Papers by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
estructuring o the iddle ast in the a e o the ra in asion and the Arab uprisings ha e ha... more estructuring o the iddle ast in the a e o the ra in asion and the Arab uprisings ha e had t o important socio political e ects in the region Authorities o regional po ers ea ened and di erent ethnic groups that are the inhabitants of this region, appeared as local powers. These new local powers, covertly or overtly, operate as proxies for core states or wittingly or unwittingly act in accordance with the policies of core states.
ince ra ar and subse uent rearrangements met ith strong international reactions, the cost of invasions and direct wars increased, and the core states started to be seen as the primary suspect for the destabilization of the region, the core states ithdre rom the region to organize and e uip their pro ies and to give mandate to them. Proxy warfare provide some crucial advantages for the core states. Through this new warfare, these states can easily overcome the in- stitutional obstacles in their domestic politics, can minimize the public reactions, and can mobilize the groups existing in their rival states to widen their own hege- mony or to disturb the rival state’s production of consent.
However, proxy warfare creates a multi-level violence spiral in the region. First- ly, arming existing ethnic groups means investing long-lasting violent struggle of these groups hich e entually undermines peace ul con ict resolution options. Secondly, since the Arab uprising’s promising democratic transformation oppor- tunities are damaged the peoples of Middle East lose their faith in democratic transformation. Thirdly, since the regional powers attempt to manipulate existing proxy wars or to create their own proxies, armed actors in the region diversify. Lastly, since the regional powers concern their own security and territorial integ- rity, they may hold on to some strict measures which may eventually escalate the violence in the region.
Öz Bu makalede, ABD'nin İran'a uyguladığı yaptırımların, 2000'lerde İran-Türkiye ekonomik işbirli... more Öz Bu makalede, ABD'nin İran'a uyguladığı yaptırımların, 2000'lerde İran-Türkiye ekonomik işbirliğine ne şekilde etki ettiği, Neo-Gramsciyen Kuram çerçevesinde çözümlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu makale, ekonomik ve matematik çözümlemeler yapmak ya da benimsenen kuramın geçerliliğini test etmek amacıyla değil, iki ülke arasındaki ekonomik işbirliği dinamiklerini ve ABD yaptırımlarının bu dinamikler üzerindeki etkisini çözümlemek amacıyla yazılmıştır. Neo-Gramsciyen Kuram'ın " tarihsel blok " kavramı, makalenin kavramsal çerçevesinin temel öğesini oluşturmuştur. İran ve Türkiye'nin özellikle 2000'lerden itibaren birbiriyle çatışan tarihsel blokların bileşeni olduğu iddia edilmiştir. Makalenin temel argümanları şu şekilde özetlenebilir: (i) İran-Türkiye ekonomik ilişkileri salt işbirliği ya da rekabet üzerinden değil, iki devlet içerisindeki siyasal yönelimler ve bu devletlerin dünya düzeni içerisindeki konumları çerçevesinde değerlendirilmelidir. ABD yaptırımlarının ikili ekonomik ilişkiler üzerindeki etkisi, bu bağlamda çözümlenebilir. (ii) ABD yaptırımlarının İran-Türkiye ekonomik ilişkileri üzerinde kısıtlayıcı ve kolaylaştırıcı etkileri olmuştur. (iii) Kısıtlayıcı ve kolaylaştırıcı etkiler dünya düzeninin dinamikleri, İran ve Türkiye' deki siyasal seçkinlerin dünya düzeni içerisindeki konumu ve ABD ile ilişkileri çerçevesinde şekillenmiştir. Bu çerçevede, öncelikle konunun çözümlenmesinde