NÜKLEER SİLAHSIZLANMA REJİMİNİN ETKİSİZLİĞİNİN ARKASINDAKİ İKİ NEDEN: Gayrimeşruluk ve Tutarsızlık

Öz

Nükleer silahlanmanın potansiyel tehlikesi ile dünya barışının ve çevre konusunda uluslararası işbirliğinin sağlanmasına dönük istikrarsızlaştırıcı rolü dikkate alındığında, nükleer silahsızlanma rejiminin başarısız ve etkisiz olmasında temel problemlerin ortaya çıkarılması büyük bir öneme haizdir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma şu sorulara cevap aramaktadır: Mevcut nükleer silahsızlanma rejimi meşru mudur ve aynı meşru zeminde kalmalı mıdır? Mevcut nükleer silahsızlanma rejimindeki en büyük sorun bu rejimi gayri-meşru hale getiren çifte standartlar ve etno-merkezci uygulamalar mıdır? Mevcut rejimin silahsızlanma konusunda başarısız olması durumunda günümüzde ve gelecekte ne gibi istikrarsızlaştırıcı faktörler oraya çıkabilecektir? Bu sorulara cevap verilirken nükleer caydırıcılığın etkisinin erozyona uğradığı, “başarısız devletlerle” nükleer silaha gerek kalmadan konvansiyonel silahlarla daha etkili mücadele edileceği ve mevcut rejimin başarısızlığının arkasındaki en temel sorunun bu rejimin çifte standartlar ve etno-merkezci uygulamalar neticesinde gayri-meşru bir rejim olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nükleer silahsızlanma rejimi, “başarısız devletler”, Büyük Devletler

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime: Inconsistency And Illegitimacy Creates Its Weaknesses

Öz

Considering the dangers of proliferation and its possible destabilizing effects to world peace and international cooperation environment, it is very important to determine the roots of this failure and ineffectiveness. Therefore, this paper aims to find answers to the following questions: Is the current regime implementation legitimate and should it be kept in the same functioning structure? Alternatively, is the major problem in the existing nuclear non-proliferation order due to its selective focus and its ethnocentric double standard that creates an illegitimacy problem? If it failed to be effective to prevent proliferation, what kind of possible destabilizing factors are waiting us in the present and future decades? By answering these questions it has been concluded that the prestige value of nuclear deterrence is eroding and the “rogue states” can be effectively destroyed by using conventional weaponry. It has been also concluded that the failure of the existing nuclear order is due to its selective and somewhat myopic and hyped focus on proliferation and its ethnocentric double standard

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nuclear non-Profileration Regime, “Rouge States”, Great Powers

Kaynakça

1. Aron, Raymond, The Great Debate: Theories of National Strategy (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1965)
2. Bailey, Kathleen C., Doomsday Weapons in the Hands of Many (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991)
3. Bailey, Kathleen C., Strengthening Nuclear Nonproliferation (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993)
4. Becker, Howard S., “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963)
5. Catkilic, Erdogan, Nukleer Belirsizlik: Yeni Nukleer Devletler Dunya Barisina Tehdit Olusturuyor mu? (Nuclear Uncertainty: Do New Nuclear States Constitute New Threats to World Peace?) (Ankara: Turkiye Nukleer Arastirmalar Enstitusu Yayinlari, 2005)
6. Cohen, Eliot A., “A Revolution in Warfare”, Foreign Affairs, 75 (1996)
7. Dovi, Suzanne, “Evil Enemies: Stigmatizing Our Opponents or Legitimizing Our Wars?” in Peace Research 33 (1), May 2004 Dunn, Lewis, “The Nuclear Agenda: The Middle East in Global Perspective”, in Shai Feldman and Ariel Levite, eds., Arms Control and The New Middle East Security Environment, JCSS Study No. 23 (Tel Aviv: JCSS, Tel Aviv University, 1994 )
8. Evan, William M. and Ved P. Nanda (eds), Nuclear Proliferation and Legality of Nuclear Weapons (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995). Evron, Yair, “Some Effects of the Introduction of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East”, in Asher Arian ed., Israel: A Developing Society (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1992)

