GÜÇ DENGESİNİN TARİHSEL KARAKTERİ VE 1853-56 KIRIM SAVAŞI’NA UYARLANMASI

Bu yazının amacı güç dengesiyle ilgili birbirinden farklı yorumları tartışmak değildir; amaç, güç denge sisteminin jeopolitik, sosyolojik ve tarihsel sınırlarını açık şekilde ortaya koymaya çalışmaktır. Uluslararası bir sistem olarak güç dengesi, yüzyıllar boyunca devletler arasında geçerli düşünceler üzerinde hakimiyet sağlamıştı. XVII. yüzyıldan beri güç dengesi üzerine yapılan tartışmalarda, devletlerin karşılıklı iş birliği içinde oldukları ya da birbirleriyle savaştıkları düzene odaklanmak merkezi bir rol oynamıştı. Güç dengesi kavramıyla ona özgü faaliyetler arasındaki ilişkiler, düşünceyle pratik arasında sürüp giden bir tartışmadan ziyade, tarihsel eylemlerin zamansal farklılıklarına bağlıydı. Her ne kadar XVII. yüzyıl önemli bulunsa da, bu makalede XVIII. ve XIX. yüzyıl boyunca faaliyet halindeki güç dengesi geleneğinde ihtiyaç duyulan ilkelerin gelişmesi ve uygulanması ele alınmıştır. Tartışmanın özneleri Osmanlı Devleti, İngiltere, Fransa, Avusturya, Prusya ve Rusya’dır. XVII. yüzyıla kadar süren uluslararası geleneklerde büyük güçlerin tek başına rakiplerini yutarak tek bir evrensel güç haline gelme mücadelesi vardı; fakat 1713 Utrecht Sözleşmesi’yle birlikte birden fazla devletin uluslararası sisteme hakimiyet sağlama stratejisi kabul edilmiş ve küçük devletlerin yaşama güvenceleri güç denge sistemi üzerinden sağlanmaya başlanmıştı. Büyük bir gücün tek başına uluslararası sisteme tek başına engel olma eğilimlerini dizginleyecek yeni bir devletler sistemi ortaya çıkmıştı. XVII. yüzyıl başında büyük güçlerin güç dengesinden yararlanma davranışları çoğunlukla mekanik bir hesaplamaya dayandığı için, yanlış siyasi sonuçlara ve eylemlere ulaşılabiliyordu. Sorunun çok daha karmaşık olduğu anlaşılmıştı. Güç dengesinde taktiksel ve ahlaksal boyutların ne kadar önemli olduğu keşfediliyordu. Sadece askeri hesaplamalar üzerinden yürütülen stratejilerin büyük güçler arasındaki ilişkileri kısa sürede yıprattığı ve fakirleştirdiği görülmüştü. Bunun üzerine devletlerin kendi özel menfaatlerine öncelik vermeleri ve bu menfaatler üzerinden diğer güçlerle ilişkilerini yeniden düzenleyebilecek kuralların oluşma dönemine girilmişti. XVII. Yüzyılın ortalarından itibaren gelişen bu süreç büyük güçlere daha çok pasif bir rol biçiyordu; genel menfaatler sahasında yeterince gelişmiş bir iş birliği sahası oluşturulamıyordu. Bu dönem büyük güçlerin sömürgelerindeki faaliyetlerine odaklandığı, uluslararası bir sorumluluk almaya yanaşmadıkları bir yüzyıldı. Fakat Fransa’nın XIX yüzyıl başında uluslararası sisteme tek başına hâkim olma faaliyetleri büyük bir yenilgiyle sonuçlanınca, rekabetçi büyük güçlerin uluslararası sistemle ilgili sorumluluklarını almaya başlamışlardı. Bu durumun ürünü olarak, 1815 Viyana Kongresi’yle birlikte devletlerin bağımsızlıkların korunacağı ve büyük güçler arasında güç dengesinden ziyade, ulaşılmış denge halinin geçerli olacağı ilan edilmişti. Fakat güç denge sistemine kısa sürede tekrar geri

THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BALANCE OF POWER AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE CRIMEAN WAR OF 1853- 56

