Selected Topics in International Relations: An Annotated Bibliography – İsmail Erkam Sula (ed.)

Contents

1. IR Scholarship: The State of the art in the World and Turkey
1.1. Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations Scholarship
1.2. IR Scholarship around the World and the state of the IR Discipline in Turkey
1.3. The Sociology of the IR discipline
2. History of International Relations Discipline
2.1. The Evolution of the Discipline 1: Major debates in IR Theory
2.2. The Evolution of the Discipline 2: ‘Westphalia Treaty’, ‘Great’ Debates or a Myth?
2.3. International Political Economy: A short history of the Liberal World Order
3. IR Methods and Methodology
3.1. Explaining and Understanding International Relations
3.2. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methods in International Relations
3.3. Eclectic Methods and Triangulation
4. IR Concepts and Theoretical debates
4.1. Power, Balance of Power, Soft/smart Power
4.2. Hegemony, Hegemonic stability, and Cooperation
4.3. Security, Security Dilemma, Securitization
4.4. Democracy, Democratic Consolidation, Democratization

---

Contributors: Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki, Büşra Bayramoğlu, Karlygash Deligöz, Burak İnce, Mustafa Onur Yalçın

---

Introduction – İsmail Erkam Sula

Since
the birth of the discipline, definitions of science and scientific inquiry in
IR have validated certain knowledge production approaches while invalidating others.
Debates among International Relations (IR) scholars on the definition of
scientific inquiry and the use of knowledge-production methods lead to the
formation of competing epistemic communities. It is important for an IR scholar
to have a grasp of the main topics that are debated among the scholars of the
field and how (or if) certain approaches are being pushed to the margins of the
discipline.

The
following annotated bibliography is designed as a reference source that
summarizes a selection of IR readings (books, chapters, and research articles),
examining how the main topics and fundamental concepts are handled by multiple scholars
and theories. Most of the readings below are cited as classical works of IR and
Political Science, which I believe will encourage further discussion and
research on the topics they cover and serve as an advanced introduction for IR
students at the graduate level. The summaries focus on fundamental issues that
revolve around four major components: IR Theory and Philosophy, Research
Methods, Key Concepts in IR scholarship, and the history of the IR discipline.
It is a reading list prepared with a “carpet bomb strategy” that aims to be as
comprehensive as possible and to reach as many IR students as possible. It is also
designed for those graduate students that are deeply feeling the “agony” of getting
prepared for their PhD comprehensive exam.

Below,
you may find annotations from and summaries of the readings from the syllabus
of a PhD-level elective course, “the Selected Topics in International
Relations, offered at Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University (AYBU) Department of
International Relations. You may also take a look at the syllabus of this
course, which was also previously published at Panorama.
The course is designed to prepare students for their PhD comprehensive exam. This
annotated bibliography is a product of the “International Studies Research
Group” that was established at the university, and all the studies below are reviewed
by graduate students who completed their comprehensive exams and are now PhD
Candidates at AYBU. They are at different stages of their PhD Dissertation research.

To
sum up, the following reading list does not assume to cover ‘everything’ that
is important for IR students. The selected readings are based on three main
considerations: (1) that theories play a very significant role in understanding
international relations, 2) that no theoretical approach is categorically more
accurate, better, or more successful than the other, and (3) that it is
important to have a grasp of how fundamental concepts that are frequently
encountered in IR are used by different theories. I hope that our selection of
readings and the annotated bibliography further encourage students, readers,
and scholars of IR in their quest to understand and explain world politics.

---

***** ***** ***** *****

---

1. IR Scholarship: The State of the art in the World and Turkey

1.1. Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations Scholarship

Lebow, Richard Ned. 2019. “Philosophy and International Relations.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 87 (5): 1219–28. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Lebow reviews the works of C. Wight, J. Joseph and P.T. Jackson on scientific realism, philosophy of science debates, and international relations. Lebow pairs these two works by highlighting the rise of philosophical debates among international relations theorists that aim to search for new ontological and epistemological foundations or to clarify their existing commitments. Lebow argues that Joseph and Wight’s studyis a good example of theorists’ search for new ontological and epistemological grounds due to its contribution to the discipline as a leading philosophy of science. According to Lebow, Jackson is concerned with relationships between the knower and the known and between knowledge and observation. Lebow concludes his review article with critics of both Jackson and Joseph & Wight’s studies. 

Wight, Colin. 2002. “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 23–51. London: SAGE Publications (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Wight makes a meta-theoretical discussion of the discipline of International Relations, discussing whether it is a science or has a philosophy of social science (or not). The main question of the study is what science is and whether IR can or should be a science. First, Wight ask does IR really needs a philosophy of social science. He builds this narrative around key debates that had begun in the early days of the discipline and continue to the present day. After discussing the scientific nature of the discipline in its different stages, he concludes the discussion with the idea that the philosophy of social science is not something the discipline can use or discard.

1.2. IR Scholarship around the World and the state of the IR Discipline in Turkey

Sula, İsmail Erkam. 2022. “‘Global’ IR and Self-Reflections in Turkey: Methodology, Data Collection, and the Social Sciences Data Repository.” All Azimuth 11, 1, 123-142. (Reviewed by Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Sula mainly suggests that Turkish IR scholars focus more on the solutions of the shortcomings in the development of the discipline, rather than continuing to identify them. He shares Aydinli and Biltekin’s ideas on the importance of methodological clarity, but he disagrees with their sharp distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. He argues that such distinction hampers one of their main suggestions to create a unitary local community of scholars for the development of the discipline. Sula emphasizes the significance of using research methods in general. He suggests that methodological clarity is not a unique characteristic of only “quantitative” approaches. Moreover, Sula also criticizes the tendency to regard all non-quantitative studies as automatically qualitative ones.  Then, he identifies the general misperception regarding the qualitative studies in the discipline, as those studies are regarded as if they have no methodology, and no scientific consideration. He argues that “qualitative research does not imply methods-free research or an ‘anything goes’ approach” and highlights that “specifying the methodological approach does not directly result in methodological clarity.” In addition to those misperceptions, Sula also clarifies that methodological clarity is not provided by just mentioning the name of the methodological approach in any study. In this context, Sula mainly suggest that new students in graduate schools should be trained through data-collection projects in order to lead them to produce new studies with methodological clarity, rather than encouraging them to continue with old ideological and exclusionary positions regarding the quantitative, qualitative or mixed methodological approaches.

Aydınlı, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. 2017. “Time to Quantify Turkey’s Foreign
Affairs: Setting Quality Standards for a Maturing International Relations
Discipline.” International Studies Perspectives 18
(3): 267–87. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

Aydınlı and Biltekin focus on the lack of communication and interactive scholarly debates in the Turkish IR disciplinary community. They suggest that quantitative research could fill this gap by providing methodological clarity. By doing this, they also aim to contribute to Turkish IR’s progress. The article aims to make a significant contribution to the development of quantitative research in Turkish IR.