kullanılacak temel kavramlar, konuyla ilişkisi bağlamında açıklanmış; İran ve Türkiye'nin mevcut dünya düzeni içerisindeki konumlarına ilişkin saptamalar yapılmıştır. İran ve Türkiye'nin ekonomik ilişkilerine yönelik genel bir değerlendirme yapıldıktan sonra ABD yaptırımlarının, iki ülke arasındaki ekonomik ilişkiler üzerindeki kolaylaştırıcı ve kısıtlayıcı etkilerine odaklanılmıştır. Makalede genel olarak, literatür ve medya taramasından edinilen verilerin, Neo-Gramsciyen Kuram'ın, kavramları üzerinden çözümlenmesine dayanan bir yöntem benimsenmiş, iki devletin dünya düzenine yaklaşımlarının belirlenmesinde nitel karşılaştırma yöntemi kullanılmış; yaptırımlarla ilgili İran iç siyasetindeki tartışmalarda Farsça haber kaynaklarından da yararlanılmıştır.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potentials of Eurasia in becoming a historical bloc with... more The aim of this paper is to evaluate the potentials of Eurasia in becoming a historical bloc within the current world order. The theoretical framework of this paper is based on Robert Cox's Critical Theory, which claims that a change in World order may occur through the " war of position " between counter historical blocs. Eurasia with its many emerging economies and vast energy supplies is one of the most dynamic regions of the World. Moreover, besides improving intra-regional relations, Eurasia also endorses a multipolar and pluralist World order. While direct instruments of this endorsement are organizations like Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Development Bank; indirect instruments are organizations like BRICS and New Development Bank. In the light of Critical Theory, international and interregional organizations play a crucial role in constituting historical blocs. Therefore, this regional dynamism in Eurasia deserves a close analysis. This paper pursues a holistic approach. For this reason, after introducing main characteristics of current world order within the light of the abovementioned theory, in this paper, I am aiming to focus on relational and institutional perspectives, rather than to evaluate Eurasian countries individually, ÖZ Bu çalışmada Avrasya'nın bir tarihsel blok oluşturmak yönündeki potansiyeli incelenmektedir. Bu inceleme, Robert Cox'un kurucularından olduğu ve dünya düzeninde değişimin " mevzi savaşı " aracılığıyla gerçekleşeceğini belirten Eleştirel Uluslararası İlişkilier Kuramı'na dayanarak yapılmıştır. Yükselen ekonomileri ve sahip olduğu enerji kaynaklarıyla dünyanın en dinamik bölgelerinden olan Avrasya, bölgesel ilişkilerini geliştirmenin yanısıra, çok kutuplu ve pluralist bir dünya düzenini destekler bir tutum içerisindedir. Benimsenen kuramsal çerçevede açısından uluslararası kurumlar tarihsel blok oluşumu açısından hayati önemde olduğundan Avrasya'nın tarihsel blok oluşumu tartışması kapsamında Şangay İşbirliği Örgütü ve Avrasya Kalkınma Bankası gibi kurumlar özellikle ele alınmış, BRICS ve Yeni Kalkınma Bankası gibi uluslararası kurumlar ise potansiyel ve mevcut işbirlikleri açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Belirtilen konu, temel alınan kuramsal çerçevede bütünsel bir yaklaşımla incelenmiş, mevcut dünya düzeni içerisinde Avrasya devletleri birbirinden bağımsız olarak değil, kurumsal ilişkileri açısından ele alınmıştır.
Bu yayının her hakkı saklıdır. Tümü ya da bir bölümü önceden izin alınmaksızın hiçbir şekilde çoğ... more Bu yayının her hakkı saklıdır. Tümü ya da bir bölümü önceden izin alınmaksızın hiçbir şekilde çoğaltılamaz, basılıp yayınlanamaz, kaynak gösterilmeden alıntı yapılamaz.
