ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER DİSİPLİNİNİN OLUŞUMU: İDEALİZM / REALİZM TARTIŞMASI VE DİSİPLİNİN ÖZERKLİĞİ

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplini sosyal bilimlerin öteki disiplinleriyle karşılaştırıldığında kısa bir tarihe sahiptir. Her ne kadar modern devletler arasındaki ilişkilerin 1648 tarihli Westphalia Anlaşması ile başladığı kabul edilse de, bu tür ilişkiler uzun süre uluslararası hukuk, tarih ve siyaset bilimi içerisinde değerlendirilmiştir. Ancak Birinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan sonra bunlardan ayrı bir alan olarak belirmeye başlayan disiplinin bugün özerkliğinin yerleştiği konusunda geniş bir kabul vardır. Bu çalışmada, Uluslararası İlişkiler’in disiplin ve kuramsal özerkliğinin oluşum evresi ilk dönem idealizm/realizm tartışması bağlamında incelenecek; tartışma ekseninde yer alan iddiaların geçerlilik düzeyleri sorgulanmadan bu tartışmanın disiplinin özerkliğine nasıl zemin hazırladığı belirlenmeye çalışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası İlişkiler, Disiplin, Kuram, Özerklik

FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISCIPLINE: IDEALISM / REALISM DEBATE AND AUTONOMY OF THE DISCIPLINE

Öz

International Relations discipline has a short history in comparison to other disciplines in social sciences. Even if it is widely accepted that modern international relations had begun with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, this kind of relations had been examined within law, history and political science for a long time. Today there is a great consensus that autonomy of the discipline, which began to appear as a separate field only after the First World War, has established. In this article, formative stage of disciplinary and theoretical autonomy of the discipline will be examined in conjunction with idealism/realism debate of the first period; without questioning the validity of assumptions of in this debate it will be tried to clarify how it prepared a framework for the autonomy of the discipline

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Relations , Discipline , Theory , Autonomy

Kaynakça

1. ALEXANDER, J.C. (1987). Action and its environment. J.C. ALEXANDER (Der.) The micro-macro link, İçinde, Berkeley, University of California Press.
2. ASHLEY, R. (1981). Political realism and human interests. International Studies Quarterly, 25 (2), 221-226. ss.
3. ASHWORTH, L.M. (2002). Did the realist–idealist great debate really happen?: A revisionist history of international relations. International Relations, 16 (1), 33-53. ss.
4. BALDWIN, D.A. (der.) (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
5. BROWN, C., ROBERT, E., PETTIT, P. (Der.) (1995). International affairs: a companion to contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. BROWN, C. (1997). Theories of international justice. British Journal of Political Science, 27 (2), 273-297. ss.
7. BURCHILL, S. (2001). Realism and neorealism. İçinde: S. BURCHILL (Der.) Theories of International Relations. New York, Palgrave.
8. CALHOUN, C. (1992). Sociology, other disciplines and the project of a general understanding of social life. İçinde: T.C. HALLIDAY, M. JANOWITZ (Der.) Sociology and its publics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

