Pub Date : 2023-04-14DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1284178
Tarik H. Oğuzlu, A. Han
This study singles out the impact of systemic and external factors on Turkey’s foreign policy from the establishment of the Republic until now. Such an exercise accords with a neorealist interpretation of foreign policy, as the key emphasis is on the impact of the anarchical nature of the external environment, and the influence of the distribution of material power capabilities among states at a given time on foreign policy preferences. This in no way suggests that the internal and individual level of factors holds a secondary place in comparison to systemic/external factors. Yet this article simply highlights the importance of systemic factors, for the main reason that neorealism seems to account for foreign policy choices and behaviors of middle powers more convincingly than in the case of great powers.
{"title":"Making Sense of Turkey’s Foreign Policy from the Perspective of Neorealism","authors":"Tarik H. Oğuzlu, A. Han","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1284178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1284178","url":null,"abstract":"This study singles out the impact of systemic and external factors on Turkey’s foreign policy from the establishment of the Republic until now. Such an exercise accords with a neorealist interpretation of foreign policy, as the key emphasis is on the impact of the anarchical nature of the external environment, and the influence of the distribution of material power capabilities among states at a given time on foreign policy preferences. This in no way suggests that the internal and individual level of factors holds a secondary place in comparison to systemic/external factors. Yet this article simply highlights the importance of systemic factors, for the main reason that neorealism seems to account for foreign policy choices and behaviors of middle powers more convincingly than in the case of great powers.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130188613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1273324
T. Diez
This paper develops the concept of spatial imaginations as the constructions of places as meaningful entities that establish identities of self and other through particular narratives and associated practices. It argues that traditionally, International Relations has ignored question of space despite their obvious centrality to the discipline. This has changed with the “spatial turn”, which has its precursors in critical scholarship, especially drawing on sociology and political geography. The paper traces these contributions to the conceptual development of space in its material and discursive dimensions. It proposes that spatial imaginations are central to relations between “Turkey” and “Europe”, establishing both as meaningful yet contested entities. In the works collated in the special issue of which this paper serves as an introduction, we may thus see facets of three core claim of the spatial turn: that space matters,that space needs to be made, and that spaces need to be formed. Against the prevailing attempts to fix the meaning of the spaces of “Turkey” and “Europe”, I end with a plea to provide room for the articulation of a multiplicity of spatial imaginations.
{"title":"Spatial Imaginations of “Turkey” and “Europe”: An Introduction","authors":"T. Diez","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1273324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1273324","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops the concept of spatial imaginations as the constructions of places as meaningful entities that establish identities of self and other through particular narratives and associated practices. It argues that traditionally, International Relations has ignored question of space despite their obvious centrality to the discipline. This has changed with the “spatial turn”, which has its precursors in critical scholarship, especially drawing on sociology and political geography. The paper traces these contributions to the conceptual development of space in its material and discursive dimensions. It proposes that spatial imaginations are central to relations between “Turkey” and “Europe”, establishing both as meaningful yet contested entities. In the works collated in the special issue of which this paper serves as an introduction, we may thus see facets of three core claim of the spatial turn: that space matters,that space needs to be made, and that spaces need to be formed. Against the prevailing attempts to fix the meaning of the spaces of “Turkey” and “Europe”, I end with a plea to provide room for the articulation of a multiplicity of spatial imaginations.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127049358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1273325
Lucia Najšlová
State-centric explanations of life in Europe and (or, including) Turkey often do much more than account for differences between the two – they reify them. This paper notices similarities instead. Such an analytical exercise does not simply turn the older narrative upside down. It starts with accepting the pluriverse of relations unfolding within Turkey-EU spaces and chooses to experiment with the idea that what seems marginal can in fact be formative. My argument is situated in discussions about mobility – the latter being a chief destabilizer of the conventional idea of space as a perennial entity. Building on observations of diplomatic process, ethnographic moments and conversations with refugee rights workers and volunteers in the period around adoption of the 2016 Turkey-EU refugee deal, I show the analytical possibilities of studying spatiality through the eyes of islands dissenting from the current border regime. Their very existence, on both sides of Turkey/EU border is an invitation to pay closer attention to splits and similarities that run across inter-national borders, rather than along them.
