Araştırma Makalesi
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?

Yıl 2021, Cilt 18, Sayı 71, 67 - 85, 26.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.912022

Öz

The New Security Legislation (NSL) passed through the Japanese Diet in 2015 has created concerns among the public and some parts of the academia about whether Japan’s potentially unhindered actions will destabilize the region. By adopting a civilian power ontology within the neoliberal framework, this study analyzes the 2015 NSL and its implications through three hallmark civilian power credentials: internationalization; the scope of the use of force; and the autonomy of security policy. The analysis and empirical evidence suggest that even after allowing for collective self-defense through the 2015 constitutional reinterpretation and the ensuing expanded scope for international security activity, Japan can still be narrowly considered a civilian power.

Kaynakça

  • Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett (1998.) “A Framework for the Study of Security Communities”, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds), Security Communities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Berger, Thomas U. (1998). Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Berger, Thomas U. (2004). “Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions” in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), The international relations of Northeast Asia, New York, Rowman and Littlefield, p.101-34.
  • Berger, Thomas U. and Mike M. Mochizuki, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama (eds.), (2007). Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
  • Demirtaş, Birgül and Mahmut Mazlum (2018). “Civilian Powers and the Use of Force: The Evolution of Germany as a ‘Realist Civilian Power’”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 23, No 1, p. 27-62.
  • Duchêne, François (1973). “The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence”, Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager (eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community, London, Macmillan, p.1-21.
  • Envall, H. David. P. (2018). “The ‘Abe Doctrine’: Japan’s new regional realism.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol.20 No.1, p.1-29.
  • Funabashi, Yoichi (1991). “Japan and the New World Order”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.70 No.5, p.58-74.
  • Funabashi, Yoichi (1998). “Tokyo’s depression diplomacy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.77 No.6, p.26-36.
  • Green, Michael (2001). Japan’s Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of Uncertain Power, New York, Palgrave.
  • Gustafsson, Karl and Linus Hagström, Ulv Hanssen (2018). “Japan’s Pacifism is Dead”, Survival, Vol. 60, No 6, p. 137-158.
  • Handa, Shigeru ( June 2020). “Korona ka to Jieitai Chuto Haken: Towareru Anzen Seiken no Yuji Taiou” (Corona Disaster and SDF’s Middle East Mission: Emergency Response of the Security Administration is Being Questioned), Sekai, No.933, p.228-235.
  • Hellmann, Gunther (1997). “The Sirens of Power and German Foreign Policy: Who is Listening?”, German Politics. Vol. 6, No. 2.
  • Hosoya, Yuichi (2015). “Japan’s New Security Legislation: What Does This Mean to East Asian Security?”, American Foreign Policy Interests, Vol.37, No.5-6.
  • Hosoya, Yuichi (2018). “Japan’s Strategic Position: Global Civilian Power 2.0” in Martin Fackler and Yoichi Funabashi, (eds.), Reinventing Japan: New Directions in Global Leadership, Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO, p.197-216.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2015). Japan’s Foreign and Security Policy Under the ‘Abe Doctrine’: New Dynamism or New Dead End?, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2016). “Japan’s ‘Resentful Realism’ and Balancing China’s Rise”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 9, No 2.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2017). “Japan’s Strategic Trajectory and Collective Self-Defense: Essential Continuity or Radical Shift?”, The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 43, No 1.
  • Ikenberry, G. John and Takashi Inoguchi (2007). The Uses of Institutions: the US, Japan, and Governance in East Asia, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ikenberry, G. John, (2018). “The End of Liberal International Order?”, International Affairs, Vol.94, No.1, p.7-23.
  • Johnson, Jesse (4 November 2020). “Malabar Military Exercises with ‘Quad’ Nations Begin in Message to China”, Japan Times, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/04/asia-pacific/malabar-military-exercises-china-quad/.
  • Kantei (Cabinet Office of Japan), (14 May 2015). Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Following the Cabinet Decision on the “Legislation for Peace and Security” https://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201505/0514kaiken.html.
  • Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996). Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
  • Kitaoka, Shinichi (2 April 2014). “The Turnabout of Japan’s Security Policy: Toward ‘Proactive Pacifism’”, http://www. nippon.com/en/currents/d00108/.
