Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Neoklasik Realizmin “Dış Politikayı” Açıklama Gücü

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 231 - 239, 22.02.2021
https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.819231

Öz

Dış politika kavramı uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin odak noktalarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Kavram çoğu zaman devletlerin dış politikalarına indirgenmiştir. Küreselleşme ile uluslararası sistemde aktör çeşitliliği ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu sebepten dış politika kavramı da farklı bir boyutta ele alınmaya başlanmıştır. Neoklasik realizm dış politika kavramını açıklama iddiasında olan bir meta teori olarak görülmektedir. Teori dış politika açıklamasını çok boyutlu biçimde ele almaktadır. Dış politika kurucu bir unsur olarak, pek çok faktörün bir araya gelmesiyle oluşan bir süreç çıktısı olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada neoklasik realizmin teorik zemininin dış politikayı açıklama gücü tartışılmaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Alessandri, E. (2008). “Reviving Liberalism. A New Course for US Foreign Policy”. The International Spectator, 43 (2), 119-121.
  • Ashley, R.K. (1986). “The Poverty of Neorealism”. Robert Keohane (Ed). Neorealism and Its Critics (ss. 225-286) içinde. New York: Columbia University Pres.
  • Ashley, R.K. (1987). “Foreign Policy as Political Performance”. International Studies Notes, 3 (2), 51-54.
  • Campbell, D. (1992). Writing Security United States Foreign Policy and the Politics on Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Pres.
  • Checkel, J. T. (2008). “Constructivism and Foreign Policy”. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield ve Tim Dunne (Ed). Foreign Policy: Theory, Actors and Cases. (ss. 71- 82) içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Çuhadar, E. (2012). “Dış Politikada Karar Birimleri Açısından Karar Alma Süreçleri ve Türkiye Örneği”. Ertan Efegil ve Rıdvan Kalaycı (Ed). Dış Politika Teorileri Bağlamında Türk Dış Politikasının Analizi. (ss. 289-315) içinde. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Dahl, R. (1957). “The Concept of Power”. Behavioral Scince 2 (3): 201-215.
  • Ereker, F. (2013). “Dış Politikayı Analiz Etmek: Dış Politika Analizinde Yapan-Yapı Sorunu”. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 9 (36), 45-71.
  • Holsti, K. J. (1983). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis. N.j: Prentice Hall.
  • Hudson, V. (2005). “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Spesific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1), 1-30.
  • İnat, K. Balcı, A. (2007). “Dış Politika: Teorik Perspektifler”. Zeynep Dağı (Ed.), Uluslararası Politikayı Anlamak: Ulus-Devletten Küreselleşmeye (ss. 210-241) içinde. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
  • Lobell, S. E. (2009). “The Assesment, the State and Foreign Policy: A Neoclassical Realist Model”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 42-74) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994). “The False Promise of International Instutions”. International Security. 19 (3), 5-49.
  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (2013). “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power”. Scott P. Handler (Ed). International Politics Classic and Contemporary Readings. (ss. 51-62) içinde. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Sage Publications.
  • McGowan, P.J. (1973). “Introduction”. Patrick J. McGowan and Shapiro B. Howard (Ed). The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: A Survey of Scientific Finding. Sage Library of Social Research, Vol.4. Beverely Hills: Sage: Publications.
  • Modelski, G. (1962). A Theory of Foreign Policy. Londra: Pall Mall Pres.
  • Rose, G. (1998). “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”. World Politics. 52 (1), 144-172.
  • Rosenau, J. (1966). “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy”. Farell. R.B. (Ed.), Appraoches to Comparative and International Politics. (ss. 27-92) içinde. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
  • Rosenau, J. (1976). “The Study of Foreign Policy”. James Rosenau, Kenneth W. Thompson and Gavin Boyd (Ed.), World Politics: An Introduction. (ss. 14-28) içinde. New York: The Free Pres.
  • Ripsman, N. M. (2009). “Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest Groups”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 170-193) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ripsman, N. M. Taliaferro, J. W. and Lobell, S. E. (2016). “Neoclassical Realist Theory and the Limits of Structural Realism”. Norrin M. Ripsman, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro and Steven E. Lobell (Ed). Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. (ss. 16-32) içinde. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schweller, R. (2004). “Unanswered Threats: ANeoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing”. International Security, 29 (20), 159-201.
  • Suctch, P. F and Ellias, J. (2007). International Relations: The Basics, New Yorke: Routledge Press.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). “Security Seeking under Amarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”. International Security. 25 (3), 128-161.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). “Neoclasical Realism and Resource Extraction: State Building fot Future War”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 194-226) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. Lobell, S. E. and Ripsman, N. M. (2009). “Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 1-40) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2004). Modern Dünya Sistemi. 1. Cilt. (Çev.: Latif Boyacı). İstanbul: Bakış Yayınları.
  • Waltz, K. N. (1986). “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics”. Robert Keohane (Ed). Neorealism and Its Critics (ss. 322-345) içinde. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Waltz, K. N. (1990). “Realist Though and Neorealist Theory”. Journal of International Affairs, (44), 21-37.
  • Webber, M and Smith, M. (2002). “Problem Issuesin Foreign Policy Analysis”. Mark Webber and Michael Schimdt (Ed). Foreign Policy in A Transformed World (ss. 9-29) içinde. London: Printice Hall.
  • Wolhforth, W. C. (1993). The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions during the Cold War. New Yorke: Cornell University Press,

The Power of Neoclassical Realism to Explain “Foreign Policy”

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 231 - 239, 22.02.2021
https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.819231

Öz

The concept of foreign policy is one of the focal points of international relations theories. This notion is most of the time reduced to the foreign policies of states. The diversity of actors has shown up in the international system along with globalization. For this reason, the concept of foreign policy has started to be dealt with in a different dimension. Neoclassical realism is seen as a meta-theory that claims to explain the concept of foreign policy. The theory tackles foreign policy explanation in multidimensional form. Foreign policy has pertained as a constituent piece, a process output formed by a combination of many factors. This article discusses the power of the theoretical ground of neoclassical realism to explain foreign policy.

