Suchergebnisse

Based on the Copenhagen School's approach to the securitization theory, this paper examines the Iranian promotion of the United States (US) as a security threat in political, military, economic, and societal sectors despite the nuclear deal concluded in 2015. Analyzing the speeches of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, as the highest authority in Iran, and the historical context that constitutes the structure of the Iranian-American enmity, the paper shows how Iran has engaged in legitimizing its ongoing securitization discourse vis-à-vis the United States. Within the framework of the socially created discursive historical context in which Iran portrays itself and the US identity, Iran has historically accused the United States for interfering into its domestic affairs for a possible regime change in the country. Emphasizing the embeddedness of such discourses within historical conditions, the paper highlights that Iran exploits the historical context to justify and promote its securitization against the United States.

Based on the Copenhagen School's approach to the securitization theory, this paper examines the Iranian promotion of the United States (US) as a security threat in political, military, economic, and societal sectors despite the nuclear deal concluded in 2015. Analyzing the speeches of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, as the highest authority in Iran, and the historical context that constitutes the structure of the IranianAmerican enmity, the paper shows how Iran has engaged in legitimizing its ongoing securitization discourse vis-à-vis the United States. Within the framework of the socially created discursive historical context in which Iran portrays itself and the US identity, Iran has historically accused the United States for interfering into its domestic affairs for a possible regime change in the country. Emphasizing the embeddedness of such discourses within historical conditions, the paper highlights that Iran exploits the historical context to justify and promote its securitization against the United States. ; Bu çalışma, güvenlikleştirme teorisinin Kopenhag Okulu yaklaşımı çerçevesinde, 2015'te imzalanan nükleer anlaşmaya rağmen İran'ın Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'ni (ABD) siyasi, askeri, ekonomik ve toplumsal sektörlerde güvenlik tehdidi olarak tanımlamaya devam etmesini incelemektedir. İran'daki en yüksek siyasi otoriteyi temsil eden Ruhani Lider Ayatollah Hamaney'in konuşmaları ve İran-Amerikan düşmanlığının yapısını oluşturan tarihsel bağlam analiz edilerek İran'ın ABD'ye karşı devam eden güvenlikleştirme söylemini nasıl meşrulaştırmaya çalıştığı gösterilmiştir. Hem kendisinin hem de ABD'nin kimliğini tanımladığı söylemsel tarihsel yapı çerçevesinde İran, ABD'yi tarihsel olarak İran'da rejim değiştirmek amacıyla ülkenin iç işlerine karışmakla suçlamıştır. Bu tür söylemlerin tarihsel koşullardan kaynaklandığını vurgulayan makalede, İran'ın ABD'ye karşı yürüttüğü güvenlikleştirme sürecini meşrulaştırmak için tarihsel bağlamdan yararlandığı ileri sürülmüştür.

Based on a discourse-historical approach, this study examines the discursive strategies used by the United States to reproduce Iranian enmity that constitutes the basis for the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Analyzing the U.S. Congressional hearings and speeches delivered by President Trump on Iran, the paper shows how the United States has engaged in legitimizing its antagonistic actions towards Iran by appealing to the discursive strategy of positive selfpresentation and negative other-representation. Basing its arguments on the topoi of history, threat, and responsibility, the United States presents Iran as a hostile rouge regime sponsoring terrorism and posing a threat to regional and global security. Emphasizing that such discourses are embedded within historical conditions, the paper highlights the historical context and discursive strategies that the United States exploits to justify its anti-nuclear deal actions. ; Söylem-tarihsel yaklaşımı analizine dayanan bu çalışma, ABD'nin nükleer anlaşmadan çekilmesinin temelini oluşturan ABD-İran düşmanlığını yeniden üretmeye yönelik söylemsel stratejileri incelemektedir. ABD Kongresi'nin ve Başkan Trump'ın İran hakkındaki söylemlerinin incelendiği bu makale, ABD'nin, pozitif özsunum ve diğerlerinin olumsuz sunulması söylemsel stratejisine başvurarak, İran'a yönelik karşıt eylemlerini nasıl meşrulaştırmaya çalıştığını göstermektedir. Tartışmalarını tarih, tehdit ve sorumluluk argümanları üzerinden söylemleştiren ABD, İran'ı teröre destek veren bölgesel ve küresel güvenliği tehdit eden düşmanca bir rejim olarak sunmaktadır. Çalışma, tarihsel koşullara bağlı olan bu söylemlerin ABD'nin nükleer anlaşmadan çekilmesini meşrulaştırmak için kullanıldığını vurgulamaktadır.

