The Growing Importance of Cities Form the Perspectives of International Relations and International Law

Öz

Cities become more and more popular in the international politics in recent years. With the help of the globalization process, the Westphalian international system and the position of the nation-state in world politics have become problematic. As a result of this situation, political structures such NGO’s, multinational companies, international organizations also try to confirm their international actor’s status. Cities with more bureaucratic and administrative structures and institutions compared to these structures mentioned above, are also attempting to be accepted as international actors. However, the fact that cities are not accepted as subjects by international law emerges as a serious problem and cities take initiatives to overcome this situation. The main purpose of this study is to analyze the change of cities, especially accelerated by the Globalization process. In this context, a descriptive and chronological method was used while revealing the study. A chronological method was used in the study, but the scope of the study was tried to be limited to the 1990s and the following period. The result obtained from the study is that the international system is in the transformation process due to new paradigms. This change imposes the inclusion of new actors in the system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mega Cities
• Global Cities
• International Law
• Globalization
• Internatonal Relations System

Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Uluslararası Hukuk Perpektifinden Şehirlerin Artan Önemi

Öz

Şehirler, son yıllarda, uluslararası siyasi alanda her geçen gün daha fazla ön plana çıkmaktadır. Küreselleşme sürecinin de yardımıyla, geleneksel Westphalia uluslararası sistemi ve ulus devletinin dünya siyasetindeki yeri sorgulanır hale gelmiştir. Bu durumun sonucunda sivil toplum örgütleri, çokuluslu şirketler, uluslararası örgütler ve organizasyonlar gibi siyasi yapılar da uluslararası sisteme katılmaya ve kendilerinin uluslararası aktör olarak kabulü için çalışmaktadırlar. Bu sayılan yapılara göre daha fazla bürokratik ve idari yapılanması ve kurumları olan şehirler de uluslararası aktör olarak kabul görmek için girişimlerde bulunmaktadır. Ancak bu noktada, şehirlerin uluslararası hukuk tarafından süje olarak kabul edilmemesi ciddi bir sorun olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır ve şehirler bu durumun üstesinden gelebilmek için girişimlerde bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın ana amacı da şehirlerin, özellikle küreselleşme süreci ile hızlanan değişimini analiz etmektir. Bu kapsamda çalışmayı ortaya çıkarırken tanımlayıcı ve kronolojik bir yöntem kullanılmıştır ancak çalışmanın kapsamı 1990’lı yıllar ve takip eden dönemle sınırlandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuç uluslararası sistemin yeni paradigmalar sebebiyle bir değişim ve dönüşüm içerisinde olduğudur. Bu değişim sisteme yeni aktörlerin dâhil olmasını dayatmaktadır. Şehirler de bu yeni aktörlerden biridir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mega Şehir
• Küresel Şehirler
• Küreselleşme
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Uluslararası Sistem

Kaynakça

1. Acuto, M. (2010). Global cities: gorillas in our midst. Alternatives, 35 (4), 425-448.
2. Acuto, M. ve Rayner, S. (2016). City networks: breaking gridlocks or forging (new) lock-ins?. International Affairs, 92 (5), 1147-1166.
3. Auby, J. B. (2011). Mega-cities, glocalisation and the law of the future. S. Muller, S. Zouridis, M. Frishman ve L. Kistemaker (Ed.), The law of the future and the future of law içinde (ss. 203-212). Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublishers.
4. Barber, B. (2013). If mayors ruled the world: dysdunctional nations, rising cities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
5. Basu, R. (Ed.) (2012). International politics: concepts, theories and issues. Londra: Sage Publications.
6. Blank, Y. (2006). The city and the world. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 44(3), 868-931.
7. Bodansky, D. M. (1995). The concept of customary international law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 16(3), 667-679.
8. Bouteligier, S. (2013). Cities, networks, and global environmental governance: spaces of innovation, places of leadership. New York: Routledge.