{"title":"Architectures of Similarity: Fragments, Islands and other Escapes from the Turkey and Europe Framework","authors":"Lucia Najšlová","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1273325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1273325","url":null,"abstract":"State-centric explanations of life in Europe and (or, including) Turkey often do much more than account for differences between the two – they reify them. This paper notices similarities instead. Such an analytical exercise does not simply turn the older narrative upside down. It starts with accepting the pluriverse of relations unfolding within Turkey-EU spaces and chooses to experiment with the idea that what seems marginal can in fact be formative. My argument is situated in discussions about mobility – the latter being a chief destabilizer of the conventional idea of space as a perennial entity. Building on observations of diplomatic process, ethnographic moments and conversations with refugee rights workers and volunteers in the period around adoption of the 2016 Turkey-EU refugee deal, I show the analytical possibilities of studying spatiality through the eyes of islands dissenting from the current border regime. Their very existence, on both sides of Turkey/EU border is an invitation to pay closer attention to splits and similarities that run across inter-national borders, rather than along them.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128684893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233973
Emel Parlar Dal, Samiratou Dipama
By putting scale and (re)scaling at the center of its analysis, this paper aims to grasp the scalar process of EU-Turkey relations from historical, political and social perspectives. In doing so, this paper will first overview the existing theories on scale and re-scaling concerning their use in political geography and IR. The second task of this paper will be to examine the relevance of scale in EU relations from historical, political, and social perspectives. In the third part, as a first step, this paper investigates whether the EU and Turkey can redefine and reconstruct a new EU-Turkey space. As a second step, it assesses whether globalizing EU-Turkey relations is possible in new global policy areas such as climate change, sustainable development, and trade & economics.
{"title":"Re-scaling and Globalizing EU-Turkey Bilateral Relations in the Changing Global Political Landscape","authors":"Emel Parlar Dal, Samiratou Dipama","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233973","url":null,"abstract":"By putting scale and (re)scaling at the center of its analysis, this paper aims to grasp the scalar process of EU-Turkey relations from historical, political and social perspectives. In doing so, this paper will first overview the existing theories on scale and re-scaling concerning their use in political geography and IR. The second task of this paper will be to examine the relevance of scale in EU relations from historical, political, and social perspectives. In the third part, as a first step, this paper investigates whether the EU and Turkey can redefine and reconstruct a new EU-Turkey space. As a second step, it assesses whether globalizing EU-Turkey relations is possible in new global policy areas such as climate change, sustainable development, and trade & economics.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125118803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233983
C. Hoffmann
When the Greek prime minister admired Delacroix’ famous painting ‘The Battle of Chios’ in the Louvre Museum during a state visit to France in 2021, this was meaningful in more than one way. Not only did he and French president Macron celebrate the second centenary of the 1821 “Greek Revolution.” They also reaffirmed their 200-year-old geopolitical alliance in the Eastern Mediterranean. An alliance between two countries that see themselves as the birthplace of European civilisation. Then, as now, celebrating their Europeanness went beyond artistic depictions and symbolisms. The creation of a White European space by virtue of a concrete struggle against an Oriental other, thus, delimited not only the Greco-Ottoman, but also Europe’s South-eastern borders. What IR has come to understand as the ‘spatial turn’, a return to emphasising the (un)making of borders and space, took, and takes, place in the Aegean. Looking back at the significance of the Greek War of Independence, this article reveals that, much like the violence in Delacroix’ painting, this formation of inter-national modernity, far from merely being a civilisational achievement, was bloody and genocidal. The painting’s conventional Orientalist understanding sees a white European people massacred by an Oriental occupying force. A careful re-historicisation of the Greek independence struggle reveals, however, that it had highly specific social and geopolitical origins that cannot be reduced to a spreading European Enlightenment. An alliance between local social forces gave rise to a struggle that was consolidated by mass violence. The international invention on behalf of Greece didn’t represent a shift towards a liberal international order giving rise to a reborn Athenian Republic. It represented a compromise between otherwise divided conservative dynasties imposing their designs on the young state. Finally, the article will argue that this historical episode embodies a continuing social process of European border making.