This paper analyzes the lack of progress and the breakdown of the Doha Round talks in world trade since 2001 from a neo-Gramscian perspective. The failure to conclude multilateral trade negotiations reflect an emerging new architecture of power politics in the world political-economic order. Major economic powers, including the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada as well as leading transnational companies used to have a significant impact on guiding the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations as well as defining the outcomes. However, in the context of the WTO, emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and China and several non-governmental organizations critical of neoliberal globalization began to confront the former groups' dominance. Developing and developed countries have contending views on the agenda issues, marked by confrontation on the former's insistence for the liberalization of agricultural markets by industrialized states and the latter's pressure for the liberalization of non-agricultural markets. Both sides employ certain strategies and discourses to coerce or to persuade the opposing parties. Hence, the paper argues that the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well-being of all members in the world trade regime.

This paper analyzes the lack of progress and the breakdown of the Doha Round talks in world trade since 2001 from a neo-Gramscian perspective. The failure to conclude multilateral trade negotiations reflect an emerging new architecture of power politics in the world political-economic order. Major economic powers, including the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan and Canada as well as leading transnational companies used to have a significant impact on guiding the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations as well as defining the outcomes. However, in the context of the WTO, emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and China and several non-governmental organizations critical of neoliberal globalization began to confront the former groups' dominance. Developing and developed countries have contending views on the agenda issues, marked by confrontation on the former's insistence for the liberalization of agricultural markets by industrialized states and the latter's pressure for the liberalization of non-agricultural markets. Both sides employ certain strategies and discourses to coerce or to persuade the opposing parties. Hence, the paper argues that the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well-being of all members in the world trade regime ; Bu çalışma 2001 yılından bu yana devam eden ve tamamlanamayan Doha Ticaret Müzakerelerini Neogramşiyan perspektifi çerçevesinde ele almaktadır. Çok taraflı ticaret görüşmelerinin sonuçsuz kalması, uluslararası politik-ekonomik düzende ortaya çıkan yeni bir güç siyaseti mimarisini yansıtmaktadır. Birleşik Devletler (ABD), Avrupa Birliği (AB), Japonya ve Kanada'nın yanı sıra önde gelen ulusötesi şirketler, çok taraflı ticaret müzakerelerinin gündemine rehberlik etme ve sonuçların tanımlanmasında önemli bir etkiye sahipken, Hindistan, Brezilya ve Çin gibi yükselen güçler ile neoliberal küreselleşmeyi eleştiren sivil toplum örgütleri bu grupların egemenliğine karşı koymaya başlamıştır. Bu iki grup, müzakere gündemine ilişkin birbiriyle çelişen görüşlere sahiptir. Gelişmekte olan ülkeler sanayileşmiş devletlerin tarım piyasalarının serbestleştirilmesini isterken, gelişmiş ülkeler ise tarım dışı pazarların liberalizasyonu için baskı yapmaktadır. Her iki taraf da kendi görüşünü çeşitli söylem ve stratejilerle karşı tarafa kabul ettirmeye çalışmaktadır. Bu nedenle, çok taraflı ticaret görüşmeleri, dünya ticaret rejimindeki tüm üyelerin refahı için ortak normlar, değerler ve politikalar üretmek için bir alan olmaktan çok, gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler, çok uluslu şirketler ve sivil toplum örgütleri arasında hegemonya mücadelesini yansıtmaktadır

ABSTRACT This paper examines the revival of the nuclear energy initiatives in Turkey and the associated 'economic growth' and 'competitiveness' discourse of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) as a function of the neoliberal transformation of the Turkish political economy since the 1980s. Based on an engagement between the neo-Gramscian approach and the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this paper shows how the nuclear project in Turkey is historically situated and discursively constructed. Analysing the Parliamentary Records and statements of state officials, the paper has highlighted how the AKP exercises power through hegemonic discourses in terms of the legitimization of the nuclear energy in Turkey.

