Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Yeni Güvenlik Üzerine Kuramsal Tartışmalar

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 95 - 109, 31.07.2017

Zerrin Ayşe Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.322535

Öz

Bu çalışma, Soğuk Savaş sonrasında Uluslararası İlişkiler’de yeni güvenlik üzerine yapılan kuramsal tartışmaları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma ilk olarak temel kuramsal yaklaşımların yeni güvenlik kavramına bakışını incelemektedir. Güvenlik meselelerine eleştirel bir çerçevede yaklaşan çalışma, güvenliğin genişleyen analiz düzeyleri, referans nesneleri ve boyutlarıyla birlikte, sadece ‘devam eden tarihsel bir dönüşümü’ göstermekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda mevcut düzeni de dönüştürmenin mümkün olduğunu öncülleyen normatif bir yaklaşımın da gerekli olduğunu kabul etmektedir. İkinci olarak çalışma, Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişiyle birlikte geleneksel güvenlik kavramının hem analiz düzeyleri, hem de araştırma boyutlarıyla çarpıcı bir biçimde nasıl değiştiğini göstermeye çalışmaktadır. Güvenliğin yeniden tanımlanması özellikle Eleştirel Güvenlik Çalışmaları ve Sosyal İnşacı kuramsal yaklaşımlar açısından ele alınmaktadır. Özetle  bu çalışma, güvenlik kavramının Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönemin başlangıcında Uİ disiplini çerçevesinde nasıl yeniden tanımlandığını incelemektedir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Güvenlik, Eleştirel Güvenlik Çalışmaları, Sosyal İnşacılık

Theoretical Debates on New Security in the Aftermath of the Cold War

Öz

This study aims at analysing the key theoretical debates on new security in International Relations (IR) in the aftermath of the Cold War. Firstly, it starts examining the major theoretical approaches on the new concept of security. It provides a critical reflection on security issues premised upon the view that the wide range of the levels, referents, and dimensions not only reflects an engagement in ‘a continuing process of historical change’, but also it reflects a normative element of a possible transformation within the prevailing order. Secondly, it attempts to demonstrate how the traditional conception of security has dramatically changed both in its levels and dimensions of investigation after the end of the Cold War. Particulary, the redefinition of security is examined through a Critical Security Studies (CSS) perspective combined with Social Constructivism. In sum, this study examines how the concept of security has redefined within the discipline of IR in the beginning of the post-Cold War era.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Security, Critical Security Studies, Social Constructivism

Kaynakça

• AYOOB, Mohammed (1997). “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (London: UCL Press), pp. 121-146.
• BALDWIN, David A. (1997). “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Relations, (Vol. 23, No. 1), pp. 5-26.
• BAYLIS, John (2001). “International and Global Security in the Post-Cold War Era,” in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to IR, 2nd edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 253-276.
• BİLGİN, Pınar (1998). “Contesting Statist Common Sense: Agents and Referents from a Critical Security Studies Perspective,” Working Paper presented at the BISA Conference, (Brighton: University of Sussex, 14-16 December 1998).
• BOOTH, Ken (1991). “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies, (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 313-326.
• BOOTH, Ken (1997). “Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (London: UCL), pp. 83-119.
• BUZAN, Barry (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, (2nd edition, CO: Boulder).
• BUZAN, Barry (1996). “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 47-65.
• BUZAN, Barry, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis, (London: Lynne Rienner).
• CLAUDE, Inis L. (1964). Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization, (London: University of London Press).
• COX, Robert W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium, (Vol. 10, No. 2), pp. 126-151.
• DALBY, Simon (1997). “Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security Discourse,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (London: UCL), pp. 3-31.
• FROST, Mervyn (1994). “The Role of Normative Theory in IR,” Millennium, (Vol. 23, No.1), pp. 109-118.
• GROOM, A.J.R. (1990). “The Question of Peace and Security,” in Paul Taylor and A.J.R. Groom (eds.), International Institutions at Work, (London: Pinter), pp. 75-95.
• JONES, Richard Wyn (1995). “Message in a Bottle? Theory and Praxis in Critical Security Studies,” Contemporary Security Policy, (Vol. 16, No. 3), pp. 299-319.
• KRAUSE, Keith and Michael C. Williams (1996). “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review, (Vol. 40, No. 2), pp. 229-254.
• KRAUSE, Keith and Michael C. Williams (eds.) (1997). Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (London: UCL).
• LINKLATER, Andrew (1996). “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 279-298.
• LINKLATER, Andrew (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era, (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press).
• LIPSCHUTZ, Ronnie D. (1995). “On Security,” in Ronnie D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 1-23. LITTLE, Richard E. (1981). “Ideology and Change,” in Barry Buzan and R. J. Barry Jones (eds.), Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension, (New York).
• MEARSHEIMER, John J. (1990). “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, (Vol. 15, No. 1), pp. 5-56.
• MORGENTHAU, Hans J. (rev. Kenneth W. Thompson) (1993). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: McGraw-Hill).
• NEUFELD, Mark A. (1995). The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• SPEGELE, Roger D. (1992). “Richard Ashley’s Discourse for International Relations,” Millennium, (Vol. 21, No. 2), pp. 147-182.
• TICKNER, J. Ann (1995). “Re-visioning Security,” in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 175-197.
• WAEVER, Ole, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup and Pierre Lemaitre (1993). Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, (London: Pinter).
• WAEVER, Ole (1996). “European Security Identities,” Journal of Common Market Studies, (Vol. 34, No. 1), pp. 103-132.
• WALKER, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• WALKER, R.B.J. (1995). “The Subject of Security,” Working Papers on Re-Thinking Security, #7, (Centre for International Studies, University of Southern California).
• WALKER, R.B.J. (1999). “The Hierarchalization of Political Community,” Review of International Studies, (Vol.25, No.1), pp. 151-156.
• WENDT, Alexander (1992). “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, (Vol. 46, No. 2), pp. 391-425.
• WENDT, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).