Balance of power as a structure of an international system dominated thinking about interstate politics for several centuries. The main objective of this article is not to discuss different interpretations of the balance of power, but to get geographical, sociological and historical clear limits, within which the balance of power operated. Since XVII. century onwards, the balance of power has been central to debates over the order in which the states would be cooporating with and conflicting against each other, and had become a commonplace reference for the contemplation of their future strategies. The relationship between the balance of power concept and its action depended rather on concrete sequences of historical action than on logical links between ideas and practice. Although XVII century is appreciated, the most important political events of two different centuries, namely XVIII and XIX centuries are addressed in this article for actualizing the essential principle necessary for the tradition of the balance of power at work. Thus the protagonists of the argument are the then states including the Ottoman, Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. In XVII. century, at the outset of harnesing the balance of power by major powers, a mechanistic calculus in regards to the behaviour of rival powers would potentially be politically misleading the states concerned. It was being understood that the situation was rather more complex; it was felt by prominent powers that the balance of power must have been chosen in full consciousness of its tactical and ethical dimensions. The naked power relations based on mere calculations of military capacity were treated as something that would help impoverish the long-term strategies. Following the dissolution of a long historical tenet for any empire with an intention of asserting a universal monarchy while considering engulfing her rivals compeletely up to the XVII century, the development and evolution of the balance of power would go through different periods of historical experience since the Utrecht Treaty of 1713 that paved the path towards a balance of power system. The hegemonic tendency of any major power over the rest in the state system had been curtailed to some great extend, enabling small scale of states to maintain their autonomy. Then an interest based foreign policy was not as deeply involved in managing the affairs of other states. When placing the focus on mere interests, any major power had not assumed the role of global hegemon. Interest based foreign policy did not necesseraly call for powers to cut off from the rest of the world, but rather that the best method of preserving national security against other states in the balance of power was to mostly focus on its own national interests. XVIII. Century may have necessiated a more passive role to achieve their own national securities as their continued economic prosperity in their overseas col

