Change in Conceptualization of Power

Öz

Change is inevitable in every conception of politics. The conception of power is not an exception. The main debate of International Relations (IR), realism and liberalism, represent this change process though, change can also be witnessed in each conception as well. The general currency can be observed as a transition from measurable, coercive and deterrent nature towards value-laden, cooperative and co-optive nature of power. The context of power can be assumed by factors such as international political environment and perceived nature of threat that requires a ‘flexible’ approach to describe its nature. Besides intention of actor should be credited to asses the efficiency of its power. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Power, International Relations, Change.

Güç Kavramsallaştırmasında Değişim

Öz

Değişim, bütün siyasal konseptler için kaçınılmaz bir gerçekliktir. Bu bağlamda, güç konsepti bir istisnai durum değildir. Uluslararası İlişkilerde ana tartışma konusu olan, realizm ve liberalizm bu değişimi temsil edebilir ve her konseptte de bu değişim görülebilir. Genel geçerlilik, ölçülebilir, cebri, ve caydırıcılıktan değer yüklü, işbirlikçi ve seçilmiş bir güç tanımına kaymıştır.Güç kavramının kapsamı, uluslararası siyasi çevre ve algılanan tehditin doğasıyla anlaşılıbilir ve bu da esnek bir yaklaşım gerektirir. Bunun yanında, aktörlerin niyetleri güçün etkinliğiyle ölçülebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güç, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Değişim.

Kaynakça

1. Abbot, Jacop, Alexander the Great, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1902.
2. Arendt Hannah, On Violence, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970.
3. Armitage, Richard L. and Nye, Joseph S. Implementing Smart Power: Setting an Agenda for National Security Reform, Statement before the Foreign Relation Committee of US Senate.
4. Baldwin, David A., “Power and International Relations”, Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons Beth (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London, Sage.
5. Berenskkoetter, Felix, “Thinking About Power” in Power in World Politics, Felix Berenskkoetter and M.J.Williams (eds), New York, Routledge, 2007.
6. Boulding, Kenneth, Three Faces of Power, Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1989.
7. Burchill, Scout, “Realism and Neorealism” in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, Jacqui True (eds), 2nd Edition, New York, Palgrave, 2001.
8. Carr, Edward Hallet, Twenty Years Crisis, New York, Palgrave, 1988.

9. Coleman, Peter T., “Positive Power: Mapping the Dimesions of Constructive Power Relations”, International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Teachers’ College, Colombia University.
10. Cooper, Robert, the Goals of Diplomacy, Hard Power, and Soft Power, David Held/Mathias Koenig-Archibugi (eds), American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2004.
11. Dahl, Robert A., “The Concept of Power”, Behavioural Science, 2, 1957.
12. Deutsch, Karl W., “On the Concepts of Politics and Power”, Journal of International Affairs, 21, 1967.
13. Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control, New York, Collier-Macmillan, 1963.
14. Digeser, Peter, “The Fourth Face of Power”, Journal of Politics, 54/4, 1992.
15. Foucault, Michel, The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality 1, London, Penguin Books, 1998.
16. Griffiths, Martin, Fifty key Thinkers in International Relations, London, Routledge, 1999.
17. Hökmark, Gunnar (Ambassador), Speech in Tel Aviv University on October 31, 2006. http://www.european-enterprise.org/items/whatwedo/ articlesspeeches/Tel_Aviv_University_Diplomacy_and_balance_rev.pdf
18. http://people.uma ss. edu/hist101/docs%20absolutism%20101-2007.pdf
19. http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_congress&task=view&id=254
20. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/document/9109_PositivePower.pdf
21. Jackson, Robert, http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199285433 /jackson_chap06.pdf
22. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “Power and Independence in the Information Age”, Foreign Affairs, 77/5, 1998.
23. Lukes, Steven, Power: A Radical View, Houndmills: Macmillan Education, London, 1974.
24. Mead, Walter Russell, “America’s Sticky Power”, Foreign Policy, No.141, March-April 2004.
25. Mearshheimer, John J., The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York, Norton, 2001.
26. Steans Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1974.
27. Nye, “Soft Power”, Foreign Policy, No. 80 , Fall 1990, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Ning/archive/archive/080/SOFT_POWER.Pdf
28. Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “The Benefits of Soft Power”, February 8, 2008, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
29. Nye, Jr., Joseph S., Soft Power: the Means to Success in World Politics, New York, Public Affairs, 2004.
30. Nye, Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization, New York, Routledge, 2004.
31. Pax Britannica, “Encyclopædia Britannica”, 2010, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/447441 /Pax-Britannica
32. Richelieu, Political Testament, 1638.
33. Steans, Jill and Pettiford, Lloyd, International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, Malaysia, Pearson Education, 2001.
34. Tanrısever, Oktay, “Güç”, Eralp, Atila (ed), Devlet ve Ötesi: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, 2009.
35. Tunçay, Mete, Batı’da Siyasal Düşünceler Tarihi-I: Seçilmiş Yazılar (Eski ve Orta Çağlar), Ankara, Teori Yayınları, 1985.
36. Walt, Stephen, “Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition”, Katznelson, Ira, and Milner, Helen V. (eds) The State of Discipline, New York, Norton.
37. Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics, California, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1979.
38. Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.