Development of the Concept of Civilian Control from 17th Century Till Today

Öz

This article aims to introduce a conceptual framework concerning the development of civilian control. Civilian control, a concept of modern liberal state, denotes a particular circumstance under which military’s authority is constrained in favor of civilians, both holding military accountable to the civilian authorities and enhancing civilians’ decisive role in public decision making bodies. The origin of civilian control can be traced back to the 17th century’s Social Contract theorists. The concept of civilian control, which began to be used in the 19th century, developed as a concept with its political, economical and social aspects. Civilian control began to be handled within the framework of a descriptive and normative method in the second half of 20th century. In this period, the professionalisation approach, which aimed to transform military into an apolitical apparatus, dominated civilian control literature. Since the late 20th century, an approach has emerged that has intended to provide civilian control by non-state actors beside public bodies and by management techniques. In this context, this article endeavors to demonstrate that the concept of civilian control has developed as a multidimensional concept and that the practice of civilian control has been moved beyond the boundaries of state apparatus since the late 20th century.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Civilian control
• military
• Military Keynesianism
• Concordance Approach
• Agency Approach

Sivil Kontrol Kavramının 17'nci Yüzyıldan Günümüze Gelişimi

Öz

Bu makale, sivil kontrolün gelişimine ilişkin bir kavramsal çerçeve ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Modern liberal devletin bir kavramı olan sivil kontrol, ordunun otoritesinin siviller lehine sınırlandığı, ordunun sivillere karşı sorumlu olduğu ve kamusal karar alma mekanizmalarında sivillerin belirleyici rolünün güçlendirildiği belirli bir durumu ifade etmektedir. Sivil kontrolün kökeni 17’nci yüzyıl Toplumsal Sözleşme kuramcılarının tartışmalarına kadar geri götürülebilir. 19’uncu yüzyıldan itibaren kullanılmaya başlayan sivil kontrol kavramı, siyasal, ekonomik ve toplumsal yönleri olan bir kavram olarak gelişmiştir. Sivil kontrol, 20’nci yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren betimleyici ve kural koyucu bir yöntem çerçevesinde ele alınmaya başlamıştır. 20’nci yüzyılın ikinci yarısında, sivil kontrol alanyazınına, orduyu apolitik bir aygıta dönüştürmeyi amaçlayan profesyonelleşme yaklaşımı hâkim olmuştur. 20’nci yüzyılın sonundan itibaren ise, sivil kontrolün kamusal mekanizmalar yanında devlet dışı aktörler tarafından ve işletmecilik teknikleriyle sağlanmasına yönelik bir yaklaşım ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu kapsamda, makale, sivil kontrol kavramının çok boyutlu olarak gelişim gösterdiğini ve sivil kontrol pratiğinin 20’nci yüzyılın sonundan itibaren devlet aygıtının sınırlarının dışına taşındığını göstermeye çalışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sivil kontrol
• Ordu
• Askeri Keynesçilik
• Uyumluluk Yaklaşımı
• Vekâlet Yaklaşımı.

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, R.S. (1991), Bonapartism and Revolutionary Tradition in France: The Fèdèrès of 1815 (UK: Cambridge University Press).
2. Alison, Archibald (1857), From the Commencement of French Revolution in 1789 to the Restoration of Bourbons in 1815 (New York: A.S. Barnes & Co.).
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1899), “A National Observatory”, Science (New Series), 9 (222): 465-467.
4. Baker, Deane-Peter (2007), “Agency Theory: A New Model of Civil-Military Relations for Africa?”, African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 7 (1): 113-135.
5. Ballantine, Henry W. (1915), “Unconstitutional Claims of Military Authority”, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 5 (5): 718-743.
6. Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat (1748), De L’esprit Des Lois, Première Partie, Livres I à VIII, Genève.
7. Besley, Timothy ve James A. Robinson (2010), “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Civilian Control Over the Military”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 8 (2-3): 655-663.
8. Call, Arthur D. (1922), “American Congressmen Attend The Twentieth Conference Of The Interparliamentary Union, Vienna”, Advocate of Peace Through Justice, 84 (9/10): 340- 348.