PDF

___

Ashley, Evelyn (Ed.). 1876. Life and Correspondence of Viscount Palmerston, 2 vol. British Library;
Benjamin, Disraeli. 1855. Thirty Years of Foreign Policy: The Earl of Aberdeen and Viscount Palmerston, Longman;
Gordon, Lord Stanmore., (Ed.). 1906. A Memoir of Sidney Herbert, 2 vols, 1906, British Library;
Gordon, Lord Stanmore, (Ed.). 1855. The Correspondence of the Earl of Aberdeen. (Privately Printed by Lord Stanmore), British Library;
Knox Laughto, Johne, 1907. Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve, 2 Vols; Ina Erskine McNeill Campbell (Duchess of Argyll) (Ed.), 1906. The Duke of Argyll, Autobiography and Memoirs, Vol I, J. Murray, 1906, British Library;
Maxwell, Sir Herbert (Ed.), 1913. Life of the Fourth Earl of Clarendon, 2 vols. 1913, Vol II, British Library;
Poole, Stanley Lane, 1890. The Life of Lord Stratford De Redcliffe, London: Longmans, Green, And Co., 1890,
Reeve, Henry (Ed), 1888. A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, 8 vol, London,1888, British Library;
Vide Fawcett, Vide, (Ed.), 1901. Life of Sir William Molesworth, 2 vols., London, British Library
NA, PRO/FO, Latin and Greek Churches in Turkey 1: No s. 162. Sir Rose to Lord John Russell, Constantinople, 26 Feb. 1853;
NA, PRO/FO, No: 65/424, Sir Hamilton Seymour to Lord Malmesbury, St. Petersburg, 1 Jan. 1853.
Albert O. Hirschman. 2013. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph,, Princeton University Press;
Andreas Osiander. 1994. The States System of Europe, 1640-1990, Clarendon Press;
Armitage, David. 2013. Foundations of Modern International Thought, Cambridge University Press;
Calap, Adil. 2018. Osmanlı-İngiliz İlişkilerinde Rusya Faktörünün Realist Perspektiften İncelenmesi (1853-1878), Doktora Tezi, Soyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi;
Devetak, Richard (2015) ‘Historiographical Foundations of Modern International Thought: Histories of the European States-System from Florence to Göttingen’, History of European Ideas (41)1: 62– 77;
Dönmez, Ahmet. 2016. “Reform Karşıtları ve Mustafa Reşid Paşa: Tanzimat Fermanı’nın Bedeli”, Turkish Studies Academic Journal, Volum 11/6, Doi Number: 10.7827, Turkish Studies. 9697 ss.17-30;
Edward Keene, 2013. International hierarchy and the origins of the modern practice of intervention, Review of International Society, Volume 39, Issue 5, December;
Gorski, Philip S. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;
Gündüz, Ahmet ve Yel, Selma. 2008. XIX. Yüzyılda Çarlık Rusyası’nın Çerkesleri Sürgün Etmesi ve Uzunyayla’ya Yerleştirilmeleri, Turkish Studies Academic Journals, Volume 3, Issue 4, Doi Number:10.7827. Turkish Studies.397, ss.949-983;
Gunn, John Alexander Wilson. 1968. ‘“Interest will not lie”: A Seventeenth-Century Political Maxim’, Journal of the History of Ideas 29: 551–564;
Hampsher-Monk, Iain. 2005. ‘Edmund Burke’s Changing Justification for Intervention’, The Historical Journal (48)1: 65–100;
Hendersan, Gavin Burns (Ed), 1975. Crimean War Diplomacy and Other Historical Essays, New York: Russell and Russell;
Holbraad, Carsten. 1970. The Concert of Europe: A Study in German and British International Theory 1815–1914. London: Longmans;
Jarrett, Mark. 2013. The Congress of Vienna, L.B. Tauris;
Keleş, Erdoğan. 2009. Kırım Savaşı’ndan Sonra Gelen Muhacirlerin Menteşe Sancağı’na İskanı, Turkish Studies Academic Journals, Volume 4, Issue 8, Doi Number:10.7827. Turkish Studies.995, ss. 1166-1188;
Koskenniemi, Martti. 1999. ‘The Advantage of Treaties: International Law in the Enlightenment’, Edinburgh Law Review 13:27–67;
Köse, Osman. 2006. “Balkanlar’da Rus Konsolosluklarının Kuruluşu ve Faaliyetleri”, Turkish Studies Academic Journals, Volume I, Issue 2, Doi Number:10.7827. Turkish Studies.20, ss. 153-171;
Levi, L., 1953. History of British Commerce, 1763- 1870, London, 1870, s.562; J. Gallagher and R. Robinson, ‘’The Imperialism of Free Trade’’, Economic History Review, 6/1;
Maurseth, Per (1964) ‘Balance-of-Power Thinking from the Renaissance to the French Revolution’, Journal of Peace Research 1(2): 120–136;
Morley, John, (Ed.), 1859. The Life of Gladstone, vol I , London: 1859, British Library;
Mosely, P., 1934. Russian Diplomacy and the Opening of the Eastern Question in 1838 and 1839, Cambridge, Mass;
Nicolson, Harold. 1961. The Congress of Vienna. A Study in Allied Unity: 1812–1822. London: Methuen & Co; Orlando Figes, 2010. Crimea, Penquen;
Pagden, Anthony. 1995. Lords of All the World. Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500–c.1800. New Haven: Yale University Press;
Pourdoe, J., 1854. The City of the Sultan; and Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1836, 2 vols, London;
Puryear, Vernon J., 1931. England, Russia, and the Straits Question, 1844- 1856, University of California Press;
Randall Lesaffer, 2004. Peace Treaties and International Law in European History, Cambridge University Press;
Randall Lesaffer, 2002. The Grotian Tradition Revisited: Change and Continuity in The History of International Law, Oxford University Press;
Rendall, Matthew. 2000. ‘Russia, the Concert of Europe, and Greece, 1821–29: A Test of Hypotheses about the Vienna System’, Security Studies 9(4):52–90);
Smith, S., Dunne, T. And Hodfield, A., 2012. Foreign Policy, Oxford University Press;
Schmidt, H. D. 1966. ‘The Establishment of “Europe” as Political Expression’, The Historical Journal 9: 172–178;
Schroeder, Paul. 1992. ‘Did the Vienna Settlement Rest on a Balance of Power?’, The American Historical Review 97(3):683–706;
The Spectator, 25 March 1854, s.25- 28;
Strachey, Lytton, 1921. Queen Victoria, Harcourt Brace and Company;
Thompson, Andrew C. 2006. Britain, Hanover and the Protestant Interest, 1688–1756. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press;
Wight, Martin, 1978. Power Politics, Leicester University Press;
Williams, Micheal C., 2005. The Realist Tradition and Limits of International Relations, Cambridge University Press;
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, 1996. ‘Toward a Neo-Regoanite Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs, July/August;
Vattel, Emmerich de. 1916. The Law of Nations. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution,
Hansard, Treaty of Adrianople-charges Against Vıscount Palmeiston, , HC Deb 23 February 1848 vol 96 cc 1132-242;
Hansard, Treaty of Adrıanople-charges Against Vıscount Palmeiston, HC Ded 01 March 1848 vol 97 cc66-123;
Hansard, Russia and the Porte, HL Deb 24 February 1854 vol 130, cc 1201-50;
Hansard, Russia And Porte, HL Deb 27 May 1853 vol 127 cc 651-9;
Hansard, Treaty of Adrianople-Explanation, HL Deb 26 June 1854 vol 134 cc640-71;
Hansard, Russia and The Porte – Resolutions respecting the objects of the war, HL Deb 24 February 1854 vol 130 cc1201-50;
Hansard, Resolution. HC Db-30 March 1871 vol 205 cc894-976;
Hansard, Address in Answer to Speech, HC Deb 03 February 1857 vol 144 cc 86-192;
Hansard, The Treaty of Peace –Adjourned Debate. H C Deb 06 May 1856 vol 142 cc17-136;
Hansard, Foreign Policy, HC Deb 08 February 1848 vol 96 cc290-31;
Hansard, Russian and Turkish Treaties, HC Deb 17 March 1834 vol 22 c 306-49;
Hansard, HC Deb 19 February 1836, vol 31, cc614-69.

Turkish Studies - Economics, Finance, Politics-Cover

ISSN: 2667-5625
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