-

Öz

Middle East remains to be the most important crisis region in the world after the cold war. Turkey which is an important part of this geographic region has shown an active profile recently, paralleling her socio-economic progress. During this period it is necessary, more than ever, to have a good knowledge of social sciences and theoretical approaches to the international relations. The international system has become so complicated so that it is almost impossible to analyze the problems without theoretical approaches. In this study, theoretical concepts that were developed for the region have been presented and compared in order to better analyze the international politics for the region.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Middle East and Great Powers, Penetrated Political System, Patron-Client Relationship, Regional Subsystem, Hegemonial Power

ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER BAĞLAMINDA ORTADOĞU'DA BÜYÜK

Öz

Ortadoğu, uluslararası ilişkiler alanında Soğuk Savaş'ın bitiminden sonra da dünyanın en önemli kriz bölgesi olma özelliğini muhafaza etmektedir. Bu coğrafyanın önemli bir parçası olan Türkiye, son yıllardaki sosyo-ekonomik gelişmesine paralel olarak aktif bir şekilde Ortadoğu'da bölgesel güç profili göstermeye başlamıştır. Bu süreç içinde oldukça karmaşık yapıya sahip bölgesel dinamikleri kavramak ve başarılı politikalar üretmek, sosyal bilimler ve özellikle uluslararası ilişkiler alanındaki teorik yaklaşımlara hakimiyeti her zamankinden daha fazla zorunlu kılmaktadır. Uluslararası sistem artık günümüzde o kadar karmaşık hale gelmiştir ki, teorik bir yaklaşım olmadan sağlıklı bir analiz yapmak hemen hemen mümkün görünmemektedir. Bu bağlamda, Ortadoğu'daki uluslararası politikayı daha iyi analiz edebilme amacıyla, çalışmada bölgede büyük güçler ile ilgili geliştirilmiş teorik yaklaşımlar mukayeseli olarak bir araya getirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ortadoğu ve Büyük Güçler, Nüfuz Edilmiş Siyasal Sistem, Patron-Klient İlişkisi, Bölgesel Alt Sistem, Hegemonyal Güç

Kaynakça

1. • Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaakov (1987). Israel, the Superpowers and the War in the Middle East. New York: Praeger.
2. • Martin Beck (1999). “Die Erdölrevolution und der Petrolismus. Die Rolle des Erdöls für die Politik im Vorderen Orient”, Peter Pawelka ve Hans-Georg Wehling, (Der.), Der Vordere Orient an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert. Politik - Wirtschaft - Gesellschaft, Opladen, West-deutscher Verlag, 1999, s. 35-55.
3. • Beck, Martin (2002). “Von theoretischen Wüsten, Oasen und Karawanen Der Vordere Orient in den Internationlaen Beziehungen” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen. Cilt 2: 305-330.
4. • Beck, Martin (2009). “Rente und Rentierstaat im Nahen Osten”. Martin Beck et al, Zwischen Transformation und Autoritarismus. Der Nahe Osten im Umbruch. Wiesbaden. VS Verlag. 25-49.
5. • Binder, Leonard (1958). “The Middle East as a Subordinate International System”. World Politics. No 3: 408-429.
6. • Brecher, Michael (1969). “The Middle East Subordinate System and its Impact on Israel Foreign Policies”. Interantional Studies Quarterly. Cilt 13. No 2: 117-139. • Brown, Carl L. (1994). “The Middle East after the cold war and the Gulf war: Systemic change or more of the same?”. George W. Downs (der.). Collective security beyond the cold war, Ann Arbor: Michigan UP. 197-216.
7. • Brown, Carl L.(1984). “International Politics and the Middle East. Old Rules, Dangerous Game”. Princeton: Princeton UP. 21-85.
8. • Cantori, Louis J. (1994). “The Middle East in the New World Order. Political Trends”. Tareq Y. Ismael ve Jacqueline S. Ismael, The Gulf War and the New World Order. International Relations of the Middle East. Tallahasse. Florida UP: 451-472. • Cantori, Louis J. ve Steven L. Spiegel. (1970). The International Politics of Regions. A Comparative Approach. Englewood Cliffs. N.J: Prentice Hall.

