Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN ASYA’YLA İLİŞKİLERİNDE BÖLGELER ARASI BİR ETKİLEŞİM BİÇİMİ OLARAK ASYA-AVRUPA DİYALOĞU

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 25, 602 - 625, 29.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.025

Öz

Bölgesel bir örgütlenme olarak Avrupa Birliği (AB), dış ilişkilerini yürütürken uluslararası ilişkilerdeki aktörlerle çeşitli biçimlerde etkileşime girmektedir. Bölgeler arası etkileşim, AB’nin dış ilişkilerini yürütürken uyguladığı yöntemlerden biridir. AB, diğer bölgelerdeki bölgesel örgütler, devletler ve devlet gruplarıyla bölgeler arası ilişkiler kurmakta ve bölgeler arası nitelikteki etkileşim mekanizmalarına katılmaktadır. Asya-Avrupa Diyaloğu (Asia-Europe Meeting-ASEM), AB’nin Asya’yla olan ilişkilerindeki etkileşim kanallarından biridir. İlki 1996 yılında gerçekleştirilen ASEM, Asya ile Avrupa kıtası arasındaki siyasal, ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel ilişkileri geliştirmek ve iki bölgenin halkları arasında yakınlık oluşturmak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiş bir girişimdir. Belirtilen çerçeve içerisinde bu çalışma, bölgeler arasıcılık kavramı kapsamında, AB’nin Asya’yla ilişkilerinde bölgeler arası bir etkileşim biçimi olan ASEM’in temel rasyonalitesini ve işleyişini ele almakta ve diyalog sürecinin etkilerine ilişkin değerlendirmelerde bulunmaktadır.