Kaynakça

  • Alessandri, E. (2008). “Reviving Liberalism. A New Course for US Foreign Policy”. The International Spectator, 43 (2), 119-121.
  • Ashley, R.K. (1986). “The Poverty of Neorealism”. Robert Keohane (Ed). Neorealism and Its Critics (ss. 225-286) içinde. New York: Columbia University Pres.
  • Ashley, R.K. (1987). “Foreign Policy as Political Performance”. International Studies Notes, 3 (2), 51-54.
  • Campbell, D. (1992). Writing Security United States Foreign Policy and the Politics on Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Pres.
  • Checkel, J. T. (2008). “Constructivism and Foreign Policy”. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield ve Tim Dunne (Ed). Foreign Policy: Theory, Actors and Cases. (ss. 71- 82) içinde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Çuhadar, E. (2012). “Dış Politikada Karar Birimleri Açısından Karar Alma Süreçleri ve Türkiye Örneği”. Ertan Efegil ve Rıdvan Kalaycı (Ed). Dış Politika Teorileri Bağlamında Türk Dış Politikasının Analizi. (ss. 289-315) içinde. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Dahl, R. (1957). “The Concept of Power”. Behavioral Scince 2 (3): 201-215.
  • Ereker, F. (2013). “Dış Politikayı Analiz Etmek: Dış Politika Analizinde Yapan-Yapı Sorunu”. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 9 (36), 45-71.
  • Holsti, K. J. (1983). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis. N.j: Prentice Hall.
  • Hudson, V. (2005). “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Spesific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1), 1-30.
  • İnat, K. Balcı, A. (2007). “Dış Politika: Teorik Perspektifler”. Zeynep Dağı (Ed.), Uluslararası Politikayı Anlamak: Ulus-Devletten Küreselleşmeye (ss. 210-241) içinde. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
  • Lobell, S. E. (2009). “The Assesment, the State and Foreign Policy: A Neoclassical Realist Model”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 42-74) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994). “The False Promise of International Instutions”. International Security. 19 (3), 5-49.
  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (2013). “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power”. Scott P. Handler (Ed). International Politics Classic and Contemporary Readings. (ss. 51-62) içinde. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC. Sage Publications.
  • McGowan, P.J. (1973). “Introduction”. Patrick J. McGowan and Shapiro B. Howard (Ed). The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: A Survey of Scientific Finding. Sage Library of Social Research, Vol.4. Beverely Hills: Sage: Publications.
  • Modelski, G. (1962). A Theory of Foreign Policy. Londra: Pall Mall Pres.
  • Rose, G. (1998). “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”. World Politics. 52 (1), 144-172.
  • Rosenau, J. (1966). “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy”. Farell. R.B. (Ed.), Appraoches to Comparative and International Politics. (ss. 27-92) içinde. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
  • Rosenau, J. (1976). “The Study of Foreign Policy”. James Rosenau, Kenneth W. Thompson and Gavin Boyd (Ed.), World Politics: An Introduction. (ss. 14-28) içinde. New York: The Free Pres.
  • Ripsman, N. M. (2009). “Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest Groups”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 170-193) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ripsman, N. M. Taliaferro, J. W. and Lobell, S. E. (2016). “Neoclassical Realist Theory and the Limits of Structural Realism”. Norrin M. Ripsman, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro and Steven E. Lobell (Ed). Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. (ss. 16-32) içinde. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schweller, R. (2004). “Unanswered Threats: ANeoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing”. International Security, 29 (20), 159-201.
  • Suctch, P. F and Ellias, J. (2007). International Relations: The Basics, New Yorke: Routledge Press.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). “Security Seeking under Amarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”. International Security. 25 (3), 128-161.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). “Neoclasical Realism and Resource Extraction: State Building fot Future War”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 194-226) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taliaferro, J. W. Lobell, S. E. and Ripsman, N. M. (2009). “Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy”. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman (Ed). Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy. (ss. 1-40) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wallerstein, I. (2004). Modern Dünya Sistemi. 1. Cilt. (Çev.: Latif Boyacı). İstanbul: Bakış Yayınları.
  • Waltz, K. N. (1986). “Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics”. Robert Keohane (Ed). Neorealism and Its Critics (ss. 322-345) içinde. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Waltz, K. N. (1990). “Realist Though and Neorealist Theory”. Journal of International Affairs, (44), 21-37.
  • Webber, M and Smith, M. (2002). “Problem Issuesin Foreign Policy Analysis”. Mark Webber and Michael Schimdt (Ed). Foreign Policy in A Transformed World (ss. 9-29) içinde. London: Printice Hall.
  • Wolhforth, W. C. (1993). The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions during the Cold War. New Yorke: Cornell University Press,
Toplam 31 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Burak Çakırca 0000-0002-6035-7162

Yayımlanma Tarihi 22 Şubat 2021
Kabul Tarihi 11 Ocak 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Çakırca, B. (2021). Neoklasik Realizmin “Dış Politikayı” Açıklama Gücü. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.819231

Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.