Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ

Year 2020, Volume: 12 Issue: 23, 382 - 396, 26.11.2020

Ayça Eminoğlu , Hasan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, “Barış müdahalelerinin başarısına antropolojik değerlendirmeler ne oranda katkı sağlayabilmektedir?” sorusuna, ‘hibrit’ (melez) barış inşasına bakarak yanıt aramaktır. Alan yazın taraması neticesinde ortaya çıkarılan bulguların, Suriye iç savaşı vaka analizinde teyidine çalışılmıştır. Antropolojik çalışmaların hibrit barış inşasında uygulanmasının barış girişimlerine katkı sağlayacağı hipotezinden hareket edilmiştir. Yerelde günlük barışın sağlanmasına katkı sağlayan sivil toplum faaliyetlerince kullanılan antropolojik yaklaşımın, yerelde barışın icrasında görev yapan silahlı kuvvetlerce kullanılamadığı düşünülmektedir. Siyasi müzakereler seviyesinde (ulusal ve uluslararası) ise, ‘yüksek politikalar’ nedeniyle antropolojik yaklaşımların kabul edilebilirliğinin düşük olduğu gözlemlenmektedir. Suriye iç savaşı, sivil toplumun (yerel taban örgütlenmeleri ve hükümet dışı oluşumlar) günlük barışa etkin katkı sağlaması, benzer başarının siyasi müzakereler seviyesinde ve yüksek politikaların emrinde olan silahlı kuvvetlerce elde edilememesi olgusuyla bu bulguları teyit eder niteliktedir.

Keywords

Hibrit Barış Antropoloji Çatışma Çözümü Suriye İç Savaşı Barış İnşası

References

  • BARGUÉS-PEDRENY P. ve ELISA R. (2018). “Hybrid Peace Revisited: An Opportunity For Considering Self-Governance?”, Third World Quarterly, 39(8): 1543-1560.
  • BELLONI, R. (2012). “Hybrid Peace Governance: Its Emergence and Significance”, Global Governance, 18(1): 21-38.
  • BERNHARD, A. (2013). Dynamics of Relations Between Different Actors When Building Peace, The Role of Hybridity And Culture, Berghof Foundation.
  • BOSTAN, H. (2016). “Antropoloji, Kültür ve Güvenlik”, Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2): 1-31.
  • DOYLE, M. W. (2001). “ The New Interventionism”, Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2): 212-235.
  • DUFFIELD, M. (1998). “Post-modern Conflict: Warloards, Post-adjustment States and Private Protection”, Civil Wars, 1(1): 65-102. FORTE, M. (2011). “The Human Terrain System and Anthropology: A Review of Ongoing Public Debates”, American Anthropologist, 113 (1): 149-154.
  • HAFEZ, M. H. (2018). “The Higher Negotiation Committee and Syrian Negotiation Committee: Shifts in References and Goals During Intra-Syrian Negotiations”, Al Sharq Forum, https://research.sharqforum.org/2018/05/25/the-higher-negotiation -committee-and-syrian-negotiation-committee/ (10 Mayıs 2019).
  • HURTADO F. A. ve ERCOLANI, G. (2013). Anthropology and Security Studies, Universidad de Murcia ve Nottingham Trent University College of William and Mary, USA.
  • Inside Syria: What Local Actors Are Doing For Peace (2016). Swisspeace/Conflict Dynamics International / FarikBeirut.net
  • KALDOR, M. (2013). “In Defence of New Wars”, Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 2(1): part 4.
  • KALDOR, M. TÜRKMANI R. ve HARIRI N. (2014). “Hungry for Peace: Positives and Drawbacks of Local Truces and Ceasefires in Syria”, http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia /PDF/ Syriareport .pdf
  • KALDOR, M. (2016). “How Peace Agreements Undermine the Rule of Law in New War Settings”, Global Policy, 7(2): 146-157.
  • KHOURY, D. (2014). “Organising For The Future: Grassroots Governance And National Peace”, Accord, 25: 78-81.
  • KYROU, C. ve RUBİNSTEIN, R. (2008). “Cultural Anthropology Studies of Conflict”, (Ed.) KURTZ L., Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Elsevier.
  • LE VINE, R. A. (1961). “ Anthropology and the Study of of Conflict: An Introduction”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(1): 3-15.
  • MAC GINTY, R. (2011). International Peace Building and Local Resistance-Hybrid Forms of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan Publication, Hampshire.
  • MAGISTRO, J. (1997). “An Emerging Role for Applied Anthropology: Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution”, Practising Anthropology, 19(1): 5-9.
  • MAHNKEN, T. (2016). “The Military and the Academy: Overcoming the Divide”, Foreign Affairs, https://csbaonline.org/print/1803 (28 Mart 2019).
  • MARTINEZ, C., Jose´ ve ENG B. (2017). “Struggling to Perform the State: The Politics of Bread in the Syrian Civil War”, International Political Sociology, 11: 130-147.
  • MENKHAUS, K. (2014). “Local Governance And Peacebuilding: Challenges of Legitimate Representation”, Accord, 25: 74-77.
  • ODENDAAL, A. (2010). “An Architecture For Building Peace At The Local Level: A Comparative Study Of Local Peace Committees”, Discussion Paper, UNDP, https://www.un.org/en/land- natural-resources-conflict/pdfs/ UNDP_Local%20 Peace%20 Committees _2011.pdf (25 Nisan 2019)
  • RICHMOND, O. P. (2015). “The Dilemmas of a Hybrid Peace: Negative or Positive?”, Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1): 50–68.
  • RICHMOND, O. P. (2018). “Rescuing Peacebuilding? Anthropology and Peace Formation”, Global Society, 32(2): 221-239.
  • RICHMOND, O. P. ve MITCHELL, A. (2012). “Introduction-Towards a Post-Liberal Peace: Exploring Hybridity via Everyday Forms of Resistance, Agency and Autonomy”, (Ed) RİCHMOND O.ve MITCHELL A.,, Hybrid Forms of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan Publication, Hampshire.
  • SCUPIN, R. (2017). “Anthropology, Conflict, and International Relations”, (Ed) YETIV S. A. ve JAMES P., Advancing Interdisciplinary Approaches to International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan., Hampshire.
  • SIMS, C. J. (2015). The Human Terrain System: Operationally Relevant Social Science Research In Iraq And Afghanistan, Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press.
  • TURKMANI, R. KALDOR M. ve BOJICIC-DZELILOVIC V. (2015). “Countering The Logic of The War Economy In Syria; Evidence From Three Local Areas”, LSE, http://www.securityintransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ Countering-war-economy-Syria2.pdf (12 Nisan 2019).
  • TURNER, C. P. (2018). “The Syrian War: A Conflict Analysis and Resolution Perspective, Identifying Incompatibilities And The Prospects For Mediation And Negotiation”, CARIS, https://turnerconflict.files.wordpress.com/2018/ 04/ caris-report-on-the-syrian-war-2018.pdf (02 Nisan 2019).
  • YILMAZ, S. (2013). Antropoloji ve Güvenlik. 21.Yüzyılda Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6: 227-259.