9. Feldman, Shai, Israeli Nuclear Deterrence: A Strategy for the 1980s (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
10. Franck, Thomas, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)
11. Gusterson, Hugh, “A Double Standart on Nuclear Weapons”, (MIT, Vol:06, Issue.8, 2006)
12. Hersh, Seymour, The Sampson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991)
13. Hoffman, Stanley, “Nuclear Proliferation and World Politics” in Alistair Buchan, ed., A World of Nuclear Powers? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1966)
14. Johnston, Alastair Iain, "Prospects for Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: Limited Deterrence versus Multilateral Arms Control", The China Quarterly, 126 (June 1996)
15. Klare, Michael, Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy (New York: Hill and Wang, 1995)
16. Kritzman, Lawrence, Politics, Philosophy, Culture (New York: Routledge, 1998)
17. Lake, Anthony, “Confronting Backlash States” Foreign Affairs, 73 (1994)
18. Lemert, Edwin, “Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control” (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967)
19. Lifton, Robert Jay and Eric Markusen, The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat (New York: Basic Books, 1990).
20. Mandelbaum, Michael, “International Stability and Nuclear Order”, in David C. Gompert, Nuclear Weapons and World Politics: Alternatives for the Future (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1977)
21. Mazarr, Michael J., “Going Just a Little Nuclear: Non-Proliferation Lessons from North Korea”, International Security, 20 (1995)
22. McLean, Iain and Alistair McMillan, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, 2nd Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2003)
23. Mearsheimer, John J., “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent” Foreign Affairs, 72 (1993)
24. Mutimer, David, “Confidence-Building and the Delegitimization of Nuclear Weapons: Canadian Contributions to Advancing Disarmament”, International Security Research and Outreach Programme, International Security Bureau, (March 2000)
25. Nye, Joseph S., Jr and William A. Owens, “America’s Information Edge” Foreign Affairs, 75 (1996)
26. O’Reilly, K.P., “Perceiving Rogue States: The Use of the “Rogue State” Concept by U.S. Foreign Policy Elites”, Foreign Policy Analyzes, Vol:3 Issue:4, (2007)
27. Ogilvie-White, Tany, “Is There a Theory of Nuclear Profileration: An Analysis of the Contemporary Debate”, The Nonprofileration Review, (1996)
28. Pincus, Walter, “US Studies Developing New Nuclear Weapons”, International Herald Tribune, 20 February 2002
29. Posen, Barry R. and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy", International Security 21 (Winter 1996/97)
30. Rice, Condoleezza, "Promoting the National Interest," Foreign Affairs (January 2000) Sagan, Scott, “The Perils of Proliferation: Organization Theory, Deterrence Theory, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, in International Security, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1994)
31. Slade, Tuiloma Neroni, “1995 Review and Extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 5 (1996)
32. Sloan, Elinor, The Revolution in Military Affairs (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002)
33. “Southern Scud attack on San’a reportedly kills more than 23 civilians”, BBC/ME/1995/1, May 12, 1994.
34. Tachibana, Seiitsu “Bush Administration’s Nuclear Weapons Policy Seeks Omnipotence” in Peace Research 34:2 (2002)
35. Tuchman, Barbara, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam (New York: Random House, 1984)
36. Waltz, Kenneth N., The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better, (London: IISS, 1981)
37. Waltz, Kenneth, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities” American Political Science Review, 84 (1990)
38. Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1997)
39. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 37, no. 18 (Washington D.C.: US National Archives and Records Administration, 7 May 2001)
40. Weston Burns H. and Anthony D’amato (eds), Documents on International Law and World Order (St Paul, Minnesota: West, 1980)