Ethical Norms in International Relations: A Larger Theoretical Mapping

Yıl 2023, , 105 - 124, 27.02.2023

Mustafa Atatorun

https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1192460

Öz

This study aims to map out the ways in which ethics (moral philosophy) and International Relations (IR) are converged around certain norms in the literature. Besides comprising communitarian and cosmopolitan norms and values in Normative IR Theory (Normative Theory) in which the two academic disciplines are congregated, this mapping tries to display that certain norms in some critical theories has tangible ethical meanings as well. Thus, it can be claimed that ethics in IR has in fact larger intellectual and theoretical dimensions. Accordingly, “community/state” which is one of the ethical norms and driving force of political acts and attitudes in Normative Theory put forward by communitarianism, and the other one which is “universal right” in cosmopolitanism are discussed at first. Then, the “class” norm of Marxism, the “race” norm of Postcolonialism, the “gender” norm of Feminism and the “environment” norm of Green Theory which are asserted as the determiners of policies and actions, are treated within the context of ethics. In conclusion, it is exhibited that international ethical studies cannot be bounded with Normative Theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

International Ethics, Normative Theory, IR Theories, Ethical/Moral Norms

Uluslararası İlişkilerde Etik Normlar: Geniş Bir Kuramsal Haritalandırma

Öz

Bu çalışma, iki farklı akademik disiplin olan etik (ahlak felsefesi) ve Uluslararası İlişkilerin (Uİ) literatürde hangi normlar etrafında, nasıl bir araya getirildiğinin geniş bir haritasını vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu haritalandırma, iki disiplinin bir araya getirildiği kuram olan Normatif Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisindeki (Normatif Teori) toplulukçu ve kozmopolitan norm ve değerleri içermenin yanında, bazı eleştirel kuramlar içindeki belirli normların da somut etik anlamlara sahip olduğunu göstermeye çalışmaktadır. Böylece, Uİ’de etiğin aslında daha geniş düşünsel ve kuramsal boyutlarının olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, öncelikle Normatif Teoride siyasi eylem ve tavırları yönlendiren ahlaki normlardan toplulukçuluğun öne çıkardığı “topluluk/devlet” ve kozmopolitanizmdeki “evrensel hak” tartışılmıştır. Daha sonra, uluslararası alanda politika ve eylemleri belirlemesi gerektiğini savunan Marksizm’in “sınıf”, Postkolonyalizmin “ırk”, Feminizmin “cinsiyet” ve Yeşil Teorinin “çevre” normları ahlaki bağlamda ele alınmıştır. Sonuç olarak uluslararası etik çalışmaların Normatif Teoriyle sınırlı olamayacağı ortaya konulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslararası Etik, Normatif Teori, Uİ Teorileri, Etik/Ahlaki Normlar