Existing studies on Syrian refugees in Turkey focused either on the difficulties refugees have been experiencing or on how refugee identities have been unilaterally transformed during their interaction with the host culture. Drawing on the literature on identity and politics of recognition, this chapter argues that intercultural encounters transform the identities, values, and norms of both host communities and refugees. The analysis is based on semi-structured interviews with non-camp Syrian refugees and local citizens in the cities of Mersin and Adana to uncover the interactions of refugees and the host society, focusing on intercultural encounters at diverse settings, including classrooms, schools, campuses, hospitals, and neighborhoods. The chapter reveals that recognition of diverse cultures, respect, empathy, and social support influence intercultural interactions in a positive way. It also shows that reflexivity and the willingness to interact on the part of both refugees and the host culture facilitate interactions and negotiations between them.

The Doha Ministerial Declaration on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and Public Health adopted in November 2001 clarified the right to use the TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health. Examining the hegemonic struggle of opposing social forces from a neo-Gramscian perspective, the paper attributes this outcome to the strategy of trasformismo used by marketoriented social forces to legitimize the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and prevent resistance against the market-driven TRIPS Agreement. It argues that although non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, Third World Network, and Oxfam worked as a counter-hegemonic force to ensure the access of least developed countries to generic versions of patented drugs, flexibilities confirmed by the Doha Declaration can be seen more as a strategy of trasformismo to absorb counterhegemonic ideas than the counter-hegemonic groups' ; Kasım 2001 yılında kabul edilen Ticaretle Bağlantılı Fikri Mülkiyet Anlaşması (TRIPS) ve Halk Sağlığı Konusundaki Doha Deklarasyonu, TRIPS esnekliklerinin kamu sağlığının garanti altına alınması amacıyla kullanılması hakkını teyit etmiştir. Karşıt sosyal gruplar arasındaki hegemonya mücadelesini Neo-Gramşiyan perspektiften inceleyen bu çalışma, söz konusu değişikliği, piyasa odaklı toplumsal güçlerin Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) politikalarını meşrulaştırmak ve TRIPS Anlaşması'na karşı direnişi önlemek amacıyla kullandığı trasformismo stratejisi ile açıklamaktadır. Sınır Tanımayan Doktorlar, Üçüncü Dünya Ağı ve Oxfam gibi sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK), az gelişmiş ülkelerin jenerik ilaçlara yasal erişimlerini kolaylaştırmak için hegemonya karşıtı bir mücadele sürdürmüştür. Ancak, çalışma, Doha Deklarasyonu ile getirilen esnekliklerin, hegemonya karşıtı grupların ilaçlara erişim hakkını TRIPS Anlaşmasına dahil ettirmesinden çok, piyasa odaklı sosyal güçlerin hegemonya karşıtı fikirleri absorbe etmek için kullandıkları bir trasformismo stratejisinin bir sonucu olduğunu ileri sürmüştür

The Doha Ministerial Declaration on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and Public Health adopted in November 2001 clarified the right to use the TRIPS flexibilities to promote public health. Examining the hegemonic struggle of opposing social forces from a neo-Gramscian perspective, the paper attributes this outcome to the strategy of trasformismo used by market-oriented social forces to legitimize the policies of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and prevent resistance against the market-driven TRIPS Agreement. It argues that although non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, Third World Network, and Oxfam worked as a counter-hegemonic force to ensure the access of least developed countries to generic versions of patented drugs, flexibilities confirmed by the Doha Declaration can be seen more as a strategy of trasformismo to absorb counter-hegemonic ideas than the counter-hegemonic groups' successful incorporation of the right to ensure public health into the TRIPS Agreement. ; Kasım 2001 yılında kabul edilen Ticaretle Bağlantılı Fikri Mülkiyet Anlaşması (TRIPS) ve Halk Sağlığı Konusundaki Doha Deklarasyonu, TRIPS esnekliklerinin kamu sağlığının garanti altına alınması amacıyla kullanılması hakkını teyit etmiştir. Karşıt sosyal gruplar arasındaki hegemonya mücadelesini Neo-Gramşiyan perspektiften inceleyen bu çalışma, söz konusu değişikliği, piyasa odaklı toplumsal güçlerin Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) politikalarını meşrulaştırmak ve TRIPS Anlaşması'na karşı direnişi önlemek amacıyla kullandığı trasformismo stratejisi ile açıklamaktadır. Sınır Tanımayan Doktorlar, Üçüncü Dünya Ağı ve Oxfam gibi sivil toplum kuruluşları (STK), az gelişmiş ülkelerin jenerik ilaçlara yasal erişimlerini kolaylaştırmak için hegemonya karşıtı bir mücadele sürdürmüştür. Ancak, çalışma, Doha Deklarasyonu ile getirilen esnekliklerin, hegemonya karşıtı grupların ilaçlara erişim hakkını TRIPS Anlaşmasına dahil ettirmesinden çok, piyasa odaklı sosyal güçlerin hegemonya karşıtı fikirleri absorbe etmek için kullandıkları bir trasformismo stratejisinin bir sonucu olduğunu ileri sürmüştür.

