Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde İngiliz Okulu’nun Gelişimi: Britanya Komitesi’nden Barry Buzan’a

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplini kavramları, varsayımları ve yöntemleri üzerine eklektik bir yapı geliştirerek kapsamlı bakış açısı ortaya koyan İngiliz Okulu kuramı, Soğuk Savaş döneminde ortaya çıkmasına rağmen kurama yönelik asıl ilgi Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde yaşanmıştır. İngiliz Okulu kuramı yeniden canlanma dönemine girerken kendini bu düşünce okulu bünyesinde tanımlayan araştırmacıların sayısı ve bu kuramın varsayımlarını geliştiren ve yöntemlerini kullanan çalışmaların sayısı artmış ve İngiliz Okulu Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin temel kuramlarından biri olarak kabul görmüştür. Bu çalışmada İngiliz Okulu kuramının nasıl geliştiği ve Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde daha fazla ilgi çekmesini ve disiplinde öne çıkmasını sağlayan etkenlerin neler olduğu sorularına cevap aranacaktır. Türkçe alanyazında kuramın gelişim anlatısıyla ilgili görülen eksikliğin giderilmesinin amaçlayan çalışma, İngiliz Okulu kuramı tarihçesinin bu kuramın varsayımlarını anlamak için taşıdığı önemi ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngiliz Okulu
• Britanya Komitesi
• Barry Buzan
• Kuramın Gelişim Anlatısı

The History of English School in International Relations Discipline: From the British Committee to Barry Buzan

Öz

The English School theory, which provides a comprehensive perspective with its eclectic structure on the concepts, assumptions, and methods of the International Relations discipline, developed during the Cold War period but has attracted more interest in the post-Cold War period. During this revival, many more researchers began to identify themselves with this school of thought, the volume of studies using the assumptions and methods of the theory grew, and the English School theory was accepted as one of the main theories of the discipline. This study seeks to answer the questions of how the English School theory developed and what factors let it gain more attention and come to the fore in the post-Cold War period. Aiming to fill the gap in the Turkish literature on the developmental narrative of the theory, the study reveals the importance of the history of the English School theory for understanding its assumptions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• English School
• British Committee
• Barry Buzan
• Developmental Narrative of the Theory

Kaynakça

1. “Forum on the English School”. (2001). Review of International Studies, 27(3), 465-513.
2. Aalto, P. (2007), Russia’s Quest for International Society and the Prospects for Regional- Level International Societies. International Relations, 21(4), 459-478.
3. Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2019). The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge University Press.
4. Arı, T. (2014). Uluslararası İlişkilerde Büyük Tartışmalar ve Post-Modern Teoriler. In T. Arı (Ed) Postmodern Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri 2, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar, Dora Yayınları, 1-47.
5. Ayoob, M. (2002). Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty. International Journal of Human Rights, 6(1), 81-102.
6. Bellamy, A.J. (2003). Pragmatic Solidarism and the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention. Millenium, 31(3), 473-479.
7. Bellamy A.J. (2007). The English School. In M. Griffiths (Ed) International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century, An Introduction, Routledge, 75-87.
8. Bellamy A.J., & McDonald, M. (2004). Securing International Society: Towards an English School Discourse of Security. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 307-330.