Year 2020, Volume: 12 Issue: 23, 382 - 396, 26.11.2020

Ayça Eminoğlu , Hasan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583

Abstract

References

  • BARGUÉS-PEDRENY P. ve ELISA R. (2018). “Hybrid Peace Revisited: An Opportunity For Considering Self-Governance?”, Third World Quarterly, 39(8): 1543-1560.
  • BELLONI, R. (2012). “Hybrid Peace Governance: Its Emergence and Significance”, Global Governance, 18(1): 21-38.
  • BERNHARD, A. (2013). Dynamics of Relations Between Different Actors When Building Peace, The Role of Hybridity And Culture, Berghof Foundation.
  • BOSTAN, H. (2016). “Antropoloji, Kültür ve Güvenlik”, Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2): 1-31.
  • DOYLE, M. W. (2001). “ The New Interventionism”, Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2): 212-235.
  • DUFFIELD, M. (1998). “Post-modern Conflict: Warloards, Post-adjustment States and Private Protection”, Civil Wars, 1(1): 65-102. FORTE, M. (2011). “The Human Terrain System and Anthropology: A Review of Ongoing Public Debates”, American Anthropologist, 113 (1): 149-154.
  • HAFEZ, M. H. (2018). “The Higher Negotiation Committee and Syrian Negotiation Committee: Shifts in References and Goals During Intra-Syrian Negotiations”, Al Sharq Forum, https://research.sharqforum.org/2018/05/25/the-higher-negotiation -committee-and-syrian-negotiation-committee/ (10 Mayıs 2019).
  • HURTADO F. A. ve ERCOLANI, G. (2013). Anthropology and Security Studies, Universidad de Murcia ve Nottingham Trent University College of William and Mary, USA.
  • Inside Syria: What Local Actors Are Doing For Peace (2016). Swisspeace/Conflict Dynamics International / FarikBeirut.net
  • KALDOR, M. (2013). “In Defence of New Wars”, Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 2(1): part 4.
  • KALDOR, M. TÜRKMANI R. ve HARIRI N. (2014). “Hungry for Peace: Positives and Drawbacks of Local Truces and Ceasefires in Syria”, http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia /PDF/ Syriareport .pdf
  • KALDOR, M. (2016). “How Peace Agreements Undermine the Rule of Law in New War Settings”, Global Policy, 7(2): 146-157.
  • KHOURY, D. (2014). “Organising For The Future: Grassroots Governance And National Peace”, Accord, 25: 78-81.
  • KYROU, C. ve RUBİNSTEIN, R. (2008). “Cultural Anthropology Studies of Conflict”, (Ed.) KURTZ L., Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, Elsevier.
  • LE VINE, R. A. (1961). “ Anthropology and the Study of of Conflict: An Introduction”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(1): 3-15.
  • MAC GINTY, R. (2011). International Peace Building and Local Resistance-Hybrid Forms of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan Publication, Hampshire.
  • MAGISTRO, J. (1997). “An Emerging Role for Applied Anthropology: Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution”, Practising Anthropology, 19(1): 5-9.
  • MAHNKEN, T. (2016). “The Military and the Academy: Overcoming the Divide”, Foreign Affairs, https://csbaonline.org/print/1803 (28 Mart 2019).
  • MARTINEZ, C., Jose´ ve ENG B. (2017). “Struggling to Perform the State: The Politics of Bread in the Syrian Civil War”, International Political Sociology, 11: 130-147.
  • MENKHAUS, K. (2014). “Local Governance And Peacebuilding: Challenges of Legitimate Representation”, Accord, 25: 74-77.
  • ODENDAAL, A. (2010). “An Architecture For Building Peace At The Local Level: A Comparative Study Of Local Peace Committees”, Discussion Paper, UNDP, https://www.un.org/en/land- natural-resources-conflict/pdfs/ UNDP_Local%20 Peace%20 Committees _2011.pdf (25 Nisan 2019)
