Uluslararası İlişkileri Yeniden Şekillendirmek: Afrika’dan Kuramsal Yenilikler

Bu makale, Küresel Güney’den -bu örnekte Afrika’dan- çıkan kuramsal katkıların, uluslararası ilişkileri daha iyi anlamak yönünde bir ilerleme kaydetmek için hali hazırda olan teorilerden köklü bir şekilde farklı olması gerekmediği varsayımına dayanmaktadır. Mevcut çerçevelerin yeniden yorumlamaları ya da değişimleri ve yeni kavramların tanıtılması da eşit derecede önemlidir. Bu, mevcut kuramların sürekli düzeltildiği ve tekrar ziyaret edildiği geleneksel uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarında da kabul edilmiş bir uygulamadır. Kişinin yalnızca realist düşüncenin farklı vücut bulmalarını göz önüne getirmesi yeterlidir. Batılı bilim insanlarının adaptasyonları ve kavramsal innovasyonlari meşru görülür ve kuram düzenine adapte edilirken, Batı dışında ortaya çıkan küçük katkılar için durum her zaman aynı olmamaktadır. Bu makale, Afrikalı bilim insanlarının böylesi katkılarını içeren üç örneği incelemektedir. Birinci grup bilim adamları, “orta güç” kavramını yeniden yorumlamışlar ve Güney Afrika gibi yeni gelişen orta güçleri belirleyen geleneksel orta güçlerden farklı özel nitelikler olduğunu tartışmışlardır. İkincisi, Deon Geldenhuys’un “izole ülkeler” kavramını geliştirmesi ve ülkeleri izolelik göstergelerine göre kategorize eden özgün analitik bir çerçeve oluşturmasıdır. Son olarak Thomas Tieku bir Afrika dünya görüşü olan ubuntudan yararlanarak ülkenin kolektivist, toplumsal bir yönde yeniden canlandırılması için çağrı yapmıştır. Bu örneklerin, Küresel Güney’den çıkan kuramsal yeniliklerin yalnızca dünyanın belirli bir kısmındaki uluslararası ilişkileri daha iyi anlamaya değil, aynı zamanda alanın tümüne daha geniş bir anlayış sağlayacağını göstermesi umut edilmektedir.

Reshaping International Relations: Theoretical Innovations from Africa

This article is based on the assumption that theoretical contributions from the global South – and in this case, from Africa, do not need to be radically different from existing theories to constitute an advancement in terms of engendering a better understanding of international relations. Reinterpretations or modifications of existing frameworks and the introduction of new concepts for understanding are equally important. This is an accepted practice in mainstream IR, where existing theories are constantly amended and revisited. One need only consider the various incarnations of realist thought.While adaptations and conceptual innovations by western scholars are recognised as legitimate and adopted into the canon of theory, this is not always the case with similar contributions emerging from outside of the West. This article will examine three examples of such contributions by African scholars.1The first group of scholars reinterpreted the concept of “middle power,” arguing that there are specific characteristics that set emerging middle powers like South Africa apart from traditional middle powers. The second, Deon Geldenhuys, developed the concept “isolated states” and generated a novel analytical framework to categorise states based on indicators of isolation. Finally, Thomas Tieku draws on the African worldview of ubuntu in calling for the state to be reconceptualised in a collectivist, societal way. It is hoped that these examples will illustrate that there are theoretical innovations emerging from the Global South that can assist us in not only better understanding international relations in a particular part of the world, but can in fact provide greater insights into the field as a whole.

