Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

DÜNYA DÜZENLERİ VE GÜVENLİK: ULUS-DEVLET GÜVENLİK ANLAYIŞI AŞILIYOR MU?

Journal Name:

  • Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2007

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This article examines the relationship between the kinds of world systems and the nature of security. In doing this, it focuses on two alternative world systems; one is the world system based on the primacy of nation-states and the other is the world system that transcends the nation-state system. The main contention of the article is that the way security is conceptualized differs from one system to the other. The question is to what extent the ongoing globalization process has challenged the way security is defined in the nation-state based international system. The article argues that analyzing the security conceptualizations of the United States and the European Union in a comparative way might help reveal the extent to which the security understanding of the nation-state based international system has been transformed into a new one that exalts individuals as the main referent of security. The article also argues that while the United States has still been defining its security through the perspective of the nation-state ideology, the European Union is a more suitable example to the emerging security understanding that privileges individuals over states. However, this should not be taken at face value, for the post-9/11 era developments have not proven promising for the transformation of the security understanding as radical as espoused within the EU.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu yazı farklı dünya düzenleri ile güvenlik algılamaları arasındaki ilişkileri analiz etmektedir. Bunu yaparken iki farklı dünya düzenini incelemektedir. Bunlar sırası ile ulus-devlet düzeni ile ulusdevlet ötesi düzendir. Her bir sistemin karakteristik özelliklerine göre, güvenlik kavramının tanımlanışı değişmektedir. Yazı ağırlıklı olarak ulus-devlet ötesi sistemi tartışmakta ve de şu temel argümanı öne sürmektedir. Ulus-devlet düzeninin devleti esas alan güvenlik anlayışı her ne kadar ulus-devlet ötesi düzenin bireyi esas alan anlayışı tarafından sorgulanıyor olsa da, günümüzde hala hakim olan anlayış birincisidir. Bunu gösterirken yazı günümüz sisteminin iki başat aktörü olan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ile Avrupa Birliği’nin güvenlik algılamalarının karşılıklı bir mukayesesini yapmaktadır. Öne sürülen temel görüş şudur. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin güvenlik anlayışı daha çok ulus-devlet düzeninin güvenlik anlayışına yakınken, AB’ninki ulus-devlet ötesi düzenin güvenlik anlayışına yakındır. Bir diğer argüman ise 11 Eylül sonrası gelişmelerin hem küresel hem de AB ölçeğinde ulus-devlet ötesi güvenlik anlayışının yerleşmesini kolaylaştırmadığıdır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dunya-duzenleri-guvenlik-ulus-devlet-guvenlik-anlayisi-asiliyor-mu.pdf
  • 6
7-41
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Atatürk'ün Söylev ve Demeçleri, 1989, s. 326
2. Aydınlı Ersel ve James Rosenau. Globalization, Security and the
Nation State: Paradigms in Transition, New York: State University of
New York Press, 2005.
3. Bacevich, Andrew J. American Empire, Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Pres, 2002.
4. Balfour, R ve A. Rotta. “Beyond Enlargement: The European
Neighborhood Policy and Its Options,” International Spectator, 2005, c.
1, sy. 7-20;
5. Baylis, John. “International and Global Security in the Post-Cold War
Era” The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to
International Relations, John Baylis ve Steve Smith (eds.), Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005, s. 316-18.
6. Beck, U. Risk Society Towards A New Modernity, Londra: Sage
Publications, 1992.
7. Berenskoetter, Felix Sebastian. “Mapping the Mind Gap: A
Comparison of US and European Security Strategies,” Security
Dialogue, 2005, c. 36, s. 1, sy. 1-
8. Bill, Jordan; Stråth Bo ve Triandafyllidou, Anna. “Contextualizing
immigration policy in Europe,” Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies,
2003, c. 29, s. 2, sy. 195-224.
9. Cerny, P. G., “Terrorism and the New Security Dilemma,” Naval
War College Review, 2005, c. 58, s. 1, sy. 10-33.
10. Clark, Ian. Globalization and international relations theory, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
11. Claude, Moraes. “The Politics of European Union Migration Policy,”
Political Quarterly, 2003, c. 1, s. 74, sy.116-131.
12. Croft, Stuart; Jolyon Howorth ve Terry Terriff ve Mark Webber,
”NATO’s Triple Challenge,“ International Affairs, 2000, c. 7 s. 3, sy. 495-
518.
13. Dowd, Alan W. “ A Different Course? America and Europe in the
21st Century, “ Parameters: US Army War College, 2004, c.34, s.3, sy. 61-
