BİLARDO TOPUNUN YAPISININ SÖKÜMÜ: DIŞ POLİTİKA ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, temel amacı devletlerin dış politika yönelimlerini sistematik temeller üzerine oturtmak için genellenebilir orta ölçekte açıklamalar geliştirmek olan dış politika analizine teorik ve kavramsal bir perspektiften yaklaşmaktadır. Çalışmada, öncelikle birey-yapı ilişkisi bağlamında Dış Politika Analizinin Uluslararası İlişkiler alanından nedenli ayrıştığı gösterilmekte ve dış politika analizinin ağırlıklı olarak karar alıcılara ve süreçlere odaklandığı vurgulanmaktadır. Rasyonel seçim kuramının ve psikolojik yaklaşımların öne çıktığı, karar alıcılar üzerinden dış politika yönelimlerini açıklama yoluna giden yaklaşımların tartışmasını süreç bazlı yaklaşımların değerlendirilmesi takip etmektedir. Dış politika yapımına etkide bulunan kurumsal süreçler ve ağırlıklı olarak kamuoyu, medya ve çıkar gruplarından oluşan iç politik süreçler üzerinden geliştirilen yaklaşımlar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma son olarak kültürel ve duygusal boyutunu on plana çıkaran yaklaşımlara değinmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dış Politika Analizi,Liderler,Süreçler

Kaynakça

1. Allison, G. T. ve Zelikow, P. (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Longman.Barber, J. D. (1985) The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Baum, M. A. ve Groeling, T. (2010), War Stories: How Strategic Journalists, Citizens, and Politicians Shape the News about War, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Bennett, W. L., Lawrence, R. ve Livingston, S. (2007), When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Berinsky, A. (2007), Assuming the Costs of war: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for Military Conflict, Journal of Politics, 69 (4), s. 975–997.
5. Bueno de Mesquita, B, Smith, A. Siverson, R. M. ve Morrow, J. D. (2003), The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2018), Foreign Policy Analysis and Rational Choice Models, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Relations, http://internationalstudies. oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore9780190846626-e-395 (Erişim Tarihi: 15.11.2018).
7. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J. D. ve Zorick, Ethan R. (1997), Capabilities, Perception, and Escalation, American Political Science Review 91 (1), s. 15-27.
8. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Siverson, R. M. ve Woller, G. (1992) War and the Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis, American Political Science Review, 86 (3), s. 638-646.