{"title":"DELIMITING EUROPE: GREEK STATE FORMATION AS BORDER MAKING","authors":"C. Hoffmann","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233983","url":null,"abstract":"When the Greek prime minister admired Delacroix’ famous painting ‘The Battle of Chios’ in the Louvre Museum during a state visit to France in 2021, this was meaningful in more than one way. Not only did he and French president Macron celebrate the second centenary of the 1821 “Greek Revolution.” They also reaffirmed their 200-year-old geopolitical alliance in the Eastern Mediterranean. An alliance between two countries that see themselves as the birthplace of European civilisation. Then, as now, celebrating their Europeanness went beyond artistic depictions and symbolisms. The creation of a White European space by virtue of a concrete struggle against an Oriental other, thus, delimited not only the Greco-Ottoman, but also Europe’s South-eastern borders. What IR has come to understand as the ‘spatial turn’, a return to emphasising the (un)making of borders and space, took, and takes, place in the Aegean. Looking back at the significance of the Greek War of Independence, this article reveals that, much like the violence in Delacroix’ painting, this formation of inter-national modernity, far from merely being a civilisational achievement, was bloody and genocidal. The painting’s conventional Orientalist understanding sees a white European people massacred by an Oriental occupying force. A careful re-historicisation of the Greek independence struggle reveals, however, that it had highly specific social and geopolitical origins that cannot be reduced to a spreading European Enlightenment. An alliance between local social forces gave rise to a struggle that was consolidated by mass violence. The international invention on behalf of Greece didn’t represent a shift towards a liberal international order giving rise to a reborn Athenian Republic. It represented a compromise between otherwise divided conservative dynasties imposing their designs on the young state. Finally, the article will argue that this historical episode embodies a continuing social process of European border making.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132615218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233944
İrem Karamik, Erman Ermi̇han
Geographies and borders have become often-debated concepts, especially in the view of the increasing impact of globalization and regional integration processes. In such cases, borders are attributed certain imagined meanings and more so, they are associated with feelings. Considering such dynamics, EU-Turkey relations can be considered a good example of how borders, emotions and spatial dimensions interact. However, not much attention has been given to the emotional facets of spatial relations. By utilizing the concept of “hot places”, this study tries to fill this void. We separate EU-Turkey relations into three phases: the Cold War, post-Cold War, and the peak of migration politics, driven by the Syrian Civil War. We argue that there is a specific hot place for each of these periods: Kreuzberg, Berlin for the period between 1959 and 1989, Cyprus for the post-Cold War period, and the Syrian conflict for the last period. Thus, this paper aims at suggesting a novel approach to the study of emotions, spatiality, and EU-Turkey relations.
{"title":"Feeling Imagined Spaces: Emotional Geographies in the EU-Turkey Relations","authors":"İrem Karamik, Erman Ermi̇han","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233944","url":null,"abstract":"Geographies and borders have become often-debated concepts, especially in the view of the increasing impact of globalization and regional integration processes. In such cases, borders are attributed certain imagined meanings and more so, they are associated with feelings. Considering such dynamics, EU-Turkey relations can be considered a good example of how borders, emotions and spatial dimensions interact. However, not much attention has been given to the emotional facets of spatial relations. By utilizing the concept of “hot places”, this study tries to fill this void. We separate EU-Turkey relations into three phases: the Cold War, post-Cold War, and the peak of migration politics, driven by the Syrian Civil War. We argue that there is a specific hot place for each of these periods: Kreuzberg, Berlin for the period between 1959 and 1989, Cyprus for the post-Cold War period, and the Syrian conflict for the last period. Thus, this paper aims at suggesting a novel approach to the study of emotions, spatiality, and EU-Turkey relations.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114951505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233978
Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, Elif GENÇKAL EROLER
This paper focuses on the geographical, historical, and cultural spatializations of Turkish national identity by political elites in the post-2000 era. Considering the close link between the formation of national identity and the spatial constructions of homeland, the paper shows that Turkish national identity since the foundation of the Republic has been constructed through different supranational visions, navigating through different civilizational ingredients. We show that the Kemalists’ Western-oriented or Eurocentric geopolitical discourses, which perceive Turkey as a “bridge country”, have been transformed in the postCold War era into a more ambitious geopolitical discourse of a “central country”, which aims to broaden Turkey’s “identity space” through its Ottoman heritage. In line with this transformation, in the 2000s, the Turkish homeland was imagined as the “cradle of civilizations”, but the national identity did not develop as a counter-hegemonic measure against the West (Europe). The post-2010 era – with a pronounced emphasis on Islamic culture and Ottoman geopolitical space – constitutes a departure from the previous years’ spatial and identity constructions of Turkey, in the sense that the political elites’ perception of national identity has never gone beyond the national frontiers to this extent, and the West (Europe) has never been so trivialized in terms of progress and civilization.
