Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güç: Çok Boyutlu Bir Değerlendirme

Uluslararası ilişkilerde en açıklayıcı temel kavram olduğuna inanılan gücün anlamı çok net değildir. Oyunun kurallarına, ortama, aktörlere ve sorunsal bağlamlara göre değişken niteliği nedeniyle gücün tüm zaman, mekan ve konular için geçerli evrensel bir tanımı yapılamamıştır. Bu sorunun nedenlerini ortaya koymak amacıyla makale öncelikle kavramın tanımına ilişkin güçlükler ve ele alındığı üç farklı boyutu tartışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda başka disiplinlerde yapılan çalışmalardan yola çıkarak uluslararası ilişkilerde güç kavramının farklı teoriler tarafından nasıl ele alındığı irdelenmektedir. Uluslararası örgütlerin yaygınlaşması, küresel medyanın gelişimi ve yeni aktörlerin ortaya çıkmasıyla birlikte uluslararası ilişkilerde gücün niteliği de değişmeye başlamıştır. Bu çerçevede “kaba güç/yumuşak güç” tartışmalarının hangi bağlama oturduğu ele alınmakta ve sonuç olarak gücün farklı bağlam, uygulama ve sonuçlarını birlikte değerlendiren çok boyutlu bir güç yaklaşımı önerilmektedir. İndirgemeci yaklaşımlar, kavramın tam olarak anlaşılamamasından kaynaklanan yüzeysel ve basit açıklamalar nedeniyle analitik sığlığa neden olmaktadır. Uluslararası ilişkiler hakkında sağlıklı değerlendirmeler için güç kavramının kompleks yapısı iyi anlaşılmalıdır.

Power in International Relations: A Multi-Dimensional Assessment

The meaning of power, the root concept of all causal explanations, is not clear. The main reason for this is the variable nature of power, depending on the rules of the game, environment, and the context of issues and the actors involved. As a result, there is no universally valid definition of power, independent of time, space, and subject. This article discusses the difficulties of definition within the context of the three dimensions of power. Later, it also delves into a discussion about how the power debate took place in the theories of international relations. Increasing numbers of international organizations, the development of the global media, and the emergence of new actors have transformed the nature of power in international relations. This article also questions what soft and hard power debate means within this context, and as a result, it suggests a multi-dimensional power approach, which simultaneously takes different policy contexts, implications, and outcomes of power into consideration. Reductionist and one-dimensional approaches cause analytical shallowness because of superficial and simple explanations based on inadequate understanding of the concept. For a full grasp of international relations and meaningful interpretations of current events, we need to understand the complex nature of power.

PDF

___

ARQUILLA, John/RONFELDT, David (1999), The Emergence of Noopolitik. Toward an American Information Society (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation).
ART, Robert J. (2004), “The Fungibility of Force,” ART, Robert J./WALTZ, Kenneth N. (eds.), The Use of Force. Military Power and International Politics (Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004): 3-22.
ASHLEY, Richard K. (1983), “The Eye of Power: The Politics of World Modeling,” International Organization, 37/3: 495-535.
ASHLEY, Richard K. (1984), “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization, 38/2: 225-286.
BACHRACH, Peter/BARATZ, Morton (1962), “Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review, 56/4: 947-952.
BALDWIN, David (1979), “Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends Versus Old Tendencies,” World Politics, 31/2: 161-194.
BALDWIN, David A. (1984), “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,” International Organization, 34/4: 471-506.
BALDWIN, David A. (1989), Paradoxes of Power (New York: Basil Blackwell).
BALDWIN, David A. (2002), “Power and International Relations,” CARLSNAES, Walter/RISSE, Thomas/SIMMONS Beth A. (eds.), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage Publications): 177-191.
BARBALET, J. M. (1985), “Power and Resistance,” The British Journal of Sociology, 36/4: 531-548.
BARBER, Benjamin R. (1996), Jihad vs. McWorld. How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World, (New York: Ballantine Books).
BENTHAM, Jeremy (1995), The Panopticon Writings, Edited and Introduced by Miran BOZOVIC (London: Verso).
BOLLIER, David (2003), The Rise of Netpolitik. How the Internet is Changing International Politics and Diplomacy, A Report of the Eleventh Annual Aspen Institute. Roundtable on Information Technology, (Washington D.C.: The Aspen Institute).
CARR, Edward Hallett (2001), The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (New York: Perennial).
COX, Robert W. (1986), “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” KEOHANE, Robert (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Colombia University Press): 204-254
DAHL, Robert (1957), “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2: 201-215.
DER DERIAN, James (1990), “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed,” International Studies Quarterly, 34/3: 295-310.
GUEHENNO, Jean-Marie (1995), The End of the Nation-State, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
HART, Jeffrey (1976), “Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in International Relations,” International Organization, 30/2: 289-305.
HOLSTI, K. J. (1964), “The Concept of Power in the Study of International Relations,” Background, 7/4: 179-194.
ISAAC, Jeffrey C. (1992), “Beyond the Three Faces of Power: A Realist Critique,” WARTENBERG, Thomas E. (ed.), Rethinking Power (New York: State University of New York Pres, 1992): 32-55.
KAGAN, Robert (2005), Cennet ve Güç. Yeni Dünya Düzeninde Amerika ve Avrupa, (İstanbul: Koridor Yayıncılık).
KENNEDY, Paul (1991), Büyük Güçlerin Yükseliş ve Çöküşleri. 1500’den 2000’e Ekonomik Değişme ve Askeri Çatışmalar (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları).
KEOHANE, Robert (1984), After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
KEOHANE, Robert. O. (1986), “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,”
KEOHANE, Robert (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Colombia University Press): 158-203.
KEOHANE, Robert/NYE, Joseph (2001), Power and Interdependence (New York: Longman).
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich (1984), “The Force of Prescriptions,” International Organization, 38/4: 685-708.
LUKES, Steven (1974), Power: A Radical View (London: MacMillan Press).
MOR, Ben D. (2006), “Public Diplomacy in Grand Strategy,” Foreign Policy Analysis, 2/2: 157-176.
MORGENTHAU, Hans (1985), Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace, Kenneth Thompson tarafından gözden geçirilmiş Altıncı Baskı (New York: McGraw Hill).
NYE, Joseph (1990), “The Changing Nature of World Power,” Political Science Quarterly, 105/2: 177-192.
NYE, Joseph (1990a), “Soft Power,” Foreign Policy, no. 80: 153-171.
SPERLING, James (2001), “Neither Hegemony Nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post Cold-War Europe,” British Journal of Political Science, 31/2: 389-425.
WAEVER, Ole (1995), “Identity, Integration and Security: Solving the Sovereignty Puzzle in EU Studies,” Journal of International Affairs, 48/2: 389-431.
WALTZ, Kenneth N. (1967), “International Structure, National Force, and the Balance of World Power,” Journal of International Affairs, 21/2: 215-231.
WALTZ, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Relations (New York: McGraw Hill).
WALTZ, Kenneth (1990), “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,” Journal of International Affairs, 44/1: 21-37.
WARD, Michael D./HOUSE Lewis L. (1988), “A Theory of the Behavioral Power of Nations,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32/1: 3-36.
WENDT, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).