Kaynakça

  • Acharya, A. (2002). Regionalism and the emerging world order: Sovereignty, autonomy, identity. S. Breslin, C. W. Hughes, N. Phillips, & B. Rosamond (Ed.) New regionalisms in the global political economy (ss. 20-32). London: Routledge.
  • Acharya, A. (2007). The emerging regional architecture of world politics. World Politics, 59(4), 629-652.
  • AECF (The Asia-Europe cooperation framework) (2000). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/asem/docs/aecf_2000_en.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Akdemir, E. (2018). Avrupa Birliği’nin dış ilişkileri ve politikası: Avrupa Birliği’nin bütünleş(eme)mesi üzerine bir inceleme. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 17(2), 181-218.
  • Aksoy, M., & Uğur, Ö. (2016). Avrupa Birliği’nin diş politikadaki aktörlüğüne etki eden güç unsurları: Sivil Güç, askeri güç ve normatif güç. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(1), 213-227.
  • Altınay, K. (2021). Bölgeler arasıcılık ve bölgeler ötesicilik kavramları çerçevesinde AB-MERCOSUR ilişkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • ASEF (Asia–Europe Foundation). (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://asef.org/ adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM 1 (1st ASEM Summit). (1996). New comprehensive Asia-Europe partnership for greater growth. Final Chair Statement, 1-2 March 1996, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • ASEM Brochure. (2018). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/asem_brochure.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM Pillars. (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.aseminfoboard.org/about/pillars-of-asem adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM Process. (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.aseminfoboard.org/about/asem-process adresinden erişildi.
  • Baert, F., Scaramagli, T., & Söderbaum, F. (2014). Introduction: Intersecting interregionalism. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 1-12). New York: Springer.
  • Balme, R. & Bridges, B. (2008a). Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Balme, R. & Bridges, B. (2008b). Introducing Asia, Europe and the challenges of globalization. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 1-23). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor (2nd E). London: Routledge.
  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2013). A Global actor past its peak? International Relations, 27(3), 375-390.
  • Cameron, F. (2013). The evolution of EU–Asia relations: 2001–2011. T. Christiansen, E. Kirchner, & P. Murray (Ed.) The Palgrave handbook of EU–Asia relations (ss. 30-44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (1994). Towards a new Asia strategy. Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM(94) 314 Final, Brussels, 13.07.1994.
  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (2001). Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships. Communication from the Commission, COM(2001) 469 Final, Brussels, 4.9.2001.
  • De Lombaerde, P., & Schulz, M. (Ed.). (2009). The EU and world regionalism: The makability of regions in the 21st Century. London: Ashgate.
  • De Waele, H. (2014). Legal dynamics of EU external relations: Dissecting a layered global player (2nd E). Berlin: Springer.
  • Dent, C. M. (2003). From inter-regionalism to trans-regionalism? Future challenges for ASEM. Asia Europe Journal, 1, 223-235.
  • Dent, C. M. (2006). The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) process: Beyond the triadic political economy? In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 113-127). London: Routledge.
  • Doidge, M. (2011). The European Union and interregionalism: Patterns of engagement. Farnham: Ashgate.
  • Doidge, M. (2014). Interregionalism and the European Union: Conceptualising group-to-group relations. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 37-54). New York: Springer.
  • Donduran, C. (2020). Sistemik faktörlerin bir ürünü olarak bölgeselcilik. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 251-266.
  • Fawcett, L. (1995). Regionalism in historical perspective. L. Fawcett, & A. Hurrell (Ed.) Regionalism in world politics: Regional organization and international order (ss. 9-36). Oxford: Oxford University.
  • Gaens, B. (2008). ASEM’s background and rationale. B. Gaens (Ed.) Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (ss. 9-28). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Gaens, B. (2018). Two Decades of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). B. Gaens, & G. Khandekar (Ed.) Inter-Regional Relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) (ss. 9-32). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gaens, B., & Khandekar, G. (2018a). Introduction. B. Gaens, & G. Khandekar (Ed.) Inter-Regional Relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) (ss. 1-8). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gaens, B., & Khandekar, G. (Ed.) (2018b). Inter-Regional relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hänggi, H. (2000). Interregionalism: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Paper Prepared for the Workshop “Dollars, Democracy and Trade: External Influence on Economic Integration in the Americas”, Los Angeles, May 18. 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.cap.lmu.de/transatlantic/download/Haenggi.PDF adresinden erişildi.