9. • Cleveland, William L. (2000). A History of the Modern Middle East, Boulder: Westview Press.
10. • Dierke, Kai W. (1996). Krieg und Ordnung Eine Studie über regionale Kriege und regionale Ordnung am Beispiel des Nahen Ostens, Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.
11. • Efrat, Moshe ve Jacob Bercovitch (1991) (der.). Superpowers and Client Staes in the Middle East. The Imbalance of Influence. London: Routledge.
12. • Fawcett, Louise (2004). “Alliances, Cooperation and Regionalism in the Middle East”, Louise Fawcett (der.) International Relations of the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford UP. 173-193.
13. • Fromkin, David (2004). A peace to and all peace. The fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Middle East. London: Phoenix.
14. • Gerges, Fawaz A. (1994). The Superpowers and the Middle East. Regional and International Politics, 1955-1967. Boulder:Westwiew Press.
15. • Halliday, Fred (2005). The Middle East in International Relations International. Power, Politics and Ideology, Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
16. • Handel, Michael (1981). Weak States in the International System. London: Frank Cass.
17. • Hinnebush, Raymond ve Anoushiravan Ehteshami (2002). (der.) The Foreign Policies of Middle East States. London: Lynne Rienner.
18. • Hubel, Helmut (1995). Das Ende des Kalten Krieges im Orient. Die USA, die Sowjetunion und die Konflikte in Afghanistan, am Golf und im Nahen Osten, 197919 München: Oldenbourg.
19. • Hubel, Helmut Markus Kaim ve Oliver Lembke (2000). Pax Americana imNahen Osten: Eine Studie zur Transformation regionaler Ordnungen. Baden Baden: Nomos. • Jung, Dietrich (2002). “Religion und Politik in der islamischen Welt”, ApuZ B-42-43: 34-36.
20. • Jung, Dietrich (2003). “Kriege im Nahen und Mittleren Osten”, D. Jung, K. Schlichte ve J. Siegelberg, Kriege in der Weltgesellschaft. Strukturgeschichtliche Erklärung kriegerischer Gewalt (1945-2002). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. 251-290. • Jung, Dietrich (2003). “Staat und Islam im Mittleren Osten”, Michael Minkenberg ve Ulrich Willems (der.), Politik und Religion (Sonderheft 33/2002 der Politischen Vierteljahresschrift), Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag, 2003, s. 207-227.
21. • Klaff, Rene (1993). Konfliktstrukturen und Außenpolitik im Nahen Osten. Das Beispiel Syrien. Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.
22. • Kühn, Florian P. (2010). Sicherheit und Entwicklung in der Weltgesellschaft. Wiesbaden:VS.
23. • Pawelka, Peter (1999). “Der Vordere Orient unter der Hegemonie der USA. Eine politische Ökonomie der US-amerikanischen Außenpolitik”, Peter Pawelka ve Hans-Georg Wehling (der.), Der Vordere Orient an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden:Westdeutscher Verlag. 13-35.
24. • Pawelka, Peter (2000). “Der Vordere Orient in der Weltpolitik: Sozialwissenschaftliche Modelle und Forschungsperspektiven”. Orient. Cilt 4: 571-591.
25. • Rothstein, Robert L. (1968). Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia UP. • Shomaker, Christoph C. ve John Spanier (1984). Patron-Client State Relationship. Multilateral Crisis In The Nuclear Age. New York: Praeger.
26. • Telhamy, Shibley (1996). “Israeli Foreign Policy: A Realist Ideal-Type or a Brees of Its Own?”, Michael N. Barnett (der.), Israel in Comparative Perspective: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. Albany: State Univercity of NY Press. 29-52. • Thompson, William R. (1973). “The Regional Subsystem. A Conceptual Explication and a Propositional Inventory”. International Study Quarterly. Cilt 17: 87-117. • Tibi, Bassam (1989). Konfliktregion Naher Osten. Regionale Eigendynamik und Großmachtinteressen. 1. Basım. München: C.H.Beck
27. • Tibi, Bassam (1991). Konfliktregion Naher Osten. Regionale Eigendynamik und Großmachtinteressen, Genişletilmiş 2. Basım. München: C.H.Beck
28. • Walt, Stephen (1987). The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell UP.
29. • Yapp, Malcolm E. (1987). The Making of the Modern Middle East 1792-1923. London: Longman.
30. • Yapp, Malcolm E. (1996). The Near East since the First World War. A History to 19 London: Longman.
31. • Zartman, William I. (1967). “Africa as a Sobordinate State System in International Relations”. International Organisation. Cilt 21, No 3: 545-564.