GÜÇ GEÇİŞ TEORİSİ VE ÇOKLU HİYERARŞİ MODELİNİ YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK: DÜNYA GÜÇ HİYERARŞİSİNDEKİ DEĞİŞİMİN TEORİK ANALİZİ

Year 2019, Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 815 - 831, 31.12.2019

Öner Akgül

https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.529777

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Güç Geçiş Teorisi’nin temel varsayımlarını
açıklayarak Türkçe literatüre katkıda bulunmak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır.
Ülkelerin gücünü oluşturan iç kapasiteleri, ekonomik, askeri, demografik, topraksal
ve teknolojik birçok değişkeni kapsar. Bu içsel kapasiteler durağan değildir.
Devletlerin askeri ve ekonomik büyümelerinin getirdiği yükseliş trendi, bu
devletlerin güçlerinin birbirlerine yaklaşarak uluslararası sistemin
istikrarsızlaşmasına neden olur. Uluslararası sistemde tatmin olmayan
devletlerin, uluslararası sistem hiyerarşisinde bir revizyon yaratma girişimi,
küresel sistemi savaşa sürükleyebilir. Bu çalışma uluslararası sistemdeki
kırılmaları ampirik yöntemlerle ortaya koyan Organski’nin Güç Geçiş Teorisi
aracılığı ile günümüz uluslararası sistemini analiz etmek amacıyla
hazırlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda GGT’nin temel varsayımları ortaya konularak
günümüzde yaşanan sistemik kırılmaların dünya siyasetini nasıl etkilediği
incelenmektedir. Literatürde önemli ölçüde güç geçiş teorisi uygulaması
bulunmakla birlikte gerek yerel hiyerarşide gerekse uluslararası hiyerarşide
Çin’in yükselişi ampirik olarak gözlemlenebilir niteliktedir. Nitekim yeni
hegemonun Çin olacağı birçok yazarın ortak görüşü olup veriyle de
desteklenmektedir. 

Keywords

Güç Geçiş Teorisi, Çoklu Hiyerarşi, Uluslararası Sistem, Denklik/Baskınlık, Çin

RETHINKING POWER TRANSITION THEORY AND MULTIPLE HIERARCHY MODEL: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHANGE ON WORLD POWER HIERARCHY

Abstract

This
study was prepared to explain the basic assumptions of Power Transition Theory
in order to contribute Turkish international relations literature. The analysis
of material capacities of countries comprises various variables such as
economic, military, demographic, territorial and technological. These material
capacities are not constant. Rising military and economic trends of national
material capabilities may result in instability of the international system,
due to power parity among the states. At the end of this process, the World may
be dragged into a global war due to the dissatisfaction of the states. This study
is prepared to explain power shifts within the international system on the
basis of Organski’s Power Transition Theory. It is reviewed in the context of
this study that how World politics is affected by the systemic disequilibrium.
Power Transition Theory and the rise of China is empirically one of the most
studied cases in the context of local and international hierarchy. Indeed, most
scholars accept that the new preponderant would possibly be China after the US
hegemony on the basis of empirical analyses.   

Keywords

Power Transition Theory, Multiple Hierarchy, International System, Parity/Preponderance