After a decade of tough negotiations based on the principle of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", Iran and the P5+1 countries (the United States (US), the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, and Germany) agreed on a comprehensive deal that would curb large parts of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. According to the deal concluded on 14 July 2015, Iran has committed itself to reduce its uranium enrichment capacity in exchange for the gradual abolition of sanctions that hit Iran's key energy and financial sectors. Described by the EU's Head of Foreign Policy, Federica Mogherini, "as a very good one for all sides", the deal has raised prospects for a rapprochement between Iran and the US that would go beyond the nuclear field. It is expected to contribute to the acceleration of the Arab-Israeli peace process, establishment of stable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, enhancement of American efforts to fight against terrorists groups, and the access of US businessmen to the Iranian market

After many failed attempts since the 1970s, Turkey has embarked on a nuclear power generation project, which is expected to install 10.000MWe nuclear capacity in the next decade. This nuclear commitment has intensified the conflict between groups that either supports or opposes the nuclear energy. By applying a discourse-based constructivist approach, this paper examines how pro and anti-nuclear groups have constructed the 'reality' of nuclear energy as an 'asset' or as a 'threat'. Relying on the analysis of the data from primary sources, such as official statements by government officials, political parties, chambers, and associations, this papers argues that by framing the nuclear energy as the only alternative that would boost the economic growth and competitiveness of the country, pro-nuclear groups led by the Justice and Development Party has managed to exclude any alternative or opposing discourse on nuclear power and sideline the anti-nuclear discourse coalition in Turkey.

With the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health adopted in November 2001, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was amended to facilitate trade in generic versions of patented medicines. Based on a neo-Gramscian theoretical framework, this paper examines this change in the key provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, which became more socially responsive to health concerns of developing countries. Using the qualitative instruments of discourse analysis and examining hegemonic struggle of opposing social forces, this paper attributes this outcome to the strategy of trasformismo used by market-oriented social forces to legitimize the policies of the WTO and prevent popular political mobilization against the market-driven TRIPS Agreement. It argues that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Medecins Sans Frontieres worked as a counter-hegemonic force that effectively campaigned for facilitating the legal access of least developed countries to generic drugs. However, flexibilities introduced by the Doha Declaration can be seen more as a strategy of trasformismo used by market-oriented social forces to absorb counter-hegemonic ideas than the counter-hegemonic groups, successful incorporation of the right to protect public health into the TRIPS Agreement.

This paper analyzes the repeated failure of the Doha Round talks in world trade since 2001 from a neo-Gramscian perspective. The lack of progress and breakdown of multilateral trade negotiations reflect an emerging new architecture of power politics in the international economy. Four major players in world trade, the US, the EU, Japan and Canada, used to have a significant impact in terms of shaping the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations as well as defining the outcomes. However, in the context of the WTO, emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and China began to confront the dominance of these countries. Developing and developed countries have contending views on the agenda issues, marked by confrontation on the former's refusal to open non-agricultural markets and industrialized states' refusal to open their agricultural markets. By undertaking a discourse analysis of statements of major social forces such as market-oriented capital groups, bureaucrats, and political leaders, the paper argues that both sides employ certain strategies and discourses to coerce or to persuade the opposing parties. Hence, the multilateral trade negotiations emerge as zones of exercising hegemony through discursive and strategic measures rather than being an area to produce common norms, values and policies for the well being of all members in the world trade regime.