Türkiye as a Cusp State: Conceptualization and Implementation

Abstract

This article revisits the concept of the “Cusp State” with a specific focus on Türkiye, aiming to deepen both its theoretical and empirical relevance. It begins by re-examining the definitional foundations of the concept, which refers to states situated at the intersection of regional and global dynamics, exhibiting hybrid characteristics and adaptive foreign policy behaviors. The article argues that the Cusp State framework offers a valuable lens for analyzing Türkiye’s foreign policy, particularly due to its blend of ideational and material factors and its geostrategic positioning. The analysis explores how Türkiye navigates its cuspness by employing region-building strategies, enhancing connectivity, and repositioning itself within global hierarchies. The article also investigates the limitations and contradictions inherent in these strategies, including domestic-international linkages, geopolitical constraints, and normative tensions. In doing so, it demonstrates that Türkiye's trajectory exemplifies the dynamic nature of cuspness—not merely as a structural condition but as a set of evolving practices shaped by agency and context. Ultimately, the article contributes to the literature by refining the Cusp State concept and offering empirical insights into Türkiye’s foreign policy conduct in a rapidly shifting international environment.

Keywords

• Türkiye’s Foreign Policy
• Cusp State
• Regionalism
• Balancing
• Connectivity

References

1. Acharya, A., Estevadeordal, A., & Goodman, L. W. (2023). Multipolar or multiplex? Interaction capacity, global cooperation and world order. International Affairs, 99(6), 2339–2365. https://doi. org/10.1093/ia/iiad242
2. Albarracín, J. (2011). The role of Türkiye in the new Middle Eastern economic architecture. IEMed Yearbook. https://www.iemed.org/wp content/uploads/2021/02/The-Role-of- Türkiye-in-the-New- Middle-Eastern-Economic-Architecture.pdf
3. Akdevelioğlu, A. & Kürkçüoğlu, Ö. (2011). Relations with the Middle East. In Oran, B. (Ed.). (2011). Turkish foreign policy 1919–2006: Facts and analyses with documents (M. Akşin, Trans.). Utah: University of Utah Press.
4. Altunışık, M. B. (2014). Geopolitical representation of Türkiye’s cuspness. In M. Herzog & P. Robins (Eds.), The role, position and agency of cusp states in international relations (pp. 25–41). UK: Routledge.
5. Altunışık, M. B. (2023). The trajectory of a modified middle power: An attempt to make sense of Türkiye’s foreign policy in its centennial. Turkish Studies, 24(3–4), 658–672.
6. Altunışık, M. B. (2024). Türkiye’s “return” to Central Asia in a shifting global and regional context: New opportunities and limitations. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 26(5), 716–731.
7. Aydın, M. (2024). Türkiye’s Black Sea policies (1991–2023) and changing regional security since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In K. Kakachia, S. Malerius, & S. Meister (Eds.), Security dynamics in the Black Sea region: Geopolitical shifts and regional orders. UK: Springer.
8. Aydın-Düzgit, S., Kutlay, M., & Keyman, E. F. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics. https:// doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00638-w

9. Balta, E., & Özdal, H. (2023). One hundred years of Turkish–Russian relations: From balancing act to flexible alignment. In B. Özkeçeci-Taner & S. Akgül-Açıkmeşe (Eds.), One hundred years of Turkish foreign policy (1923–2023) (pp. 75–97). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Barlas, D., & Yılmaz, S. (2022). Rethinking strategic alignment: The great powers’ wedging and Türkiye’s balancing strategy. Turkish Studies, 23(3), 430–449.
11. Brown, C. L. (1984). International politics and the Middle East: Old rules, dangerous games.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. Chan, S. (2014). Taiwan as a cusp state: Contrasting its people’s democratic beliefs with those of the Chinese and Americans. In M. Herzog & P. Robins (Eds.), The role, position and agency of cusp states in international relations (pp. 168–183). UK: Routledge.
13. Cooper, A. F. (Ed.). (1997). Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Cooper, A. F., & Schulz, C. A. (2023). How secondary states can take advantage of networks in world politics: The case of bridges and hubs. Globalizations, 20(7), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14747731.2023.2190701
15. Dal, E. P. (2019). Status-seeking policies of middle powers in status clubs: The case of Türkiye in the G20. Contemporary Politics, 25(5), 586–602.
16. Deringil, S. (2004). Turkish foreign policy during the Second World War: An “active” neutrality. UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Eliküçük Yıldırım, N. (2020). Rigid boundaries between Türkiye and China: Is political mobility possible? Turkish Studies, 22(1), 28–48.
18. Ergenc, C., & Göçer, D. (2023). China’s response to Türkiye’s volatile authoritarianism, May 5. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/05/ chinas-response-to-turkiyes-volatile- authoritarianism
19. Erşen, E., & Çelikpala, M. (2019). Türkiye and the changing energy geopolitics of Eurasia. Energy Policy, 128, 584–592.
20. Göçer, D., & Altunışık, M. (2025). Beyond borders: Rethinking Türkiye–Iraq connectivity in a shifting region (Policy Brief No. 20). Qatar University. https://www.qu.edu.qa/en- us/research/gulfstudiescenter/ documents/policy%20brief%20revised%202025.pdf
21. Herzog, M., & Robins, P. (Eds.). (2014). The role, position and agency of cusp states in international relations. UK: Routledge.
22. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
23. Hürriyet. (2007). French interior minister Sarkozy: Türkiye is not a European country, March 1. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/french-interior-minister-sarkozy-Türkiye-is-not-aeuropeancountry- 6039793
24. Jordaan, E. (2006). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 33(1), 165–181.
25. Jung, D. (2005). Türkiye and the Arab world: Historical narratives and new political realities. Mediterranean Politics, 10(1), 1–17.
26. Kahveci, H., & Kuşçu Bonnenfant, I. (2023). Turkish foreign policy towards Central Asia: An unfolding of regionalism and soft power. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 12(2), 195–218. 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.
27. Köstem, S. (2022). Managed regional rivalry between Russia and Türkiye after the annexation of Crimea. Europe-Asia Studies, 74(9), 1657–1675. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2022.2134308
28. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye. (2025a). Synopsis of the Turkish foreign policy. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/synopsis-of-the-turkish-foreign-policy.en.mfa
29. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye. (2025b). Resolution of conflicts and mediation. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/resolution-of-conflicts-and-mediation.en.mfa
30. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye. (2025c). Türkiye’s priorities for the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly. https://www.mfa.gov.tr
31. Öniş, Z., & Kutlay, M. (2016). The dynamics of emerging middle-power influence in regional and global governance: The paradoxical case of Türkiye. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71(2), 164–183.
32. Oran, B. (Ed.). (2011). 1960–1980: Relative autonomy-3. In Turkish foreign policy, 1919–2006: Facts and analyses with documents (pp. 391–519). Utah: University of Utah Press.
33. Rumelili, B. (2003). Liminality and the perpetuation of conflicts: Turkish–Greek relations in the context of community-building. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 437–454. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354066103009002003 Rumelili, B. (2007). Constructing regional community and order in Europe and Southeast Asia. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Teo, S. (2021). Toward a differentiation-based framework for middle power behavior. International Theory, 14(1), 1–24.
35. Üngör, Ç. (2024). A bridge no more? Türkiye’s geopolitical significance in the twenty-first century. Survival, 66(4), 85–90.
36. Yanık, L. K. (2009). The metamorphosis of metaphors of vision: “Bridging” Türkiye’s location, role and identity after the end of the Cold War. Geopolitics, 14(3), 532–549.