Sınırlılığa Meydan Okumaktan Meydan Okumanın Sınırlığına: Türkiye’deki Üst Düzey Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergilerinde Çevreyi Tartışmak

Öz

Uluslararası çevre siyaseti eleştirel bir yaklaşımdan yoksundur. Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininde, çevre ile ilgili meselelerin uzun bir süredir ikincil planda ele alınmaktadır. Çevre siyaseti ile ilgili sınırlı sayıdaki bilimsel çalışmada, neorealizm ve neoliberalizm gibi ana akım yaklaşımlardan yararlanılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımlar, uluslararası sisteme ilişkin olan yapısal eşitsizlikleri sorgulamada başarısız olmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, çalışma Türkiye’deki Uluslararası İlişkiler yazınının çevre meselelerini nasıl ele aldığını incelemektedir. Nitel içerik analizinin kullanıldığı bu araştırmada, 2004-2024 yılları arasında Türkiye’deki üst düzey Uİ dergilerinde yayınlanan çevre konularını inceleyen makaleler ele alınmıştır. Dâhil etme ve dışlama kriterlerinin uygulanmasının ardından uygun makaleler, MAXQDA yazılımı ile kodlanmış ve tematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, çevre meselelerini ele alan çok sayıda çalışmanın devlet-merkezli analiz çerçevesi kullandığını ve eleştirel yaklaşımlarla sınırlı bir ilişkide olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Türkiye örneğinde, çevre siyaseti alanındaki Uİ çalışmaları Batı merkezli kuramları yeniden üretmeye devam etmektedir. Bu çalışma, daha adil ve ekolojik bir uluslararası sistemin inşasına katkı sunabilecek eleştirel bir yönelimin gerekliliğinin altını çizerek Uİ disiplininin çevre gündemine katkı sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Çevre Siyaseti
• Çevre Sorunları
• Batı-dışı Uİ Teorileri
• Türkiye’de Uİ
• İçerik Analizi

From Challenging the Limits to the Limits of Challenging: Discussing the Environment in Top-Tier International Relations Journals in Türkiye

Öz

International environmental politics lacks critical engagement. In the discipline of International Relations, environmental issues have long been treated as peripheral. In the limited number of scientific publications addressing these topics, mainstream perspectives utilized neorealist and neoliberal approaches. These perspectives fail to question the structural inequalities hardwired into the international system. In this context, this study examines how Turkish IR scholarship engages with environmental issues. Deploying qualitative content analysis, this study examines environment-related articles between 2004 and 2024 in three top-tier IR journals in Türkiye. Applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligible articles were coded and thematically analyzed using MAXQDA software. The findings reveal that most of environment-related articles are framed within state-centered frameworks with limited engagement in critical and status-quo perspectives. In the case of Türkiye, IR scholarship continues to re-produce theories of Western origin in environmental politics. The study attempts to contribute IR’s environmental agenda by underlining the need for a more critical orientation that can build a just and ecological international system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International environmental politics
• environmental problems
• non-Western IR theory
• IR in Türkiye
• Content analysis

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, Amitav (2014). "Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds", International Studies Quarterly, 58 (4): 647–659.
2. Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2007). "Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction", International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7: 287–312.
3. Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (2017). “Why is there no non-western international relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 17(3), 341-370.
4. Åström, Sverker (1972). "Global consensus or global catastrophe?", Ambio, 1: 2–5.
5. Aydın, Mustafa ve Cihan Dizdaroğlu (2019). “Türkiye’de Uluslararası İlişkiler: TRIP 2018 Sonuçları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 16(64): 3-28.
6. Aydınlı, Ersel and Mathews, Julie (2008). "Türkiye uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde özgün kuram potansiyeli: Anadolu ekolünü oluşturmak mümkün mü?", Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5 (17): 161–187.
7. Bilgin, Pınar (2005). “Uluslararası İlişkiler Çalışmalarında ‘Merkez-Çevre’: Türkiye Nerede?”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 2(6): 3-14.
8. Bilgin, Pınar and Oktay F. Tanrısever (2009). “A telling story of IR in the periphery: Telling Turkey about the world, telling the world about Turkey”, Journal of International Relations and Development, 12(2): 174-179.

