GÜÇ GEÇİŞİ TEORİSİNE SOSYAL İNŞACILIK PERSPEKTİFİNDEN ELEŞTİREL BİR BAKIŞ

Yıl 2023, , 1546 - 1558, 20.10.2023

Ertugrul Gokcekuyu

https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1265263

Öz

İktidar kavramı, siyaset alanının özünü oluşturan merkezi konulardan biri olup, insan varlığı kadar kadim ve de çekici bir temadır. Güç kavramı ve anlatısı mevcut siyasi düşünce ve akımlar arasında özelliklede realist düşünce ekolünün odak noktası olmuştur. Bu bağlamda devletlerin güçleri ve ne olduklarına dair önemli çalışmalardan biriside 1958'de World Politics adlı çalışmaya imza atan A.F.K. Organski olmuştur. Organski'nin bu çalışması temel bir model, bir gösterge olarak günümüzde halen kullanılmakta ve Güç Geçiş Kuramı adı altında savaşa ilişkin bilimsel bir tahmin teşvikinde bulunmaktadır. Sosyal inşacılık bir Uluslararası İlişkiler kuramı olarak realizm den esinlenen bu Güç geçiş Kuramının tahmin yeteneklerini ve mutlaklığını eleştirmektedir. Bu makale, güç geçişleri sırasında meydan okuyan ve meydan okunan arasında şiddetli bir rekabet olsa da, olmasa da savaşların nasıl tahmin edildiğine dair geniş bir literatürde tartışılan Güç Geçiş Kuramı'na alternatif bir eleştiri oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal İnşacılık, Güç, Güç Geçişi Teorisi, Çatışma

Destekleyen Kurum

Anadolu Üniversitesi

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST CRITIQUE TO POWER-TRANSITION THEORY AS A PREDICTOR OF WAR

Öz

The concept of power is inadvertently one of the most central topics in the field of politics. The concept has been intriguing for mankind as long as the human memory goes. Especially the realist school of thought has a primary focus on the power-narrative. One of the earliest studies undertaken was that of A.F.K. Organski who wrote World Politics in 1958 that constructed indicators what state power may or may not constitute. Organski’s work being explanatory has prompted a scientific prediction of war based on these indicators. Power Transition Theory provides relevance from a practical realist stance in today’s turbulent international order elaborating on Nation, International Relations and International Organizations. Constructivism criticizes the predictive abilities and the absoluteness as quick turn of events can make mockery of the tidiest of theories. However, this paper seeks to establish an alternative criticism to the Power Transition Theory as discussed in a vast body of literature on how wars are predicted during a transition of power on basis of Index of National Capability (INC).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Constructivism, Power, Power Transition Theory, War, Conflict

Kaynakça

• Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. 2011. ‘International Practices’. International Theory 3(1):1–36.
• Burchill, Scott, Andrew Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, T. Nardin, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit, and J. True. 2013. ‘Theories of International Relations. 1137311363’.
• DiCicco, Jonathan M., and Jack S. Levy. 1999. ‘Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 43(6):675–704. doi: 10.1177/0022002799043006001.
• Doyle, Michael W. 2005. ‘Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace’. American Political Science Review 99(3):463–66.
• Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press.
• Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization 52(4):887–917.
• Gilpin, Robert. 1988. ‘The Theory of Hegemonic War’. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18(4):591–613. doi: 10.2307/204816.
• Graetz, Michael J., and Ian Shapiro. 2020. The Wolf at the Door: The Menace of Economic Insecurity and How to Fight It. Harvard University Press.
• Ikenberry, G. John. 2008. ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West-Can the Liberal System Survive’. Foreign Aff. 87:23.
• Keohane, Robert Owen. 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press. Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2018. Praxis On Acting and Knowing. Vol. 17. United Kingdom: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Kristof, Nicholas D. 1992. ‘The Rise of China’. Foreign Aff. 72:59.
• Lebow, Richard Ned, and Benjamin Valentino. 2009. ‘Lost in Transition: A Critical Analysis of Power Transition Theory’. International Relations 23(3):389–410. doi: 10.1177/0047117809340481.
• Lemke, Douglas. 1997. ‘The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War’. Journal of Peace Research 34(1):23–36.
• Lemke, Douglas, and Ronald L. Tammen. 2003. ‘Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China’. International Interactions 29(4):269–71. doi: 10.1080/714950651.
• Lemke, Douglas, and Suzanne Werner. 1996. ‘Power Parity, Commitment to Change, and War’. International Studies Quarterly 40(2):235. doi: 10.2307/2600958.
• Mearsheimer, John J. 2007. ‘Structural Realism’. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity 83:77–94.
• Modelski, George, and William R. Thompson. 1996. Leading Sectors and World Powers: The Coevolution of Global Politics and Economics. Univ of South Carolina Press.
• Onuf, Nicholas. 2013. Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations. Routledge.
• Organski, A. F. K. 1958. World Politics. Knopf.
• Paul, Justin. 2016. ‘The Rise of China: What, When, Where, and Why?’ The International Trade Journal 30(3):207–22. doi: 10.1080/08853908.2016.1155513.
• Ruggie, John Gerard. 2003. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation. Routledge. Sayle, Timothy Andrews. 2016. ‘Edward Lucas, Deception: The Untold Story of East-West Espionage Today’. doi: 10.1080/02684527.2015.1044294.
• Sikkink, Kathryn. 2011. The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics (the Norton Series in World Politics). WW Norton & Company.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. 2010. Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.
• Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 2001. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press.
• Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.