İran'ın enerji politikaları ile uluslararası sermaye birikimi arasındaki diyalektik ilişkiyi konu... more İran'ın enerji politikaları ile uluslararası sermaye birikimi arasındaki diyalektik ilişkiyi konu edinen bu çalışma, İran'ın petrol ve doğalgaz arz stratejilerini, ticaret politikasını ve nükleer enerji faaliyetlerini değerlendirmektedir. Bu çerçevede uluslararası sermaye hareketleri ve bu hareketlerin İran enerji politikaları açısından sonuçları, sermaye birikimine dayalı kapitalist dünya sistemine ve merkez-çevre ilişkilerine odaklanan Dünya Sistemleri Kuramı kapsamında açıklanmaya çalışılacaktır. Enerji, kapitalist sermaye birikiminin belirlenmesinde etkin bir araç olarak değerlendirildiğinde İran'ın, merkezin çıkarlarına doğrudan hizmet etmeyen enerji politikaları, kapitalizmin kar arttırmayı hedefleyen yapısı nedeniyle çıkarları birbiriyle çatışan aktörler açısından farklı sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Bu farklı sonuçlar, sermaye birikiminin denetimi çerçevesinde devletlerin İran'a yönelik tutumlarının da farklı olmasına sebep olmaktadır. İran enerji sektörü, merkez devletlerden özellikle ABD'nin İran'a yönelik yaptırım ve ambargo gibi tutumlarından olumsuz etkilenebilmektedir. Uluslararası sermaye birikimini denetleme amacındaki aktörler arasındaki çıkar çatışmalarının İran enerji sektörünün kalkınmasını tetikleyen bir ortam oluşturduğu ve günümüzde enerjinin uluslararası sermaye birikimi açısından öneminin giderek arttığı dikkate alındığında, İran enerji politikalarının uluslararası sermaye birikimini etkileyebilme potansiyeli olduğu görülmektedir.
Conference Presentations by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Title: Energy Geopolitics as “War of Position”: Iran Case
Alongside the discussions about whether... more Title: Energy Geopolitics as “War of Position”: Iran Case
Alongside the discussions about whether the structure of international system is multipolar or unipolar in post-cold war era, certain social movements in Latin America, USA and Europe together with anti-USA regional cooperations and institutionalisations enable us to analise the current world affairs as a “war of position” between imperialist bloc and anti-imperialist bloc. “Hegemony-counter hegemony”, “historical bloc” and “war of position” conceptualizations that conveyed to international relations by Robert Cox via Antonio Gramsci, present that conceptual and theoretical bases for abovementioned historical context.
Energy geopolitics, which contains resources, extraction, processing of resources, and transporting resources to the international market, is one of the most important aspects of current “war of position”. For energy resources is the engine of economic development and sustainability of this development. Geographical proximity of emerging Asian economies as China, Russia to the Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources and the imperialist block’s previous hegemony over this resources escalates this struggle.
Iran, for its vast energy resources and most importantly for its crucial geostrategic position that both constituting a bridge between Middle East, Central Asia and controlling strait of Hormuz, is one of the most important actors of energy geopolitics. Thus, Iran is not only important for its own resources but also for being the optimum way through which energy-rich Caspian sea littoral states can integrate into international energy market. Besides its material structure, Iran’s problematic relations with the imperialist block which deepened by its alliance with emerging economies, made Iran a “front line” in so called “war of position”. As a result it is possible to claim that Iran’s energy policies is one of the most determinant elements for the future of war of position within the “historical bloc” context of world history.
ANAHTAR KELİMELER / KEY WORDS (5 adet) war of position, Iran, energy, geopolitics
Prince of International Relations
Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Though Machievelli had lived and auth... more Prince of International Relations
Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Though Machievelli had lived and authored his works before the establishment of international relations discipline, he is one of the major reference points for the different theories of the discipline. In other words, especially through his famous work Prince, the name “Machievelli” has been frequently called by a wide range of theories (like Realist theories and the Critical Theory) in international relations. Moreover, these theories have grounded their roots on Prince. This work aims to analyze the criteria through which Machievelli’s Prince, has been a reference point both metodologically and epistemologically.
Of course, it is not astonishing that Machievelli has been the one who is refered by international relations theorists, since even at the end of the 15th century and at the begining of the 16th century, he authored his works about the subjects that are covered by contemporary international relations discipline. The reason that the above mentioned subject is deemed to worthy of analyse, Machievelli is embraced by different theories that have different epistemological and metodological concerns, and that focus on different subjects.
