J. Ralston (Ed.), Philosophical Pragmatism and International Relations (pp. 25-41). Lanham MD, Lexington Books.
Other ID JA54JD29PJ
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Author: Nilüfer Karacasulu
Institution: DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ, ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER BÖLÜMÜ

Author: İrem Aşkar Karakır
Institution: DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ, ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER BÖLÜMÜ

Bibtex @ { ifede268158, journal = {Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {1303-0027}, address = {Dokuz Eylul University}, year = {2015}, volume = {16}, pages = {21 - 48}, doi = {10.24889/ifede.268158}, title = {KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?}, key = {cite}, author = {Karacasulu, Nilüfer and Karakır, İrem Aşkar} }
APA Karacasulu, N , Karakır, İ . (2015). KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 16 (2), 21-48. DOI: 10.24889/ifede.268158
MLA Karacasulu, N , Karakır, İ . "KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?". Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 16 (2015): 21-48 <http://dergipark.org.tr/ifede/issue/25411/268158>
Chicago Karacasulu, N , Karakır, İ . "KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?". Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 16 (2015): 21-48
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ? AU - Nilüfer Karacasulu , İrem Aşkar Karakır Y1 - 2015 PY - 2015 N1 - doi: 10.24889/ifede.268158 DO - 10.24889/ifede.268158 T2 - Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 21 EP - 48 VL - 16 IS - 2 SN - 1303-0027- M3 - doi: 10.24889/ifede.268158 UR - https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.268158 Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ? %A Nilüfer Karacasulu , İrem Aşkar Karakır %T KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ? %D 2015 %J Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi %P 1303-0027- %V 16 %N 2 %R doi: 10.24889/ifede.268158 %U 10.24889/ifede.268158
ISNAD Karacasulu, Nilüfer , Karakır, İrem Aşkar . "KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?". Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 16 / 2 (December 2015): 21-48. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.268158