  • Hänggi, H. (2006). Interregionalism as a multifaceted phenomenon: In search of a typology. H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 31-62). London: Routledge.
  • Hänggi, H., Roloff, R., & Rüland, J. (2006). Interregionalism: A new phenomenon in international relations. H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 3-14). London: Routledge.
  • Hardacre, A., & Smith, M. (2014). The European Union and the contradictions of complex interregionalism. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.). Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 91-106). New York: Springer.
  • Hettne, B. (2003). The new regionalism revisited. F. Söderbaum, & T. M. Shaw (Ed.) Theories of new regionalism: A Palgrave reader (ss. 22-42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hettne, B. (2005). Beyond the ‘new’ regionalism. New Political Economy, 10(4), 543-571.
  • Hettne, B. (2008). EU as a global actor: An anatomy of actorship. Paper at the EU in International Affairs 2008 Conference Vrije Universiteit, Brussel, 24-26 April 2008, 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.ies.be/files/repo/conference2008/EUinIA_IV_1_Hettne.pdf, adresinden erişildi.
  • Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2005). Civilian power or soft imperialism? The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 535-552.
  • Hettne, B., Inotai, A., & Sunkel, O. (Ed.) (1999). Globalism and the new regionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hwee, Y. L. (2003). Asia and Europe: The development and different dimensions of ASEM. London: Routledge.
  • Keva, S., & Gaens, B. (2008). ASEM’s institutional infrastructure. In B. Gaens (Ed.), Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (s. 115-134). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Mehmetcik, H. (2019). Bölgeselcilik çalışmalarında bölgeler arası ve bölgeler ötesi ilişkiler: Avrupa Birliği ve Afrika Birliği ilişkileri örneği. Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(Özel Sayı), 72-84.
  • Özdal, B. (2020). Avrupa Birliği: Siyasi bir cüce, askeri bir solucan mı? Ortak dış politika ve güvenlik politikası ile ortak güvenlik ve savunma politikası oluşturma süreçlerinin tarihsel gelişimi (2.b). Bursa: Dora.
  • Özoğuz-Bolgi, S. (2013). Is the EU becoming a global power after the Treaty of Lisbon? A. Boening, J.-F. Kremer, & A. Van Loon (Ed.) Global power Europe - Vol. 1: Theoretical and institutional approaches to the EU’s external relations (ss. 3-18). New York: Springer.
  • Paasi, A. (2009). The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: Theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 121-146.
  • Park, S.-H., & Kim, H.-C. (2008). The Asia strategy of the European Union and Asia–EU economic relations: History and new developments. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 66-82). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ramopoulos, T., & Odermatt, J. (2013). EU diplomacy: Measuring success in light of the post-Lisbon institutional framework. A. Boening, J.-F. Kremer, & A. Van Loon (Ed.) Global power Europe - Vol. 1: Theoretical and institutional approaches to the EU’s external relations (ss. 19-35). New York: Springer.
  • Reçber, K. (2018). Avrupa Birliği hukuku ve temel metinleri (3.b). Bursa: Dora.
  • Renard, T. (2016). Partnerships for effective multilateralism? Assessing the compatibility between EU bilateralism, (inter-)regionalism and multilateralism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 18-35.
  • Rüland, J. (2014). Interregionalism and international relations: Reanimating an obsolescent research agenda? F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 15-35). New York: Springer.
  • Şahin, K. (2018). Bütünleşme olgusunun analiz düzeyi. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, 118(232), 81-96.
  • Şahin, K. (2019). Bütünleşme, milliyetçilik ve Avrupa Birliği. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
  • Smith, K. E. (2008). EU Foreign Policy and Asia. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 47-65). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Söderbaum, F. (2011). Formal and informal regionalism. T. M. Shaw, J. A. Grant, & S. Cornelissen (Ed.) The Ashgate research companion to regionalisms (ss. 51-67). Farnham: Ashgate.
  • Söderbaum, F. (2016). Rethinking regionalism. London: Palgrave.
  • Söderbaum, F., Stålgren, P., & Van Langenhove, L. (2005). The EU as a global actor and the dynamics of interregionalism: A comparative analysis. European Integration, 27(3), 365-380.
  • Telò, M. (Ed.) (2007). European Union and new regionalism: Regional actors and global governance in a post-hegemonic era (2nd E). London: Ashgate.
  • Van Langenhove, L. (2011). Building regions: The regionalization of the world order. Farnham: Ashgate.