Kaynakça

• Ağcan, M. A. (2013). İnsanlık, sosyo-politik topluluk ve evrensellik/farklılık: Andrew Linklater, eleştirel kuram ve küresel siyaset. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 10(37), 3-35.
• Ağcan, M. A. (2022). Kozmopolitanizm. M. A. Ağcan (Ed.), Çağdaş siyaset teorisi içinde (s. 379-410), İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Aydın Koyunucu, Ç. (2020). Feminist etik, F. Yalvaç ve M. Atatorun (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkiler etiği içinde (s. 181-212), Ankara: Nika Yayınevi.
• Beitz, C.R. (1999). Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Bell, D. (2013). Race and international relations: introduction. Cambridge Review of International Relations, 26(1), 1-4.
• Benn, P. (2001). Ethics. London: University College London Press.
• Bentham, J. (2000). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
• Bowie, R.A. (2001). Ethical studies, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
• Brandt, R.B. (1996). Facts, values, and morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brewer, A. (1990). Marxist theories of imperialism: a critical survey. New York: Routledge.
• Brock G. ve Brighouse, H. (2005). Introduction. G. Brock ve H. Brighouse (Ed.), The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism içinde (s. 1-9). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory: new normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Brown, C. (2000). The ‘English school’: international theory and international society. M. Albert et al. (Ed.), Civilizing world politics: society and community beyond the state içinde (s. 91-102). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Brown, G. W. (2015). Cosmopolitanism. M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of political thought içinde (s. 750-760). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
• Bull, H. (1966). Society and anarchy in international relations. H. Butterfield ve M. Wight (Ed.), Diplomatic investigations: essays in the theory of international politics içinde. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. New York: Palgrave.
• Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Caprioli M. ve Boyer, M. (2001). Gender, violence, and international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(4), 503-518.
• Chin, C. (1998). In service and servitude: foreign female domestic workers and the Malaysian ‘modernity’ project. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Chowdhry G. ve Nair, S. (2002). Introduction: power in postcolonial world: race, gender, and class in international relations. G. Chowdhry ve S. Nair (Ed.), Power, postcolonialism and international relations: reading race, gender and class içinde (s. 1-32), Londra: Routledge.
• Cochran, M. (2004). Normative theory in international relations: a pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cochran, M. (2016). IR theory as an ethical pursuit. K. Booth ve T. Erskine (Ed.), International relations theory today içinde (s. 85-96). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium Journal of International Studies, (10)2, 126-155.
• Cutler, C. A. (1991). The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations. Review of International Studies, 17(1), 41-65.
• Doty, R. L. (1998). The bounds of ‘race’ in international relations. D. Jacquin-Berdal, A. Oros ve M. Verweij (Ed.), Culture in world politics içinde (s. 134-155). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Drabble M. (2000). The Oxford companion to English literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dunne, T. (2010). The English school. T. Dunne et al. (Ed.), International relations theories, discipline and diversity içinde (s. 135-156). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: towards an ecological approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Eckersley, R. (2010). Green theory, Tim Dunne et al. (Ed.), International relations theories: discipline and diversity içinde (s. 257-277), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Elfstrom, G. (1998). International ethics: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Inc.
• Erçandırlı, Y. (2020). Yeşil etik. F. Yalvaç ve M. Atatorun (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkiler etiği içinde (s. 213-243), Ankara: Nika Yayınevi.
• Erskine, T. (2010). Normative IR theory. T. Dunne et al. (Ed.), International relations theories, discipline and diversity içinde (s. 36-57). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Etzioni, A. (2015). Communitarianism. M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of political thought içinde (s. 620-625). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
• Freyberg-Inan, A. (2004). What moves man: the realist theory on international relations and its judgement of human nature, Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Frost, M. (1994). The role of normative theory in IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(1), 109-118.
• Frost, M. (2001). Ethics in international relations: a constitutive theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. London: Routledge.
• Gray, M. M., Kittilson, M. ve Sandholtz, W. (2006). Women and globalization: a study of 180 countries, 1975-2000. International Organization, 60(2), 293-333.
• Grotius, H. (2005). The rights of war and peace, book III, appendix: prolegomena to the first edition of de jure belli ac pacis. R. Tuck (Ed.), Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.
• Grovogui, S. (2002). Regimes of sovereignty: rethinking international morality and the African condition. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), 315–338.
• Hayden, P. (2009). Introduction. P. Hayden (Ed.), The Ashgate research companion to ethics and international relations içinde (s. 1-10). Surrey: Ashgate.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (2004). Phenomenology of spirit. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Outlines of the philosophy of right. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Hinman, L. M. (2008). Ethics: a pluralistic approach to moral theory. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
• Hobden S. ve Wyn Jones, R. (2008). Marxist theories of international relations. J. Baylis, S. Smith ve P. Owens (Ed.), The globalization of world politics içinde (s. 142-159). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hurrell, A. (2002). Foreword to the third edition: the anarchical society 25 years on. Hedley Bull, The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics içinde (s. vii-xxiii). New York: Palgrave.
• Jackson, R. (2005). Classical and modern thought on international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kagan, S. (1998). Normative ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Kant, I. (1991a). Perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch. H. S. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: political writings içinde (s. 93-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1991b). The metaphysics of morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (2006). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lenin, V.I. (1966). Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism: A popular outline. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. ve Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
• Mill, J. S. (2009). Utilitarianism. Auckland: The Floating Press.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1947). Scientific man vs. power politics. London: Latimer House Limited.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Murphy, C. F. (1982). The Grotian vision of world order. The American Journal of International Law, 76(3), 477-498.
• Nardin T. ve Mapel D. R. (1992). Traditions of international ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nardin, T. (1983). Law, morality and the relations of states. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2002a). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. M. Nussbaum ve J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country? içinde (s. 3-17). Boston: Beacon Press.
• Nussbaum, Martha (2002b). Reply. M. Nussbaum ve J. Cohen (Ed.), For love of country? içinde (s. 133-144). Boston: Beacon Press.
• Nuttall, J. (1997). Ahlâk üzerine tartışmalar: etiğe giriş. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• O’Neill, O. (2004). Bounds of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parasram, A. (2018). Hunting the state of nature: race and ethics in postcolonial international relations. B. J. Steele ve E. A. Heinze (Ed.), Routledge handbook of ethics and international relations içinde (s. 102-115). New York: Routledge.
• Paterson, M. (2005). Green politics. Scott Burchill et al. (Ed.), Theories of international relations içinde (s. 235-257), New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Peffer, R. G. (2001). Marksizm, ahlak ve toplumsal adalet. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Persaud R. B. ve Walker, R. B. J. (2001). Apertura: race in international relations. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 26(4), 373-376.
• Persaud, R. B. (2002). Situating race in international relations: the dialectics of civilizational security in American immigration. G. Chowdhry ve S. Nair (Ed.), Power, postcolonialism and international relations: reading race, gender and class içinde (s. 56-81), Londra: Routledge.
• Pogge, T. W. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, (103)1, 48-75.
• Prügl, E. (1999). The global construction of gender: home-based work in the political economy of the 20th century. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Rigstad, M. (2015). Deontology. M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), The encyclopedia of political thought içinde (s. 883-888). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
• Said, E. W. (1998). Oryantalizm (doğubilim): sömürgeciliğin keşif kolu. İstanbul: İrfan Yayıncılık.
• Shapcott R. (2010). International ethics: a critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Smith, P. (2008). Moral and political philosophy: key issues, concepts and theories. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Tickner, J. A. ve Sjoberg, L. (2010). Feminism. T. Dunne et al. (Ed.), International relations theories: discipline and diversity içinde (s. 195-212), New York: Oxford University Press.
• True, J. (2008). The ethics of feminism. C. Reus-Smith ve D. Snidal (Ed.), Oxford handbook of international relations içinde (s. 408-421), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Vincent, A. (2007). The nature of political theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Londra: Academic Press.
• Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Wood, A. W. (2008). Kantian ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Yalvaç, F. (2020). Marksizm, eleştirel teori ve etik. F. Yalvaç ve M. Atatorun (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkiler etiği içinde (s. 119-147). Ankara: Nika Yayınevi.