21. YÜZYILDA KÜRESEL GÜVENLİK VE TERÖRİZM İKİLEMİNİ İNŞACI PERSPEKTİFTEN TARTIŞMAK

Öz

Küreselleşme sürecinin çok boyutlu olması ülkelerin yönetim ve güvenlik yaklaşımlarını derinden etkilemektedir. Küreselleşme ile birlikte sorunlar kadar çözümler de dünya ölçeğine taşınmış ve çıkarlar da küreselleşmiştir. Sorunların doğası, terörizm gibi unsurların politik ve sistemsel etkilerini de artırmaktadır. 21. yüzyıla 11 Eylül terörist saldırıları ile giren küresel dünya, güç mücadelesini farklı bir boyuta taşımıştır. Devletlerin güvenlik algısı toplumsal tepkiler ile ölçülmeye başlanmıştır. Uzak coğrafyalarda birbirini tanımayan toplumlar ve devletler benzer tehditlerle karşı karşıyadır. Bu sürecin değerlendirilmesinde, uluslararası ilişkilerin analiz seviyesi olan inşacılık ön plana çıkmaktadır. Küreselleşme ve terörizm gibi toplumsal gerçekliğin mimarisinde belirli süreçlerle ortaya çıkan devletler 21. yüzyılda ilginç bir dönüşüme tanıklık etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, devletin ve onu oluşturan tüm unsurların toplumsal inşa sürecine tabi olduğu temel argümanından hareket etmek gerekmektedir. Çalışmada küreselleşme ve terörizm ikilemi inşacılık perspektifinden tartışılmıştır. Küreselleşme ve terörizm kavramlarının merkezinde aktörlerin ve kimliklerin, normların ve kurumların uluslararası politika üzerindeki etkisi değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• İnşacılık
• Küreselleşme
• Terörizm
• Güvenlik

DISCUSSING THE GLOBAL SECURITY AND TERRORISM DILEMMA WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Öz

The multidimensionality of the globalization process affects the management and security approaches of countries deeply. As a consequence of the globalization, problems, as well as solutions, are brought up to the world agenda and interests of people have become globalized. The nature of the questions also increases the political and systemic effects of elements such as terrorism. The global world that entered the 21st century with the September 11 terrorist attacks carried the power struggle to a different dimension. The security perception of nations has begun to be measured through the social reaction. Societies and nations that do not know each other in remote geographies face similar threats. In the analysis of this process, constructivism, which is the analysis level of the international relations, comes to the fore. States that have been established through specific processes in the construction of social reality such as globalization and terrorism have witnessed an attention-gathering transformation in the 21st century. In this context, it is necessary to proceed from the basic argument the state and all the elements that constitute it are subject to the process of social construction. The globalization and terrorism dilemma were discussed from the perspective of constructionism in the study. The impact of actors and identities, norms and institutions on international politics has been evaluated at the centre of globalization and terrorism concepts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Relations
• Constructivism
• Globalization
• Terrorism
• Security

Kaynakça

1. Adler, E. (1997). “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319-363. doi: 10.1177/1354066197003003003
2. Adler-Nissen, R. (2016). “The Social Self in International Relations: Identity, Power and the Symbolic Interactionist Roots of Constructivism”, European Review of International Studies, 3(3), 27-39. www.jstor.org/stable/26583584
3. Ahmad, N. and Majeed, M. T. (2016). “Does Political Globalization Impede Terrorism? A Regional Perspective”, in The Pakistan Development Review, Papers and Proceedings: The 32nd Conference of the Pakistan Society of Development Economists (pp. 409-423).
4. Badie, B. (2001). “Realism under Praise, or a Requiem? The Paradigmatic Debate in International Relations”, International Political Science Review, 22(3), 253-260. www.jstor.org/stable/1601485
5. Bakker, E. (2012) “Forecasting Terrorism: The Need for a more Systematic Approach”, Journal of Strategic Security, 5(4), 69-84. doi: 10.5038/1944-0472.5.4.5
6. Baldwin, D. A. (1997). “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Relations, 23(1), 5-26. www.jstor.org/stable/20097464
7. Barkin, S. (2009). “Realism, Prediction, and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(3), 233-246. www.jstor.org/stable/24909777
8. Britton, G. (2006). “September 11, American ‘Exceptionalism’ and the War in Iraq”, Australasian Journal of American Studies, 25(1), 125-141. www.jstor.org/stable/41054016