Köstem,
Seçkin. 2015. “International Relations Theories and Turkish
International Relations: Observations Based on a Book.” All Azimuth 4 (1):
59–66. (Reviewed By Burak İnce)

In this review article Köstem first
presents a brief outline and discusses the place of IR theory within the
Turkish IR community. He enquires about the sources of the lack of theorizing
up to now in Turkish IR. He has different solutions and suggestions for the
problematic. In the piece, Köstem asks why – despite Turkey’s position in a
dynamic part of the world – we still lack theoretical approaches based on the
Turkish experience. He suggests that Turkish IR scholars – especially young
academics – may work on mid-range theories and get beyond grand-theoretical
boundaries. He presents his advice to IR students and asserts his belief in
Turkey’s deep history of contributions to IR theory.

By employing a contextualized approach, considering conditions under which strategic policies formed, Wiener interprets the European Union’s capacity in dealing with possible terrorist threats. In this theory-driven study, she introduces distinct European capabilities, which refer to the enforcement power in transnational and trans-border issues. Finally, she concludes that the critical point of tackling terrorism is to have a common agreement on the negotiators’ interest and their understanding of the norms binding their decisions. 

1.3. The Sociology of the IR discipline

Bilgin, Pınar. 2009. “The International Political ‘Sociology
of a Not so International Discipline.’ ” International
Political Sociology 3 (3): 338–42. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Bilgin uncovers ways to get beyond the
present reality of multiple worlds of knowledge about the international
and calls for an inquiry into their emergence and persistence. By multiple
worlds, Bilgin points to the divide between the West and the rest and the
knowledge about the international. She argues that moving beyond the current
intellectual traditions in the discipline requires looking into international
politics of the ways in which the international is studied in different parts
of the world. To do so, Bilgin supports the idea of inquiring into the
sociology of the discipline.

Bigo, Didier, and R. B. J. Walker. 2007. “Political Sociology and the Problem of
the International.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35 (3):
725–39. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Bigo and Walker bring political sociology
to bear on the issue that they call the problem of international. As the
definition of the international is regarded as an object to be examined, Bigo
and Walker problematize the term international as it is used in the discipline
as a field of practice, and issues arise from identifying a field with it.
Therefore, in this study, they focus most explicitly on questions about
boundaries.

Waever, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So
International Discipline: American and European Developments in International
Relations.” International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.
(Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Waever reviews the development of the
field of IR worldwide and argues that American hegemony exists in the field in
terms of theory borrowing, publication, and citations but that the Europeans
have become more self-assured. In contrast to the Hoffman 1971 article, Waever
builds a counterargument against the idea that the discipline of IR is
primarily American. Furthermore, Waever argues that American IR is more about
rationalist/quantitative studies, while European IR is more about
constructivist and sociological approaches. He supports his arguments with the
data about the theoretical position of articles in four international journals.
Waever concludes by discussing the state of European and American IR and how
European IR shows signs of increasing professionalization.

---

***** ***** ***** *****

---

2. History of International Relations Discipline

2.1. The evolution of the discipline 1:
Major debates in IR Theory

Smith, Steve. 1996. “I. Positivism and Beyond.” In Steve
Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond, 11–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reviewed by
Büşra bayramoğlu)

Smith focuses on
positivist assumptions in social science in general and the IR discipline in
particular. He explains that positivism in IR has a commitment to an empiricist
epistemology, but there are also epistemological alternatives to empiricism. He
first examines rationalism and pragmatism as historical contenders and then
scientific realism, hermeneutics, Critical Theory, feminist, and post-modernist
epistemology as contemporary epistemological debates. In the conclusion of the
chapter, Smith points out that the international theorists have tended to use
the positivist term over the last 30 years, and he argues on whether we move
beyond positivism. He concludes that there is no single post-positivist
approach, only post-positivist approaches, and they operate within very
different epistemological positions. Smith’s work is an essential read not only
for experts in philosophy of science but also for any post-graduate students of
IR.

Kaplan, Morton A. 1961. “Is International Relations a Discipline?” The Journal of
Politics 23 (3): 462–76. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

In his study written in ’61, Kaplan
discusses International Relations’ (IR) disciplinary nature, long before the
idea was widely accepted. The main question that Kaplan tries to answer is
whether International Relations (IR) is a distinctive discipline or a
sub-discipline of political science. Kaplan argues that while there is no
convincing discussion that a specifically international relations discipline
exists, it should not simply be put under political science as a sub-discipline.
Therefore, Kaplan also discusses the requirements for a discipline of
international politics.

Lake, David A. 2013. “Theory Is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great
Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of
International Relations 19 (3): 567–87. (Reviewed By Karlygash Deligöz)

Lake discusses the rise of the positivists
and post-positivists debate as a new stage of the great debates. The reason for
his concern is the inconclusiveness of the debate, the same as in the previous
Great debates. The author calls for a focus on real-world problems instead. He
discusses the eclectic theory and mid-level theory as the most effective ones
for the IR discipline because they are applied “to specific issues and even
limited historical periods”. The author describes the eclectic (mid-level)
theory as the tool for the progress of the IR discipline. According to Lake, the
explanation of trade policy and the democratic peace theory brightly
illustrates the progressive nature of mid-level theory.

Wilson, Peter. 1998. “The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate.” Review of
International Studies 24: 1–15. (Reviewed by Büşra bayramoğlu)

Wilson claims that the
first great debate never actually happened, and ‘idealism/utopianism’ was
invented by Carr to discredit a wide range of things he happened to disagree
with. He explains that a great set of ideas, opinions, and theories existed
during the inter-war period rather than ‘idealism, utopianism. Wilson’s work
leads the reader to an alternative view.

2.2. The evolution of the discipline 2:
‘Westphalia Treaty’, ‘great’ debates or a myth?

Osiander, Andreas. 2016. “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian
Myth.” International Organization 55 (2): 251–87.
(Reviewed by Burak İnce)

Osiander discusses the Westphalian system
along with the concept of sovereignty. He asks: Are the “pillars of the
Westphalian temple decaying”? Are we moving “beyond Westphalia”? His claim is
that the IR narrative about Westphalia is a myth, and he hopes to gain a better
theoretical understanding of contemporary international politics by analyzing
the concept. The author explains the Thirty Years’ War, the Holy Roman Empire,
and the Westphalian Peace. He criticizes the twentieth-century IR scholars and
regards them among the most eager continuators of the old propaganda image of
the war because he thinks that the standard account of the peace reflects not
its actual content but wartime anti-Habsburg propaganda. He draws our attention
to Leo Gross. His argument is that many of the misleading statements about 1648
in IR literature derive directly or indirectly from a 1948 article by Leo
Gross. While he narrates 1648, he goes to the year 1555. According to him, the
1648 Peace is the outcome of the breakdown of the Augsburg religious peace of
1555. He associates the most significant transition in the international system
with the occurrence of the French Revolution, not with the Peace of Westphalia.
Another approach of his is that sovereignty as currently understood does not go
back to the seventeenth century. He brings an unconventional perspective to the
subject.

