Search results

Today few people deny the existence of regional substate diplomacy (Criekemans 2010). But there is still no common agreement on a region's right to do so and, above all, on their scope of action. This question goes against what used to be the dominant approach in international relations, the state-centric approach that leads to the logic of speaking with one voice. Increasingly, a multilevel-governance approach has contested this state-centric view and proposes an alternative logic of multiple actors speaking with their voice, nuancing strongly the seminal distinction between "sovereignty-bound" and "sovereignty-free" actors (Rosenau 1990). From the 1970s, the world has seen the growing presence of sovereignty-free actors in international relations. Among these actors, non-central or, better, substate, governments of federal states have developed intensive foreign relations. These governments are using a range of techniques: from shaping the federal government's foreign policy to establishing themselves directly in the international arena (Blatter et al. 2008). For minority nation governments this is particularly a challenge, as they have to act internally – where they have developed full-fledged legislative powers within a multinational federation – and externally – where international and national laws are often still reluctant to recognise their right of action (Lejeune 2003). Yet some minority nations have thrived in developing their own international relations. Bavaria, Catalonia, Flanders, Quebec, Scotland and Wallonia are often seen as successful international players even if they are not fully sovereignty bound (Michelmann 2009; Criekemans 2010). The international actions of these minority nations have been characterised under the umbrella of "identity paradiplomacy" (Paquin 2003); that is, a willingness to use international relations to foster a nation-building process within a multinational state. This observation was particularly prevalent for minority nations strongly in competition with a federal government about their nationbuilding process, albeit for different reasons, namely Flanders, Quebec and Scotland (Paquin 2004). The case of Wallonia seems to fits less well into the identity paradiplomacy framework, which therefore raises the question of alternative roads to international relations. This is the core question of this chapter: is identity paradiplomacy the only way to go for minority nations? Quebec and Wallonia are both well known for their active foreign relations.

Günümüzün uluslararası aktörlerine düşen görev, karşılaştıkları uyuşmazlıkları her bakımdan daha insani olan barışçı yollar ile çözme yoluna gitmektir. Bu çözüm yolları içerisinde en dikkat çekici ve sonuca yatkın olan ise arabuluculuk yöntemidir. İnsanlık tarihi ile paralel bir şekilde gelişme gösteren arabuluculuk, neredeyse tüm uygarlıklarda tercih edilen bir yöntem olmuştur. Arabuluculuk uyuşmazlık halindeki iki devletin, üçüncü bir uluslararası hukuk kişisi tarafından bir araya getirilmesi ve barış için çözüm üretilmesi sürecidir. Bu sürecin başarılı bir şekilde sonuçlanmasında arabulucunun tarafsızlığı, statüsü ve taraflar üzerindeki baskı gücü önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Arabulucu konumundaki üçüncü kişi, bir devlet olabileceği gibi, uluslararası bir örgüt veya gerçek kişi de olabilmektedir. Arabuluculuğun en önemli özelliklerinden biri, arabulucunun tarafları bağlayıcı nitelikte bir karar verme yetkisinin bulunmamasıdır. Bu bakımdan arabulucu, sadece uyuşmazlık halindeki tarafları bir araya getirmekte ve çözüm önerileri sunmaktadır. Arabuluculuk yönteminin zamandan tasarruf sağlaması, arabuluculuk yapan kişilerin alanında uzman olması, yargı organlarının yükünü azaltması ve gizliliğin daha kolay korunabilmesi gibi nedenler ile diğer barışçı çözüm yollarına göre daha çok tercih edildiği görülmektedir. ; The duty of today's international actors is, to settlement the international disputes they faced in peaceful ways which are more humane than all respects. Within these peacfeul ways, most remarkable and liable to result is mediation. As developing parallel with the history of humanity, mediation has been a preffered method in almost all civilizations. Mediation is a process of bringing together and finding solutions to the conflict parties by a third party person. To have a successful conclusion in this process, the impartiality, the status and the leverage of the mediator plays an important role. The third party person as a mediator, may be a state and may also be an international organization or natural person. One of the most important characteristics of mediation is the mediator can not give a decision that is binding on parties. In this regard, mediator only brings the conflict parties together and offers solutions. Mediation way is more preferable than other peaceful solutions in such reasons as the time savings of mediation, being expert persons as a mediator, reducing the burden of the judicial organs and being easier to protect confidentiality.

One of the major weaknesses of the studies on the development of International Relations (IR) curricula in Turkey is the lack of systematic data on the characteristics history development and current status of the IR academia. In order to reveal research practices of academicians and how international relations is taught and how IR scholars perceive the discipline an online survey was conducted among the faculty members of the IR Departments in Turkey in June-July 2009. Scholars were asked to answer 55 questions about the IR curriculum courses research subjects and major theoretical approaches political attitudes funds language and types of publication academic journals universities the involvement of academy in policy-making process and non-academic intellectual activities. The results of the survey indicates that IR studies in Turkey seems to be foreign policy oriented focus on Turkey and the big power policies and the discipline is under the influence of Realism.

Bu çalışma uluslararası toplumun varlığını ve işlerliğini Suriye krizi üzerinden tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada uluslararası toplum, ulus devletlerin oluşturduğu bir cemiyet olarak tanımlanacak ve bu cemiyetin işlerliği ve varlığı, kurumları vasıtasıyla ortaya konacaktır. Uluslararası toplum kavramı, hem gündelik yaşamda hem de Uluslararası İlişkiler çalışmalarında sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır ancak, özellikle Türkçe literatürde kavramın karşılık geldiği pratik yeterince net bir biçimde tanımlanmamış bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışmada İngiliz ekolünün uluslararası toplum kavramı benimsenerek, diplomasi, savaş, büyük güçler yönetimi, güçler dengesi ve uluslararası hukuk kurumlarının bu topluma nasıl işlerlik kazandırdığı incelenecektir. Çalışmanın temel katkısı, İngiliz ekolünün Türkçe Uluslararası İlişkiler literatüründe bilinirliğinin arttırılması ve Uluslararası İlişkiler çalışmalarında teori-pratik boyutunun güçlendirilmesi olacaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, öncelikle uluslararası toplumun kavramsal olarak ne ifade ettiği tartışılarak kurumları tanımlanacak, sonrasında Suriye krizinde bu kurumların nasıl işlediği açıklanarak uluslararası toplumun sadece bir kavram değil aynı zamanda bir gerçeklik olduğu vurgulanacaktır. ; This study analyzes the existence and functionality of international society over the Syrian crisis. In this context, international society will be defined as a community comprised of nation-states while the functionality and the existence of this community will be put forward through its institutions. The term international society is frequently used both in daily life and in International Relations (IR) studies. However, the corresponding practice in the Turkish literature has not been clearly defined. This explains why this study embraces the international society concept of the English School and how its institutions – namely diplomacy, war, great power management, balance of power, and international law – bring this international society into force. The major contribution of the study will be to raise awareness concerning the English School of thought in Turkish International Relations literature, as well as to strengthen the theory-practice dimension of IR studies. Within this context, the article will first discuss the conceptualization of international society and then proceed to define its institutions, followed by an analysis of how these institutions functioned during the Syrian crisis. The major argument of this paper is that international society is not merely a concept but a reality itself.