9. Brzezinski, Z. and Soussan, M. (1993). “Interview: Zbigniew Brzezinski”, The Brown Journal of Foreign Affairs, 1(1), 51-60. www.jstor.org/stable/24589634
10. Brown, M. M. (2006). “The Future of the United Nations in the Aftermath of 11 September 2001”, Irish Studies in International Affairs, (17), 23-29. www.jstor.org/stable/30002095
11. Chernoff, F. (2009). “The Ontological Fallacy: A Rejoinder on the Status of Scientific Realism in International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 35(2), 371-395. www.jstor.org/stable/20542794
12. Cronin, A. K. (2002). “Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism”, International Security, 27(3), 30-58. www.jstor.org/stable/3092113
13. Das, Runa (2009). “Critical Social Constructivism: ‘Culturing’ Identity, (In) Security, and the State in International Relations Theory”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, 70(4), 961-982. www.jstor.org/stable/42744013
14. Dunn, D. H. (2005). “Bush, 11 September and the Conflicting Strategies of the War on Terrorism”, Irish Studies in International Affairs, (16), 11-33. www.jstor.org/stable/30001932
15. Elsenhans, H. (2017). “Globalization, World Capitalism and Rent, and the Emergence of New Cultural Identitarian Political Movements: The Challenges Ahead”, Indian Journal of Asian Affairs, 30(1/2), 1-14. www.jstor.org/stable/26465813
16. Fierke, K. (2007). Constructivism, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway World, How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives, Newyork: Routledge.
18. Global Terrorism Index (2019), Measuring the Impact of Terrorism, Institute for Economics and Peace. Accessed February 3, 2020. http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2019/11/GTI-2019web.pdf
19. Hülsse, R. and Spencer, A. (2008). “The Metaphor of Terror: Terrorism Studies and the Constructivist Turn”, Security Dialogue, 39(6), 571-592. www.jstor.org/stable/26299817
20. Kirshner, J. (2014). “International Relations Then and Now: Why the Great Recession was not the Great Depression”, History of Economic Ideas, 22(3), 47-69. www.jstor.org/stable/43924201
21. Kramer, M. (2012). “The Unintended Revolution. Commentary on Criticism as Crisis, or Why the Soviet Union still Collapsed?”, Journal of Modern European History, 10(1), 5-18. www.jstor.org/stable/26265956
22. Krieger, T. and Meierrieks, D. (2011). “What Causes Terrorism?”, Public Choice, 147(1/2), 3-27. doi: 10.1007/s11127-010-9601-1 Lezaun, J. (2002). “Limiting the Social: Constructivism and Social Knowledge in International Relations”, International Studies Review, 4(3), 229-234. www.jstor.org/stable/3186483
23. Mackay, J. and Levin, J. (2010). The Case for Hegel in International Relations Theory: Making War and Making States. Accessed February 14, 2020. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
24. McSweeney, B. (1999). Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Neufeld, M. A. (1995). The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Onuf, N. (1998). “Constructivism: A User’s Manuel”, in K. Vendulka et al. (Ed.), International Relations in a Constructed World (pp.58-78), New York: M. E. Sharpe.
27. Pape, R. (2019). How to partner with The Taliban, Foreign Policy. Accessed February 24, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/26/how-to-partner-with-the-taliban/
28. Parida, P. K. (2007). “Globalisation, Relative Deprivation and Terrorism: An Analysis”, India Quarterly, 63(4), 122-154. www.jstor.org/stable/45073192
29. Pieterse, J. N. (2002). “Globalization at War: War on Terrorism”, International Journal of Peace Studies, 7(2), 75-93. www.jstor.org/stable/41852887
30. Smith, S. (1996). “Positivism and Beyond”, in S. Steve et al. (Ed.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp.11-44), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Taylor, T. (2019). Social Science Research on Terrorism. Accessed February 15, 2020. http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2019/06/
32. Thies, C. G. (2004). “Are Two Theories Better than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate”, International Political Science Review, 25(2), 159-183. doi: 10.1177/0192512104041282
33. Waever, O. (1998). “The Sociology of a not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations”, International Organization, 52(4), 687-727. www.jstor.org/stable/2601355
34. Waltz, K. (1993). “The Emerging Structure of International Politics”, International Security, 18(2), 44-79. doi:10.2307/2539097
35. Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organizations, 46(2), 391-425. doi:10.2307/2539217
36. Wendt, A. (1995). “Constructing International Politics”, International Security, 20(1), 71- 81.
37. Wendt, A. (1996). “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics”, in L. Yosef and K. Friedrich (Eds.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (pp.47-64), London: Lynne Rienner Publisher.
38. Wiener, A. (2006). “Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises”, Constitutionalism Webpapers, ConWEB, No: 5. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1939758