Patton,
Steven. 2019. “The Peace of Westphalia and It Affects
on International Relations Diplomacy and Foreign Policy.” The Histories
10 (1): 91–99. (Reviewed by Burak İnce)

Patton
discusses the Westphalian system and its effects. He argues that the
Westphalian system remains a model for international politics around the world.
It is a turning point in world history. The author highlights the before and
after of the Westphalia Peace. He argues the revolutionary Westphalia treaty
completely changed the relations between church and state and established a new
precedent. He exemplifies that before 1648, war was the accepted means of
instating policy changes when one country found fault with another. It was the
“legitimate form of solving conflicts” before the Peace, but after the treaties
were agreed upon, “No state was allowed to be destroyed.” He also concentrates
on the outcomes of the Peace of 1648 and says possibly the most significant one
is the idea of state sovereignty. He advocates that the Westphalian tradition
can still be seen in modem international politics.

Rosenberg, Justin. 2016. “International
Relations in the Prison of Political Science.” International Relations 30 (2): 127–53. (Reviewed by Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Rosenberg mainly questions the reasons for the current claims
regarding “the end of IR theory”, which stem from the failure of IR
to produce “big ideas” that would have an impact on other social
disciplines. The borrowed ontology of IR from the discipline of political
science, which is defined as “the prison of Political Science” by the
author, is illustrated as the main obstacle in front of such a production of
big ideas in the article. The solution suggested by Rosenberg is re-grounding
IR in its own unique problematique, which
is its own original ontology as well as “the key” out of the prison
of political science that is “the consequences of societal
multiplicity”. Co-existence, difference, interaction, combination, and
dialectical change are five consequences of the multiplicity detected by the
author. He concludes his suggestion of re-grounding IR on its own ontology by
offering “uneven and combined development” as one of those big ideas
that are grounded on the accurate theme of IR, which is societal multiplicity.
Hence it has the potential to influence all other disciplines by revealing the
significance of “the international” for the other areas of social
sciences. Thus, the article provides a coherent explanation and fruitful
recommendation for the future development of IR theory.

Rosenberg, Justin. 2017. “The Elusive International.” International
Relations, 31 (1): 90–103. (Reviewed by Burak İnce)

The article focuses on the realization of the
potential for the subject matter: the international dimension of the social
world. Rosenberg stresses the intellectual standing of the International
Relations field. He problematizes the status of IR as a sub-field of Political
Science. His argument is that Political Science is the prison of IR. He also
attaches special importance to multiplicity. He says the multiplicity is for IR
what space is for Geography, time for History, culture for Anthropology, and power
for Political Science. According to him, this premise of IR remains largely inactivated
within IR itself. He questions the issue of the no production of explicit
positive theorization of what the international is. For him, IR needs the idea
of multiplicity as the fundamental fact about the world that is presupposed by
allinternational relations. Rosenberg’s offer and wish are that “the
exile of IR at the margin of the social sciences” should come to an end.

Booth, Ken, and Milja Kurki. 2017. “Rethinking
International Relations-Again.” International
Relations 31 (1): 68–70. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Booth and Kurki, in their introduction, explain their aim to
initiate a debate around Justin Rosenberg’s idea of the “societal
multiplicity” as the unique theme of the discipline of IR that have the
potential to reveal the significance of the discipline by offering important
contributions for the other social disciplines. Therefore, “International
Relations in the Prison of Political Science”, the article in which
Rosenberg wrote his above-mentioned ideas, constitutes the starting point of
the authors. Thus, they initiated a conversation among a small group of
academicians who provided their comments on Rosenberg’s article, his claims,
and suggestions. In this way, they explain in their introduction briefly the
comments of the contributors regarding the issue, as well as Rosenberg’s
related reply to those critiques and the four main themes that they reached as
an outcome of such a conversation about Rosenberg’s influential article. Booth
and Kurki’s efforts in this study to develop their colleague’s view on the
future of the discipline of the IR by initiating a discussion among their peers
seems to be a good example of academic responsibility for the development of
the discipline.

Booth, Ken. 2019. “International Relations: The Story so Far”. International
Relations 33 (2): 358–90. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Booth’s article is the conclusion of part
of the first centenary special issue that marks 100 years since the birth of
the discipline of IR. He takes a panoramic perspective of the discipline since
1919. The special issues of the Journal of International Relations focus on the
change and continuity of the discipline regarding themes like structure, order,
norms, and process. Booth makes the closure of both his article and the special
issue with a general evaluation of discussions, along with his notes on writing
relations (international) and reflections on the past.

2.3. International Political Economy: A
short history of the Liberal World Order

Gilpin, Robert. 2001. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International
Economic Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Reviewed by Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