Chronologically, the first theory that uses arguments which has been stated in Prince is Political Realism. Political Realism is one of the major traditional international relations theories which focuses on problematic of “power”. The other theory that has to be noted in this respect, is Neo Realism. Although the positivist theory, Neo Realism, has been one of the “realist” theories, it has been entirely differentiated methodologically from Political Realism and basically problematizes the concept “security”. On the other hand, Machievelli has found place in Critical Theory which has historicist arguments, on the basis of Gramsci’s analysis of Machievelli. In this paper, it is planned to focus on how it is possible that Machievelli’s view, his understanding and his conception of politics are embraced by theories which have obvious differences.
To assure that this study is based on sound grounds, in this paper, first of all, it is a must to make it clear that how Machievelli perceive, understand and explain politics in Prince. In this part of the study, Renaissance and the hypotheses proclaimed during Renaissance will become important to understand Prince. Especially “realism” and “objectivism” as onto-epistemologic streams will be discussed to understand the effects of Prince on the discipline of international relations. After that, it is required to formulate how Machievelli’s point of view about politics is related with above mentioned theories’ perception, understanding and explanation of politics in general sense. In order to accomplish this step, traditionalism, positivism, historicism, together with their reflections on the two major theories of international relations, namely Realist Theories and Critical Theory, will be evaluated through comperative methods. Therefore, the main metodological manner of this paper will be comparison. For traditionalism, positivism and historicism for themselves are already metodological approaches, this paper will eventually present a multidimensional metodological discussion. However, it would be misleading to evaluate metodologies without conceptual and issue-based discussions. For this respect, concepts that are focused by above mentioned theories, and the context of the uses of these concepts by these theories has to be discussed. For instance, concepts of “power”, “interest”, “security”, “morality”, “human nature”, “hegemony” will be the concepts that has to be clarifed in the context of international relations discipline. The last step to achieve the ends of this paper will be presented an analysis about how Machievelli, through his opus magnum Prince, through which elements and conceptual tools, contribute to understand political reality.
Within that context the planned subtitles of this paper will be as following:
1.Introduction Presentation of the issue and aims of the paper and the main metodology that will be applied to fulfil the mentioned aims.
2. Machievelli and his Political Approach Presentation of Machievelli’s main political stance in the light of philosophical, historical, social and scientific structures of Renaissence period in Europe.
Discussion about reflections on this period in Machievelli’s work Prince.
3. Prince of International Relations Analysis of Prince regarding to its place in international relations theory.
A. Concise Glance to Second Great Debate of International Relations Discipline Explaining main characteristics and results of second great debate of international relations.
B. Prince and Realist Stream in International Relations Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects both in classical Realism and Neo Realism.
C. Prince, Gramsci and Critical Theory Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects within Critical International Relations Theory. Comparison of realist theories and critical theory on Prince both metodologically and conceptually.
D. Conclusion Conclusions about the Prince in international relations discipline.
References
Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Apr., 1966).
Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders”, içinde Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Cox, R.W ve Sinclair, T.J., Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Della Porta, Donatella ve Keating Michael (eds), Approaches and Metodologies in the Social Sciences A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Felsefe Sözlüğü, İvan Frolov yönetiminde Bilimler Akademisi (Haz.), Çev. Aziz Çalışlar, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1997.
Gill, S. (ed), Gramschi Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Gramsci, Antonio, The Modern Prince and Other Writings, NewYork: International Publishers, 1970.
Jackson, Robert ve Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, 3rd edition, NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Machiavelli, Nicollo, Prens, Çev. Nazım Güvenç, İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, 2004.
Meyers, Reinhard, “Contemporary Developments in International Relations Theory” [http://www.caesar.uns.ac.rs/eng/studies/2005/meyers/c2.pdf].
Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth edition, Revised (Alfred Knoph), 1978, ss 4-15.
Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Machiavellian Utopia”, Ethics, Vol. 55, No.2, 1945.
Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Rates, Thomas B. “Gramsci and Theory of Hegemony” Journal of History of Ideas, Cilt.36, No.2, April- June 1975.
Sander, Oral. Siyasi Tarih İlk Çağlardan 1918'e, 12. baskı, İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi, 2003.
Wong, Benjamin, “Hans Morgenthau's Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellanism” Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol.29, No.2, 2000.