9. CARR, E.H. (1946). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of international relations. London: Macmillan.
10. COLEMAN, J.S., FARARO, T.J. (1992). Introduction. J.S. COLEMAN, T.J. FARARO (Der.) Rational choice theory: Advocacy and critique, İçinde, Newburry Park: Sage.
11. COX, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world order: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (2), 126-155. ss.
12. COX, R. (1996). A perspective on globalization. J.H. MITTELMAN (Der.) Globalization: critical reflections, İçinde, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
13. CRAWFORD, R.M.A. (2000). Idealism and realism in international relations: beyond the discipline. London: Routledge.
14. CRAWFORD, R.M.A. (2001). International relations as an academic discipline: if it’s good for America, is it good for the world?. R.M.A. CRAWFORD, D.S.L. JARVIS (Der.) International relations - still an American social science? Toward diversity in international thought, İçinde, New York: State University of New York Press.
15. ÇALIŞ, Ş., ÖZLÜK, E. (2007). Uluslararası ilişkiler tarihin yapısökümü: İdealizm- realizm tartışması. Selçuk Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, (18).
16. DOGAN, M. (1996). Political science and the other social sciences. R. GOODIN, H.D. KLINGEMANN (Der.), A new handbook of political science, İçinde, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
17. EVANS, G., NEWNHAM, J. (1998). The penguin dictionary of international relations, New York: Penguin.
18. GIDDENS, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration, Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. GILL, S. (1995). Globalization, market civilization, and disciplinary neo-liberalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24 (3), 399-424. ss.
20. GILPIN, R. (1986). Political economy of international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21. GRIECO, M. (1995) Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. C. KEGLEY (Der.) Controversies in international relations theory, İçinde, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
22. HOBSON, J.M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. HOFFMAN, M. (1987). Critical theory and the inter-paradigm debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 16 (2), 231-249. ss.
24. HOFFMANN, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus. 106 (3), 41-60. ss.
25. HOLLIS, M., SMITH, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international relations, New York: Clarendon Press.
26. IKENBERRY, G.J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraints and the rebuilding of order after major wars. New York: Princeton University Press.
27. JACQUIN-BERDAL, D., OROS, A., VERWIJ, M. (Der.) (1998). Culture in world politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
28. KAPLAN, M. (1961) Is international relations a discipline?. The Journal of Politics, 23 (3), 462-476. ss.
29. KATZENSTEIN, P. (Der.) (1996). The culture of national security: Norms, identity in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
30. KEOHANE, R.O., NYE, J.S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little&Brown Company.
31. KEOHANE, R.O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. KEOHANE, R.O. (1988). International institutions: two approaches. International Studies Quarterly. 32, 379-396. ss.
33. KEOHANE, R.O. (1989). International relations theory: Contributions of a feminist standpoint. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18 (2), 245-253. ss.
34. KEOHANE, R.O., MARTIN, L. (1998). The promise of institutionalist theory. M. BROWN. (Der.) Theories of war and peace, İçinde, MA: MIT Press.
35. KRASNER, S. (1995). Compromising westphalia. International Security, 20, 115-151. ss.
36. KRATOCHWILL, F. (2000). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt’s “social theory of international relations” and the constructivist challenge. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29 (1), 73-102. ss.
37. KRATOCHWILL, F. (2003). The monologue of ‘science’. International Studies Review, 5, 124-128. ss.
38. LAPID, Y. (1989a) Quo vadis international relations? Further reflections on the “next stage” of international theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18 (1), 77-88. ss.
39. LAPID, Y. (1989b) The third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a post- positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3).
40. LEVY, J. (1997). Too important to leave to the other: history and political science in the study of international relations. International Security, 22 (1), 22-33. ss.
41. LIJPHARDT, A. (1974). International relations theory: great debates and lesser debates. International Social Science Journal, 26 (1).
42. LITTLE, R. (1999). Historiography and international relations. Review of International Studies, 25 (2), 291-299. ss.
43. MACLEAN, J. (1981). Political theory, international theory and problems of ideology. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10 (2), 102-125. ss.
44. MAGHROORI, R. (1982). Introduction: major debates in international relations. R. MAGHROORI, B. RAMBERG (Der.) Globalism versus realism: International relations’ third debate, İçinde, Boulder: Westview Press.
45. MEARSHEIMER, J. (2005). E.H. Carr vs. idealism: The battle rages on. International Relations, 19 (2), 139-152. ss.
46. MILLER, P.H. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: W.H. Freeman.
47. MORAVCSIK, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization. 51 (4), 513-553. ss.
48. MORGENTHAU, H.J. (1992) Politics among nations, New York: McGraw Hill.
49. ODYSSEOS, L., SECKINELGIN, H. (Der.) (2002). Gendering the international. London: Palgrave.
50. PATERSON, M. (2001). Green politics. S. BURCHILL (Der.) Theories of international relations, İçinde, New York: Palgrave.
51. POPPER, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
52. RENGGER, N. (2000). Political theory and international relations: Promised land or exit from eden?. International Affairs, 76 (4), 755-770. ss.
53. RICE, D.A. (2006). An overview of the field of international relations. International Law and Organizations. (Spring Issue).
54. ROSENAU, J. (1976). International studies in a transnational world. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 5 (1), 1-20. ss.
55. ROSENTHAL, J. (1991). Righteous realists. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
56. RUGGIE, J.G. (1998). Constructing the world polity. London: Routledge.
57. SCHMIDT, B. (1998). The political discourse of anarchy. Albany State: University of New York Press.
58. SCHMIDT, B. (2002). Together again: reuniting political theory and international relations theory. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4 (1), 115- 140. ss.
59. SCHREUER, C. (1993). The waning of the sovereing state: towards a new paradigm for international law. European Journal of International Law, 4, 447-471. ss.
60. SCHWELLER, R.L. (1999). Fantasy theory. Review of International Studies, 25, 147- 150. ss.
61. SKINNER, Q. (Der.) (1990). The return of grand theory in the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. SMITH, S. (1987). The development of international relations as a social science. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16 (2), 189-206. ss.
63. SMITH, S. (1992). The forty years detour: the resurgence of normative theory in international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (3), 489- 506. ss.
64. SMITH, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3), 374-402. ss.
65. SMITH, T. (1995). A wilsonian world. World Policy Journal, 12 (2).
66. SMITH, S., BOOTH, K. (Der.) (1995). International relations theory today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
67. SNOW, C.P. (1993). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. THIES, C.G. (2002). Progress, history and identity in international relations theory: the case of the idealist-realist debate. European Journal of International Relations, 8 (2).
69. TILLY, C. (1981). As sociology meets history. New York: Academic Press.
70. VANDERSLUIS, S.O. (Der.) (2000). The state and identity construction in international relations, London: Macmillan.
71. WALKER, R.B.J. (1980). Political theory and the transformation of world politics. World Order Studies Program. Occasional Paper No.8, Princeton: Centre for International Studies.
72. WALKER, R.B.J. (1989). The prince and ‘the pauper’: tradition, modernity and practice in the theory of international relations. J. DERIAN, M. SHAPIRO (Der.) Internationa/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics, İçinde, New York: Lexington Books.
73. WALKER, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. WALT, S.M. (2002). The enduring relevance of the realist tradition. I. KATZNELSON, H.V. MILNER (Der.) Political science: The state of the discipline, İçinde, New York: American Political Science Association.
75. WALTZ, K.N. (1959). Man, the state and war: a theoretical analysis. New York: Colombia Univeristy Press.
76. WALTZ, K.N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.
77. WALTZ, K.N. (2000). Structural realism after the cold war. International Security, 25 (1), 5-41. ss.
78. WENDT, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46 (2), 391-425. ss.
79. WENDT, A. (1999) Social theory of international politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
80. WILSON, P. (1998) The myth of the ‘first great debate’. Review of International Studies, 24 (5).