  • Liff, Adam P. (2017). “Policy by Other Means: Collective Self-defense and the Politics of Japan’s Postwar Constitutional Reinterpretations”, Asia Policy, Vol.24, No.1, p.139-172.
  • Liff, Adam P. (2015). “Japan’s defense policy: Abe the Evolutionary”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2.
  • Lind, Jennifer, (20 July 2015). “Japan’s Security Evolution, Not Revolution”, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/ articles/japans-security-evolution-not-revolution-1437410475.
  • Maslow, Sebastian (2015). “A Blueprint for a Strong Japan? Abe Shinzō and Japan’s Evolving Security System”, Asian Survey, Vol.55, No.4, p.739-765.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (1990). “Germany and Japan: The new civilian powers”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.69, No.5.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (2000). “Germany and the use of force: still a ‘civilian power’?”, Survival, Vol.42 No.2, pp.56-80.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (2004). “Germany and the use of force: still a civilian power?” in Katada, S. N., Maull, H., & Inoguchi, T. (Eds.) Global governance: Germany and Japan in the international system, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  • Mochizuki, Mike M. (2007). “Japan’s Changing International Role” in Thomas.U. Berger et al. (eds.), Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p.1-22.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2013). National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and Beyond, http://www. mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/20131217_e2.pdf.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2015). The Guidelines for Japan–US Defense Cooperation, https://www.mod.go.jp/ e/d_act/anpo/pdf/shishin_20150427e.pdf.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2018). Defense of Japan, https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2018/ DOJ2018_Digest_1204.pdf, p.351.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (29 October 2005). “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0510.html.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2015). “Cabinet Decision on Development of Seamless Security Legislation to Ensure Japan’s Survival and Protect its People”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/nsp/page23e_000273.html.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2016). Diplomatic Bluebook, Scp.1 Section.2, p.18.
  • Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol.51, No.4.
  • Nakanishi, Hiroshi (1998). “Redefining Comprehensive Security in Japan” in Ryosei Kokubun (ed.), Challenges for ChinaJapan-U.S. Cooperation, Tokyo, Japan Center for International Exchange, p. 44-70.
  • Nakanishi, Hiroshi (2015). “Reorienting Japan? Security Transformation under the Second Abe Cabinet”, Asian Perspective, Vol. 39, No 3, p. 405-421.
  • National Security Council, National Security Strategy (2013) http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/documents/2013/__ icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/NSS.pdf, p. 4.
  • Orbie, Jan (2006). “Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current Debates”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 41, No 1.
  • Oros, Andrew L. (2008). Normalizing Japan: Politics, Identity and the Evolution of Security Practice, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.
  • Osaki, Tomohiro (30 August 2015). “Thousands Protest Abe, Security Bills at Diet Rally”, The Japan Times, https://www. japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/30/national/thousands-protest-abe-security-bills-diet-rally/.
  • Pehlivantürk, Bahadır and Birgül Demirtaş (2018). “Civilian Powers and Contemporary Global Challenges ,” Perceptions, Vol.23, No.1.
  • Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre, Desmond S. King (2005). “The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No 4, p.1275-1300.
  • Pierson, Paul and Theda Skocpol (2002). “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York, Norton, p. 445–488.
  • Singh, Bhubhindar (2015). “The Development of Japanese Security policy: A Long-term Defensive Strategy”, Asia Policy, No.19, p.49-64.
  • Singh, Bhubhindar (2016). “Japan Embraces Internationalism: Explaining Japanese Security Policy Expansion through an Identity-Regime Approach”, Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No 4.
  • Smith, Karen E. (2005). “Beyond the Civilian Power EU Debate”, Politique Européenne, No.17, p.64.
  • Soeya, Yoshihide (2017). “The Case for an Alternative Strategy for Japan: Beyond the ‘A9A’ Regime”, Michael J. Green, and Zack Cooper (eds.), Postwar Japan: Growth, Security, and Uncertainty since 1945, CSIS, Rowman & Littlefield, p.19-38.
  • Wakefield, Bryce and Craig Martin (2012). “Reexamining ‘Myths’ About Japan’s Collective Self-Defense Change-What Critics (and the Japanese Public) Do Understand about Japan’s Constitutional Reinterpretation”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol.10, Issue.54, No.188.

