Andrew Moravcsik ve liberal hükümetlerarasıcı yaklaşım üzerinden Avrupa bütünleşmesi

Andrew Moravscik'in liberal hükümetlerarasıcı yaklaşımı Avrupa bütünleşme sürecini değerlendiren önemli düşünme şekillerinden biri ve deneysel çalışmalar açısından çok yararlı bir araç olarak görülür. Andrew Moravcsik Avrupa entegrasyonunu “iki kademeli oyun” metaforu üzerinden teorik çerçeveye oturtan bir örnek sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Moravcsik’in liberal hükümetlerarasıcılık yaklaşımının temel analizlerine ve yaklaşımının Avrupa entegrasyon süreci ile ilgili öngörü ve yorumlarına yer verdikten sonra yaklaşıma getirilen eleştirilere değinmeye çalışılacaktır.

Andrew Moravcsik and European integratıon through liberal intergovernmentalist approach

Andrew Moravscik’s liberal intergovernmentalist approach is considered as one of the important way of analyzing the European integration process and an useful instrument for empirical studies. Andrew Moravscik provided a theoretical framework which perceives the European integration through “two-level-game” metaphor. This study will give place to the main analysis of Moravscik’s liberal intergovernmentalist approach, its comments and foresights about European integration process and the criticism about the approach.

PDF

___

ARI Tayyar (2008). Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri: Çatışma, Hegemonya, İşbirliği, Bursa: MKM Yayıncılık.
BUZAN Barry (1996). “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism”, (Ed. Smith, Booth, Zalevski), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ÇAKIR Armağan Emre (2001). Avrupa Bütünleşmesinin Siyasal Kuramları, Beta: İstanbul.
FİORETOS K. O. (1997). “The Anatomy of Autonomy: Interdependence, Domestic Balances of Power and European Integration”, Review of International Studies, S.23/3, s. 293-320.
GEORGE S. BACHE I. (2001). Politics in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GILPIN Robert (1972). “Politics of Transnational Economic Relations”, (Ed. Keohane, Nye), Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
HAAS E. B. (1991). “Reason and Change in International Life: Justifying a Hypothesis”, (Ed. Rothstein), The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
KEOHANE Robert (1984). After Hegemony: Collaboration and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
KEOHANE Robert (1986). Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press.
KEOHANE Robert (1988). “International Institutions: Two Approaches”, International Studies Quaterly, S. 32/4.
KEOHANE Robert (2002). Power and Governance in Partially Globalized World, London: Routlegde.
LİNDBERG L. N. (1994). “Comment on Moravcsik”, Economic and Political Integration in Europe: Internal Dynamics and Global Context, Oxford: Blackwell.
MORAVCSİK Andrew (1991). “Negotiating the Single European Act: national interest and conventional statecraft in the European Community”, International Organization, S:45/1, s. 19-56.
MORAVCSİK Andrew (1993). “Preferences and Power in the European Community: a Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, Journal of Common Market Studies, S:31/4, s. 475-524.
MORAVCSİK Andrew (1994). “Why the European Community Strengthens the State: Domestic Politics and International Cooperation”, Paper no.52, Cambridge: Harvard University Center for European Studies.
MORAVCSİK Andrew (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London: UCL Press.
MORAVCSİK A. NİCOLAİDİS C. (1999). “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence and Institutions”, Journal of Common Market Studies, S:37/1, s. 59-85.
MORAVCSİK Andrew (2008). “The European Constitutional Settlement”, The World Economy, S:31/1, s. 158-183.
MORSE Edward (1972). “Transnational Economic Processes”, Transnational Relations and World Politics, (eds. Keohane ve Nye), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
NUGENT Neil (1999). The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
PUCHALA D. J. (1999). “Institutionalism, Intergovernmentalism and European Integration: A Review Article”, Journal of Common Market Studies, S:37/2, s. 317-331.
PUTNAM Robert (1988). “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games”, International Organization, S:42/3, s. 427-460.
ROSAMOND Ben (2000). Theories of European Integration, New York: Palgrave.
SANDHOLTZ W. ZYSMAN J. (1989). “1992: Recasting the European Bargain”, World Politics, S:42, s. 95-128.
SCHİMMELFENNİG Frank (2004). “Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, (Ed. Wiener, Diez), European Integration Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 75-94.
SMİTH D. L. RAY J. L. (1993), “The 1992 Project”, (Ed. Smith, Ray), The 1992 Project and the Future of Integration in Europe, New York: M. E. Sharp.
VİOTTİ P. R. KAUPPİ M. V. (1993). International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, New York: MacmillanPublishing Co.
WALTZ K. (1979). Theory of International Politics, New York:McGraw Hill.
WENDT A. (1994). “Collective Identity Formation and the International State”, American Political Science Review, S:88/2, s. 383-396.
WİNCOTT D. (1995). “International Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, Journal of Common Market Studies, S:33/4, s. 611-628.