In this book, Gilpin initially explains
the fundamental changes taking place in World politics since the publication of
his 1987 book titled “The Political Economy of the International
Relations”. These changes include the end of the Cold War, the triumph of
democratic capitalism, which brings increasing deregulation and privatization,
the rise of the internet economy as well as the increasing interdependence of
national economies because of significant advancements in information, telecommunication,
and transportation technology and so on. The result of those developments has
become the emergence of a truly global economy, according to Gilpin. Those
practical transformations are accompanied by theoretical innovations also,
which include “new growth theory”, “new economic geography”,
and “new trade theory”, all of which, according to Gilpin, are
important contributions to analyzing the international political economy. In
this context, the book mainly argues that the significance of economic
globalization is exaggerated while the importance of domestic politics and
economics is underestimated, as Gilpin believes that the principal determinant
of economic affairs is not economic globalization but the domestic economies of
the states. In relation to this, Gilpin, in this book, aims to compensate for his
misperception regarding the importance of the domestic economies and some other
outdated claims that he revealed in his 1987 book mentioned above. In this way,
the aim of the book is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
International Political Economy. To this end, Gilpin implements a
“state-centric” approach to the international economy and argues
against those who claim that the international economy is shifting away from a
state-dominated model to a market-dominated one, while he argues that in a
truly integrated global economy, states are still the primary but not the only
one actor to manage economic policies in line with their own national
interests. Therefore, the interaction of the markets and nation-states together
determines the functioning of the world economy as well as world politics,
according to him. In this direction, the book covers both political and
economic analyses to provide a comprehensive understanding of the functioning
of the global economy. Therefore, this book provides important insights for
understanding the globalization of world politics as well as its related
impacts on the international political economy.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2015. “The
Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America.” Foreign Affairs 90 (3): 56–68.(Reviewed by Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Based on his influential book,
“Liberal Leviathan: The Origins and Transformation of the American
World” (2011), Ikenberry wrote this 2015 article to argue against those
views that see the rising power and influence of non-Western powers as the sign
of a fundamental transformation of the liberal World order. Contrary to those
who expect the evolution of the liberal global order toward an illiberal direction,
Ikenberry argues that the liberal order has reached its “ultimate
ascendance” with the current developments in global economics as well as
politics. In accordance with this rationale, the article emphasizes that the
rising non-Western powers, such as China, India, and Brazil, owe their rise to
their good adaptation of the rules and principles of and active participation
in the institutions of the existing international order. Therefore, Ikenberry
finds it nonsense to expect those powers to act in a way to challenge the
existing liberal order, which is, according to him, not American or Western
anymore, as he claims that this global liberal order has no equal competitor
that would provide same opportunities for those rising powers as well as for the
rest of the world. However, he accepts the declining capacity of the US to
shape the global order and suggests that the US and its allies should update
this liberal order that they have created to make sure that it will continue to
serve to provide “prosperity and security”, as it has done since the end
of the Second World War. Such an update of the liberal order would result in a greater
number of states taking responsibility for the global economic and political
governance while the US keeping its central role within it, not as the global
hegemon but as the leader. Thus, the article seems to be written to cool down
those who worry about the future of World politics after the end of the US
hegemony by offering a rationale that the end of the hegemony means neither the
end of the centrality for the US nor the end of the global liberal order.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2015. “The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism
After America.” Foreign Affairs 90 (3): 56–68. (Reviewed by
Burak İnce)

Ikenberry focuses on the change of the
liberal international order. According to him, the old liberal international
order was designed and built in the West. In this light, he compares the states
and stresses the different experiences and so the stances of states. From his
point of view, the United States’ position in the global system is changing, and
the liberal international order is alive and well. He articulates the need an update
the liberal order for a new era. He discusses the deep interests of rising
states in an open and rule-based system and says openness gives them access to
other societies for trade, investment, and knowledge sharing. John is a bit
pessimistic about competing for global organizing logic. He also brings
suggestions for China’s peaceful rise.

Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry.
1999. “The Nature and Sources of
Liberal International Order.” Review of
International Studies 25 (2): 179–96. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Deudney and Ikenberry suggest that both
realism and liberalism fell short to analyze the Western liberal order, whose
future and durability have been questioned by scholars since the end of the
Cold War. They demonstrate the weaknesses of the realist approaches, which offer
either hegemony or balancing as the only sources of the liberal order, as well
as the missing conceptions of the liberal approaches to grasp the whole
features of this order. Instead, they offer their theory of “structural
liberalism”, which illustrates five mutually reinforcing features of the
Western liberal order. These five features, which are “co-binding security
institutions, penetrated American hegemony, semi-sovereign great powers,
economic openness and civic identity”, according to the authors, are the
keys to totally understanding the robust character of the Western liberal order
and recognizing its resilience and durability which are not dependent on the
binary structure of the world system. Thus, they suggest “structural
liberalism” as the true approach that would help both to analyze the
liberal order established by the US and to strengthen this liberal order at a
time when the forces that contributed to this order have started to remove with
the end of the Cold War. Therefore, this article, which offers a new
theoretical perspective to analyze the Western liberal order, is full of claims
regarding the character of this order, its uniqueness, its durability, and its significance
for maintaining peace, at least among the Western states. In this sense, it is
a fruitful article that has the potential to initiate flourishing counter
debates among scholars.

Haas, Richard N. 2018. “Liberal
World Order, R.I.P.” Project Syndicate March
21. (Reviewed by Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

Haas, who is an American foreign policy
expert and diplomat, shares his worries regarding the dangerous results of the
US’s decision to abandon its commitment to the liberal international order, for
the US itself as well as for the rest of the World. Haas assumes that the
liberal global order, that was created initially by the UK and US collaboration
and sustained by the US, was providing peace and security in the World and the
absence of the commitment of the US for the order that it itself has created,
because of the policies of Trump administration, would mean the retreat of
liberalism and the returning of the great power rivalries. Therefore, the
future of the World, in the absence of US support for the liberal order,
according to Haas, would be “less free, less prosperous and less peaceful
for the US and others”. In this context, Haas complains about the
increasing challenges against the three significant components of the existing
World order, which are “liberalism, universality and preservation of order,”
because of the increasing populism, regionalism and decreasing support of the
US for that order which has the central importance. One of the interesting points
is that he initially claims that the order is not global anymore because of the
increasing regionalism, but then he makes some universal claims that would have
the same negative impacts globally regarding the results of the abandonment of
the US support for the system. However, the most significant element of this
essay is that it illustrates the retreat of liberalism as an unfortunate
decision of the US itself as if it is still and will always be the might of
only the US to determine the present and future of the direction of the World
politics. In this sense, this essay seems to aim to make the propaganda of the unrivalled
power of the US, and this is not surprising if we keep in mind that Haas
himself is an American diplomat.

Woods, Ngaire. 2014. “International Political Economy in an
Age of Globalization.” In John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (Eds.) The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations,
7th Edition, 244–57. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Reviewed by
Burak İnce)

Woods examines the events and the actors
in the international economy. She especially focuses on the history of the
post-war economy. The history gives clues to understanding why and how the international
political economy has become so central to the study of international
relations. She asks, “What is globalization? Is it diminishing the role of
states in the world economy?” For her, globalization creates new challenges for
all states and other actors in the world economy. She seeks the answer to the
question: what role can we expect institutions to play in managing
globalization? The author argues during the last phase of the Second World War,
the institutions and framework of the world economy have their roots. It is
stated in the article that the first decade of the twenty-first century has a
shift in global economic power, and the study of IPE has become dominated by a
‘rational choice’ or neo-utilitarian approach. One of the main assumptions of
the author is that the governments and their policies are important but that
the policies and preferences of governments reflect the actions of specific
interest groups within the economy. She draws our attention to the concept of
hegemony. She says the dominant power within the system will achieve goals not
just through coercion but equally by ensuring the consent of other actors
within the system. She shares the case of the Asian financial crisis and claims
that states are losing power in a global economic order in which state borders
and governments are less influential and underlines the sufferings of weaker
states by the impact of globalization more than others

---

***** ***** ***** *****

---

3. IR Methods and Methodology

3.1. Explaining and Understanding
International Relations

Hollis, M, and S Smith. 1991. Explaining and Understanding
International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

Martin Hollis and Steve Smith focus on one
of the main debates in the discipline of IR, explaining vs. understanding.
Their claim is that in relation to social matters, there are always two stories
to tell. One is an outsider’s story, where the endeavour is made to generalize
in the manner of a natural scientist seeking to explain how nature works. The
other one is an insider’s story, which is told after the fashion of the
humanities to make us understand how things look to the participants. Hollis
and Smith offer that one can have either an explanatory account or an
understanding account; what one cannot have, is some combination of the two
when grasping the essence of the social world. Explanatory assumptions that
Smith claims are based on scientific principles. Understanding, on the other
hand, as Hollis argues, is based on hermeneutic principles. In this view,
Hollis, the philosopher, defends his concept of social action as fitting
broadly within the understanding account, while Smith, the social scientist,
presents an explaining account.