Other by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Faruk Sönmezoğlu'nun editörlüğünde S. Gülden Ayman, Beril Dedeoğlu ve Deniz Ülke Arıboğan tarafın... more Faruk Sönmezoğlu'nun editörlüğünde S. Gülden Ayman, Beril Dedeoğlu ve Deniz Ülke Arıboğan tarafından hazırlanan Uluslararası İlişkiler Sözlüğü'nün gözden geçirilmiş ve genişletilmiş 5. baskısının yayın editörlüğü
Timothy J. Sinclair'in Global Governance adlı kitabının Türkçe çevirisi
Book by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Uploads
Papers by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
ince ra ar and subse uent rearrangements met ith strong international reactions, the cost of invasions and direct wars increased, and the core states started to be seen as the primary suspect for the destabilization of the region, the core states ithdre rom the region to organize and e uip their pro ies and to give mandate to them. Proxy warfare provide some crucial advantages for the core states. Through this new warfare, these states can easily overcome the in- stitutional obstacles in their domestic politics, can minimize the public reactions, and can mobilize the groups existing in their rival states to widen their own hege- mony or to disturb the rival state’s production of consent.
However, proxy warfare creates a multi-level violence spiral in the region. First- ly, arming existing ethnic groups means investing long-lasting violent struggle of these groups hich e entually undermines peace ul con ict resolution options. Secondly, since the Arab uprising’s promising democratic transformation oppor- tunities are damaged the peoples of Middle East lose their faith in democratic transformation. Thirdly, since the regional powers attempt to manipulate existing proxy wars or to create their own proxies, armed actors in the region diversify. Lastly, since the regional powers concern their own security and territorial integ- rity, they may hold on to some strict measures which may eventually escalate the violence in the region.
Conference Presentations by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Alongside the discussions about whether the structure of international system is multipolar or unipolar in post-cold war era, certain social movements in Latin America, USA and Europe together with anti-USA regional cooperations and institutionalisations enable us to analise the current world affairs as a “war of position” between imperialist bloc and anti-imperialist bloc. “Hegemony-counter hegemony”, “historical bloc” and “war of position” conceptualizations that conveyed to international relations by Robert Cox via Antonio Gramsci, present that conceptual and theoretical bases for abovementioned historical context.
Energy geopolitics, which contains resources, extraction, processing of resources, and transporting resources to the international market, is one of the most important aspects of current “war of position”. For energy resources is the engine of economic development and sustainability of this development. Geographical proximity of emerging Asian economies as China, Russia to the Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources and the imperialist block’s previous hegemony over this resources escalates this struggle.
Iran, for its vast energy resources and most importantly for its crucial geostrategic position that both constituting a bridge between Middle East, Central Asia and controlling strait of Hormuz, is one of the most important actors of energy geopolitics. Thus, Iran is not only important for its own resources but also for being the optimum way through which energy-rich Caspian sea littoral states can integrate into international energy market. Besides its material structure, Iran’s problematic relations with the imperialist block which deepened by its alliance with emerging economies, made Iran a “front line” in so called “war of position”. As a result it is possible to claim that Iran’s energy policies is one of the most determinant elements for the future of war of position within the “historical bloc” context of world history.
ANAHTAR KELİMELER / KEY WORDS (5 adet) war of position, Iran, energy, geopolitics
Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Though Machievelli had lived and authored his works before the establishment of international relations discipline, he is one of the major reference points for the different theories of the discipline. In other words, especially through his famous work Prince, the name “Machievelli” has been frequently called by a wide range of theories (like Realist theories and the Critical Theory) in international relations. Moreover, these theories have grounded their roots on Prince. This work aims to analyze the criteria through which Machievelli’s Prince, has been a reference point both metodologically and epistemologically.
Of course, it is not astonishing that Machievelli has been the one who is refered by international relations theorists, since even at the end of the 15th century and at the begining of the 16th century, he authored his works about the subjects that are covered by contemporary international relations discipline. The reason that the above mentioned subject is deemed to worthy of analyse, Machievelli is embraced by different theories that have different epistemological and metodological concerns, and that focus on different subjects.
