DIŞ POLİTİKA ANALİZİNDE GELENEKSEL REALİST TEORİYİ SORGULAYAN YAKLAŞIMLARIN ORTAYA ÇIKIŞI ÜZERİNE BİR İNCELEME

Özet Dış Politika (DP), en genel anlamıyla farklı aktörlerin, özellikle de devletlerin, uluslararası sistem içerisinde birbirileriyle olan etkileşimleri ve takındıkları tavırların tümü olarak tanımlanabilir. Dış Politikanın gelişimi ulusal sınırlar içerisinde gelişen düşüncelerden, başka devletlerin politikalarından, tavırlarından veya belirli jeopolitik amaçları gütme planlarından etkilenir. Dış Politika Analizi (DPA) de en genel anlamıyla bu farklı aktörlerin, özellikle de devletlerin, dinamik uluslararası sistem içerisinde birbirleriyle kurdukları ilişkileri ve bu ilişkilerin uygulamalarını inceler. DPA disiplininin gelişim süreci içerisinde doğan her yeni yaklaşım farklı bir bakış açısına sahiptir. Bu yüzden dış politika, Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinin nerdeyse bütün ana yaklaşımları için olduğu kadar, disiplinler arası bir inceleme gerektirmektedir. DPA disiplinin merkezinde, karar vermeyi, bireysel karar vericileri, dış politikayı ve alınan kararların çıktılarını etkileyen süreç ve koşulların incelenmesi yer alır. Bu nedenle, DPA doğal olarak yalnızca devletin resmi karar alma mekanizmasına dâhil olan aktörleri değil, aynı zamanda devletin dış politikası üzerinde etkisi olan ulus-altı ve ulus-ötesi unsurları da inceleme konusu yapar. Bu çalışma merkezine “Günümüze dek gelen süreç içerisinde Dış Politika Analizine yönelik ne tür yaklaşımlar gelişti ve gelişen bu farklı yaklaşımların özelde Dış Politika Analizine, genelde ise Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinine katkıları nelerdir?” sorusunu almaktadır. Bu çalışma, merkezine aldığı sorunsalı açıklamaya çalışırken bu yaklaşımların ortaya çıkışını zorunlu kılan faktörlerin genel bir betimlemesini yaparak dış politikanın nasıl bir yaklaşımla daha iyi analiz edilebileceği tartışmalarına da değinerek DPA alanının temel kusurunun ne olduğunu belirterek bitirecek.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Devlet, , Dış Politika, , Uluslararası İlişkiler, , İdealizm, , Realizm, , Çoğulculuk.

A STUDY ON THE EMERGENCE OF THE APPROACHES QUESTIONING THE TRADITIONAL REALIST THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

Abstract Foreign policy, in the most general sense, can be defined as the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, principally states in international system. The Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) however, is the study of the activities and interactions between different actors, chiefly states, in global system. The field of FPA emerged as a direct result of general dissatisfaction and reactions arising precisely from the evident inability of realism to produce credible statements about foreign policy outcomes. Subsequently, the field developed naturally as a reaction to hegemony of realism in the discipline and to its mainly state-centric explanations of state, state’s bilateral relations or its interactions through multilateral institutions. The Foreign Policy Analysis focuses on the foreign policy processes instead of foreign policy outcomes. As it is the case for almost all the essential approaches of the International Relations discipline, foreign policy too indicates an interdisciplinary study of the subject. This paper, thus touches upon the fundamental studies of foreign policy analysts in the 1950s and 1960s and other arguments that have been put forward against the realist views and the unquestionable superiority of realism in the discipline of international relations. The paper attentively examines the emergence of Foreign Policy Analysis Approaches. Within these perspectives this study attempts to answer the following central questions: What kind of approaches have emerged in the development process of the FPA that has come to date? what are the main contributions of these various approaches to FPA in particular and to the discipline of International Relations in general?

Keywords:

State, Foreign Policy, , Internarional Relations, , Idealism, Realism, Pluralism.,