3.2. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methods
in International Relations

Wheelan, Charles. 2013. Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread
from the Data. New York: W. W. Norton. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Wheelan explains the importance of
statistics with engaging examples and questions, such as “How does Netflix know
what movies I like?”, “How does Target know when their customer gets
pregnant?”, “How can we identify and reward good teachers and schools?”, “What
are the best tools for fighting global poverty?”. The author explains all the
basic concepts used in statistics, such as basic probability, descriptive
statistics, inference, correlation, regression analysis, and data. Also,
through easy-to-follow cases, he makes aware the reader of how statistics can
be used and abused. He underlines the importance of the data and the way it was
gathered and gives a list of useful software. Wheelan’s book is an excellent
guide to the basics of statistics.

Martin, William E., and D. Krista Bridgmon. 2012. Quantitative and Statistical Research
Methods: From Hypothesis to Results. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. 1-38. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

In this chapter, Martin and Bridgton
present an overview of the book and information related to the foundations of
research and statistics. They explain the quantitative research process and
emphasize the importance of statistical software in the research of students.
The book, in general, helps students understand quantitative research methods
to construct independent research.

Marvasti, Amir. 2004. Qualitative Research in Sociology. London: SAGE
Publications, Ltd. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

The questions we ask about the world and
how we answer them depend on our disciplinary orientation. In this book
chapter, Marvasti first deals with the field of sociology and then explains
positivism and constructionism and their influence on social inquiry. He also
presents the two-research perspective of quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. The readers gain general insight into the similarities and
differences between the two research perspectives in the field of sociology in
this chapter.

3.3. Eclectic Methods and Triangulation

Rosenau, James N. 1984. “A Pre-Theory Revisited: World Politics in an Era of
Cascading Interdependence.” International Studies Quarterly, 28
(3): 245–305. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Rosenau discusses “pre-theory” considering
the dynamics in the world of 1984. The author wants Pre-theory to be more
adaptable and be applied as it was since its creation in the early 1960s. Three
concepts were chosen by him to keep Pre-theory capable to study the tendencies
of its time: role scenarios, aggregation, and adaptation. The author analyzes
Roles as Analytic Units, states, governments, individuals, and observers as
actors in role scenarios, the Aggregation of Collective Actors, and Adaptive
Collectivities as Actors. Occurring repeatedly “self-generating and
far-reaching dimensions of global life” because of the merging of new and old
structures is defined by him as Cascading Interdependence. Cascading
Interdependence could be developed on the mentioned three concepts: authority
relationships, aggregative dynamics, and adaptive mechanisms. The author claims
the Vietnam war, Watergate, and other occurrences would be the basis of a world
crisis of authority, resulting decline of the US as a hegemon and a change in
the world order.

Sula, Ismail Erkam. 2019. “An Eclectic Methodological Approach in
Analyzing Foreign Policy: Turkey’s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset
(TFPRED).” All Azimuth 8 (2): 255-283. (Reviewed by
Karlygash Deligoz)

Sula describes the results of his five
year study of Turkish foreign policy analysis. He did research of the issue for
“Rosenau’s call to develop a “theory” of foreign policy”. Sula chose and
combined in his work two research methods: content and event data analysis. He
categorized and compared the relevant data and combined the outcome into
“Turkey’s Foreign Policy Roles and Events Dataset (TFPRED)”. He observed
national role conceptions (NRC) and foreign policy events, where the NRC was
determined through leaders’ speeches and public promises (“discourse”) and
state foreign policy actions taken (“practice”). Thus, his research was based
on “foreign policy words, deeds, and parallelism between the two”. Sula shows
how to process a vast amount of information while making the research. He gives
detailed examples of application of the methods used as “coded speeches, data
sheets, news reports, and specific portions of the TFPRED dataset”.  The TFPRED dispose both descriptive and
statistical data on foreign policy. Author also explains the limitations of
this eclectic methodological approach and the better way of organization for
future researches.

Katzenstein, Peter, and Rudra Sil. 2009. “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and
Practice of International Relations.” In Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan
Snidal (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, 109-130. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

Katzenstein and Sil focus on the
distinctive characteristics of analytic eclecticism, which rejects competing
research traditions to explore problems in original ways. They also deal with a
sample of scholarships in international relations that illustrates the value of
analytical eclecticism with reference to issues of international security and
political economy. They also present that there are costs and risks of analytic
eclecticism. The article leads the reader to an alternative view of the
research traditions.

Katzenstein P., and Rudra
Sil. 2009. Eclectic
Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations, In Christian
Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
International Relations. 109-130. London: Oxford University Press. (Reviewed by
Karlygash Deligöz)

Peter
Katzenstein and Rudra Sil wrote a chapter of the Oxford Handbook of International
Relations on eclectic theorizing through “pragmatist view”, defining analytic eclecticism
and its place in IR. According to the authors, the linear view is not important
from the pragmatist perspective but the effect of research on the quality of
communication among scholars studying the same issue. The pragmatist
perspective supports analytic eclecticism as the way of problem focusing.
Furthermore, analytic eclecticism is different from “theoretical synthesis or
the building of a unified theory”. Authors claim it is about creation of a “new
unified system of…analytic principles” to solve wide-ranging issues. The place
of eclecticism in IR is analyzed through its perspectives in national security
and international political economy (IPE). Thus, they discuss “external threat,
American hegemony, and the pacifying effects of nuclear weapons” through
various schools’ approaches (liberal, constructivist, realist), and admit
eclecticism’s contribution to the IPE.

Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of
World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research
Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 411-431. (Reviewed by
Büşra Bayramoğlu)

The article deals with analytic
eclecticism in comparative politics and international relations. It first
outlines the research traditions, as articulated by Larry Laudan, that are not
capable of generating a more comprehensive understanding of complex, multi-faceted
problems. For this reason, scholarly analysis needs to be more open-ended. The
article then presents why analytic eclecticism has emerged and focuses on its
three characteristics. The authors conclude the article by expressing the
limitations of analytic eclecticism.

Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. Analytic
Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and
Mechanisms across Research Traditions, Perspectives on
Politics, 8 (2): 411-431. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Sil and Katzenstein’s analytic eclecticism in the study of world
politics focused on comparative politics and international relations. Authors
study research traditions in the social sciences; the competition of different
schools and their metatheoretical postulates are given as the main ones. They
analyze the works of the classics of IR theory. Moreover, the authors give the
answer to the question of why eclecticism is preferred by them. They support
analytic eclecticism with the works of Albert Hirschman, Philip Tetlock, Scott
Page, Josiah Ober, Mark Blyth, and John Campbell. They identify analytic
eclecticism from three perspectives and analyze each of them separately: (1)
Pragmatist ethos as a basis of argumentation to cover real problems of policy
and practice; (2) Wide range of issues considering the difficulties of the
real-world situations; (3) Building “substantive arguments related to the
problems” through the generation of complex causality. The article is concluded
by discussing the challenges (“theoretical incoherence linked to the possible
incommensurability of research traditions”) and payoffs (possible discovery of
unknown bonds and new insights) of analytic eclecticism

---

***** ***** ***** *****

---

4. IR Concepts and Theoretical debates

4.1. Power, Balance of Power, Soft/smart
Power

Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in International Politics. International
Organization. 59 (1):  39 – 75. (Reviewed
by Karlygash Deligöz)

Barnett and
Duvall’s article suggests the research
of various concepts of power to extend academic knowledge about international
politics. They build the “Taxonomy of power” to help scholars to identify the
concepts of power in a systematic way. The Taxonomy divides two dimensions:
Direct and diffuse; and specifies four different conceptual types, depending on
the interaction of specific actors: Compulsory (direct) and Institutional
(diffuse), and depending on the social relations of the constitution:
Structural (direct) and Productive (diffuse). These types describe the ways in which
power functions.  Furthermore, the authors
use global governance and American empire perceptions to show the bonds and
inter-influence between all the concepts. Authors call to treat different
conceptual forms as not competing but complementing each other. 

Pape, Robert A. 2005. “Soft
Balancing against the United States.” International
Security 30 (1): 7-45. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

The aggressive foreign
policy strategy of the Bush Administration following the 9/11 attacks,
formulated under the title of the “war on terror” and implemented by
the unilateral interventions of the US in the Middle East, is addressed in the
article as a totally strange strategy of the US which had been known till that
time as the non-aggressive superpower of the World. According to Pape, such a
fundamental change in the foreign policy of the US towards unilateralism has
the potential to lead the other major powers to feel insecure. Thus, the
article illustrates how such a feeling of insecurity among the major powers,
stemming from unilateral actions of the US, has the potential to change even
the unipolarity of the system by leading them to take necessary measures to
implement “soft balancing” against the US. Pape defines soft
balancing as the strategy of “the second-ranked powers” in the
unipolar orders, which would use non-military means, including international
institutions, economic tools, and so on, to achieve coordination and balance
against the sole superpower. He explains soft balancing is different from hard
balancing but has the potential to turn into hard balancing in the long term.
Hence, he urges the US to take necessary steps to keep its superpower status
and unipolarity of the world system. Therefore, this article may be a useful
source to explain the recent developments in the world in terms of the
transformation of the world order, though it seems to be written as a policy recommendation
for the US policymakers of the time.

Pape
R. 2005. “Soft
Balancing against the United States.”
International Security, 30 (1): 7-45. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Pape
discusses President Bush’s strategy and aggressive unilateralism in its foreign
policy. He analyzes changing reputation of the US among major powers (Europe,
Russia, China, Japan, Turkey, Brazil). Nonetheless, he stresses that there has
been no direct balancing against the US since the collapse of the USSR and the start
of the unipolar world. The author admits such a world is “a balance of power
system, not a hegemonic one”. Thus, a unipolar leader is never immune from
major powers’ collective balancing. The absence of direct balancing against the
US is explained by its dominance, “a high reputation for nonaggressive
intentions”, and its offshore balancing in different regions. However, US
unilateralism can cause “soft balancing” measures such as using nonmilitary
tools (international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic
arrangements) to confront indirectly its military actions. The author supports
unilateral use of force in some cases when benefits prevailing costs. He is
sure that direct balancing is barely possible, even soft balancing against the US
already exists.

Baldwin, David A. 2013. “Power and International Relations.” In Walter Carlsnaes,
Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (Eds.). Handbook of International Relations,
273-297. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicaions Ltd. (Reviewed by Karlygash
Deligöz)

Baldwin
contributes to the Handbook of International Relations of SAGE with a chapter
on “Power and International Relations”. He discusses the role and the nature of
power with references to famous scholars’ (Morgenthau, Waltz, Gilpin, Dahl, etc.)
arguments (dimensions and faces). He agrees with the relative power concept and
accepts power as a “relationship between two or more actors, rather than a
property of any one of them”. He sees its multidimensional qualities as scope,
domain, reliability, costs, and means. He analyzes different power problems
(potential power, measurement and fungibility problem, problem of intentions),
and the concept of power in IR theory. Furthermore, he discusses the “Current
issues” in the prism of polarity and balancing, military power, structural and
relational power, constructivism, and rationalism. The author shows potential
paths for future research on power issues as “power relations as dependent
variables, forms of power, institutions and power, domestic politics, strategic
interaction and bargaining, distribution of power”.

Schweller, Randall L. 2016. “The Balance of Power in World Politics.” In William R. Thompson
(Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 177–91. London: Oxford
University Press. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Schweller describes the
history of balance of power and discusses a “core international politics
theory” from various schools’ perspectives (liberalism, constructivism,
realism). Thus theory’s “automatic version” of regulation belongs to structural
realists, a “manual” one through diplomats and consciousness of the community –
to English school. The author also agrees with the notion that balance of power
is “a type of international order”. The main principle of power balance is
individually and/or collectively combining the military forces against
dominating power that threatens the security of the former(s). The author
shares conditions that promote the smooth operation of the balance of power and
reflects on the prevalence of balancing behaviour over other state responses to
the growing power

Schweller, Randall L. 2016. “The Balance of Power in World Politics.” In William R. Thompson
(Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 177–91. London: Oxford
University Press. (Reviewed by Burak İnce)

Schweller questions the place and role of
balance of power in world politics. He initiates his inquiry by asking, what
precisely does the term “balancing” mean? What is the ultimate promise of the balance
of power theory? He comes to the idea that it is to preserve the integrity of
the multistate system. He elaborates on the concept and touches briefly on three
types of balance of power systems: the automatic version, the semi-automatic
version and the manually operated version. Another important point of the paper
is the offers of the author. He asserts the nine conditions which are jointly
sufficient to bring about an effectively performing balance-of-power system. He
also regards the balance of power as a type of international order. Moreover,
according to him, there are essentially three types of international orders: A
negotiated order, an imposed order, and a spontaneously generated order. He
concludes that the balance of power system does not always function properly
and predictably.

