Modern Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplinin Vestfalya Sistemi: Musul İşgali Örneğinde Egemenlik Hakkının İhlali, Yerli Halkların Haklarının Yok Sayılması ve Orta Çağ Uygulamalarının Sürdürülmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 368 - 384, 13.06.2023

Muharrem Doğan

https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.14

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Vestfalya sistemi, en yüksek siyasî otoritenin Orta Çağ uygulamalarından modern egemen devletlere ve egemenlik, iç işlerine karışmama, uluslararası hukuk gibi ilgili kavramlara geçişi ifade eder. Bu hâliyle, Vestfalya sistemi, 1648’den beri Batılı devletlerin siyasî ilişkilerini şekillendirmiş fakat dünyanın geri kalanı için geçerlilik kazanamamıştır. Bu çalışmada, Vestfalya sisteminin Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinine yeni bir düzen getiremediği fikri, Birinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında İngilizlerin Musul Vilayeti’ni işgali örneğiyle ele alınmaktadır. Mondros Mütarekesi’nden sonra İngilizler, Mütareke hükümlerine ve Woodrow Wilson’ın On Dört Umdesine aykırı olarak Musul’u yasadışı bir şekilde işgal etmiştir. İşgal, Vestfalya ilkelerinin açık bir ihlâlidir ve bu nedenle İngiliz manda rejimi hem Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun hem de Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin direnişiyle karşılaşmıştır. Fakat Musul, tüm direnişlere rağmen, savaştan sonra İngiliz mandası altındaki Irak hükümetine devredilmiştir.

Keywords

Vestfalya Sistemi, Egemenlik, İç İşlerine Karışmama, Musul’un İşgali, Birinci Dünya Savaşı

The Westphalian System of the Modern International Relations: Violation of Sovereignty, Ignoration of Indigenous Rights, and Extension of Medieval Practices in the Case of Mosul Occupation

Abstract

The Westphalian system refers to the shifting of the supreme political authority from medieval practices to modern sovereign states and related concepts such as sovereignty, non-intervention, and international law. While the system has shaped the Western political environment since 1648, it has in fact not been validated for the rest of the world. In this paper, the idea that the Westphalian system has not opened a new avenue in the discipline of International Relations is exemplified by the case of the British occupation of the Mosul Vilayet. Contrary to the terms of the Mudros Armistice and Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, the British illegally occupied Mosul. The occupation was a clear violation of the Westphalian principles and thus the British mandate regime encountered resistance from both the Ottoman Empire and further the Republic of Türkiye. Despite all resistance, Mosul was ceded to the Iraqi government under the British mandate after the war.

Keywords

Westphalian System, Sovereignty, Non-intervention, Mosul Occupation, First World War

References

• Anghie, Anthony (2004), Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Bauder, Harald and Rebecca Mueller (2021), “Westphalian vs. Indigenous Sovereignty: Challenging Colonial Territorial Governance”, Geopolitics, 28 (1): 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2021.1920577.
• Beck, Peter (1981), “‘A Tedious and Perilous Controversy’: Britain and the Settlement of the Mosul dispute, 1918–1926”, Middle Eastern Studies, 17 (2): 256-276.
• Brunkhorst, Hauke (2000), “Rights and the Sovereignty of the People in the Crisis of Nation State”, Ratio Juris, 13 (1): 49-62.
• Coşar, Nevin and Sevtap Demirci (2004), “The Mosul Question and the Turkish Republic: Before and After the Frontier Treaty, 1926”, The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, 35: 43-59.
• Dyer, Gwynne (1972), “The Turkish Armistice of 1918: 2—A Lost Opportunity: The Armistice Negotiations of Moudros”, Middle Eastern Studies, 8 (3): 313-348.
• Evans, Graham and Jeffrey Newnham (1992), The Dictionary of World Politics: A Reference Guide to Concepts, Ideas and Institutions (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
• Eyfinger, Arthur (1998), “Europe in the Balance: An Appraisal of the Westphalian System”, Netherlands International Law Review, 45 (2): 161-187.
• Farr, Jason (2005), “Point: the Westphalia Legacy and the Modern Nation-state”, International Social Science Review, 80 (3-4): 156-159.
• Gross, Leo (1948), “The Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948”, American Journal of International Law, 42 (1): 20-41.
• Havercroft, Jonathan (2012), “Was Westphalia ‘all that’? Hobbes, Bellarmine, and the Norm of Non-intervention”, Global Constitutionalism, 1 (1): 120-140.
• Hobsbawm, Eric (1994), Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991 (London: Abacus).
• Holsti, Kalevi (1991), Peace and War Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–198 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Holsti, Kalevi (1995), “War, Peace, and the State of the State”, International Political Science Review, 16 (4): 319-339.
• Kemal, Cemal (2007), “Birinci Dünya Savaşı ve Sonrasında Musul Meselesi”, Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 10 (40): 643-691.
• Kısıklı, Emine (1999), “Yeni Gelişmelerin Işığında Geçmişten Günümüze Musul Meselesi”, Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 6 (24): 487-526.
• Krasner, Stephen (1993), “Westphalia and All That”, In Goldstein, J. and Keohane R. (ed.) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press): 235-264.
• Krasner, Stephen (1999), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
• Mahmood, Saba (2012), “Religious Freedom, the Minority Question, and Geopolitics in the Middle East” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54 (2): 418–446.
• Miller, Lynn (1994), Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics (Boulder: Westview Press).
• Morgenthau, Hans (1993), Politics Among the Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (London: McGraw-Hill).
• National Archives (2023), “President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points (1918)”, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points (23.02.2023).
• Osiander, Andreas (2001), “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization”, 55 (2): 251-287.
• Osiander, Andreas (1994), The System of Europe, 1640-1990: Peace-making and the Conditions of International Stability (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
• Polišenský, Josef (1954), “The Thirty Years' War”, Past & Present, 6: 31-43.
• Ruggie, John (1982), “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order”, International Organization, 36 (2): 379-415.
• Selvi, Haluk (2010), “İngiltere’nin Musul Politikası Karşısında Osmanlı Devleti ve Bölge Aşiretleri (1918-1920)”, Belleten, 74 (271): 789-832.
• Seth, Sanjay (2011), “Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40 (1): 167–183.
• Shields, Sarah (2009), “Mosul, the Ottoman Legacy and the League of Nations”, International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies, 3 (2): 217-230.
• Spruyt Hendrik, (1994), The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
• Teschke, Benno (2002), “Theorising the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism”, European Journal of International Relations, 8 (1): 5-48.
• Teschke, Benno (2003), The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso).
• Wedgwood, Cicely (1964), “The Futile and Meaningless War”, Rabb, T. K. (Ed.) The Thirty Years’ War, Problems of Motive, Extent and Effect (Boston: D C Heath & Company): 9-19.