{"title":"SPATIAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF HOMELAND IN TURKISH NATIONAL IDENTITY: EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION OF EUROPE","authors":"Rahime Süleymanoğlu-Kürüm, Elif GENÇKAL EROLER","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233978","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the geographical, historical, and cultural spatializations of Turkish national identity by political elites in the post-2000 era. Considering the close link between the formation of national identity and the spatial constructions of homeland, the paper shows that Turkish national identity since the foundation of the Republic has been constructed through different supranational visions, navigating through different civilizational ingredients. We show that the Kemalists’ Western-oriented or Eurocentric geopolitical discourses, which perceive Turkey as a “bridge country”, have been transformed in the postCold War era into a more ambitious geopolitical discourse of a “central country”, which aims to broaden Turkey’s “identity space” through its Ottoman heritage. In line with this transformation, in the 2000s, the Turkish homeland was imagined as the “cradle of civilizations”, but the national identity did not develop as a counter-hegemonic measure against the West (Europe). The post-2010 era – with a pronounced emphasis on Islamic culture and Ottoman geopolitical space – constitutes a departure from the previous years’ spatial and identity constructions of Turkey, in the sense that the political elites’ perception of national identity has never gone beyond the national frontiers to this extent, and the West (Europe) has never been so trivialized in terms of progress and civilization.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130254319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233968
Emel Akçalı, Evrim Görmüş, Soli Özel
This article asks the extent to which the EU Green Deal influences the EU periphery today and builds on the spatial conditions of multiple, co-existing decarbonization pathways within the EU Green Deal while problematizing the ‘green imagination’ of Turkey as an immediate neighbour and a candidate country for membership in the EU. As such, it uncovers that the current low-carbon transition process in Turkey is prone to be shaped by the highly politicized energy market in an authoritarian neoliberal structure on the one hand, and Turkey’s priorities in energy issues and hard security on the other. The findings further reveal that Turkey’s efforts to use more domestic energy resources to meet its consumption needs might also interfere with its efforts and obligations to decarbonize its energy sector. The scrutiny into the low-carbon energy transition in Turkey accordingl contributes further insight into the consequences of the spatiality of such transitions in an authoritarian neoliberal context, and what other alternative policies can be imagined and put in practice. Thus, more empirical research is warranted to reveal the spatiality of the low-carbon energy transition across various geographical settings. At the same time, the article argues that both the EU and its partners such as Turkey should be weary of creating green utopias when redesigning their green-energy space since utopias tout court may not always stimulate large-scale change in a revolutionary way in terms of sustainability, feasibility, good practice, and inclusiveness in decision-making processes.