PDF

___

Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is there no non-Western IR theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287-312.
Aron, Raymond. "What Is a Theory of International Relations?" Journal of International Affairs 21, no. 2 (1967): 185-206.
Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Matthews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1 (2000): 289-303.
Ayoob, Mohamed. “Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World.” In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Stephanie G. Neuman, 31-54. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1998.
Bajpai, Kanti. “Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 109-28.
Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23. doi:10.1080/01436590701726392.
Bleiker, Roland. “Searching for Difference in a Homogeneous Discipline.” International Studies Review 8 (2006):
Brown, William. “Africa in International Relations: A Comment on IR Theory, Anarchy and Statehood.” Review of International Studies 32 (2006):
Clapham, Christopher. Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Cooper, Andrew, ed. Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1997.
Cunningham-Cross, Linsay. “The Innovation Imperative: Chinese International Relations Research and the Search for a ‘Chinese School’.” Unpublished paper, n.d.
Dunn, Kevin, C. and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
Gaylard, Rob. “Welcome to the World of Our Humanity”: (African) Humanism, ubuntu and Black South African Writing.” Journal of Literary Studies 20, no. 3-4 (2004): 268-82.
Geldenhuys, Deon. Deviant Conduct in World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
——— . The Diplomacy of Isolation: South African Foreign Policy Making. Johannesburg: Macmillan South Africa, 1984.
——— . Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Gill, Stephen. “Transformation and Innovation in the Study of World Order.” In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, edited by Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman, 5-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Jordaan, Eduard. “The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing Between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers.” Politikon 30, no. 1 (2003): 165-81.
Kimmerle, Heinz. “Ubuntu and Communalism in African Philosophy and Art.” Rozenberg Quarterly, September 2011. Accessed August 10, 2016. http://rozenbergquarterly.com/ubuntu-and-communalism-in-african-philosophy-and-art/ .
Le Pere, Garth. “South Africa – an ‘Emerging Power’?” Global Dialogue 3, no.1 (1998): 1-2.
Mazrui, Ali. “On the Concept of “We are all Africans.” American Political Science Review 57, no. 1 (1963): 88-97.
———. Towards a Pax Africana: A Study of Ideology and Ambition. London: Wakefield & Nicolson, 1967.
Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Theories of International Relations.” In International Relations: Perspectives for the Global South, edited by Bhupinder Chimni and Siddharth Mallavarapu. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley, 2012.
Mittelman, James H. “Rethinking Innovation in International Studies: Global Transformation at the Turn of the Millennium.” In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, edited by S. Gill and J. H. Mittelman, 248-63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Murithi, Tim. “A Local Response to the Global Human Rights Standard: The ‘Ubuntu’ Perspective on Human Dignity.” Globalization, Societies and Education 5, no. 3 (2007): 277-86.
——— . “Practical Peacemaking Wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu.” The Journal of Pan African Studies 1, no. 4 (2006): 25-34.
Nel, P., I. Taylor, and J. van der Westhuizen. “Multilateralism in South Africa’s Foreign Policy: The Search for a Critical Rationale.” Global Governance 6, no. 1 (2000): 43-60.
Neuman, Stephanie, ed. International Relations Theory and the Third World. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1998.
Nkiwane, Tandeka. “Africa and International Relations: Regional Lessons for a Global Discourse.” International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (2001): 279-90.
Schoeman, Maxi. “South Africa as an Emerging Middle Power.” African Security Review 9, no. 3 (2000): 47-58.
——— . “South Africa: Between History and a Hard Place.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever, London: Routledge, 53-70. 2009.
Smith, Karen. “Contrived Boundaries, Kinship and Ubuntu: A (South) African View of the ‘International’.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by A. Tickner and D. Blaney, 301-21. London: Routledge, 2012.
——— . “Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations.” The Round Table 98, no. 402 (2009): 269-84.
———. “Obstacles to the Development of IR Theory in the Developing World: The Case of South Africa.” Africa Review 2, no. 1 (2010): 65-80.
Solomon, Hussein. “South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership.” In Fairy Godmother, Hegemon or Partner? In Search of a South African Foreign Policy, edited by Hussein Solomon. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies Monograph Series, 1997.
South African Government. “White Paper on South African Foreign Policy- Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu.” Accessed September 1, 2016. http://www.gov.za/documents/white-paper-south-african-foreign-policy-building-better-world-diplomacy-ubuntu.
Swanson, D.M. “Ubuntu: An African Contribution to (Re)search for/with a ‘Humble Togetherness’.” Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education 2, no. 2 (2007): 53-67.
Tickner, Arlene, and David Blaney, eds. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge, 2012.

All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace-Cover

ISSN: 2146-7757
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2012
Yayıncı: Dış Politika ve Barış Araştırmaları Merkezi, İhsan Doğramacı Barış Vakfı

Arşiv