9. Sivil kontrol yaklaşımının 21’inci yüzyılda öngördüğü toplumsal kontrol biçimi için bkz. UNDP (2008).
10. Carter, William H. (1911), “Interdependence of Political and Military Policies”, The North American Review, 194 (673): 837-847.
11. Cawthra, Gavin ve Luckham, Robin (2003), “Democratic Control and the Security Sector: The Scope for Transformation and its Limits”, Cawthra, Gavin ve Robin Luckham (Der.), Governing Insecurity: Democratic Control of Military and Security Establishments in Transitional Democracies (UK: Zed Books): 305-327.
12. Clayton, Helm (1887), “A Plea for Civilian Control of the U. S. Weather-Bureau”, Science, 9 (209): 113-114.
13. Collier, Paul ve Anke Hoeffler (2006), “Military Expenditure and the Risks of Coups d’Etats.”, Working paper (USA: Oxford University).
14. Coues, S. Elliott (1840), “Military Establishments in Time of Peace”, The Advocate of Peace (1837- 1845), 3 (8): 175-178.
15. Croissant, Aurel ve David Kuehn (2010), “Civilian Control of the Military and Democracy: Conceptual and Theoretical Perspectives”, Chambers, Paul ve Aurel Croissant (Der.), Democracy under Stress: Civil-Military Relations in South and Southeast Asia, (Thailand: Institute of Security and International Studies): 21-61.
16. Dakurah, A.H., Davies, S.P. ve R.K. Sampath (2001), “Defense Spending and Economic Growth in Developing Countries. A Causality Analysis”, Journal of Policy Modeling, (23): 651-658.
17. Davis, Joseph S. (1920), “World Currency and Banking: The First Brussels Financial Conference”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2 (12): 349-360.
18. Dilke, Charles W. (1893), “Can Europe Afford Her Armies?”, The North American Review, 157 (443): 399-402.
19. Dritsakis, N. (2004), “Defense Spending and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation for Greece and Turkey”, Journal of Policy Modeling, (26): 249-264.
20. Dunne, J.P., Smith, R.P. ve D. Willenbockel (2004), “Models of Military Expenditure and Growth: A Critical Review”, Defence and Peace Economics;16(6): 449-61.
21. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”, The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57-74.
22. Engels, Friedrich (1884), Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats, (Zurich: Verlag Der Schwizerischen Volksbuchhandlung).
23. Feaver, Peter D. (1996), “The Civil-Mililary Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control”, Armed Forces&Society, 23 (2): 149-178. (1997), “An Agency Theory Explanation of American Civil-Military Relations During the Cold War”, Working Paper for the Program for the Study in Democracy, Institutions and Political Economy (USA: Duke University).
24. (2003), Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight and Civil-Military Relations (USA: President and Fellows of Harvard College).
25. Hale, John R. (1985), War and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-1620 (London: Leicester University Press).
26. Hirst, John (2009), The Shortest History of Europe (Australia: Black Inc.).
27. Hobbes, Thomas (1651), Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill (London: Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-yard).
28. (2013), Leviathan, 11.baskı, (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları) (Çev. Semih Lim).
29. Huntington, Samuel P. (1956), “Civilian Control and The Constitution”, The American Political Science Review, 50 (3): 676-699.
30. (1957), The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (USA:
31. President and Fellows of Harvard College).
32. IMF (1995), Unproductive Public Expenditures A Pragmatic Approach To Policy Analysis, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/pam/pam48/pam4802.htm (22.12.2014).
33. İbni Haldun (1977), Mukaddime I, (Ankara: Onur Yayınları) (Çev. Turan Dursun).
34. Janowitz, (1960), The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (USA: Glencoe Ill-Free Press).
35. (1964), The Military in the Political Development of New Nations: An Essay on Comparative
36. Analysis (USA: The University of Chicago Press).
37. Kollias, C., Manolas, N. ve S.M., Paleologou (2004), “Defence Expenditure and Economic Growth in the European Union: A Causality Analysis”, Journal of Policy Modeling; 26 (5): 553- 569.
38. Lasswell, Harold D. (1941), “The Garrison State”, The American Journal of Sociology, 46 (4): 455- 468.
39. (1962), “The Garrison-State Hypothesis Today”, Huntington, Samuel P (Der.), Changing
40. Patterns of Military Politics (Newyork: Free Press): 51-70.
41. Liang, Hsi-Huey (2002), The Rise of Modern Police and European State System from Metternich to the Second World War (UK: Cambridge University Press).
42. Lobb, Albert J. (1919), “Civil Authority versus Military”, The Virginia Law Review, 4 (12): 897-915.
43. Locke, John (2012), Yönetim Üzerine İkinci İnceleme: Sivil Yönetimin Gerçek Kökeni, Boyutu ve Amacı Üzerine Bir Deneme (İstanbul: Ebabil Yayıncılık) (Çev. Fahri Bakırcı).
44. Machiavelli, Niccolo (2014), Prens (İstanbul: Can Yayınları) (Çev. Kemal Atakay).
45. Malizard, Julien (2013), “Is There Military Keynesianism? An Evaluation of the Case of France Based on Disaggregated Data”, Document de travail ART-Dev 2013-04.