4.2. Hegemony, Hegemonic stability, and
Cooperation

Gavris, Maria. 2021. “Revisiting the Fallacies in Hegemonic Stability
Theory in Light of the 2007–2008 Crisis: The Theory’s Hollow Conceptualization
of Hegemony.” Review of International Political Economy
28 (3): 739–760. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

Gavris focuses on the
need to reassess the literature on hegemony after the 2007-2008 crisis. She
claims that there is an erroneous causal relationship between stability and
hegemony by criticizing HST (Hegemonic Stability Theory), which contains an
underdeveloped concept. Her work also argues how inattention to the conceptual
content of HST has permitted the extension of a problematic understanding of
hegemony based on the case of Germany in the European Economic and Monetary
Union. The author presents a brief discussion on the emergence of the concept
of hegemony and HST and its critics of it.

Webb,
Michael C., and Stephen D. Krasner. 1989. “Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Assessment.” Review of
International Studies 15 (2): 183–98. (Reviewed by Burak İnce)

The
paper is an assessment of the empirical validity of the hegemonic stability
thesis with a focus on the international political economy since 1945. The authors
draw our attention to the power capabilities of the United States, and they
share the international trade and finance details. The question of whether the
United States should still be regarded as a hegemon might be seen as a major
inquiry throughout the study. According to them, the United States has pursued
relatively open trade and finance policies. Within the concentration on
empirical developments in the areas of international trade and finance, the authors
ask and answer; Can the theory be defended, reformulated, or resurrected? The
most obvious defence is to maintain that the United States is still a hegemon,
albeit a waning one. Such an argument would be consistent with empirical
developments in the last four decades; growing instability, although not
collapse or closure, has been associated with declining but still formidable
American power.

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World
Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

In this book, Keohane mainly argues that once interconnection is
established, it maintains. Therefore, the initial need for a hegemon for the
initiation of the interconnection, which would reduce discord and enable
cooperation globally, becomes invalid. In this way, Keohane aims to direct the
attention of the scholars to search for ways that would strengthen worldwide
cooperation, which has benign impacts on all. Thus, he challenges both
neorealist assumptions regarding the impossibility of composition of true
international cooperation, albeit he accepts their claims regarding the
conception of the states as rational egoists, and particularly the hegemonic stability
theory that offers the existence of a hegemon as the prerequisite for the
formation of international cooperation. In this sense, he emphasizes the
significance of “international regimes” as the main tools for
generating cooperation among “egoistic actors” that are advanced
capitalist countries. Therefore, the book provides a well-designed and coherent
alternative point of view to the issue of cooperation and conflict in
international relations.

Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social
Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10
(2): 126-155. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

“Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” is
the key sentence of this highly influential article. After such a definition of
the essence of the theory, Cox categorizes theories into two groups which are
“problem-solving theories” and “critical theories”. In this
context, he evaluates neo-realism within the problem-solving category that is
designed to maintain the status quo, while historical materialism, as a
subdivision of Marxist theory, is an example of critical theory in his
categorization of the theories. Thus, the article initially compares
neo-realism and historical materialism in terms of their perspectives and main
purposes. Thereby, he reflects on the agent-structure problem while emphasizing
the transformative potential of the structures that are defined to come into
existence as the result of the interactions of three forces which are
“material conditions, thought patterns and human institutions” Then,
Cox explain his main argument through such a comparison by explaining the
interconnection and mutual influences among social forces, forms of states and
world orders. Therefore, he employs historical materialism to analyze imperial
systems and concludes by suggesting three alternative future possibilities,
which are “a new hegemony generated by the internationalizing of
production, a non-hegemonic world structure of conflicting power centres or a
counter-hegemonic order based on a Third World coalition”. In this sense,
the article provides a crystal-clear picture of the role of the theory in the
practice of international relations.

4.3. Security, Security Dilemma,
Securitization

Baylis, John. 2008. “The Concept of Security in
International Relations.” In Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula
Oswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz, John Grin, Pál Dunay, Navnita Chadha Behera,
Béchir Chourou, Patricia Kameri-Mbote, and P. H. Liotta (Eds.) Globalization
and Environmental Challenges. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental
Security and Peace, Vol 3., 495–502. Berlin: Springer. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

Baylis deals with the development of
the concept of ‘security’ from its traditional origins to the newer thinking
after the Cold War. He presents that there are changes in thinking about
international security in parallel with the empirical events in world politics.
Despite the security view of idealism and constructivism, in the conclusion
part of the article, Baylis claims that realism remains once again a dominant
perspective in literature. The readers gain general insight into the concept of
security in Baylis’s work.

Bilgin, Pinar. 2003. “Individual
and Societal Dimensions of Security.” International
Studies Review 5 (2): 203–22. (Reviewed by
Çiğdem Dilek Aflaki)

The article shows the historical evolution of state-based
approaches to security studies towards a line including individual and societal
aspects of security beginning from the Cold War era. However, Bilgin explains
the end of the Cold War as the point that gave way to the flourishing of those
alternative approaches to security studies. Therefore, in the first part of the
article, she focuses on the Cold War era developments in security studies in
terms of the evolution of individual and societal themes of the security
approaches through three significant contributions of the era regarding the
issue, which are “common security”, “stable peace” and
“third world security approaches”. In the second part, she focuses on
the post-Cold War era regarding the same issue by reflecting on the debates
that have been developed around main themes such as “whose security”,
“primary referents”, and “security as emancipation”.
“Insecurity dilemma”. “Societal security”, “human
security”, and “agents of security”.  In this context, she concludes the article by
emphasizing the “risk society” conception of the current world
politics and its possible implications for the main theme of the article, is
“individual and societal dimensions of security”. Thus, the article
helps the readers to extend their mindset regarding the concept of security to
the extent that they can understand the historical developments and evolutions
regarding the issue while detecting the implications of those in their daily
life as well as personal expectations from the future.

Bilgin, Pinar. 2011. “The Politics of Studying Securitization? The Copenhagen
School in Turkey.” Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 399–412. (Reviewed by
Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

In the article on securitization and its
practices in Turkey, Bilgin argues that due to the Western European origins and
focus of the theory, there is no actual reason to expect securitization theory
to have an important presence outside Western Europe, Turkey, for instance. Due
to the anomaly, this article explores how securitization theory has begun to
acquire a presence in Turkey. First, Bilgin discusses whether securitization
theory can get beyond Western Europe. Then, she focuses on the securitization
theory practices in Turkey by using data about security and securitization
articles published in Turkey (2002–11) and internationally (1980–2011). After
questioning how securitization theory has begun to acquire a presence outside
Western Europe, Bilgin focuses on the politics of studying securitization
theory, especially in studying it in Turkey. To conclude, Bilgin states that
the reason why scholars make a choice in favour of adopting a perspective over
another one may have to do not only with its foundations but also with the
historic-political context.

