ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLERDE ÜSTÜN EŞİTLİK

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 152 - 172, 31.12.2020

Serdar Yurtsever , Mehmet Nesip Öğün

Öz

Egemenlik kavramında genel kabul, devletlerin iç işlerinde otoriter, dış işlerinde ise bağımsız ve dolayısıyla diğer devletlerle egemenlik ve bağımsızlık bağlamında eşit oldukları yönündedir. Bu genel kabul klasik, Westphalian ve mutlak egemenlik olarak tanımlanmaktadır ve mutlak egemenlik mutlak eşitliği içermektedir. Mutlak eşitlik ise fizikî, askerî, ekonomik, demografik vs. birçok parametre bağlamında eşit olmayan devletlerin yer aldığı bir uluslararası sistemde gerçekleşmesi mümkün olmayan bir iddia olmaktadır.
Fiziksel, politik, ekonomik, nüfus, askeri güç gibi faktörler dikkate alındığında, dünyadaki bütün devletlerin eşit olduğunu söylemek mümkün değildir. Büyük güçler lehine hiyerarşik bir yapı vardır. Bu nedenle, büyük devletlerin uluslararası örgütler üzerinde etkili ve yönlendirici olduğunu söylemek yanlış olmayacaktır. Bir çelişki gibi görünse de, küçük ve zayıf devletlerin egemenliklerini gerçekleştirmelerinin tek yolu, uluslararası sistemi düzenleyen çeşitli rejimlere katılmaktır.
Bu çalışmada, egemenlik teorisi ile uluslararası ilişkilerdeki uygulamaları arasındaki ilişki incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Egemenlik, Eşitlik, Otorite, Devlet, Oy

SOVEREIGN EQUALITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Öz

In the concept of sovereignty, the general acceptance states are authoritarian in the internal affairs and independent in the external affairs. Therefore, all states are equal in the context of sovereignty and independence. This general acceptance is defined as Westphalian sovereignty or absolute sovereignty, and absolute sovereignty includes absolute equality. However, in international system, there are unequal states in the context of many parameters such as physical, military, economic and demographic. In this sense, absolute equality is a claim that cannot be realized.
Considering factors such as physical, political, economic, population, military power, it is not possible to say that all states in the world are equal. There is a hierarchical structure in favor of great powers. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that big states are effective and directive on international organizations. While it may seem like a contradiction, the only way for the small and weak states to realize their sovereignty is to participate in various regimes that regulate the international system.
In this study, the relationship between the theory of sovereignty and its applications in international relations will be examined.
Key Words: Sovereignty, Equality, Authority, State, Vote.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sovereignty, Equality, Authority, State, Vote.

Kaynakça

• Anghie, Antony. (2004). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making International Law, Cambridge University Press.
• Aron, Raymond. (2017). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, Routledge Publications.
• Bartelson, Jens. (1995). A Genealogy of Sovereignty, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Cambridge University Press.
• Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia. (1996). “The Social Construction of State Sovereignty”, In Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, pp.1-21.
• Bodin, Jean. (1986). The Six Bookes of a Common-Weale, Knolles Richard, London. (Originally printed in 1606).
• Branch, Jordan. (2014). The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory and the Origins of Sovereignty, Cambridge University Press.
• Brown Chris and Ainley Kirsten. (2005). Understanding International Relations, Third Edition, Palgrave Macmillan Press.
• Cranston, Alan. (2004). The Sovereignty Revolution, Stanford Law and Politics.
• Deudney, Daniel. (1996). “Binding Sovereigns: Authorities, Structures, and Geopolitics in Philadelphian Systems”, In Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, pp.190-239
• Elsthain, Jean Bethke. (1996). “Rethinking Sovereignty”, In Beer, Francis A. and Hariman Robert (eds.), Post-Realism: The Rherorical Turn in International Relations, Michigan State University Press, pp. 171-192.
• Grotius, Hugo. (2005). The Rights of War and Peace, Book I-II-III., Ed. Tuck Richard, Liberty Fund, Inc.
• Heywood, Andrew. (2011). Global Politics, Palgrave Macmillan Publications.
• Heywood, Andrew. (2004). Political Theory: An Introduction, Third Edition, Palgrave Macmillan Publications.
• Hobbes, Thomas. (1997). Leviathan or the Matter, Forme & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill, London.
• Inayatullah, Naeem. (1996). “Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct”, In Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, pp.50-80.
• Jackson, Robert H. (1990). Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World, Cambridge University Press.
• Keohane Robert O. and Nye Joseph S. (2012). Power and Interdependence, Fourth Edition, Longman Pearson Press.
• Koskenniemi, Martti. (2010). “Conclusion: Vocabularies of Sovereignty-Powers of a Paradox”, In Kalmo Hent and Skinner Quentin (eds.), Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept, Cambridge University Press, pp. 222-242.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (2010). “The Durability of Organized Hypocrisy”, In Kalmo Hent and Skinner Quentin (eds.), Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept, eds.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96-113.
• Laski, Harold J. (1999). Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty, Yale University Press, London.
• Lipping Juri. (2010). “Sovereignty beyond the State”, in Kalmo Hent and Skinner Quentin (eds.), Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept, Cambridge University Press, pp. 186-204.
• Malmvig, Helle. (2006). State Sovereignty and Intervention, The New International Relations Studies Series, Routledge Press.
• Murphy, Alexander. (1996). “The Sovereign State System as Political-Territorial Ideal: Historical and Contemporary Considerations”, In Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, eds Cambridge University Press, pp.81-120.
• National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) Course Notes. (2008). Introduction to Political Science.
• Phillpott, Daniel. (2001). Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, Princeton University Press.
• Romani, Carlos Fernandez de Casadevante Y. (2007). Sovereignty and Interpretation of International Norms, Springer Press.
• Ronzoni, Miriam. (2010). “Two Conceptions of State Sovereignty, and Their Implications for Global Institutional Design”, Centre of Advanced Studies – Justitia Amplificata, University of Frankfurt, pp.1-16.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Weber, Cynthia. (1995). Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange, Cambridge University Press.
• Wendt, Alexandar and Friedheim Daniel. (1996). “Hierarchy under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State”, in Biersteker Thomas J. and Weber Cynthia (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, pp.240-277.
• Zaum, Dominik. (2007). The Sovereignty Paradox: The norms and Politics of International State-building, Oxford University Press.
• Zürn Michael and Deitelhoff Nicole. (2015). “Internationalization and the State: Sovereignty as the External Side of Modern Statehood”, in .: Leibfried Stephan, Huber Evelyne, Lange Matthew, Levy Jonah D. and Nullmeier Frank, and Stephens John D. (eds.), Transformations of the State, Oxford University Press, pp. 193-220.