46. Marx, Karl (1852), “Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Napoleon”, Die Revolution, No.1, Newyork.
47. Mehmood, Bilal ve Sabahat Iqbal (2013), “Does Military Keynesianism Hold for Asian Countries? Panel Cointegration and Granger Causality Evidence”, Romanian Review of Social Sciences, (4): 3-11.
48. Mill, John S. (2008), Özgürlük Üzerine (İstanbul: Oda Yayınları) (Çev. Tuncay Türk).
49. Mintz A. ve A. Hicks (1984), “Military Keynesianism in the United States, 1949-1976: Disaggregating Military Expenditures and Their Determination”, American Journal of Sociology; 90(2): 411-417.
50. Nizamülmülk (1987), Siyasetname (İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları), (Çev. Nurettin Bayburtlugil).
51. Parker, Geoffrey (1988), The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West 1500- 1800 (Newyork: Cambridge University Press).
52. Pierson, William W. (1918), “The Committee on the Conduct of the Civil War”, The American Historical Review, 23 (3): 550-576.
53. Poggi, Gianfranco (2009), Modern Devletin Gelişimi-Sosyolojik Bir Yaklaşım, 5. baskı (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları) (Çev. Şule Kut ve Binnaz Toprak).
54. Porter, Bruce D. (1994), War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics (New York: The Free Press).
55. Poulantzas, Nicos (1967), “Marxist Political Theory in Great Britain”, New Left Review, I (43): 57-74.
56. Rogers, Clifford J. (1993), “The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years War”, Journal of Military History, 57 (2): 241-278.
57. Rousseau, Jean J. (2005), Ekonomi Politik (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi) (Çev. İsmet Birkan).
58. (2013), Toplum Sözleşmesi, 10. basım (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları) (Çev. Vedat Günyol).
59. Sandler, T. ve K. Hartley (1995), The Economics of Defence, (UK: Cambridge University Press).
60. Sarıgil, Zeki (2011), “Civil-Military Relations Beyond Dichotomy: With Special Reference to Turkey”, Turkish Studies, 12 (2): 265-278.
61. Schiff, Rebecca L. (1995), “Civil-Military Relations Reconsidered: A Theory of Concordance”, Armed Forces & Society, 22 (1): 7-24.
62. (2009), Military and Domestic Politics: A Concordance Theory of Civil-Military Relations (Newyork: Routledge Press).
63. Sediv´y, Miroslav (2013), Metternich, the Great Powers and the Eastern Question (Czech Republic: University of West Bohemia).
64. Shaw, Albert (1919), “The Demobilization of Labor in War Industries and in Military Service”, War Labor Policies and Reconstruction, 8 (2): 125+127-134.
65. Sherman, Henry (1843), The Governmental History of the United States of America: From the Earliest Settlement to The Adoption of the Present Constitution (Newyork: Mark H. Newman).
66. Smith, Ronald P. (1980), “The Demand for Military Expenditure”, The Economic Journal, 90 (360): 811-820.
67. Stepan, Alfred (1971), The Military in Politics: Changing Patterns in Brasil (USA: Princeton University Press).
68. Suter, Keith (2003), Global Order and Global Disorder: Globalization and the Nation-state (USA: Praeger Publishers).
69. The Declaration of Independence, Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776, The Unanimous http://www.constitution.org/us_doi.pdf (13.05.2015). of the Thirteen United States of America,
70. The US Constitution, http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm (13.05.2015).
71. UNDP (2008), Public Oversight of the Security Sector: A Handbook for Civil Society Organisations, Cole, Eden, Kerstin Eppert ve Katrin Kinzelbach (Der.) (Slovak Republic: UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre).
72. Viner, Jacob (1920), “Who Paid for the War?”, Journal of Political Economy, 28 (1): 46-76.
73. Wallerstein, Immanuel (2005), Dünya-Sistemleri Analizi Bir Giriş (İstanbul: Aram Yayımcılık) (Çev. Ender Abadoğlu ve Nuri Ersoy).
74. Weber, Max (1919), “Politik als Beruf”, Gesammelte Politische Schriften içinde (Munich: Duncker & Humblodt): 505-560. (2008), Sosyoloji Yazıları (İstanbul: Deniz Yayınları) (Çev. Taha Parla). (2011), Bürokrasi ve Otorite (Ankara: Adres Yayınları) (Çev. H. Bahadır Akın).
75. Welch, Claude E. (1976), Civilian Control of the Military: Theory and Cases from Developing Countries (USA: State University of Newyork Press).
76. Willard, Emma (1829), History of the United States, or Republic of America: Exhibited in Connexion with its Chronology and Progressive Geography by Means of A Series of Maps (Newyork: White, Gallaher & White).
77. Wilson, Woodrow (1887). “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, 2 (2): 197-222.
78. World Affairs Institute (1855), “Our Military Expenses”, Advocate of Peace (1847-1884), 11 (13): 204-207.
79. (1899), “Military Government”, The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920), 61 (5): 101-103.
80. (1908), “Senator Hale's Exposure of the Growing Extravagance in the Military and Naval
81. Expenditures of the Government”, The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920), 70 (5): 112-115.
82. (1912), “The Limitation of Naval and Military Expenditure”, The Advocate of Peace (1894- 1920), 74 (4): 82-83.