Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramlarında Sentez Metodu: Avrupa Birliği'nin Doğu Genişlemesi ve Türkiye

Öz

Uluslararası ilişkiler alanında açıklayıcı kuramlar genelde pozitivist varsayımlara dayanmaktadır. Buna karşın, sosyal inşaacı yaklaşımlar hiçbir kuramın pozitivist epistemolojide bir gereklilik olarak görülen bilimsel kanunlardan tümdengelim ile açıklama yapma kriterlerini karşılayamadığını öne sürmektedir. Schimmelfennig ve Checkel araştırmacının daha fazla gözlemlenebilir etkeni değerlendirebilmesi için farklı epistemolojiye sahip kuramların sentezinden faydalanması gerektiğini iddia etmektedir. Rasyonel seçim kurumsalcılığı ve sosyal inşaacılık ile kıyaslandığında, Schimmelfennig’in retoriksel eylem kuramının Avrupa Birliği’nin Doğu genişlemesi sürecinin tamamını açıklayabildiği görülmektedir. Bu nedenle retoriksel eylem kuramı Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne katılım sürecine ışık tutma potansiyeline sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma metodu
• rasyonel seçim kurumsalcılığı
• sosyal inşaacılık
• AB genişlemesi
• retoriksel eylem

Synthesis Method in Theories of International Relations: European Union Eastern Enlargement and Turkey

Öz

It is widely accepted in International Relations that explanatory theories are based on positivist assumptions. Contrarily, Social Constructivist approaches propose that no theory can carry the nomothetic deductive criteria required by Positivist epistemology. Schimmelfennig ve Checkel argue that in order to test more observable factors, the researcher needs to use a synthesis of different theories with different epistemologies. Compared to Rational Choice Institutionalism and Social Constructivism, Schimmelfennig’s Rhetorical Action Theory provides us with the most thorough explanation of the European Union Eastern enlargement process, having the potential of shedding a light on accession process of Turkey to the European Union.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Research method
• rational choice institutionalism
• social constructivism
• EU enlargement
• rhetorical action

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, Kenneth W. ve Duncan Snidal (1998), “Why States Act through Formal International Organizations” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (1): 3 – 32.
2. Adler, Emanuel (1997), “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3): 319 – 363.
3. Barnett, Michael N. ve Martha Finnemore (1999), “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations”, International Organization, 53 (4): 699 – 732.
4. Buchanan, James M. (1965), An Economic Theory of Clubs, Economica, New Series, 32 (125): 1– 14.
5. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1999), “Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe”, International Studies Quarterly, 43 (1): 83 – 114.
6. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2001), “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change”, International Organization, 55 (3), 553 – 588.
7. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2005), “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework”, International Organization, 59 (4): 801 – 826.
8. Checkel, Jeffrey T. ve Andrew Moravcsik (2001), “A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies?”, European Union Politics, 2 (2), 219 – 249.