Bilgin, Pinar. 2012. “The Continuing Appeal of Critical
Security Studies.” In Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, João Nunes (Eds.) Critical
Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and
Reflections, 159–70, London: Routledge. (Reviewed by Mustafa Onur Yalçın)

In the chapter in Critical Theory in
International Relations and Security Studies, Bilgin focuses on how
critical security studies (CSS) made its place in security literature and its
critics from other critical perspectives. In the chapter, Bilgin unfolds two
important, and entangled questions/critics pointed toward CSS in the
literature, with the responses and her own notes. The first one is about
the Western origins of CSS, and the other one is about the political impact of
CSS. Bilgin unravels these critiques regarding the debates on two interrelated
issues: the relevance of CSS for understanding insecurities in the non-West
world and what it means for CSS to have a political impact. Latter parts of the
chapter, Bilgin discuss the relevance of CSS for understanding insecurities in
the non-West with the critics and the potential of CSS for political impact
with the critics and responses. In the last part, Bilgin concludes with a
general evaluation of the critics and claims critical theory of security as
offered by CSS is a more promising framework for solving problems in so far as
it problematizes.

Booth, K., & Wheeler, N. (2008). Rethinking the Security Dilemma. In P. D. Williams (Ed.), Security
Studies: An Introduction London: Taylor
& Francis, 131-150. (Reviewed by Büşra Bayramoğlu)

In this book chapter, Booth and
Wheeler argue that security dilemma is a more fundamental concept for security
studies than the concept of war and strategy and the rest. They claim that
human society will be challenged by a combination of old and new security
threats such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change, and mass
migration. According to Booth and Wheeler, the most key risk areas will be the
danger of a new cold war with China, the danger of new arms races, the danger
of a world of many nuclear powers, and the danger of terrorism. For this
reason, they suggest that the security dilemma should be at the heart of
security studies. Anyone interested in security dilemmas will find this article
useful.

Tang, Shiping. 2009. “The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis.” Security Studies 18
(3): 587–623. (Reviewed By Karlygash Deligöz)

Tang discusses the security dilemma
concept based on the works of Herbert Butterfield, John Herz, and Robert
Jervis. Thus, Tang gives a precise definition of the security dilemma and
underlines its major aspects as anarchy, uncertain intentions of the states; as
a result, an arms race, increasement of power, worsening of relations, less
security, and more wars. He also highlights material and psychological factors that
influence on the regulation of the dilemma. He argues that security dilemma
mostly appears between two defensive states. He suggests available remedies for
the previous wrong extensions and gives a few directions for future research.

4.4. Democracy, Democratic Consolidation,
Democratization

Przeworski A. (1991). “Chapter 1. Democracy,” In Adam Przeworski,  Democracy and the Market: Political and
Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, 10 – 50, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Przeworski elucidates
democracy mainly through comparison with dictatorship. He admits two main
attributes of democracy: uncertainty of outcomes and “the people” who determine
the outcomes. The author also discusses the enforcement and classes of the
outcomes, rationality, and compliance issues. He distinguishes “three classes
of outcomes: (1) Spontaneous self-enforcing outcomes, or equilibria; (2)
Bargains, or contracts; (3) Norms. Furthermore, he explains the possible
outcomes of “transitions to democracy” from dictatorship. They are
self-enforcing democracy, reversed authoritarian regimes, or a new
dictatorship. Yet, the author finds consolidated democracy as the only
potential result of the collapse of authoritarian regimes. In a conclusion, he
describes the reasons why outcomes in democracy appear uncertain

Przeworski, A. 2016. Democracy: A Never-Ending Quest, Annual Review of Political
Science 19 (1): 1–12. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Przeworski discusses
some of his observations during his lifetime regarding democratization.
Although the debate on the compatibility of democracy and capitalism is still
relevant, he argues, democracy “turned out to be compatible with inequality,
irrationality, injustice, particularistic enforcement of laws, lies and
obfuscation, a technocratic policy style, and even a fair dose of arbitrary
violence.” He repeats the “connection between power and money.” He observes
that young people in democracies don’t believe they will have a better future.
Such disillusionment about the functioning of democracy is new to the last 200 years
of democracy. Meanwhile, claims of alternative views of democracy are heard
from authoritarian settings such as Russia and China. For example, a Chinese
argument claims that their system is superior in various dimensions to
democracy. He argues, citizens are not able to control bureaucracies. All these
areas are offered as potential research agendas. Moreover, Przeworski says he
doesn’t understand coups, repression without a threat and China’s rise vs
Russia’s failure. Finally, he suggests learning basics: mathematics,
philosophy, and history.

Diamond, L. 1994. Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation, Journal of Democracy,
5 (3): 4–17. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Diamond
discusses democratic consolidation through civil society’s definition,
democratic functions, and features. He defines civil society as an “intermediary
entity, standing between the private sphere and the state”, and its main
democratic function as the control of the state via observing and controlling
in democratic states and democratization in authoritarian states. Other
functions are described too: recruiting and training new political leaders;
promotion of political participation, responsibility, and obligations; creation
of diverse channels for representing interests, freely associating, accessing
information, etc. The author underlines that civil society’s ability of
successfully perform its functions depends on its features: internal groups’
goals and methods, level of organizational institutionalization, the internally
democratic character, pluralism, and access to multiple associations at
different levels of society. Diamond claims civil society can and must build
and consolidate democracy, but it is not the most important part of a consolidation
of democracy. The political institutionalization is.

Albrecht H., O. Schlumberger. 2004. Waiting for ‘Godot’: Regime Change
without Democratization in the Middle East, International
Political Science Review, 25 (4): 371-392. (Reviewed by Karlygash Deligöz)

Albrecht and
Schlumberger
suggest asking what helps the perseverance of Arab authoritarianism instead of
waiting until the moment democratic rule comes to the Middle East. There are
two perceptions to explain such persistence: (1) fluctuation of “controlled
political liberalizations and de-liberalizations”, and (2) five areas of
change: “legitimation, elites, institution building, co-optation, and regimes’
reactions to external influences”. Authors compare developing regions where the
political transition was already made with the Arab world.

---

---

---

To cite this work : İsmail Erkam Sula (ed.), “Selected Topics in International Relations: An Annotated Bibliography”, Panorama, Online, 12 August 2022, https://www.uikpanorama.com/blog/2021/09/13/a-bib

---

Copyright@UIKPanorama. All on-line and print rights reserved. Opinions expressed in works published by the Panorama belongs to the authors alone unless otherwise stated, and do not imply endorsement by the IRCT, Global Academy, or the Editors/Editorial Board of Panorama.