ASIA-EUROPE MEETING AS AN INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION PATTERN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RELATIONS WITH ASIA

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 25, 602 - 625, 29.06.2022
https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.025

Öz

As a regional organization, the European Union (EU) interacts with actors of international relations in various ways in conducting its foreign relations, including interregional interactions. The EU establishes interregional relations with regional organizations, states, and groups of states and participates in interregional interaction mechanisms. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is among the interaction channels of the EU in its relations with Asia. ASEM, held in 1996 first, is an initiative to develop political, economic, social, and cultural relations between Asia and Europe and create awareness between the peoples of the two regions. In this framework, considering the concept of interregionalism, this study deals with the basic rationality and functioning of ASEM, an interregional interaction pattern in the EU’s relations with Asia, and makes statements on the dialogue process.

Kaynakça

  • Acharya, A. (2002). Regionalism and the emerging world order: Sovereignty, autonomy, identity. S. Breslin, C. W. Hughes, N. Phillips, & B. Rosamond (Ed.) New regionalisms in the global political economy (ss. 20-32). London: Routledge.
  • Acharya, A. (2007). The emerging regional architecture of world politics. World Politics, 59(4), 629-652.
  • AECF (The Asia-Europe cooperation framework) (2000). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/asem/docs/aecf_2000_en.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Akdemir, E. (2018). Avrupa Birliği’nin dış ilişkileri ve politikası: Avrupa Birliği’nin bütünleş(eme)mesi üzerine bir inceleme. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 17(2), 181-218.
  • Aksoy, M., & Uğur, Ö. (2016). Avrupa Birliği’nin diş politikadaki aktörlüğüne etki eden güç unsurları: Sivil Güç, askeri güç ve normatif güç. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(1), 213-227.
  • Altınay, K. (2021). Bölgeler arasıcılık ve bölgeler ötesicilik kavramları çerçevesinde AB-MERCOSUR ilişkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  • ASEF (Asia–Europe Foundation). (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://asef.org/ adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM 1 (1st ASEM Summit). (1996). New comprehensive Asia-Europe partnership for greater growth. Final Chair Statement, 1-2 March 1996, Bangkok, Thailand.
  • ASEM Brochure. (2018). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/asem_brochure.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM Pillars. (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.aseminfoboard.org/about/pillars-of-asem adresinden erişildi.
  • ASEM Process. (2021). 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.aseminfoboard.org/about/asem-process adresinden erişildi.
  • Baert, F., Scaramagli, T., & Söderbaum, F. (2014). Introduction: Intersecting interregionalism. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 1-12). New York: Springer.
  • Balme, R. & Bridges, B. (2008a). Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Balme, R. & Bridges, B. (2008b). Introducing Asia, Europe and the challenges of globalization. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 1-23). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a global actor (2nd E). London: Routledge.
  • Bretherton, C., & Vogler, J. (2013). A Global actor past its peak? International Relations, 27(3), 375-390.
  • Cameron, F. (2013). The evolution of EU–Asia relations: 2001–2011. T. Christiansen, E. Kirchner, & P. Murray (Ed.) The Palgrave handbook of EU–Asia relations (ss. 30-44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (1994). Towards a new Asia strategy. Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM(94) 314 Final, Brussels, 13.07.1994.
  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (2001). Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships. Communication from the Commission, COM(2001) 469 Final, Brussels, 4.9.2001.
  • De Lombaerde, P., & Schulz, M. (Ed.). (2009). The EU and world regionalism: The makability of regions in the 21st Century. London: Ashgate.
  • De Waele, H. (2014). Legal dynamics of EU external relations: Dissecting a layered global player (2nd E). Berlin: Springer.
  • Dent, C. M. (2003). From inter-regionalism to trans-regionalism? Future challenges for ASEM. Asia Europe Journal, 1, 223-235.
  • Dent, C. M. (2006). The Asia–Europe Meeting (ASEM) process: Beyond the triadic political economy? In H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 113-127). London: Routledge.
  • Doidge, M. (2011). The European Union and interregionalism: Patterns of engagement. Farnham: Ashgate.
  • Doidge, M. (2014). Interregionalism and the European Union: Conceptualising group-to-group relations. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 37-54). New York: Springer.
  • Donduran, C. (2020). Sistemik faktörlerin bir ürünü olarak bölgeselcilik. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 251-266.
  • Fawcett, L. (1995). Regionalism in historical perspective. L. Fawcett, & A. Hurrell (Ed.) Regionalism in world politics: Regional organization and international order (ss. 9-36). Oxford: Oxford University.
  • Gaens, B. (2008). ASEM’s background and rationale. B. Gaens (Ed.) Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (ss. 9-28). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Gaens, B. (2018). Two Decades of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). B. Gaens, & G. Khandekar (Ed.) Inter-Regional Relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) (ss. 9-32). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gaens, B., & Khandekar, G. (2018a). Introduction. B. Gaens, & G. Khandekar (Ed.) Inter-Regional Relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) (ss. 1-8). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gaens, B., & Khandekar, G. (Ed.) (2018b). Inter-Regional relations and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hänggi, H. (2000). Interregionalism: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Paper Prepared for the Workshop “Dollars, Democracy and Trade: External Influence on Economic Integration in the Americas”, Los Angeles, May 18. 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.cap.lmu.de/transatlantic/download/Haenggi.PDF adresinden erişildi.