References

• BRESLIN, Shaun. (2010). "China's Emerging Global Role: Dissatisfied Responsible Great Power". Politics, 30(1_suppl), 52-62.
• CASHMAN, Greg. (2013). What Causes War?: An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict: Rowman & Littlefield.
• CHOUCRI, Nazli, NORTH, Robert C. (1972). "Dynamics of international conflict: some policy implications of population, resources, and technology". World Politics, 24(S1), 80-122.
• CHOUCRI, Nazli, NORTH, Robert C. (1989). "Lateral pressure in international relations: Concept and theory". Handbook of war studies, 289-326.
• CHOUCRI, Nazli, NORTH, Robert C. (1975). Nations in conflict: National growth and international violence: San Francisco: WH Freeman.
• CLINE, Ray S. (1980). World power trends and Us foreign policy for the 1980's: Westview Press.
• COUNCIL, Information Office of the State. (2011, Sep 6,2011). China’s Peaceful Development. Retrieved from http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2014/09/09/content_281474986284646.htm
• DAVIDSON, Jason, SUCHAROV, Mira. (2001). "Peaceful power transitions: The historical cases". Charles Kupchan et al, Power in transition: The peaceful change of international order, 101-137.
• DE SOYSA, Indra, ONEAL, John R, PARK, Yong-Hee. (1997). "Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities". Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(4), 509-528.
• DEAN, P. Dale, VASQUEZ, John A. (1976). "From Power Politics to Issue Politics: Bipolarity and Multipolarity in Light of a New Paradigm". The Western Political Quarterly, 29(1), 7-28.
• DICICCO, Jonathan M., LEVY, Jack S. (1999). "Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(6), 675-704.
• DORAN, Charles F. (1989). "Systemic Disequilibrium, Foreign Policy Role, and the Power Cycle: Challenges for Research Design". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(3), 371-401.
• DORAN, Charles F., PARSONS, Wes. (1980). "War and the Cycle of Relative Power". The American Political Science Review, 74(4), 947-965.
• FOOT, Rosemary. (2014). "Constraints on conflict in the Asia-Pacific: Balancing ‘the War Ledger’". Political Science, 66(2), 119-142.
• GILPIN, Robert. (1983). War and change in world politics: Cambridge University Press.
• GILPIN, Robert. (1988). "The Theory of Hegemonic War". The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 591-613.
• GÜNEYLİOĞLU, Murat, (2015). “A.F.K. Organski”, (der.) Erhan BÜYÜKAKINCI, Savaş Kuramları,Adres.
• GOLDSTEIN, Joshua S. (1988). Long cycles: Prosperity and war in the modern age: Yale University Press.
• HART, Jeffrey. (1976). "Three approaches to the measurement of power in international relations". International Organization, 30(2), 289-305.
• HOBBES, Thomas. (2012). Leviathan veya bir din ve dünya devletinin içeriği, biçimi ve kudreti: (çev. Semih Lim) Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• HOUWELING, Henk, SICCAMA, Jan Geert. (1988). "Power Transitions as a Cause of War". Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(1), 87-102.
• HÖHN, K. H. (2014). “Geopolitics and the measurement of national power”, Yayınlanmamış DoktoraTezi.
• JOSHI, Yogesh, PANT, Harsh V. (2015). "Indo-Japanese strategic partnership and power transition in Asia". India Review, 14(3), 312-329.
• KENNEDY, Paul M. (1990). Büyük güçlerin yükseliş ve çöküşleri: 1500'den 2000'e ekonomik değişme ve askeri çatışmalar (B. Karanakçı, Trans.): Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• KIM, Woosang. (2002). "Power Parity, Alliance, Dissatisfaction, and Wars in East Asia, 1860-1993". Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5), 654-671.
• KOHOUT, Franz. (2003). "Cyclical, Hegemonic, and Pluralistic Theories of International Relations: Some Comparative Reflections on War Causation". International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 24(1), 51-66.
• KUGLER, Jacek, LEMKE, Douglas. (1996). Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger: University of Michigan Press.
• KUGLER, Jacek, ORGANSKI, A. F. K. (1989). The Power Transition: A Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of war studies Winchester: Unwin Hyman, 171-195.
• KUGLER, Jacek, TAMMEN, Ronald L. (2004). "Regional challenge: China’s rise to power". The Asia-Pacific: A Region in Transition, Honolulo: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 33-53.
• KUPCHAN, Charles A. (2001). "Introduction: Explaining peaceful power transition". Kupchan/Charles A./Alder, Emanuel/Coicaud, Jean-Marc/Khong, Yuen Foong (Eds.): Power in Transition: The Peaceful Change of International Order, Tokyo/New York: UNUP, 1-17.
• LEMKE, Douglas. (2002). Regions of war and peace (Vol. 80): Cambridge University Press.
• LEMKE, Douglas, REED, William. (1998). "Power is not satisfaction: A comment on de Soysa, Oneal, and Park". Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), 511-516.