Chronologically, the first theory that uses arguments which has been stated in Prince is Political Realism. Political Realism is one of the major traditional international relations theories which focuses on problematic of “power”. The other theory that has to be noted in this respect, is Neo Realism. Although the positivist theory, Neo Realism, has been one of the “realist” theories, it has been entirely differentiated methodologically from Political Realism and basically problematizes the concept “security”. On the other hand, Machievelli has found place in Critical Theory which has historicist arguments, on the basis of Gramsci’s analysis of Machievelli. In this paper, it is planned to focus on how it is possible that Machievelli’s view, his understanding and his conception of politics are embraced by theories which have obvious differences.
To assure that this study is based on sound grounds, in this paper, first of all, it is a must to make it clear that how Machievelli perceive, understand and explain politics in Prince. In this part of the study, Renaissance and the hypotheses proclaimed during Renaissance will become important to understand Prince. Especially “realism” and “objectivism” as onto-epistemologic streams will be discussed to understand the effects of Prince on the discipline of international relations. After that, it is required to formulate how Machievelli’s point of view about politics is related with above mentioned theories’ perception, understanding and explanation of politics in general sense. In order to accomplish this step, traditionalism, positivism, historicism, together with their reflections on the two major theories of international relations, namely Realist Theories and Critical Theory, will be evaluated through comperative methods. Therefore, the main metodological manner of this paper will be comparison. For traditionalism, positivism and historicism for themselves are already metodological approaches, this paper will eventually present a multidimensional metodological discussion. However, it would be misleading to evaluate metodologies without conceptual and issue-based discussions. For this respect, concepts that are focused by above mentioned theories, and the context of the uses of these concepts by these theories has to be discussed. For instance, concepts of “power”, “interest”, “security”, “morality”, “human nature”, “hegemony” will be the concepts that has to be clarifed in the context of international relations discipline. The last step to achieve the ends of this paper will be presented an analysis about how Machievelli, through his opus magnum Prince, through which elements and conceptual tools, contribute to understand political reality.
Within that context the planned subtitles of this paper will be as following:
1.Introduction Presentation of the issue and aims of the paper and the main metodology that will be applied to fulfil the mentioned aims.
2. Machievelli and his Political Approach Presentation of Machievelli’s main political stance in the light of philosophical, historical, social and scientific structures of Renaissence period in Europe.
Discussion about reflections on this period in Machievelli’s work Prince.
3. Prince of International Relations Analysis of Prince regarding to its place in international relations theory.
A. Concise Glance to Second Great Debate of International Relations Discipline Explaining main characteristics and results of second great debate of international relations.
B. Prince and Realist Stream in International Relations Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects both in classical Realism and Neo Realism.
C. Prince, Gramsci and Critical Theory Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects within Critical International Relations Theory. Comparison of realist theories and critical theory on Prince both metodologically and conceptually.
D. Conclusion Conclusions about the Prince in international relations discipline.
References
Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Apr., 1966).
Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders”, içinde Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Cox, R.W ve Sinclair, T.J., Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Della Porta, Donatella ve Keating Michael (eds), Approaches and Metodologies in the Social Sciences A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Felsefe Sözlüğü, İvan Frolov yönetiminde Bilimler Akademisi (Haz.), Çev. Aziz Çalışlar, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1997.
Gill, S. (ed), Gramschi Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Gramsci, Antonio, The Modern Prince and Other Writings, NewYork: International Publishers, 1970.
Jackson, Robert ve Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, 3rd edition, NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Machiavelli, Nicollo, Prens, Çev. Nazım Güvenç, İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, 2004.
Meyers, Reinhard, “Contemporary Developments in International Relations Theory” [http://www.caesar.uns.ac.rs/eng/studies/2005/meyers/c2.pdf].
Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth edition, Revised (Alfred Knoph), 1978, ss 4-15.
Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Machiavellian Utopia”, Ethics, Vol. 55, No.2, 1945.
Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Rates, Thomas B. “Gramsci and Theory of Hegemony” Journal of History of Ideas, Cilt.36, No.2, April- June 1975.
Sander, Oral. Siyasi Tarih İlk Çağlardan 1918'e, 12. baskı, İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi, 2003.