9. Booth, K. & Wheeler, N. (2008). The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. Palgrave.
10. Brown, C. (1995). International theory and international society: the viability of the middle way?. Review of International Studies, 21, 183-196.
11. Brown, C. (2001). World Society and the English School: An ‘International Society’ Perspective on World Society. European Journal of International Relations, 7(4), 423-441. Brown, C. (2002). Sovereignty, Rights and Justice. Polity Press.
12. Bull, H. (1966a). The Grotian Conception of International Society. In H. Butterfield & M. Wight (Eds) Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in International Politics. Harvard University Press, 51-73.
13. Bull, H. (1966b). International Theory, The Case for a Classical Approach. World Politics, 18(3), 361-377.
14. Bull, H. (1976). Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. British Journal of International Studies, 2(2), 101–116.
15. Bull, H. (1992). Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations. In G. Wight & B. Porter (Eds) International Theory: The Three Traditions, Martin Wight, Holmes & Meier, iv-xxiii.
16. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia University Press.
17. Bull, H. (1984). Intervention in World Politics. Clarendon Press.
18. Bull, H., & Watson, A. (Eds.) (1984). The Expansion of the International Society. Clarendon Press.
19. Buranelli, F.C. (2015). The State of the Art of the English School. In R.W. Murray (Ed). System, Society, and the World, Exploring the English School of International Relations, 2nd Edition, E-International Relations Publishing, 10-17.
20. Butterfield, H. & Wight, M. (Eds). (1966a). Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in International Politics. Harvard University Press.
21. Butterfield, H. & Wight, M. (1966b). Preface. In H. Butterfield, & M. Wight, (Eds). (1966a).
22. Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in International Politics, Harvard University Press., 11-13.
23. Buzan, B. (1993). From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School. International Organization, 47(3), 327-352.
24. Buzan, B. (1999). The English School as a Research Program: An Overview, and a Proposal for Reconvening. In BISA Convention, Manchester, England.
25. Buzan, B. (2001). The English School: an underexploited Resource in IR?. Review of International Studies, 27(3), 471-488.
26. Buzan, B. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge University Pres.
27. Buzan, B. (2010). The English School and International Security. In M.D. Cavelty, & V. Mauer, (Eds). The Routledge Companion to Security Studies, Routledge.
28. Buzan, B. (2014). An Introduction to the English School of International Relations, The Societal Approach. Polity.
29. Buzan, B. (2015). The English School: A neglected approach to International Security Studies. Security Dialogue, 46(2), 126-143.
30. Buzan, B. (2020). The transformation of global international society and the security agenda. Interview with Professor Barry Buzan. Security and Defence Quarterly, 30(3), 7-14.
31. Buzan, B. & Gonzalez-Pelaez, A. (Eds.), (2009). International Society and the Middle East: English School Theory at the Regional Level. Palgrave.
32. Buzan, B. & Little, R. (1994). The Idea of ‘International System’: Theory Meets History.
33. International Political Science Review, 15(3), 231-255.
34. Buzan, B. & Little, R. (1996). Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism Meets World History. European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 403-438.
35. Buzan, B. & Little, R. (2000). International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press.
36. Buzan, B. & Zhang, Y. (2014). Contesting International Society in East Asia. Cambridge University Press. Clark, I. (2007). International Legitimacy and World Society. Oxford University Press.
37. Cox, M., Dunne, T., & Booth, K., (Eds.). (2001). Empires, Systems and States: Great Transformations in International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
38. Devlen, B. & Özdamar, Ö. (2010). Uluslararası İlişkilerde İngiliz Okulu Kuramı: Kökenleri, Kavramları ve Tartışmaları. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(25), 43-68.
39. Dunne, T. (1995). The Social Construction of International Society. European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 367-89. Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing International Society, A History of the English School. MacMillan Press.
40. Dunne, T. (2010a). The English School. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 267-285.
41. Dunne, T. (2010b). The Liberal Order and the Modern Project. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 38, 535–543.
42. Dunne, T. & Wheeler, N. (2004). ‘We the Peoples’: Contending Discourses of Security in Human Rights Theory and Practice. International Relations, 18:1, 9-23.
43. EISA (2024). Retrieved from https://pec2024.eisa-net.org/.
44. English School Section (ENGSS) of ISA (2023), About ENGSS, retrieved from https://www. isanet.org/ISA/Sections/ENGSS/About-ENGSS.
45. Epp, R. (2014). The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics and Its Central Figures. In C. Navari & D.M. Green (Eds) Guide to the English School in International Studies, Willey Blackwell, 25-36.
46. Falkner, R. (2012). Global environmentalism and the greening of international society. International Affairs, 88(3), 503-522.
47. Falkner, R. (2017). International Climate Politics between Solidarism and Pluralism: An English School Perspective. In H. Stevenson & O. Corry (Eds) Traditions and Trends in Global Environmental Politics: International Relations and the Earth, Routledge.
48. Fawn R. & Larkins, J. (Eds). (1996). International Society after the Cold War: Anarchy and Order Reconsidered. Macmillan.
49. Foot, R., Gaddis, J. & Hurrell, A. (Eds.). (2003). Order and Justice in International Relations. Oxford University Press.
50. Fox, W.T.R. (Ed). (1959). Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. University of Notre Dame Press.
51. Gong, G.W. (1984). The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society. Clarendon Press.
52. Grader, S. (1988). The English School of International Relations: Evidence and Evaluation. Review of International Studies, 14(1), 29-44.
53. Green, D.M. (2014). Introduction to the English School in International Studies. In C. Navari & D. M. Green (Eds) Guide to the English School in International Studies, Willey Blackwell, 1-6.
54. Hall, I. & Dunne, T. (2019). Introduction to the New Edition. In H. Butterfield & M. Wight (Eds) Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in International Politics, with a new Introduction by Tim Dunne and Ian Hall, Oxford University Press, 1-36.
55. Holsti, K.J. (2004). Taming the sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics, Cambridge University Press. Hurrell, A. (2007). One world? Many worlds? The place of regions in the study of international society. International Affairs, 83(1), 127–146.