74. 14. Elstrup-Sangiovanniu, M ve D. Verdier. “European Integration as a
Solution to War,” European Journal of International Relations, 2005, c.
11, s. 1, sy. 99-115.
15. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man, New
York: Free Pres, 1992.
16. Gualini, E. “Integration Diversity, Plurality: Territorial Governance
and the Reconstruction of Legitimacy in European Post-national State,”
Geopolitics, 2004, c. 9, s. 3, sy. 542-563;
17. Halliday, Fred. “Nationalism” The Globalization of World Politics
An Introduction to International Relations, John Baylis ve Steve Smith
(eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
18. Hansdspeter, Nechold. “Transatlantic Turbulences: Rift or Ripples,”
European Foreign Affairs Review, 2003, c. 8, s. 4, sy. 457-468.
19. Harrison, Ewan. “Engagement or Empire? American Power and the
International Order,” International Affairs, 2004, c. 80, s. 4, sy.755-768.
20. Higashiro, A. “For the Sake of Peace and Security The Role of
Security in the European Union Enlargement Eastwards,” Cooperation
and Conflict, 2004, c. 39, s. 4, sy. 347-368.
21. Hopkin, A. G. ‘Capitalism, Nationalism and the New American
Empire,’ Journal of Imperial and Common wealth History, 2007, c. 35, s.
1, sy. 95-117.
22. Huntington, Samuel P. Biz Kimiz Amerika’nın Ulusal Kimlik
Arayışı, İstanbul: Global Yayın Ajansı, 2004.
23. İçduygu, Ahmet ve Özlem Kaygusuz. “ The Politics of Citizenship
by Drawing Boundaries: Foreign Policy and the Construction of
National Citizenship Identity in Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies, 2004,
c. 40, s. 6, sy. 50-74.
24. Jackson, Robert Jackson ve Patricia Owens. “The Evolution of
International Society,” The Globalization of World Politics An
Introduction to International Relations, John Baylis ve Steve Smith
(eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
25. Johnson, Chalmers. Amerikan Emperyalizminin Sonbaharı, İstanbul:
Kure Yayınları, 2005.
26. Kermal, Öke M. Derviş ve Komutan, Özgürlük Güvenlik
Sarkacındaki Türkiye’nin Kimlik Sorunsalı, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları,
2004.
DÜNYA DÜZENLERİ VE GÜVENLİK: ULUS-DEVLET GÜVENLİK ANLAYIŞI AŞILIYOR MU?
40
27. Kinnvall, Catarina. “Globalization and Religious Nationalism: The
Search for Ontological Security,” Political Psychology, 2004, c. 25, s. 5,
sy. 741-767.
28. Kurth, James. “The Next NATO: Building an American
Commonwealth of Nations,” National Interest, 2000, c. 65,sy. 5-16.
29. Kurth, James. ‘Ignoring History: US Democratization in the Middle
East’, Orbis, İlkbahar 2005, sy. 305-321.
30. Lynch, D. “The Security Dimension of the European Neighborhood
Policy”, International Spectator, 2005, c.1, sy. 33-43.
31. Manners, I. “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms,”
Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, c. 40, s. 2, sy. 235-258.
32. Mattern, Janice Bially. “The Power Politcs of Identity,” European
Journal of International Relations, 2001, c. 7, s. 3, sy. 349-397.
33. Mclaren, Lauren M. “Public Support fort he European Union:
Cost/Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat?,” Journal of Politics,
2002, c. 64, s. 2, sy. 551-567.
34. Merson, Gil. “Realist Hypotheses on regional Peace, “ Journal of
Strategic Studies, 2003, c. 26, s. 1, sy. 109-135.
35. Messari, N. “The State and Dilemmas of Security: The Middle East
and the Balkans,” Security Dialogue, 2002, c. 33, s. 4, sy. 15-427.
36. Rosamond, Ben. “Conceptualizing the EU Model of Governance in
World Politics,” European Foreign Affairs Review, 2005, c. 10, s. 4, sy.
63-478.
37. Saharansky. N ve R. Dermer. Demokrasi Davası Zorbalık ve Terörle
Baş Etmede Özgürlüğün Gücü, İstanbul: Güncel Yayınları, 2005.
38. Sarotte, Mary Elis. “Transatlantic Tension and Threat Perception,”
Naval War College Review, 2005, c. 58, s. 4, sy.25-37.
39. Solana, Javier. “A Secure Europe In A Better World,”
http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf 12 Aralık 2003.
40. Steınbruner. J ve N. Gallagher. “Constructive Transformation: An
Alternative Vision of Global Security,” Deadalus, 2004, c. 133, s. 3, sy 83-
103.
41. Takehy, T ve N. Gvosdev. ‘Democratic Impulses versus Imperial
Interests: America’s New Middle East Conundrum’, Orbis, Yaz 2003, sy.
415-431
42. Tilly, Charles. The politics of collective violence, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
DÜNYA DÜZENLERİ VE GÜVENLİK: ULUS-DEVLET GÜVENLİK ANLAYIŞI AŞILIYOR MU?
41
43. Tilly, Charles. European revolutions, 1492-1992, Mass. : Blackwell,
1993
44. Waever, O. “Securitization and De-securitization,” on Security,
Ronny Lipschutz (ed.), New York: Columbia University Pres, 1995, sy.
46-86.
45. Waltz, K. Theory of International Politics, New York: Random
House, 1979.
46. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html
47. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

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