• LEMKE, Douglas, TAMMEN, Ronald L. (2003). "Power transition theory and the rise of China". International Interactions, 29(4), 269-271.
• LEVY, Jack S, THOMPSON, William R. (2011). Causes of war: John Wiley & Sons.
• Lim, Yves-Heng. (2015). "How (Dis) Satisfied is China? A power transition theory perspective". Journal of Contemporary China, 24(92), 280-297.
• MANSFIELD, Edward D. (1992). "The Concentration of Capabilities and the Onset of War". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(1), 3-24.
• MANSFIELD, Edward D. (1993). "Concentration, Polarity, and the Distribution of Power". International Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 105-128.
• MIDLARSKY, Manus I. (1989). Handbook of War Studies: Unwin Hyman.
• MIDLARSKY, Manus I. (1974). "Power, Uncertainty, and the Onset of International Violence". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18(3), 395-431.
• MIDLARSKY, Manus I. (1986). "A Hierarchical Equilibrium Theory of Systemic War". International Studies Quarterly, 30(1), 77-105.
• MODELSKI, George, Thompson, William R. (1988). Seapower and Global Politics. In Seapower in Global Politics, 1494–1993 (pp. 3-26): Springer.
• MODELSKI, George, Thompson, William R. (1989). Long Cycles and Global War. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Handbook of war studies (pp. 23-55). Winchester: Unwin Hyman.
• MOUL, William. (2003). Power parity, preponderance, and war between great powers, 1816-1989. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 468-489.
• MORGENTHAU, Hans J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace: Knopf.
• MORTON, Jeffrey S., Starr, Harvey. (2001). "Uncertainty, Change, and War: Power Fluctuations and War in the Modern Elite Power System". Journal of Peace Research, 38(1), 49-66.
• NAKANO, Ryoko. (2016). "The Sino–Japanese territorial dispute and threat perception in power transition". The Pacific Review, 29(2), 165-186.
• ORGANSKI, A.F.K., Kugler, Jacek. (1981). The War Ledger: University of Chicago Press.
• ORGANSKI, A.F.K. (2014). "Power transition". Realism Reader, 207.
• ORGANSKI, Katherine, ORGANSKI, A.F.K. (1961). Population and World Power, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• RAPKIN, David, THOMPSON, William. (2003). "Power transition, challenge and the (re) emergence of China". International Interactions, 29(4), 315-342.
• SCHAMPEL, James H. (1993). "Change in Material Capabilities and the Onset of War: A Dyadic Approach". International Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 395-408.
• SINGER, J David, BREMER, Stuart, STUCKEY, John. (1972). "Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965". Peace, war, and numbers, 19, 48.
• TAMMEN, Ronald L, Kugler, Jacek. (2006). "Power transition and China–US conflicts". The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1(1), 35-55.
• TAMMEN, Ronald L. (2003). "Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China AU - Lemke, Douglas". International Interactions, 29(4), 269-271.
• TAMMEN, Ronald, KUGLER, Jacek, LEMKE, Douglas (2017). Foundations of Power Transition Theory. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics Thompson, William R. (2009). Systemic transitions: past, present, and future: Springer.
• THOMPSON, William R. (1983). "Uneven Economic Growth, Systemic Challenges, and Global Wars". International Studies Quarterly, 27(3), 341-355.
• TOFT, M. Duffy. (2002). "Indivisible territory, geographic concentration, and ethnic war". Security Studies, 12(2), 82-119.
• VASQUEZ, John A. (1986). "Capability, Types of War, Peace". The Western Political Quarterly, 39(2), 313-327.
• VASQUEZ, John A. (2004). "The Probability of War, 1816-1992". International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 1-27.
• VASQUEZ, John A. (2009). The War Puzzle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• VASQUEZ, John, Henehan, Marie T. (2001). "Territorial Disputes and the Probability of War, 1816-1992". Journal of Peace Research, 38(2), 123-138.
• WALTZ, Kenneth Neal. (2010). Theory of international politics: Waveland Press.
• WALTZ, Kenneth Neal. (2001). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis: Columbia University Press.
• WEEDE, Erich. (2003). "China and Russia: On the rise and decline of two nations". International Interactions, 29(4), 343-364.
• YEŞILADA, Birol Ali, Tanrıkulu, Osman Göktuğ. (2016). "Regional Power Transition and the Future of Turkey". Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations, 13(52), 23-46.
• ZAGARE, Frank C. (2007). "Toward a unified theory of interstate conflict". International Interactions, 33(3), 305-327.
• ZHU, Zhiqun. (2006). US-China relations in the 21st century: Power transition and peace: Routledge.