Sınırlardaki Japonya: Japonya Hala Bir Sivil Güç mü?

Yıl 2021, Cilt 18, Sayı 71, 67 - 85, 26.10.2021
https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.912022

Öz

2015 yılında Japonya meclisinden geçen Yeni Güvenlik Kanunları (NSL) kamuoyu ve akademi dünyasının bir kısmında Japonya’nın engellerinden arınmış bir şekilde davranma ihtimalini artırmasından dolayı bölgenin istikrarını bozabileceği yönünde endişelere yol açmıştır. Bu çalışma sivil güçler ontolojisini neoliberal analiz çerçevesi içerisinde ele alarak 2015 NSL kanunlarını ve etkilerini üç başat sivil güç özelliği; uluslararasılaşma, güç kullanımının kapsamı ve güvenlik politikasının bağımsızlığı üzerinden incelemektedir. Analiz ve ampirik inceleme göstermektedir ki, 2015 anayasal yeniden-yorumlamanın toplu savunmaya izin vermesinden ve bu yolla uluslararası güvenlik aktivitelerinin kapsamını genişletmesinden sonra bile Japonya hala dar bir çerçevede sivil güç olarak tanımlanabilir.

Kaynakça

  • Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett (1998.) “A Framework for the Study of Security Communities”, Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds), Security Communities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Berger, Thomas U. (1998). Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Berger, Thomas U. (2004). “Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions” in Samuel S. Kim (ed.), The international relations of Northeast Asia, New York, Rowman and Littlefield, p.101-34.
  • Berger, Thomas U. and Mike M. Mochizuki, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama (eds.), (2007). Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner.
  • Demirtaş, Birgül and Mahmut Mazlum (2018). “Civilian Powers and the Use of Force: The Evolution of Germany as a ‘Realist Civilian Power’”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 23, No 1, p. 27-62.
  • Duchêne, François (1973). “The European Community and the Uncertainties of Interdependence”, Max Kohnstamm and Wolfgang Hager (eds.), A Nation Writ Large? Foreign-Policy Problems before the European Community, London, Macmillan, p.1-21.
  • Envall, H. David. P. (2018). “The ‘Abe Doctrine’: Japan’s new regional realism.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol.20 No.1, p.1-29.
  • Funabashi, Yoichi (1991). “Japan and the New World Order”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.70 No.5, p.58-74.
  • Funabashi, Yoichi (1998). “Tokyo’s depression diplomacy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.77 No.6, p.26-36.
  • Green, Michael (2001). Japan’s Reluctant Realism: Foreign Policy Challenges in an Era of Uncertain Power, New York, Palgrave.
  • Gustafsson, Karl and Linus Hagström, Ulv Hanssen (2018). “Japan’s Pacifism is Dead”, Survival, Vol. 60, No 6, p. 137-158.
  • Handa, Shigeru ( June 2020). “Korona ka to Jieitai Chuto Haken: Towareru Anzen Seiken no Yuji Taiou” (Corona Disaster and SDF’s Middle East Mission: Emergency Response of the Security Administration is Being Questioned), Sekai, No.933, p.228-235.
  • Hellmann, Gunther (1997). “The Sirens of Power and German Foreign Policy: Who is Listening?”, German Politics. Vol. 6, No. 2.
  • Hosoya, Yuichi (2015). “Japan’s New Security Legislation: What Does This Mean to East Asian Security?”, American Foreign Policy Interests, Vol.37, No.5-6.
  • Hosoya, Yuichi (2018). “Japan’s Strategic Position: Global Civilian Power 2.0” in Martin Fackler and Yoichi Funabashi, (eds.), Reinventing Japan: New Directions in Global Leadership, Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO, p.197-216.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2015). Japan’s Foreign and Security Policy Under the ‘Abe Doctrine’: New Dynamism or New Dead End?, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2016). “Japan’s ‘Resentful Realism’ and Balancing China’s Rise”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 9, No 2.
  • Hughes, Christopher W. (2017). “Japan’s Strategic Trajectory and Collective Self-Defense: Essential Continuity or Radical Shift?”, The Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 43, No 1.
  • Ikenberry, G. John and Takashi Inoguchi (2007). The Uses of Institutions: the US, Japan, and Governance in East Asia, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ikenberry, G. John, (2018). “The End of Liberal International Order?”, International Affairs, Vol.94, No.1, p.7-23.
  • Johnson, Jesse (4 November 2020). “Malabar Military Exercises with ‘Quad’ Nations Begin in Message to China”, Japan Times, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/04/asia-pacific/malabar-military-exercises-china-quad/.
  • Kantei (Cabinet Office of Japan), (14 May 2015). Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Following the Cabinet Decision on the “Legislation for Peace and Security” https://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/statement/201505/0514kaiken.html.
  • Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996). Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
  • Kitaoka, Shinichi (2 April 2014). “The Turnabout of Japan’s Security Policy: Toward ‘Proactive Pacifism’”, http://www. nippon.com/en/currents/d00108/.
  • Liff, Adam P. (2017). “Policy by Other Means: Collective Self-defense and the Politics of Japan’s Postwar Constitutional Reinterpretations”, Asia Policy, Vol.24, No.1, p.139-172.