{"title":"Turkey’s Green Imagination: The Spatiality of the LowCarbon Energy Transition within the EU Green Deal","authors":"Emel Akçalı, Evrim Görmüş, Soli Özel","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233968","url":null,"abstract":"This article asks the extent to which the EU Green Deal influences the EU periphery today and builds on the spatial conditions of multiple, co-existing decarbonization pathways within the EU Green Deal while problematizing the ‘green imagination’ of Turkey as an immediate neighbour and a candidate country for membership in the EU. As such, it uncovers that the current low-carbon transition process in Turkey is prone to be shaped by the highly politicized energy market in an authoritarian neoliberal structure on the one hand, and Turkey’s priorities in energy issues and hard security on the other. The findings further reveal that Turkey’s efforts to use more domestic energy resources to meet its consumption needs might also interfere with its efforts and obligations to decarbonize its energy sector. The scrutiny into the low-carbon energy transition in Turkey accordingl contributes further insight into the consequences of the spatiality of such transitions in an authoritarian neoliberal context, and what other alternative policies can be imagined and put in practice. Thus, more empirical research is warranted to reveal the spatiality of the low-carbon energy transition across various geographical settings. At the same time, the article argues that both the EU and its partners such as Turkey should be weary of creating green utopias when redesigning their green-energy space since utopias tout court may not always stimulate large-scale change in a revolutionary way in terms of sustainability, feasibility, good practice, and inclusiveness in decision-making processes.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131045368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1234124
Burcu Sari Karademir
Unipolarity has been taken for granted and remains unquestioned in the International Relations literature. This article provides the conceptual history of unipolarity by bringing an immanent critique. It shows the evolution of unipolarity literature in the absence of counterbalancing in four stages. It focuses on the use of history in structural realism and brings a historical sociological perspective to the literature to show how tempocentric theorizing impaired the understanding of unipolarity as a distinct structure. The article concludes by underlying the importance of noticing the cost of reification of concepts for theorizing and by highlighting that unipolarity is still understudied both theoretically and methodologically.
{"title":"A Conceptual History: Historical Sociological Analysis of Unipolarity in Structural Realist Literature","authors":"Burcu Sari Karademir","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1234124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1234124","url":null,"abstract":"Unipolarity has been taken for granted and remains unquestioned in the International Relations literature. This article provides the conceptual history of unipolarity by bringing an immanent critique. It shows the evolution of unipolarity literature in the absence of counterbalancing in four stages. It focuses on the use of history in structural realism and brings a historical sociological perspective to the literature to show how tempocentric theorizing impaired the understanding of unipolarity as a distinct structure. The article concludes by underlying the importance of noticing the cost of reification of concepts for theorizing and by highlighting that unipolarity is still understudied both theoretically and methodologically.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128537059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.33458/uidergisi.1233977
Selin Türkeş-Kılıç
This study focuses on the spatial imaginations of the European Commission’s response to the TurkishGreek border crisis in March 2020. The goal is to unpack the discursive dynamics of space using a critical geopolitical perspective that treats space as a constructed social category. To that end, the Commission’s official statements and policies on the crisis are deconstructed in terms of territoriality, securitization, and identity. The article advances the argument that increased political pressure and the influx of refugees from Turkey triggered a reflex reserved for nation-states, resulting in the European Union flexing its geopolitical muscles. In these practices, Turkey has served as the constitutive other of European space by representing the outside, insecure, and distant.
{"title":"“I THANK GREECE FOR BEING OUR EUROPEAN SHIELD”: VON DER LEYEN COMMISSION’S SPATIAL IMAGINATIONS DURING THE TURKISH-GREEK BORDER CRISIS IN MARCH 2020","authors":"Selin Türkeş-Kılıç","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1233977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1233977","url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on the spatial imaginations of the European Commission’s response to the TurkishGreek border crisis in March 2020. The goal is to unpack the discursive dynamics of space using a critical geopolitical perspective that treats space as a constructed social category. To that end, the Commission’s official statements and policies on the crisis are deconstructed in terms of territoriality, securitization, and identity. The article advances the argument that increased political pressure and the influx of refugees from Turkey triggered a reflex reserved for nation-states, resulting in the European Union flexing its geopolitical muscles. In these practices, Turkey has served as the constitutive other of European space by representing the outside, insecure, and distant.","PeriodicalId":414004,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123065096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：