9. Byrne, M. (2012). The failed state and failed state-building: how can a move away from the failed state discourse inform development in Somalia? Birkbeck Law Review, 1(1), 111-134.
10. Burdett, R. ve Sudjic, D. (2007). The endless city. Londra: Phaidon.
11. Cassese, A. (2005). International law (2. Baskı). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Cameron, L. (2006). Private military companies: their status under international humanitarian law and its impact on their regulations. International Review of Red Cross, (863), 868-931.
13. Clark, E. M. (1997). The free city of Danzig: borderland, Hansestadt or social democracy. The Polish Review, 42(3), 259-276.
14. Clark, E. M. (2017). Borderland of the mind: the free city of Danzig and the sovereignty question. German Politics and Society, 35(3), 24-37.
15. Curtis, S. (2011). Global cities and the transformation of the international system. Review of International Studies, 37, 1923-1947.
16. Curtis, S. (2016a). Global cities and global order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Curtis, S. (2016b). Cities and global governance: state failure or a new global order? Millenium, 44(3), 455-477.
18. D’Anieri, P. (2016). International politics: power and purpose in global affairs. Boston: Cengage Learning.
19. Fenwick, C. G. (1929). The international status of Tangier. The American Journal of International Law, 23(1), 140-143.
20. French, D.A. (2004). The role of the state and international organisations in reconciling sustainable development and globalisation. N. Schrijver, F. Weiss (Ed.), International law and sustainable development, principles and practice içinde (ss.53-71). Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
21. Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69-83.
22. Friedmann, J. ve Wolf, G. (2006). World city formation: an agenda for research and action. N. Brenner, R. Keil (Ed.), The global cities reader içinde (ss. 57-66). London/New York: Routledge.
23. Frug, G. E. ve Barron, D. J. (2006). International local government law. The Urban Lawyer, 38(1), 1-63.
24. Hall, P. (1966). The world cities. Londra: Weidenfeld ve Nicholson.
25. Hartley, J., Patts, J. ve McDonald, T. (2012). Creative city index. Cultural Science, 5(1), 33.
26. Jessop, B. (2013). Devlet teorisi, kapitalist devleti yerine oturtmak. Ankara: Epos Yayınları.
27. Kangas, A. (2017). Global cities, international relations and the fabrication of the world. Global Society, 31(4), 531-550.
28. Kimmich, C. M. (1968). The free city: Danzig and German foreign policy, 1919-1934. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29. Knox, P. L. (1996). Globalization and the world city hypothesis. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 112(2), 124-126.
30. Kozal, Ö. E. (2020). Wallerstein ve dünya-sistem yaklaşımı: bir yeniden değerlendirme. Ekonomi-tek, 9(2), 101-127.
31. Martinez-Diaz, L. ve Woods, N. (2009). Introduction: developing countries in a networked global order. L. Martinez-Diaz, ve N. Woods (Ed.), Networks of influence? developing countries in a networked global order içinde (ss. 1-18). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Mega, V. (1996). Towards european sustainable cities. Ekistics, (379/380/381), 273-288.
33. Migdal, J. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states. State-society relations and state capabilities in the third world, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
34. Morgenthau, H. (1949). Politics among nations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. Nijman, J. (2011). The future of the city and the international law of the future. S. Muller, S. Zouridis, M. Frishman, L. Kistemaker (Ed.), The law of the future and the future of law içinde (ss. 71-94). Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublishers.
36. Nowrot, K. (1998-1999). Legal consequences of globalization: the status of nongovernmental organizations under international law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6(2), 579-654.
37. Porras, I. M. (2008). The city and international law: in pursuit of sustainable development. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 36(3), 538-601.
38. Pugh, R. C., Damrosch, L. F., Henkin, L., Schachter, O. ve Smit, H. (2001). International law: cases and materials. St. Paul, Minn. : West Group.
39. Rotberg, R. I. (2003). Failed states, collapsed states, weak states: causes and indicators. Washington: The World Peace Foundation & Brookings Institution Press.
40. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41. Simon, D. (1995). World city hypothesis. Paul L. Martinez ve Peter J. Taylor (Ed.), World cities in a world system içinde (ss. 132-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). Sovereignty and power in a networked world order. Stanford Journal of International Law, 40(2), 283-327.
43. Stein, T. (2011). Tangier in the restoration empire. The Historical Journal, 54(4), 985-1011.
44. Swiney, C. (2020). The urbanization of international law and international relations: the rising soft power of cities in global governance. Michigan Journal of International Law, 41(2), 227-278.
45. Szpak, A. (2016). The growing role of cities and their networks in the international relations and international security. Atheneaum, (52), 54-77.
46. Van der Pluijm, R. ve Melissen, J. (2007). City diplomacy: the expanding role of cities in international politics. Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
47. Vaz, D. M. ve Reis, L. (2017-2018). From city-states to global cities: the role of cities in global governance. Observare, 8(2), 13-28.
48. Wallerstein, I. M. (1974). The modern world system: capitalist agriculture and origins of the european world economy in the sixteenth century (Cilt 1). New York: Academic Press.
49. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory international politics. Chicago: Waveland Press.
50. Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man, the state, and war: a theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
51. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-2.