  • Hänggi, H. (2006). Interregionalism as a multifaceted phenomenon: In search of a typology. H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 31-62). London: Routledge.
  • Hänggi, H., Roloff, R., & Rüland, J. (2006). Interregionalism: A new phenomenon in international relations. H. Hänggi, R. Roloff, & J. Rüland (Ed.) Interregionalism and international relations (ss. 3-14). London: Routledge.
  • Hardacre, A., & Smith, M. (2014). The European Union and the contradictions of complex interregionalism. F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.). Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 91-106). New York: Springer.
  • Hettne, B. (2003). The new regionalism revisited. F. Söderbaum, & T. M. Shaw (Ed.) Theories of new regionalism: A Palgrave reader (ss. 22-42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hettne, B. (2005). Beyond the ‘new’ regionalism. New Political Economy, 10(4), 543-571.
  • Hettne, B. (2008). EU as a global actor: An anatomy of actorship. Paper at the EU in International Affairs 2008 Conference Vrije Universiteit, Brussel, 24-26 April 2008, 30 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.ies.be/files/repo/conference2008/EUinIA_IV_1_Hettne.pdf, adresinden erişildi.
  • Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2005). Civilian power or soft imperialism? The EU as a global actor and the role of interregionalism. European Foreign Affairs Review, 10(4), 535-552.
  • Hettne, B., Inotai, A., & Sunkel, O. (Ed.) (1999). Globalism and the new regionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hwee, Y. L. (2003). Asia and Europe: The development and different dimensions of ASEM. London: Routledge.
  • Keva, S., & Gaens, B. (2008). ASEM’s institutional infrastructure. In B. Gaens (Ed.), Europe-Asia interregional relations: A decade of ASEM (s. 115-134). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Mehmetcik, H. (2019). Bölgeselcilik çalışmalarında bölgeler arası ve bölgeler ötesi ilişkiler: Avrupa Birliği ve Afrika Birliği ilişkileri örneği. Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(Özel Sayı), 72-84.
  • Özdal, B. (2020). Avrupa Birliği: Siyasi bir cüce, askeri bir solucan mı? Ortak dış politika ve güvenlik politikası ile ortak güvenlik ve savunma politikası oluşturma süreçlerinin tarihsel gelişimi (2.b). Bursa: Dora.
  • Özoğuz-Bolgi, S. (2013). Is the EU becoming a global power after the Treaty of Lisbon? A. Boening, J.-F. Kremer, & A. Van Loon (Ed.) Global power Europe - Vol. 1: Theoretical and institutional approaches to the EU’s external relations (ss. 3-18). New York: Springer.
  • Paasi, A. (2009). The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: Theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 121-146.
  • Park, S.-H., & Kim, H.-C. (2008). The Asia strategy of the European Union and Asia–EU economic relations: History and new developments. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 66-82). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ramopoulos, T., & Odermatt, J. (2013). EU diplomacy: Measuring success in light of the post-Lisbon institutional framework. A. Boening, J.-F. Kremer, & A. Van Loon (Ed.) Global power Europe - Vol. 1: Theoretical and institutional approaches to the EU’s external relations (ss. 19-35). New York: Springer.
  • Reçber, K. (2018). Avrupa Birliği hukuku ve temel metinleri (3.b). Bursa: Dora.
  • Renard, T. (2016). Partnerships for effective multilateralism? Assessing the compatibility between EU bilateralism, (inter-)regionalism and multilateralism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 18-35.
  • Rüland, J. (2014). Interregionalism and international relations: Reanimating an obsolescent research agenda? F. Baert, T. Scaramagli, & F. Söderbaum (Ed.) Intersecting interregionalism: Regions, global governance and the EU (ss. 15-35). New York: Springer.
  • Şahin, K. (2018). Bütünleşme olgusunun analiz düzeyi. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, 118(232), 81-96.
  • Şahin, K. (2019). Bütünleşme, milliyetçilik ve Avrupa Birliği. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
  • Smith, K. E. (2008). EU Foreign Policy and Asia. R. Balme, & B. Bridges (Ed.) Europe–Asia relations: Building multilateralisms (ss. 47-65). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Söderbaum, F. (2011). Formal and informal regionalism. T. M. Shaw, J. A. Grant, & S. Cornelissen (Ed.) The Ashgate research companion to regionalisms (ss. 51-67). Farnham: Ashgate.
  • Söderbaum, F. (2016). Rethinking regionalism. London: Palgrave.
  • Söderbaum, F., Stålgren, P., & Van Langenhove, L. (2005). The EU as a global actor and the dynamics of interregionalism: A comparative analysis. European Integration, 27(3), 365-380.
  • Telò, M. (Ed.) (2007). European Union and new regionalism: Regional actors and global governance in a post-hegemonic era (2nd E). London: Ashgate.
  • Van Langenhove, L. (2011). Building regions: The regionalization of the world order. Farnham: Ashgate.
Toplam 59 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Samet Yılmaz 0000-0002-5232-5435

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Haziran 2022
Kabul Tarihi 20 Ocak 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 25

Kaynak Göster

APA Yılmaz, S. (2022). AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN ASYA’YLA İLİŞKİLERİNDE BÖLGELER ARASI BİR ETKİLEŞİM BİÇİMİ OLARAK ASYA-AVRUPA DİYALOĞU. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 602-625. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.025

KAÜİİBFD, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergi Yayıncılığı'nın kurumsal dergisidir.

2024 Haziran sayısı makale kabul ve değerlendirmeleri devam etmektedir.