PDF

___

KAYNAKÇA Alden, Chris and Aran, Amnon, (2012). ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches, London: Routledge.
Alden, Chris and Aran, Amnon, (2017). ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches, Second edition, London: Routledge.
Allison, Graham T., (1971). The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile, Little, Brown and Company.
Allison, Graham T. & Halperin, Morton H., (1972). ‘Bureaucratic politics: A Paradigm and some Policy Implications’, World Politics, vol. 24, ss.40-79.
Aydın, Mustafa, (2004). “Uluslararası İlişkilerin ‘Gerçekçi’ Teorisi: Kökeni, Kapsamı ve Kritiği”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt 1, No. 1, ss. 38-45.
Boulding, Kenneth, (1956). The Immage: Knowledge in Life and Society, Ann Arbor, MI: Arbor Paperbacks.
Caporaso, James A., (1997). ‘Across the great divide: Integrating comparative and international politics’, International Study Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 4, ss.563-591;
Carlsnaes, Walter, (1992). ‘The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, ss.245-70.
Clarke, M. & White, B. (eds.), (1990). Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Ereker, Fulya, (2013). “Dış Politikayı Analiz Etmek: Dış Politika Analizinde Yapan-Yapı Sorunu”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, cilt 9, sayı 36, s. 45-49.
Evans, Peter B., Jacobson, Harold K. &Putman, Robert D. (eds.), (1993). Double-Edged Diplomacy, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Farell, Robert B. (ed.) (1966). Approaches in Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Groom, A.J.R. and Lights, Margot, (eds.), (1994). Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter.
Hagan, Joe, ‘Domestic political explanations in the analysis of foreign policy’, in Laura Neck, Jeanne Hey & Patrick Haney (eds.), (1995). Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation, Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hill, Christopher, ‘What is left of the domestic?’ in Michi Ebata, (ed.), (2000). Confronting the Political in International Relations, London: Macmillan. Hill, Christopher, (2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Houghton, David, (2007). ‘Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Towards a Constructivist Approach’, Foreign Policy Analysis, vol. 3, no. 1, ss.24-45;
Huntington, Samuel P. (1973). ‘Transnational Organizations in World Politics’, World Politics, vol. 25, no. 3, ss.333-368;
Jensen, Lloyd, (1982). Explaining Foreign Policy, Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jervis, Robert, (1968). ‘Hypotheses on Misperception’, World Politics, vol. 20, no. 3, ss.454-79;
Jervis, Robert, (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jones, Roy E. (1979). Principles of Foreign Policy-The Civil State in Its World Setting, Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Josselin, Daphner, & Wallace, William (eds.), (2001). Non-State Actors in World Politics, London: Palgrave.
Lieda, Keisuke, (1993). ‘When and how do domestic constraints matter? Two-level games with uncertainty’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 37, no. 2, ss.403-426;
Mansbach, Richard W., Ferguson, Yale, H. & Lampert, Donald E., (1976). The Web of World Politics: Non-State Actors in Global System, London: Prentice Hall.
Morgenthau, Hans Joachim, (1948). Politics Among Natıons: The Struggle for Power and Peace, University of Michigan: Knopf.
Morse, Edward L. (1970). ‘Modernization and the transformation of foreign policies: Modernization, interdependence and externalization’, World Politics, vol. 22, no. 3, ss.371-92;
Muller, Haral, & Risse-Kappen, Thomas, ‘From the outside in and from the inside out’, in David Skidmore & Valerie M. Hudson (eds.) (1993). The Limits of State Autonomy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Neack, Laura, Hey, Leanne & Haney, Patrick (eds.), (1995). Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation, Englewood Cliffs, HJ: Prentice Hall.
Ninic, Moroslav, (1992). Democracy and Foreign Policy: The Fallacy of Political Realism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Nye, Joseph S. & Keohane, Robert O. (eds.), (1970). Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Putman, Robert, (1988). ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The Logic of two-level games’, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas, (eds.), (1995). Bringing Transnational Relations Back in: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas, (1995). ‘Democratic Peace- warlike Democracies?’ A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.1, no. 4, ss.491-517;
Rosenau, James, (1984). ‘A pre-theory Revisited: World politics in an Era of Cascading Interdependence’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3, 245-305;
Rummel, Randolf J. (1995). ‘Democracies are Less Warlike than Other Regimes’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 1, no. 4, ss. 649-64;
Russet, Bruce M. (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Singer, J. David, (1961). ‘The Level-of Analysis Problem in International Relations’, World Politics, vol. 14, no.1, ss.77-92.
Skidmore, David, and Hudson, Valerie M. (eds.) (1993). The Limits of State Autonomy, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Snyder, Richard, Henry W. Bruck and Burton Sapin (eds.) (1962). Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Approach to International Politics, New York: Free Press/Macmillan.
Steiner, Miriam, (1977). ‘The Elusive Essence of Decision: A Critical Comparison of Allison’s and Snyder’s Decision-making Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 21, no.2, ss.389-422.
Tayfur, Fatih M, (1994). “Main Approaches to the Study of Foreign Policy: A Review”, METU Studies in Development, cilt 21, sayi.1, ss.113-118,
Walker, Stephen G. (eds), (2011). Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis, New York, Routlege.
Weldes, Jutta, (1998). ‘Bureaucratic Politics: A Critical Constructivist Assessment’, Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 42, no. 2, ss.236-7