  • Liff, Adam P. (2015). “Japan’s defense policy: Abe the Evolutionary”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2.
  • Lind, Jennifer, (20 July 2015). “Japan’s Security Evolution, Not Revolution”, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/ articles/japans-security-evolution-not-revolution-1437410475.
  • Maslow, Sebastian (2015). “A Blueprint for a Strong Japan? Abe Shinzō and Japan’s Evolving Security System”, Asian Survey, Vol.55, No.4, p.739-765.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (1990). “Germany and Japan: The new civilian powers”, Foreign Affairs, Vol.69, No.5.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (2000). “Germany and the use of force: still a ‘civilian power’?”, Survival, Vol.42 No.2, pp.56-80.
  • Maull, Hanns W. (2004). “Germany and the use of force: still a civilian power?” in Katada, S. N., Maull, H., & Inoguchi, T. (Eds.) Global governance: Germany and Japan in the international system, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  • Mochizuki, Mike M. (2007). “Japan’s Changing International Role” in Thomas.U. Berger et al. (eds.), Japan in International Politics: the Foreign Policies of an Adaptive State, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p.1-22.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2013). National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and Beyond, http://www. mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/20131217_e2.pdf.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2015). The Guidelines for Japan–US Defense Cooperation, https://www.mod.go.jp/ e/d_act/anpo/pdf/shishin_20150427e.pdf.
  • MOD (Ministry of Defense of Japan), (2018). Defense of Japan, https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2018/ DOJ2018_Digest_1204.pdf, p.351.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (29 October 2005). “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0510.html.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2015). “Cabinet Decision on Development of Seamless Security Legislation to Ensure Japan’s Survival and Protect its People”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/nsp/page23e_000273.html.
  • MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan), (2016). Diplomatic Bluebook, Scp.1 Section.2, p.18.
  • Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol.51, No.4.
  • Nakanishi, Hiroshi (1998). “Redefining Comprehensive Security in Japan” in Ryosei Kokubun (ed.), Challenges for ChinaJapan-U.S. Cooperation, Tokyo, Japan Center for International Exchange, p. 44-70.
  • Nakanishi, Hiroshi (2015). “Reorienting Japan? Security Transformation under the Second Abe Cabinet”, Asian Perspective, Vol. 39, No 3, p. 405-421.
  • National Security Council, National Security Strategy (2013) http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/documents/2013/__ icsFiles/afieldfile/2013/12/17/NSS.pdf, p. 4.
  • Orbie, Jan (2006). “Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current Debates”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 41, No 1.
  • Oros, Andrew L. (2008). Normalizing Japan: Politics, Identity and the Evolution of Security Practice, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press.
  • Osaki, Tomohiro (30 August 2015). “Thousands Protest Abe, Security Bills at Diet Rally”, The Japan Times, https://www. japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/30/national/thousands-protest-abe-security-bills-diet-rally/.
  • Pehlivantürk, Bahadır and Birgül Demirtaş (2018). “Civilian Powers and Contemporary Global Challenges ,” Perceptions, Vol.23, No.1.
  • Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre, Desmond S. King (2005). “The Politics of Path Dependency: Political Conflict in Historical Institutionalism”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No 4, p.1275-1300.
  • Pierson, Paul and Theda Skocpol (2002). “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner (eds.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York, Norton, p. 445–488.
  • Singh, Bhubhindar (2015). “The Development of Japanese Security policy: A Long-term Defensive Strategy”, Asia Policy, No.19, p.49-64.
  • Singh, Bhubhindar (2016). “Japan Embraces Internationalism: Explaining Japanese Security Policy Expansion through an Identity-Regime Approach”, Japanese Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No 4.
  • Smith, Karen E. (2005). “Beyond the Civilian Power EU Debate”, Politique Européenne, No.17, p.64.
  • Soeya, Yoshihide (2017). “The Case for an Alternative Strategy for Japan: Beyond the ‘A9A’ Regime”, Michael J. Green, and Zack Cooper (eds.), Postwar Japan: Growth, Security, and Uncertainty since 1945, CSIS, Rowman & Littlefield, p.19-38.
  • Wakefield, Bryce and Craig Martin (2012). “Reexamining ‘Myths’ About Japan’s Collective Self-Defense Change-What Critics (and the Japanese Public) Do Understand about Japan’s Constitutional Reinterpretation”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Vol.10, Issue.54, No.188.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Bahadır PEHLİVANTÜRK Bu kişi benim
TOBB UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY
0000-0002-6096-6961
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 26 Ekim 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021, Cilt 18, Sayı 71