Wong, Benjamin, “Hans Morgenthau's Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellanism” Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol.29, No.2, 2000.
Other by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Book by Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
ince ra ar and subse uent rearrangements met ith strong international reactions, the cost of invasions and direct wars increased, and the core states started to be seen as the primary suspect for the destabilization of the region, the core states ithdre rom the region to organize and e uip their pro ies and to give mandate to them. Proxy warfare provide some crucial advantages for the core states. Through this new warfare, these states can easily overcome the in- stitutional obstacles in their domestic politics, can minimize the public reactions, and can mobilize the groups existing in their rival states to widen their own hege- mony or to disturb the rival state’s production of consent.
However, proxy warfare creates a multi-level violence spiral in the region. First- ly, arming existing ethnic groups means investing long-lasting violent struggle of these groups hich e entually undermines peace ul con ict resolution options. Secondly, since the Arab uprising’s promising democratic transformation oppor- tunities are damaged the peoples of Middle East lose their faith in democratic transformation. Thirdly, since the regional powers attempt to manipulate existing proxy wars or to create their own proxies, armed actors in the region diversify. Lastly, since the regional powers concern their own security and territorial integ- rity, they may hold on to some strict measures which may eventually escalate the violence in the region.
Alongside the discussions about whether the structure of international system is multipolar or unipolar in post-cold war era, certain social movements in Latin America, USA and Europe together with anti-USA regional cooperations and institutionalisations enable us to analise the current world affairs as a “war of position” between imperialist bloc and anti-imperialist bloc. “Hegemony-counter hegemony”, “historical bloc” and “war of position” conceptualizations that conveyed to international relations by Robert Cox via Antonio Gramsci, present that conceptual and theoretical bases for abovementioned historical context.
Energy geopolitics, which contains resources, extraction, processing of resources, and transporting resources to the international market, is one of the most important aspects of current “war of position”. For energy resources is the engine of economic development and sustainability of this development. Geographical proximity of emerging Asian economies as China, Russia to the Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources and the imperialist block’s previous hegemony over this resources escalates this struggle.
Iran, for its vast energy resources and most importantly for its crucial geostrategic position that both constituting a bridge between Middle East, Central Asia and controlling strait of Hormuz, is one of the most important actors of energy geopolitics. Thus, Iran is not only important for its own resources but also for being the optimum way through which energy-rich Caspian sea littoral states can integrate into international energy market. Besides its material structure, Iran’s problematic relations with the imperialist block which deepened by its alliance with emerging economies, made Iran a “front line” in so called “war of position”. As a result it is possible to claim that Iran’s energy policies is one of the most determinant elements for the future of war of position within the “historical bloc” context of world history.
ANAHTAR KELİMELER / KEY WORDS (5 adet) war of position, Iran, energy, geopolitics
Hatice Hande Orhon Özdağ
Though Machievelli had lived and authored his works before the establishment of international relations discipline, he is one of the major reference points for the different theories of the discipline. In other words, especially through his famous work Prince, the name “Machievelli” has been frequently called by a wide range of theories (like Realist theories and the Critical Theory) in international relations. Moreover, these theories have grounded their roots on Prince. This work aims to analyze the criteria through which Machievelli’s Prince, has been a reference point both metodologically and epistemologically.
Of course, it is not astonishing that Machievelli has been the one who is refered by international relations theorists, since even at the end of the 15th century and at the begining of the 16th century, he authored his works about the subjects that are covered by contemporary international relations discipline. The reason that the above mentioned subject is deemed to worthy of analyse, Machievelli is embraced by different theories that have different epistemological and metodological concerns, and that focus on different subjects.
Chronologically, the first theory that uses arguments which has been stated in Prince is Political Realism. Political Realism is one of the major traditional international relations theories which focuses on problematic of “power”. The other theory that has to be noted in this respect, is Neo Realism. Although the positivist theory, Neo Realism, has been one of the “realist” theories, it has been entirely differentiated methodologically from Political Realism and basically problematizes the concept “security”. On the other hand, Machievelli has found place in Critical Theory which has historicist arguments, on the basis of Gramsci’s analysis of Machievelli. In this paper, it is planned to focus on how it is possible that Machievelli’s view, his understanding and his conception of politics are embraced by theories which have obvious differences.
