Orta Ölçekli Devletlerin Küresel Krizler Karşısında Stratejik Otonomi Arayışı: Polonya, Güney Kore ve Brezilya Üzerinden Karşılaştırmalı Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, küresel krizlerin yoğunlaştığı ve çok kutupluluğun belirginleştiği çağdaş uluslararası sistemde, orta ölçekli devletlerin stratejik otonomi arayışlarını karşılaştırmalı bir perspektiften incelemektedir. Uluslararası ilişkiler literatüründe stratejik otonomi kavramı çoğunlukla büyük güçler, bölgesel entegrasyon projeleri ve hegemonya tartışmaları bağlamında ele alınmış; orta ölçekli devletlerin kriz dönemlerinde geliştirdikleri dış politika ve ekonomik diplomasi stratejileri ise görece sınırlı biçimde analiz edilmiştir. Bu makale, söz konusu boşluğu doldurmayı amaçlayarak Polonya, Güney Kore ve Brezilya örneklerini karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yöntemiyle ele almaktadır. Çalışmada, ekonomik dalgalanmalar, güvenlik tehditleri ve küresel yönetişim krizlerinin bu devletlerin karar alma süreçleri üzerindeki etkileri ayrıntılı biçimde incelenmektedir. Analiz, realizm ve liberalizm başta olmak üzere çağdaş uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin yanı sıra stratejik otonomi literatürünün sunduğu kavramsal araçlardan yararlanmaktadır. Resmî politika belgeleri, uluslararası örgüt raporları ve hakemli akademik çalışmalar temel veri kaynaklarını oluşturmaktadır. Makale, orta ölçekli devletlerin kriz dönemlerinde yalnızca büyük güçler arasında denge kurmaya çalışan pasif aktörler olmadığını; aksine çok boyutlu ve esnek stratejiler geliştirerek uluslararası sistemde görece özerk hareket alanları yaratabildiklerini ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, orta ölçekli devletlerin küresel krizler karşısındaki konumuna ilişkin teorik ve ampirik literatüre özgün bir katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Stratejik Otonomi
• Orta Ölçekli Devletler
• Küresel Krizler
• Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Karşılaştırmalı Analiz

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırma herhangi bir dış finansal destek almamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, ilgili etik kurallar çerçevesinde yürütülmüş ve tüm kaynaklara uygun şekilde atıf yapılmıştır. Araştırma sürecinde herhangi bir etik ihlal, veri manipülasyonu veya intihal söz konusu değildir. Makaledeki tüm veriler ve analizler, yazarın bağımsız çalışması ile elde edilmiştir.

Teşekkür

Bu makalenin hazırlanmasında değerli görüş ve önerileriyle katkıda bulunan akademik meslektaşlarım ve danışmanlarıma teşekkür ederim.

The Quest for Strategic Autonomy Among Medium-Sized States in the Face of Global Crises: A Comparative Analysis Through Poland, South Korea, and Brazil

Öz

This study examines the pursuit of strategic autonomy by medium-sized states within an increasingly crisis-driven and multipolar international system through a comprehensive comparative perspective. In the existing international relations literature, the concept of strategic autonomy has predominantly been discussed in relation to great powers, regional integration projects, and debates on hegemony, while the policy responses and decision-making practices of medium-sized states during periods of global crisis have received relatively limited scholarly attention. Addressing this gap, the article conducts a comparative case study of Poland, South Korea, and Brazil, three states operating in distinct regional and geopolitical contexts. The study explores how economic disruptions, security challenges, and crises of global governance shape foreign policy preferences and strategic positioning in these countries. The analysis is grounded in major international relations theories, particularly realism and liberalism, while also drawing on contemporary discussions within the strategic autonomy literature. The research relies on official policy documents, reports published by international organizations, and peer-reviewed academic sources as its primary data set. The article argues that medium-sized states should not be understood merely as reactive actors constrained by great power politics, but rather as capable agents that employ multidimensional strategies to expand their relative autonomy within the international system during periods of global crisis. By doing so, the study aims to contribute to both the theoretical and empirical literature on strategic autonomy and the international behavior of medium-sized states.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Strategic Autonomy
• Medium-Sized States
• Global Crises
• International Relations
• Comparative Analysis

Destekleyen Kurum

This research did not receive any external financial support.

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines, and all sources have been appropriately cited. No ethical violations, data manipulation, or plagiarism occurred during the research process. All data and analyses presented in the article were obtained through the author’s independent work.

Teşekkür

I would like to express my gratitude to my academic colleagues and advisors for their valuable feedback and suggestions during the preparation of this article.

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
2. Aryal, S. K. (2025). Asian multipolarity and the future of the liberal international order (LIO). Berlin: Springer.
3. Baldoni, R., & Di Luna, G. (2025). Sovereignty in the digital era: The quest for continuous access to dependable technological capabilities. arXiv Preprint, 1-27.
4. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
5. Burges, S. W. (2009). Brazilian foreign policy after the Cold War. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
6. Cooley, A. (2012). Great games, local rules: The new great power contest in Central Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Çakırca, B. (2025). Çok kutuplu uluslararası sistemde stratejik otonomi kavramı ve önemi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 27(1), 323-345. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1525248.
8. Cervo, A. L. (2010). Brazilian foreign policy in the twenty-first century. Lanham: Lexington Books.