56. ISA (2024). Annual Convention Program, retrieved from https://www.isanet.org/Conferences/ ISA2024/Program. Jackson, R. (1990). Quasi-States, Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Cambridge University Press.
57. Jackson, R. (1996). Is There a Classical International Theory?. In K. Booth, S. Smith, & M. Zalewski (Eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, 203–218.
58. Jackson, R. (2000). The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, Oxford University Press.
59. James, A. (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society, Allen and Unwin.
60. Jones, R.E. (1981). The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure. Review of International Studies, 7(1), 1-13.
61. Jones, B. (1998). The English School and the Political Construction of International Society. In B.A. Roberson (Ed) International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, Pinter, 231-245.
62. Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
63. Keren, M. & Sylvan, D.A. (Eds). (2002). International Intervention: Sovereignty vs. Responsibility, Frank Cass.
64. Kingsbury, B. (1998). Confronting Difference: the Puzzling Durability of Gentili’s Combination of Pragmatic Pluralism and Normative Judgment, American Journal of International Law, 92(4), 713-723.
65. Linklater, A. (1990). Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations. Macmillan.
66. Linklater, A. (1992). What is a Good International Citizen?. In P. Keal (Ed) Ethics and Foreign Policy, Allen and Unwin, 21-43.
67. Linklater, A. (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post- Westphalian Era. Polity Press Blackwell Press.
68. Linklater, A. & Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge University.
69. Little, R. (1995). Neorealism and the English School: A Methodological, Ontological and Theoretical Reassessment. European Journal of International Relations, 1(1), 9–34.
70. Little, R. (1998). International System, International Society and World Society: A Re- evaluation of the English School. In B.A. Roberson (Ed) International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, Pinter, 59-79.
71. Little, R. & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2006). The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World. Palgrave.
72. Lyons, G.M. (1986). The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections. World Politics. 38(4), 627-628.
73. Mayall, J. (1982). The Community of States: A Study in International Political Theory. George Allen and Unwin.
74. Mayall, J. (1998). Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge University Press. Mayall, J. (2000). World Politics: Progress and its Limits. Polity.
75. Nardin, T. (1998). Legal Positivism as a Theory of International Society. In D.R. Mapel & T. Nardin (Eds). International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, Princeton University Press.
76. Navari, C. (Ed). (2009). Theorising International Society, English School Methods. Palgrave Macmillan.
77. Navari, C. (2014). English School Methodology. In C. Navari & D.M. Green (Eds) Guide to the English School in International Studies, Wiley-Blackwell, 143-158.
78. Navari, C. (Ed) (2014). International Society, The English School. Palgrave Macmillan.
79. Navari, C. & Green, D.M. (Eds.). (2014). Guide to the English School in International Studies. Willey Blackwell.
80. Palabıyık, M.S. (2019). İngiliz Okulu. In R. Gözen (Ed). Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, 2nci baskı. İletişim Yayınları, 217-255.
81. Paterson, M. (2005). Global Environmental Governance. In A.J. Bellamy (Ed). International Society and its Critics, Oxford University Press, 163-177.
82. Qiu-bin, W. (2007). The Northeast Asia Regional International Society: From the English School Perspective. Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition, 2, 59-65.
83. Rengger, N.J. (1992). Culture, Society and Order in World Politics. In J. Bayliss & N.J. Rengger (Eds.). Dilemmas of World Politics, Clarendon Press.
84. Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton University Press.
85. Reus-Smit, C. (2002). Imagining Society: Constructivism and the English School. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4(3), 487-509.
86. Riemer, A.K. & Stivachtis Y.A. (Eds), (2002). Understanding EU’s Mediterranean Enlargement: The English School and the Expansion of Regional International Societies. Peter Lang.
87. Shapcott, R. (2001). Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
88. Shapcott, R. (2002). Solidarism and After: Global Governance, International Society and the Normative ‘Turn’ in International Relations. Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change, 12(2), 147-165.
89. Smith, S. (1992). The Forty Years Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations. Millennium. 21(3), 489-506.
90. Stivachtis, Y.A. (1998). The Enlargement of International Society: Culture versus Anarchy and Greece’s Entry into International Society. Macmillan.
91. Suganami, H. (1983). The Structure of Institutionalism: An Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations. International Relations, 7(5), 2363–2381.
92. Suganami, H. (2003). British Institutionalists, or the English School, 20 Years On. International Relations. 17(3), 253–271.
93. Suganami, H. (2011). The English School, History and Theory. Ritsumerikan International Affairs. 9, 27-50.
94. Suzuki, S. (2009). Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society. Routledge.
95. Vigezzi, B. (2005). The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (1954-1985), The Rediscovery of History, trans. by Ian Harvey, Edizioni Unicopli.
96. Vincent, R. J. (1986). Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
97. Wæver, O. (1999). Does the English School’s Via Media equal the Contemporary Constructivist Middle Ground?. BISA Conference. Manchester, England.
98. Watson, A. (1982). Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. Methuen.
99. Watson, A. (1992). The Evolution of International Society, A Comparative Historical Analysis. Routledge.
100. Wheeler, N.J. (1996). Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of International Society. Political Studies, 44, 123-135.
101. Wheeler, N.J. (2000). Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford University Press.
102. Wight, M. (1977). Systems of States, edited by Hedley Bull, Leicester University Press.
103. Wight, M. (1992). International Theory, The Three Traditions, edited by Gabriele Wight and Brian Porter, with an introductory essay by Hedley Bull, Holmes & Meier.
104. Wilson, P. (1989). The English School of International Relations: A Reply to Sheila Grader. Review of International Studies, 15(1), 49–58.
105. Wilson, P. (2012). The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions. International Studies Review, 14, 567–590.