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { uidergisi912022, journal = {Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi}, issn = {1304-7310}, eissn = {1304-7175}, address = {Kadir Has Üniversitesi, Cibali Kampüsü, Beyaz Ev, Oda No: 13, 34083}, publisher = {Uluslararası İlişkiler Konseyi Derneği İktisadi İşletmesi}, year = {2021}, volume = {18}, pages = {67 - 85}, doi = {10.33458/uidergisi.912022}, title = {Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?}, key = {cite}, author = {Pehlivantürk, Bahadır} }
APA Pehlivantürk, B. (2021). Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power? . Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi , 18 (71) , 67-85 . DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.912022
MLA Pehlivantürk, B. "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?" . Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 18 (2021 ): 67-85 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uidergisi/issue/66065/912022>
Chicago Pehlivantürk, B. "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?". Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 18 (2021 ): 67-85
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power? AU - Bahadır Pehlivantürk Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.33458/uidergisi.912022 DO - 10.33458/uidergisi.912022 T2 - Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 67 EP - 85 VL - 18 IS - 71 SN - 1304-7310-1304-7175 M3 - doi: 10.33458/uidergisi.912022 UR - https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.912022 Y2 - 2022 ER -
EndNote %0 Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power? %A Bahadır Pehlivantürk %T Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power? %D 2021 %J Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi %P 1304-7310-1304-7175 %V 18 %N 71 %R doi: 10.33458/uidergisi.912022 %U 10.33458/uidergisi.912022
ISNAD Pehlivantürk, Bahadır . "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?". Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 18 / 71 (Ekim 2021): 67-85 . https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.912022
AMA Pehlivantürk B. Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. 2021; 18(71): 67-85.
Vancouver Pehlivantürk B. Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi. 2021; 18(71): 67-85.
IEEE B. Pehlivantürk , "Japan on the Borderlines: Is Japan Still a Civilian Power?", Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, c. 18, sayı. 71, ss. 67-85, Eki. 2021, doi:10.33458/uidergisi.912022