9. Carlsnaes, W. (2013), Foreign Policy, (Eds.: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B. A. Simmons), Handbook of International Relations, s. 298-325, London: Sage.
10. Chafetz, G., Abramson, H. ve Grillot, S. (1996), Role Theory and Foreign Policy: Belarussian and Ukrainian Compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, Political Psychology 17(4), s. 727-757.
11. Chiozza, G. ve H.E. Goemans (2003), Peace Through Insecurity: Tenure and International Conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (4), s. 443-467.
12. Cohen, B. C. (1963), The Press and Foreign Policy, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
13. Dahl, R. (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. DeRouen Jr., K. ve Sprecher, C. (2005), The Domestic Determinants of Foreign Policy Behavior in the Middle Eastern Enduring Rivals, 1948-1998, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1), s. 121-141.
15. Dixon, W.J. (1994), Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict, American Political Science Review, 88 (1), s. 14–32.
16. Doeser, F. (2017), Strategic Culture, Domestic Politics, and Foreign Policy: Finland’s Decision to Refrain from Operation Unified Protector, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13 (3), s.741-759.
17. Dolan, T. M. (2016), Emotion and Strategic Learning in War, Foreign Policy Analysis, 12, s. 571-590.
18. Downs, G. W. ve Rocke, D. M. (1994), Conflict, Agency, and Gambling for Resurrection: The Principal-Agent Problem Goes to War, American Journal of Political Science, 38 (2), s. 362-380.
19. Doyle, M.W. (1986), Liberalism and World Politics, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), s. 1151–69.
20. Drury, A C., Overby, M.L, Ang, A. ve Li, Y. (2010), ‘Pretty Prudent’ or Rhetorically Responsive? The American Public’s Support for Military Action, Political Research Quarterly, 63 (1), s. 83-96.
21. Fearon, J. D. 1(995), Rationalist Explanations for War, International Organization 49(3), s. 379-414.
22. Gartner, S. S. ve Segura, G. M., (1998) War, Casualties and Public Opinion, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (3), s. 278–30.
23. Gelpi, C., (1997), Democratic Diversions: Governmental Structure and the Externalization of Domestic Conflict, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), s. 255-282.
24. Gelpi, C., Feaver, P. ve Reifler, J. (2005/6), Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq, International Security, 30 (3), s. 7-46.
25. Gilbert, R. E., (2003), The Tormented President: Calvin Coolidge, Death, and Clinical Depression, New York: Praeger.
26. Groeling, T. ve Baum, M. A. (2008), Crossing the Water’s Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage, and The Rally-Round-The-Flag Phenomena, Journal of Politics, 70 (4), s. 1065-1085.
27. Hagan, J.D., (2018). Regime Type, Foreign Policy, and International Relations, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-415?rskey= c9vWrT&result=2, (Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2011).
28. Hall, T. H. ve Ross, A. A. (2015), Affective Politics After 9/11, International Organization, 69 (4), s. 847-879.
29. Haynes, K. (2017), Diversionary Conflict: Demonizing Enemies or Demonstrating Competence? Conflict Management and Peace Science, 34 (4), s. 337-358.
30. Hermann, K. R. (2017), How Attachments to the Nation Shape Beliefs about the World: A Theory of Motivated Reasoning, International Organization, 71 (Supplement), s. S61-S84.
31. Hermann, R. K., Voss, J. F., Schooler, T. Y.E. ve Ciarrochi, J. (1997), Images and International Relations: An Experimental Test of Cognitive Schemata, International Studies Quarterly, 41, s. 403-433.
32. Hess, G. D. ve Orphanides, A. (2001), War and Democracy, Journal of Political Economy, 109 (4), s. 776-810.
33. Holsti, K. J. (1970), National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy, International Studies Quarterly, 14, s. 233-309.
34. Hudson, V. M. (2014), Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman ve Littlefield.
35. Janis, I. L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
36. Jentleson, B. W. ve Britton, R. L. (1998), Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), s. 395-417.
37. Jervis, R. (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Johnson, D. D. P. (2004), Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
39. Juliusson, Á. (2006), Optimism as Modifier of Escalation of Commitment, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, s. 345–348.
40. Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk, Econometrica, 47, s. 263-291.
41. Khong, Y. F. (1992), Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Kisangani, E. F. ve Pickering, J. (2007), Diverting with Benevolent Military Force: Reducing Risks and Rising above Strategic Behavior, International Studies Quarterly, 51, s. 277-299.
43. Levy, J. (2013), Psychology and Foreign Policy Decision-Making, (Eds.: L. Huddy, D. O. Sears ve J. Levy), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Libby, R. ve Rennekamp, K. (2012), Self-Serving Attribution Bias, Overconfidence, and the Issuance of Management Forecasts, Journal of Accounting Research 50 (1), s. 197-231.
45. Lord, C. G., Ross, L. ve Lepper, M. R. (1979), Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (11), s. 2098-2109
46. Malici, A. (2017), Foreign Policy Belief Systems and Operational Code Analysis, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Relations, http://politics.oxfordre. com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019022863 7.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190228637-e-459, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.11.2018).
47. McDermott, R. (1998), Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48. McDermott, R. (2004), Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
49. Mercer, J. (2005), Rationality and Psychology in International Relations, International Organization, 59 (1), s. 77-106.
50. Mercer, J. (2013), Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War, International Organization, 67(2), s. 221-252.
51. Mercer, J. (2014), Feeling Like a State: Social Emotion and Identity, International Theory, 6(3), s. 515-535.
52. Mintz, A. (2004), How Do Leaders Make Decisions? A Poliheuristic Perspective, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48, s. 3-13.
53. Mintz, A. ve DeRouen, K., Jr. (2010), Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
54. Mintz, A. ve Wayne, C. (2016), The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group Decision-Making, Advances in Political Psychology, 37 (1), s. 3-23.
55. Mitchell, S. McLaughlin ve Prins, B. C. (2004), Rivalry and Diversionary Uses of Force, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48 (6), s. 937-961.
56. Morgan, T.C., and Campbell, S.H. (1991), Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35 (2), s. 187–211.
57. Mueller, J. (1973), War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, New York: Wiley
58. Nisbett, R. E. ve Borgida, E. (1975), Attribution and the Psychology of Prediction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (5), s. 932-943.
59. Pardesi, M. (2017), Image Theory and the initiation of Strategic Rivalries, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, http://politics.oxfordre. com/view/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190228637.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190228637-e-318, (Erişim Tarihi: 17.11.2018).
60. Powell, R. (2004), Bargaining and Learning While Fighting, American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), s. 344–61.
61. Putnam, D. R. (1988), Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games, International Organization, 42 (3), s. 427-460.
62. Robinson, P. (1999), The CNN Effect: Can the News Media Drive Foreign Policy? Political Communication, 25, s. 301-309.
63. Russett, B. (1993), Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post–Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Saunders, E. N. (2017), No Substitute for Experience: Presidents, Advisers, and Information in Group Decision-Making, International Organization, 71: (Supplement), s. S219–S247.
65. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982), The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations, Journal of Economic Literature 20 (June), s. 529-563.
66. Shirkey, Z. (2016), Uncertainty and War Duration, International Studies Review, 18, s. 244-267.
67. Simmell, G. (1898), The Persistence of Social Groups, American Journal of Sociology, 4, s. 829-36.
68. Slantchev, B. L. (2003), The Principle of Convergence in War Time Negotiations, American Political Science Review, 97 (4), s. 621-634.
69. Smith, A. ve Stam, A. C. (2004), Bargaining and the Nature of War, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48 (6), s. 783-813.
70. Snyder, J. (1991), Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
71. Tetlock, P. E. (1999), Theory-Driven Reasoning about Plausible Pasts and Probable Futures in World Politics: Are We Prisoners of Our Preconceptions?” American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), s. 335-366
72. Thies, C. (2010), Role Theory and Foreign Policy, (Ed.: R. Denmark), The International Studies Encyclopedia, s. 6335–6356, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
73. Thies, C. G. (2017), Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis in Latin America, Foreign Policy Analysis, 13, s. 662-681.
74. Tversky, A. (1975), A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive and Normative Considerations, Springer, 9 (2), s. 163-173.
75. Vertzberger, Y. (1984), Bureaucratic-Organizational Politics and Information Processing in a Developing State, International Studies Quarterly, 28, s. 69-95.
76. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1986), Foreign Policy Decisionmakers as Practical-Intuitive Historians: Applied History and Its Shortcomings, International Studies Quarterly, 30(2), s. 223–247.
77. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (2008), Misperception in International Politics: A Typological Framework for Analysis, International Relations, 9 (3), s. 207-234.
78. Vertzberger, Y. Y.I. (1990), The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision Making, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
79. von Neumann, J. ve Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
80. Waltz, K. (1959), Man, the State, and War, New York: Columbia University Press.
81. Wendt, A. E. (1987), The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, International Organization 41(3), s. 335-70.