An Overview of the Evolution of the International Relations Discipline

Abstract

International relations refers to a concept and an interdisciplinary discipline that has been carried up to the present day within a historical framework and perspective, starting from Ancient Chinese, Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. However, within the scientific method, as a monolithic field, it represents the mutual, varied, and conjunctural relationships that have existed throughout history among nations, kingdoms, and empires. The autonomy of international relations is a product of the recent period and corresponds to the first quarter of the 20th century. In this respect the end of the First World War and the following year 1919 are widely accepted as a milestone. In this regard, the theorizing periods and historical processes of the concept of international relations, which expresses both interstate relations and an independent discipline, have been studied to be explained with a general and compiling perpective.

Keywords

• Discipline
• History
• International Relations
• Process of Theorization

Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Evrimine Genel Bir Bakış

Öz

Uluslararası ilişkiler; eski Çin, Antik Yunan ve Roma uygarlıklarından başlayarak tarihsel bir çerçeve ve perspektif dahilinde günümüze taşınan bir kavram ve disiplinlerarası bir disiplini ifade eder. Bununla birlikte tarih boyunca var olmuş devlet, monarşi ve imparatorlukların karşılıklı, değişken ve konjonktürel ilişki biçimlerini bilimsel metotla yansıtan yekpare bir disiplin olarak uluslararası ilişkilerin özerk hale gelişi, yakın dönemin ürünü olup 20. Yüzyılın ilk çeyreğine denk düşer. Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nın bitişi ve 1919 yılı bu açıdan bir milat olarak çokça kabul görür. Bu yönüyle bu çalışmada hem devletlerarası ilişkileri hem de bağımsız bir disiplini ifade eden uluslararası ilişkiler konseptinin teorileşme dönemleri ve tarihsel süreçleri genel ve derleyici bir bakışla açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Tarihçe
• Teorileşme Süreci
• Disiplin

Kaynakça

1. Ateş, D. (2009). Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininin oluşumu: idealizm/realizm tartışması ve disiplinin özerkliği, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10 (1), 11-25.
2. Aydın, M. (1996). Uluslararası ilişkilerde yaklaşım, teori ve Analiz. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 51(1), 71-114.
3. Baldwin, D.A. (Ed ). (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Bostanoğlu, B. (1995). International relations theory as a social science . The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, (25), 105-116.
5. Brecher, Michael. (1999). International Studies in the twentieth century and beyond: flawed dichotomies, synthesis, cumulation: ISA Presidential Address. International Studies Quarterly, 43( 2), 213-264.
6. Brown, C., Robert, E., Petit, P. (Eds.). (1995). International affairs: a companion to contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Burchill, S. (2001). Realism and neorealism. In S. Burchill(Ed.) Theories of International Relations. New York, Palgrave.
8. Cavoski, A. (2015). Idealism or realism in the process of EU Enlargement: The Case of Serbia. East European Quarterly, 43(4), 265-289.

9. Cochran, M. (1995). Postmodernism, ethics and international political theory. Review of International Studies, 21(3), 237-250. doi:10.1017/S026021050011767X
10. Crawford, R.M.A. (2000). Idealism and realism in international relations:beyond the discipline. London, Routledge.
11. Çalış, Ş., Özlük, E. (2007). Uluslararası ilişkiler tarihinin yapı sökümü: İdealizm-realizm tartışması. Selçuk Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, (18), 225-243.
12. Evans, G., Newnham, J. (1998). The penguin dictionary of international relations, New York: Penguin.
13. Gönlübol, M. (2014). Uluslararası Politika: İlkeler Kavramlar Kurumlar. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
14. Halliday, F. (1994). Rethinking International Relations, London: Macmillan.
15. Hobson, J.M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus 106 (3), 41-60.
17. Hollis, M., Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and understanding international Relations. New York: Clarendon Press.
18. Jackson, R. (2009). International Relations as a Craft Discipline. In: Navari, C. (eds) Theorising International Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
19. James, A. (1964). Power Politics. Political Studies, 12(3): 307-326.
20. Kaplan M. A., (1961). Is International Relations a Discipline?: The Journal of Politics, 23(3), 462-476.
21. Keohane, R.O., Nye, J.S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little&Brown Company.
22. Kornprobst, M. (2009). International Relations as Rhetorical Discipline: Toward (Re-)Newing Horizons. International Studies Review, Volume 11(1), 87–108.
23. Krombach, H. (1992). International Relations as an Academic Discipline. Millennium, 21(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298920210020701
24. Kurki, M. and Wight, C. (2021). International Relations and Social Science. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (eds.) International Relations Theory. Fifth Edition: Oxford.
25. Kurki, M. (2006). Causes of a divided discipline: Rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations theory. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 189-216.
26. Lapid, Y. (1989a). Quo vadis international relations? Further reflections on the “nextstage” of international theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18 (1), 77-88.
27. Lapid, Y. (1989b) The third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a postpositivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3).
28. Levy, J. (1997). Too important to leave to the other: history and political science in the study of international relations. International Security, 22 (1), 22-33.
29. Lijphardt, A. (1974). International relations theory: great debates and lesser debates. International Social Science Journal, 26 (1).
30. Little, R. (1999). Historiography and international relations. Review of International Studies, 25 (2), 291-299.
31. Maliniak D. and others. (2018). Is International Relations a Global Discipline? Hegemony, Insularity, and Diversity in the Field. Security Studies, 27(3), 448-484.
32. Miller, P.H. (1983). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: W.H. Freeman.
33. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1970). International Relations 1965–1969. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, No. 390.
34. Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, international relations,and the westphalian myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287.
35. Özlük, E. (2009). Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinin soy kütüğü, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (17), 237-260.
36. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
37. Rice, D.A. (2006). An overview of the field of international relations. International Law and Organizations. (Spring Issue).
38. Rosenau, J. (1976). International studies in a transnational world. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 5 (1), 1-20.
39. Schmidt, B. (1998). The political discourse of anarchy. Albany State: University of New York Press.
40. Schreuer, C. (1993). The waning of the sovereing state: towards a new paradigm for international law, European Journal of International Law, 4, 447-471.
41. Smith, S. (1987). The development of international relations as a social science. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16 (2), 189-206.
42. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 374-402.
43. Smith, T. (1995). A Wilsonian world. World Policy Journal, 12 (2), 62-66.
44. Snow, C.P. (1993). The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sönmezoğlu F. (2019). Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
46. Thompson, J. A. (2010). Wilsonianism: The dynamics of a conflicted concept. International Affairs, 86(1), 27-47.
47. Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplini ve Türk Uluslararası İlişkileri. Akademik Perspektif, 08.11.2015, http://akademikperspektif.com/2012/11/08/uluslararasi-iliskiler-disiplini-ve-turk-uluslararasi-iliskileri/
48. VANDERSLUIS, S.O. (Der.) (2000). The state and identity construction in international relations. London: Macmillan.