  • RICHMOND, O. P. (2015). “The Dilemmas of a Hybrid Peace: Negative or Positive?”, Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1): 50–68.
  • RICHMOND, O. P. (2018). “Rescuing Peacebuilding? Anthropology and Peace Formation”, Global Society, 32(2): 221-239.
  • RICHMOND, O. P. ve MITCHELL, A. (2012). “Introduction-Towards a Post-Liberal Peace: Exploring Hybridity via Everyday Forms of Resistance, Agency and Autonomy”, (Ed) RİCHMOND O.ve MITCHELL A.,, Hybrid Forms of Peace, Palgrave Macmillan Publication, Hampshire.
  • SCUPIN, R. (2017). “Anthropology, Conflict, and International Relations”, (Ed) YETIV S. A. ve JAMES P., Advancing Interdisciplinary Approaches to International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan., Hampshire.
  • SIMS, C. J. (2015). The Human Terrain System: Operationally Relevant Social Science Research In Iraq And Afghanistan, Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press.
  • TURKMANI, R. KALDOR M. ve BOJICIC-DZELILOVIC V. (2015). “Countering The Logic of The War Economy In Syria; Evidence From Three Local Areas”, LSE, http://www.securityintransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ Countering-war-economy-Syria2.pdf (12 Nisan 2019).
  • TURNER, C. P. (2018). “The Syrian War: A Conflict Analysis and Resolution Perspective, Identifying Incompatibilities And The Prospects For Mediation And Negotiation”, CARIS, https://turnerconflict.files.wordpress.com/2018/ 04/ caris-report-on-the-syrian-war-2018.pdf (02 Nisan 2019).
  • YILMAZ, S. (2013). Antropoloji ve Güvenlik. 21.Yüzyılda Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6: 227-259.
There are 29 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects International Relations
Journal Section RESEARCH PAPERS
Authors

Ayça Eminoğlu 0000-0001-6925-7339

Hasan Yılmaz 0000-0001-5947-9501

Publication Date November 26, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 12 Issue: 23

Cite

APA Eminoğlu, A., & Yılmaz, H. (2020). ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 12(23), 382-396. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583
AMA Eminoğlu A, Yılmaz H. ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). November 2020;12(23):382-396. doi:10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583
Chicago Eminoğlu, Ayça, and Hasan Yılmaz. “ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ”. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 12, no. 23 (November 2020): 382-96. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583.
EndNote Eminoğlu A, Yılmaz H (November 1, 2020) ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 12 23 382–396.
IEEE A. Eminoğlu and H. Yılmaz, “ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ”, Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 382–396, 2020, doi: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583.
ISNAD Eminoğlu, Ayça - Yılmaz, Hasan. “ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ”. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 12/23 (November 2020), 382-396. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583.
JAMA Eminoğlu A, Yılmaz H. ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). 2020;12:382–396.
MLA Eminoğlu, Ayça and Hasan Yılmaz. “ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ”. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), vol. 12, no. 23, 2020, pp. 382-96, doi:10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.720583.
Vancouver Eminoğlu A, Yılmaz H. ANTROPOLOJİNİN BARIŞ OPERASYONLARININ BAŞARISINA ETKİSİ: SURİYE ANALİZİ. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). 2020;12(23):382-96.
 Download Cover Image

27984
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.