9. Copeland, Dale C. (2006), “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism”, Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander (eds.), Constructivism and International Relations, (Oxon: Routledge): 1 – 20.
10. Donnelly, Jack (2000), Realism and International Relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
11. Elster, Jon (1989), “Social Norms and Economic Theory”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (4): 99 – 117.
12. Fierke, Karin M. ve Antje Wiener (1999), “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement”, Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (5): 721 – 742.
13. Finnemore, Martha (1996), National Interests in International Society, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
14. Finnemore, Martha ve Kathryn Sikkink (1998), “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”, International Organization, 52 (4): 887 – 917.
15. Goffmann, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, (New York: Anchor Books).
16. Haas, Peter M. ve Ernst B.Haas (2002), “Pragmatic Constructivism and the Study of International Institutions”, Millenium-Journal of International Studies, 31 (3): 573 – 601.
17. Humphreys, Adam R.C. (2010), “The Heuristic Application of Explanatory Theories in International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, 17 (2): 257 – 277.
18. Jervis, Robert (1998), “Realism in the Study of World Politics”, International Organization, 52 (4), International Organization at Fifty:Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics:.971 – 991.
19. Jupille, Joseph, James A.Caporaso ve Jeffrey T.Checkel (2002), “Integrating Institutions: Theory, Method, and the Study of European Union”, Advanced Research on the Europeanization of the Nation-State (ARENA), Working Papers 02/27, http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/reserach/publications/arena-publications/ workingpapers/working-papers2002/wp02_27.htm (17.01.2012).
20. Kratochwil, Friedrich (1993), “The Embarrassement of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik Without Politics”, Review of International Studies, 19 ( 1): 63 – 80.
21. March, James G. ve Johan P.Olsen (1998), “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders”, International Organization, 53 (4): 943 – 969.
22. Mayda, Oğuz (2013), Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne Katılım Sürecinin Retoriksel Eylem Perspektifinden Analizi, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
23. Mearsheimer, John (1994/1995), “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security, 19 (3): 5 – 49.
24. Miller, Edward Alan ve Jane Banaszak-Holl (2005), “Cognitive and Normative Determinants of State Policymaking Behavior: Lessons from the Sociological Institutionalism”, Publius, 35 (2): 191 – 216.
25. Moravcsik, Andrew ve Milada Anna Vachudova (2003), “National Interests, State Power, and EU Enlargement”, East European Politics and Societies, 17 (1): 42 – 57.
26. Moravcsik, Andrew ve Frank Schimmelfennig (2009), “Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, Antje Wiener ve Thomas Diez (eds.), European Integration Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 75 – 94.
27. Olsen, Johan P. (2007), “Understanding Institutions and Logic of Appropriateness: Introductory Essay”, Arena Center for European Studies, University of Oslo, Working Paper 13: 1 – 16.
28. Pollack, Mark A. (2006), “Rational Choice and EU Politics”, Knut Erik Jørgensen, Mark A. Pollack ve Ben Rosamond, Handbook of European Union Politics, (London: Sage Publications Ltd).
29. Price, Richard ve Christian Reus Smith (1998), “Dangerous Liaisons, Critical International Theory And Constructivism”, European Journal of International Relations, 4(3): 259 – 294.
30. Risse, Thomas (2000), “Let’s Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics”, International Organization, 54 (1), 1 – 39.
31. Risse, Thomas (2009), “Social Constructivism and European Integration”, Wiener, Antje ve Thomas Diez, European Integration Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 159 – 176.
32. Ruggie, John Gerard (1988), “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge”, International Organization, 52 (4): 855 – 885.
33. Schimmelfennig, Frank (1999), “The Double Puzzle of EU Enlargement, Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Decision to Expand to the East”, Darmstadt University of Technology, Paper Presented at the ECSA Sixth Biennial International Conference, Pittsburgh: 1 – 50.
34. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2001), “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”, International Organizaton, 55 (1): 47 – 80. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2003a), The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
35. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2003b), “Strategic Action in a Community Environment, The Decision to Enlarge the European Union to the East”, Comparative Political Studies, 36 (1-2): 156 – 183.
36. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2008a), “Entrapped Again: The Way to EU Membership Negotiations with Turkey”, UCD Dublin European Institute Working Paper, 08-8, 1 – 28.
37. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2008b), “EU political accession conditionality after the 2004 enlargement: consistency and effectiveness”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15 (6), 918 – 937.
38. Schimmelfennig, Frank, Engert, Stephan ve Knobel, Hesko (2003), “Costs, Commitment and Compliance”, JCMS, 41 (4), 661 – 679.
39. Schimmelfennig, Frank ve Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2002), “Theorizing EU Enlargement: Research, Focus, Hypotheses, and the State of Research”, Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (4): 500 – 528.
40. Schimmelfennig, Frank ve Sedelmeier, Ulrich (2005), The Politics of European Union Enlargement, Theoretical Approaches, (Oxon: Routledge).
41. Schimmelfennig, Frank (2008), Entrapped Again: The Way to EU Membership Negotiations with Turkey, UCD Dublin European Institute Working Paper 08-8, July 2008.
42. Schimmelfennig, Frank ve Thomas, Daniel C. (2009), “Normative Institutionalism and EU Foreign Policy in comparative perspective”, International Politics, 46 (4), 491 – 504.
43. Wæver, Ole (2009), “Discursive Approaches”, Wiener, Antje ve Thomas Diez, European Integration Theory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 197 – 215.
44. Wendt, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
45. Zürn, Michael ve Jeffrey T.Checkel (2005), “Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State”, International Organization, 59 (4), International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: 1045 – 1079.