9. Cha, V. D. (2016). Powerplay: The origins of the American alliance system in Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10. Conde Amorim, S., & Ferreira Pereira, L. C. (2021). Brazil’s quest for autonomy in Asia: The role of strategic partnerships with China and Japan. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 64(2), 1-22.
11. Aydın-Düzgit, S., Kutlay, M., & Keyman, E. F. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics, 63(1), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00638-w.
12. Fernández de Córdoba, P. G., & Linde, J. M. (2023). Latin America and strategic autonomy. Journal of Global Policy, 234-256.
13. Gaens, B. (2023). Global IR and the middle power concept: Exploring different paths to state agency. International Relations, 112-130.
14. Green, M. J. (2017). By more than providence: Grand strategy and American power in the Asia Pacific since 1783. New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Gnesotto, N. (2024). Strategic autonomy in security and defence as an impracticability? How the European Union’s rhetoric meets reality. In EU foreign policy in a fragmenting international order (ss. 55-83). Cham: Springer.
16. Hirst, M. (2021). Brazil and the global crises: Autonomy and adaptation. International Affairs, 67-74.
17. Hurrell, A. (2007). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. (2025). Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators, Brasília, 41-44.
20. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1973). Power and interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
21. Kim, S.-H. (2022). South Korea’s middle power diplomacy and strategic autonomy. Asia Policy, 33-41.
22. Kotsur, G. V. (2023). “Strategic sovereignty” and “strategic autonomy” in the EU’s official discourse: A morphological analysis of ideology. Sovremennaya Evropa (Contemporary Europe), 3(117), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708323030038.
23. Kundnani, H. (2014). The paradox of German power. London: Hurst.
24. Lehne, S. (2021). Europe’s strategic autonomy: From concept to action. Carnegie Europe.
25. Longhurst, K. (2004). Germany and the use of force: The evolution of German security policy 1990-2003. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
26. Longhurst, K. (2018). Poland: Defence transformation and strategic culture. Security Policy Library, 45-52.
27. Malamud, A. (2011). A leader without followers? The growing divergence between the regional and global performance of Brazilian foreign policy. Latin American Politics and Society, 1-24.
28. Malamud, A. (2017). Brazil as a regional leader: Building autonomy through cooperation. Latin American Politics and Society, 59(3), 45-68.
29. Ministry of Defense of Brazil. (2020). National Defense Strategy, Ministry of Defense, Brasília, 7-22.
30. Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Korea. (2022). Defense White Paper, Ministry of National Defense, Seoul, 10-25.
31. Moon, C.-i. (2021). Alliance politics and strategic autonomy in South Korea. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 120-128.
32. Morgenthau, H. J. (2006). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). (2024a). Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2023), NATO Headquarters, Brussels, 1-12.
34. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). (2024b). Defence innovation and dual-use technologies in allied states. NATO Review, 61-74.
35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook, OECD Publishing, Paris, 45-60.
36. Pekkanen, S. M. (2020). Asia-Pacific security governance. London: Routledge.
37. Rekowski, M. (2024). Polityczne wymiary Europejskiej autonomii strategicznej. Kraków: Akademicka - Politeja. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.93.08.
38. Rekowski, M. (2025). Building strategic autonomy in the European Union. Studia Europejskie - Studies in European Affairs, 29(1), 10-35.
39. Republic of Poland. (2022). National Security Strategy of the Republic of Poland, Government of the Republic of Poland, Warsaw, 5-18.
40. Saryusz-Wolski, J. (2022). Eastern Europe and NATO’s strategic reorientation. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 56-63.
41. Smith, M. (2020). Europe’s foreign and security policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Snyder, S. A. (2018). South Korea at the crossroads: Autonomy and alliance in an era of rival powers. New York: Columbia University Press.
43. Soares de Lima, M. R. (2010). Brazil as an intermediate state and regional power. Latin American Politics and Society, 1-14.
44. Steinbach, A. (2023). The EU’s turn to strategic autonomy: Leeway for policy action and points of conflict. European Journal of International Law, 34(4), 973-1006. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad048.
45. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2024). SIPRI Yearbook, Oxford University Press, 132-134.
46. Tullo Vigevani, & Cepaluni, G. (2009). Brazilian foreign policy: Autonomy through diversification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
47. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023). UNESCO Science Report, Paris, 112-114.
48. Van Vuuren, R. (2025). Europe at a crossroads: How European strategic autonomy has influenced EU NATO cooperation, 15-33.
49. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50. World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators, World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C., 1-78.
51. Yeo, A. (2023). South Korea’s defense industry and strategic autonomy. Journal of East Asian Studies, 67-75.
52. Zaborowski, M. (2004). Germany, Poland and Europe’s security. London: Routledge.