You are here

ABD hegemonyası ve bölgesel modelleme politikası: Kuramsal çerçeve

U.S. hegemony and the policy of regional modeling: Theoretical framework

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this essay, ‘‘regional modeling’’ that has been increasingly applied as an hegemonic policy almost for the last twenty years is examined with a view to clarify the locus of that policy in international relation theory. Some states at regional level are exemplified through modeling based on free market principles, democratic norms and civil society; so that it is targeted that form of statehood of all states at global scale is singularized. Taking into account the reality that current international system is unipolar in which U.S. is the hegemonic power; to connect the initiation of transforming states in developing and underdeveloped regions in line with the models proposed, with the main theoretical approaches in international relations might contribute to a certain extent to understanding current world politics.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada, yaklaşık son yirmi yıldır yaygınlaşan biçimde başvurulan bir hegemonya politikası olan ‘‘bölgesel modelleme’’nin uluslararası ilişkiler kuramında nasıl bir yerinin olduğu incelenecektir. Serbest piyasa ilkeleri, demokratik normlar ve sivil toplum kriterleri çerçevesinde yapılan modelleme ile bölgesel düzeydeki bir kısım devletler pozitif veya negatif olarak örneklenmekte; böylelikle küresel ölçekte bütün devletlerin devlet oluş biçimlerinin tekilleştirilmesi hedeflenmektedir. Halihazırdaki uluslararası sistemin tek kutuplu olduğu ve ABD’nin bu sistem içinde hegemon vaziyette bulunduğu gerçekleri dikkate alındığında; dünyanın gelişmekte ve gelişmemiş bölgelerindeki devletlerin öne sürülen modeller doğrultusunda dönüştürülmesi girişiminin belli başlı kuramsal yaklaşımlarla ilişkilendirilmesi, bugünün dünya politikasının anlaşılmasına belirli ölçüde katkı yapabilecektir.

REFERENCES

References: 

Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3), 319-363. Ayoob, M. ve Zierler, M. (2005). The unipolar concert. World Policy Journal, 22 (1), 31-42. Brzezinski, Z. (2003/2004). Hegemonic quicksand. The National Interest, Winter, 5-16. Carney, T. (2005). The Sudan: Political Islam and terrorism. R.I. Rotberg, (Ed.). Battling terrorism in the horn of Africa. (119-140). Cambridge: World Peace Foundation. Carr, E.H. (1964). The twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of international relations. New York: Harper & Row. Carter, A.B. (2001/02). The architecture of government in the face of terrorism. International Security, 26 (3), 5-23. Cha, V.D. (2000). Globalization and the study of international security. Journal of Peace Research, 37 (3), 391-403. Cohen, A. ve Dale, H. (2005). The advance democracy act: A dose of realism needed. Executive Memorandum, No 968, The Heritage Foundation. Cox, M. (2001). Whatever happened to American decline? International relations and the New United States hegemony. New Political Economy, 6 (3), 311-340. Cronin, A.K. (2002/03). Behind the curve: Globalization and international terrorism. International Security, 27 (3), 30-58. Deshazo, P., Primiani, T. ve McLean, P. (2007). Back from the brink: Evaluating progress in Colombia, 1999-2007. CSIS Report, Washington D.C. Dobriansky, P. (2003). Shining a light: U.S. efforts to strengthen democracy worldwide. U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, 8 (1). Edström, H. ve Wiss, A. (Ed.). (2007). International trend analysis-yearbook 2007. Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency. Epstein, S., Serafino, N. ve Miko, F. (2007). Democracy promotion: Cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy?. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34296, December 26. Evans, G. ve Newnham, J. (1998). The penguin dictionary of international relations. New York: Penguin.
Ateş, D. (2009). ABD hegemonyası ve bölgesel modelleme politikası: Kuramsal çerçeve. Uluslararası İnsan
Bilimleri Dergisi [Bağlantıda]. 6:1. Erişim: http://www.insanbilimleri.com
318
Flockhart, T. (2004). Uses and abuses of hegemony: Socialization of democratic norms in post-war Germany and post-war Iraq. Discussion Paper No 27/2004, SPIRIT, Aalborg University. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of the history and the last man. New York: Macmillan. Fuller, G. (2004). Turkey’s strategic model: Myths or realities?. The Washington Quarterly, 27 (3), 51-64. Gartzke, E. (2004). Why democracies may actually be less reliable partners. American Journal of Political Science, 48 (4), 775-795. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Girdner, E.J. (2004). Operation Iraqi freedom: Invasion, occupation and consolidation of US hegemony in Iraq. Punjab Journal of Politics, 28 (2), 1-31. Girdner, E.J. (2005). The greater middle east initiative: Regime change, neoliberalism and US global hegemony. The Turkish Yearbook, 36, 37-71. Haglund, D.G. (2004). Western Europe and the challenge of the ‘‘unipolar moment’’: Is multipolarity the answer?. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 6 (4). Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hyde-Price, A. (2006). Continental drift: Transatlantic relations and American unipolarity. Paper, 31st Annual BISA Conference, 18-20th December 2006, University College Cork. Ikenberry, J.G. (2001a). American power and the empire of capitalist democracy. Review of International Studies, 27, 191-212. Ikenberry, J. (2001b). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major war. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ish-Shalom, P. (2006). Theory as a hermeneutical mechanism: The democratic peace thesis and the politics of democratization. Eeuropean Journal of International Relations, 12 (4), 565-598. Jepperson, R.L., Wendt, A. ve Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Norms, identity and culture in national security. P.J. Katzenstein, (Ed.). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. (33-75). New York: Columbia University Press. Jervis, R. (2002). Theories of war in an era of leading-power peace. American Political Science Review, 96 (1), 1-14. Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Krasner, S. (1983). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Krebs, R.R. ve Lobasz, J.K. (2007). Fixing the meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, coercion and the road to war in Iraq. Security Studies, 16 (3), 409-451. Laffey, M. (2003). Discerning the patterns of world order: Noam Chomsky and international theory after the cold war. Review of International Studies, 29, 587-604. Lang, A.T.F. (2006). Reconstructing embedded liberalism: John Gerard Ruggie and constructivist approaches to the study of international trade regime. Journal of International Economic Law, 9 (1), 81-116. Malka, H. ve Alterman, J. (2006). Arab reform and foreign aid: Lessons from Morocco. CSIS Significant Issues Series, 28 (4), Washington D.C.: The CSIS Press. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51 (4), 513-553. Morgenthau, H.J. (1992). Politics among nations. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ateş, D. (2009). ABD hegemonyası ve bölgesel modelleme politikası: Kuramsal çerçeve. Uluslararası İnsan
Bilimleri Dergisi [Bağlantıda]. 6:1. Erişim: http://www.insanbilimleri.com
319
Nye, J.S. (2004). The paradox of American power: Why the world’s only superpower can not go it alone. New York: Oxford University Press. Onuf, N. (1994). Constitution of international society. European Journal of International Law, 5 (1), 1-19. Onuf, N. (2002). Worlds of our making: The strange career of constructivism in international relations. D.J. Puchala, (Ed.). Visions of international relations. (119-141). Colombia: University of South Carolina Press. Resnyansky, L. (2007). Integration of social sciences in modelling: An interactionist approach to research practice. Conference Paper, ICCCD, 27-28 August 2007, University of Maryland. Smith, T. (1995). A Wilsonian world. World Policy Journal, 12 (2). Stobdan, P. (2006). Building a strategic partnership with Kazakhstan. Central Asia and the Caucasus Journal of Social and Political Studies, 5 (41), 113-125. Taliaferro, J.W. (2000/01). Security seeking under anarchy. International Security, 25 (3), 128-161. U.S. Government Printing Office. (2006). U.S. security policy in Central Asia: Hearing, October 17, 2005. Serial No 109-132. Washington D.C. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wimelius, M.E. (2007). The future of military interventions: Who, why and where?. H.Edström ve A. Wiss, (Ed.). International trend analysis-yearbook 2007. (117-138). Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency. Wohlforth, W. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world. International Security, 24 (1), 5-41. Zakaria, F. (1998). From wealth to power: The unusual origins of America’s world role. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com