To assure that this study is based on sound grounds, in this paper, first of all, it is a must to make it clear that how Machievelli perceive, understand and explain politics in Prince. In this part of the study, Renaissance and the hypotheses proclaimed during Renaissance will become important to understand Prince. Especially “realism” and “objectivism” as onto-epistemologic streams will be discussed to understand the effects of Prince on the discipline of international relations. After that, it is required to formulate how Machievelli’s point of view about politics is related with above mentioned theories’ perception, understanding and explanation of politics in general sense. In order to accomplish this step, traditionalism, positivism, historicism, together with their reflections on the two major theories of international relations, namely Realist Theories and Critical Theory, will be evaluated through comperative methods. Therefore, the main metodological manner of this paper will be comparison. For traditionalism, positivism and historicism for themselves are already metodological approaches, this paper will eventually present a multidimensional metodological discussion. However, it would be misleading to evaluate metodologies without conceptual and issue-based discussions. For this respect, concepts that are focused by above mentioned theories, and the context of the uses of these concepts by these theories has to be discussed. For instance, concepts of “power”, “interest”, “security”, “morality”, “human nature”, “hegemony” will be the concepts that has to be clarifed in the context of international relations discipline. The last step to achieve the ends of this paper will be presented an analysis about how Machievelli, through his opus magnum Prince, through which elements and conceptual tools, contribute to understand political reality.
Within that context the planned subtitles of this paper will be as following:
1.Introduction Presentation of the issue and aims of the paper and the main metodology that will be applied to fulfil the mentioned aims.
2. Machievelli and his Political Approach Presentation of Machievelli’s main political stance in the light of philosophical, historical, social and scientific structures of Renaissence period in Europe.
Discussion about reflections on this period in Machievelli’s work Prince.
3. Prince of International Relations Analysis of Prince regarding to its place in international relations theory.
A. Concise Glance to Second Great Debate of International Relations Discipline Explaining main characteristics and results of second great debate of international relations.
B. Prince and Realist Stream in International Relations Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects both in classical Realism and Neo Realism.
C. Prince, Gramsci and Critical Theory Evaluation of Prince with respect to its effects within Critical International Relations Theory. Comparison of realist theories and critical theory on Prince both metodologically and conceptually.
D. Conclusion Conclusions about the Prince in international relations discipline.
References
Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Apr., 1966).
Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States and World Orders”, içinde Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Cox, R.W ve Sinclair, T.J., Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Della Porta, Donatella ve Keating Michael (eds), Approaches and Metodologies in the Social Sciences A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Felsefe Sözlüğü, İvan Frolov yönetiminde Bilimler Akademisi (Haz.), Çev. Aziz Çalışlar, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1997.
Gill, S. (ed), Gramschi Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Gramsci, Antonio, The Modern Prince and Other Writings, NewYork: International Publishers, 1970.
Jackson, Robert ve Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, 3rd edition, NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Machiavelli, Nicollo, Prens, Çev. Nazım Güvenç, İstanbul: Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, 2004.
Meyers, Reinhard, “Contemporary Developments in International Relations Theory” [http://www.caesar.uns.ac.rs/eng/studies/2005/meyers/c2.pdf].
Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth edition, Revised (Alfred Knoph), 1978, ss 4-15.
Morgenthau, Hans J., “The Machiavellian Utopia”, Ethics, Vol. 55, No.2, 1945.
Keohane, Robert O. (ed), Neorealism and Its Critics, NewYork: Columbia University Pres, 1986.
Rates, Thomas B. “Gramsci and Theory of Hegemony” Journal of History of Ideas, Cilt.36, No.2, April- June 1975.
Sander, Oral. Siyasi Tarih İlk Çağlardan 1918'e, 12. baskı, İstanbul: İmge Kitabevi, 2003.
Wong, Benjamin, “Hans Morgenthau's Anti-Machiavellian Machiavellanism” Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol.29, No.2, 2000.