9. Brown, Chris (2003). Understanding International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
10. Clapp, Jennifer and Eric Helleiner (2012). "International political economy and the environment: Back to the basics?", International Affairs, 88 (3): 485–501.
11. Cox, Robert W. (1981). "Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory", Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (2): 126–155.
12. Çalık, Muammer and Mustafa Sözbilir (2014). “Parameters of content analysis”, Education and Science, 39(174): 33-38.
13. Dalby, Simon. (2016) “Environment and International Politics: Linking Humanity and Nature” in Environment, Climate Change and International Relations, pp. 42-59 (E-International Relations Publishing).
14. Demirel, Pelin, Ekatarina Nemkova and Rebecca Taylor (2021). "Reproducing global inequalities in the online labour market: Valuing capital in the design field", Work, Employment and Society, 35 (5): 914–930.
15. Dinçer, Serkan (2018). "Content analysis in scientific research: Meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and descriptive content analysis", Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education 7(1): 176-190.
16. Dryzek, John S (2013). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
17. Dunne, Tim (2024). International Relations Theories: Discipline and diversity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
18. Eckersley, Robyn (2023). Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach (London: Routledge).
19. Erçandırlı, Yelda (2021). “Antroposen, Posthümanizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramının ‘Ekoloji’ Taahhüdünün Tarihsel Materyalist Eleştirisi”, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 18(71): 87-107.
20. Gómez-Baggethun, Eric and Jose Manuel Naredo (2015). "In search of lost time: The rise and fall of limits to growth in international sustainability policy", Sustainability Science, 10: 385–395.
21. Gülmez, Didem and Bengü Aydın Dikmen (2022). "Gezegensel siyaset manifestosunun ardından yeşil teorinin uluslararası ilişkilerdeki konumu", Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 19 (76): 19–38.
22. Hao, Lin-Na, Muhammad Umar, Zeeshan Khan and Wajid Ali (2021). "Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: How critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?", Science of the Total Environment, 752: 141853.
23. Himley, Matthew (2008). "Geographies of environmental governance: The nexus of nature and neoliberalism", Geography Compass, 2: 433–451.
24. Hobson, John M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
25. Jessop, Bob (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State (Cambridge: Polity Press).
26. Karamık, İrem, Erman Ermihan (2023). “Quo Vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s Footsteps within the Global”, All Azimuth, 12(2): 241-260.
27. Kauppi, Mark and Paul Viotti (2023). International Relations Theory (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield).
28. Kristensen, Peter M. (2012). “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations”, International Studies Review, 14(1): 32–50.
29. Khan, Mizan R. (2016). "Climate change, adaptation and international relations theory", E-International Relations.
30. King, Andrew D. and Luke J. Harrington (2018). "The inequality of climate change from 1.5 to 2°C of global warming", Geophysical Research Letters, 45 (10): 5030–5033.
31. Köstem, Seçkin (2015). "International relations theories and Turkish international relations: Observations based on a book", All Azimuth, 4 (1): 59–66.
32. Laferrière, Eric and Peter J. Stoett (2003). International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought: Towards a Synthesis (London: Routledge).
33. Madra, Yahya M. and Fikret Adaman (2018). "Neoliberal turn in the discipline of economics: Depoliticization through economization", in The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism, pp. 113–128 (London: SAGE).
34. Martínez Alier, Joan (2002). The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).
35. Mathai, Manu V. (2013). "Towards a political economy of sustainable development", Sustainability, 5 (5): 2100–2121.
36. Naess, Arne (1973). "The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement: A summary", Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 16 (1–4): 95–100.
37. Okur, Mehmet Akif, Cavit Emre Aytekin (2023). “Non-Western theories in International Relations education and research: The case of Turkey/Turkish academia”, All Azimuth, 12(1): 19-44.
38. Özekin, Kürşad and Engin Sune (2022). "Introduction: Foundations of international relations theory", in Critical Approaches to International Relations: Philosophical Foundations and Current Debates, pp. 1–22 (Leiden: Brill).
39. Pereira, Joana Castro (2017). "International relations and political science: A disciplinary relationship", in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, eds. S. Smith and P. Owens, pp. 123–135 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
40. Purdey, Stephen (2010). Economic Growth, the Environment and International Relations: The Growth Paradigm (London: Routledge).
41. Rosenberg, Justin (2016). "International relations in the prison of political science", International Relations, 30 (2): 127–153.
42. Sachs, Wolfgang and Tilman Santarius (2007). Fair Future: Resource Conflicts, Security and Global Justice (London: Zed Books).
43. Saito, Kohei (2024). Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto (New York: Astra House).
44. Smith, Steve (1993). "Environment on the periphery of international relations: An explanation", Environmental Politics, 2 (4): 28–45.
45. Smith, Steve (2000). "The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science?", The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3): 374–402.
46. Smith, Steve (2002). "The United States and the discipline of international relations: Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline", International Studies Review, 4 (2): 67–85.
47. Steans, Jilly, Llyod Pettiford, Thomas Diez, and Imad El-Anis (2013). An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes (London: Routledge).
48. Strange, Susan (1995). "1995 presidential address ISA as a microcosm", International Studies Quarterly, 39 (3): 290.
49. Sørensen, Georg, Jørgen Møller, and Robert H. Jackson (2022). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
50. Sula, İsmail Erkam (2022). "‘Global’IR and self-reflections in Turkey: Methodology, data collection, and data repository", All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 11 (1): 123–142.
51. Swyngedouw, Eric (2010). "Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition", in Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values, pp. 185–205 (London: Routledge).
52. Tickner, Arlene (2003). "Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third world", Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32 (2): 295–324.
53. Ültay, Eser, Hakan Akyurt, Neslihan Ültay (2021). “Sosyal bilimlerde betimsel içerik analizi”, IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1): 188-201.
54. Vaismoradi, Mojtaba, Hannele Turunen, Terese Bondas (2013). “Qualitative descriptive study”, Nursing and Health Sciences, 15: 398-405.
55. Waever, Ole (1998). "The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations", International Organization, 52 (4): 687–727.
56. Walewicz, Piotr (2019). "Greening the critical theory of international relations with the concept of world-ecology", Toruńskie Studia Międzynarodowe, 1 (11): 125.
57. Wallerstein, Immanuel (2006). European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power (New York: The New Press).
58. Werrell, Caitlin and Francesco (2016). "Climate change, the erosion of state sovereignty, and world order", The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 22 (2): 221–235.