Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

DOĞU TİMOR’DA ÇATIŞMANIN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ: KORUMA SORUMLULUĞU VE HİBRİT BARIŞ ÜZERİNE DÜŞÜNMEK

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 2255 - 2279, 30.11.2023
https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1282925

Abstract

Bu çalışma, uluslararası düzeyde gerçekleştirilen ve desteklenen çağdaş barış inşası pratiği içindeki dönüşümü incelemektedir. Günümüze değin gerçekleştirilen barış inşası modelleri, pratik ve kavramsal olarak ‘liberal barış’ yöntemini yansıtmaktadır. Liberal barış yöntemi, şiddetli çatışmaların ardından, bir siyasi topluluğun restorasyonuna veya yeniden oluşturulmasına yönelik adımları içermektedir. Ancak yeniden inşa etme ihtiyacı, yalnızca devlet kurumları düzeyinde değil; aynı zamanda sosyal ve politik ilişkilerin her alanında, özellikle de insanların gündelik yaşam düzeyini de ilgilendirmelidir. Liberal barış yöntemi, demokrasi, insan hakları, hukukun üstünlüğü vb. sistemleri Haiti, Bosna-Hersek, Afganistan ve diğer savaş sonrası devletlerde görüldüğü gibi, sürdürülebilir barışı yerleştirmede ve kurumsallaştırmada başarısız olmuştur. Bu nedenle çalışmada, savaştan çıkan toplumlarda barışın (ve güvenliğin, kalkınmanın, yeniden yapılandırmanın) dışsal ve yerel arasındaki ‘hibriditeye’ bağlı olduğu savunulmaktadır. Çalışmada barış inşasının ancak liberal ile yerel arasındaki etkileşimle başarılı olabileceği, Birleşmiş Milletlerin (BM) Doğu Timor müdahalesi örneği üzerinden gösterilmektedir. Dolayısıyla çalışmada ‘hibrit barış’ yaklaşımının, uluslararası normlar, çıkarlar, yerel katılım ve kimlik biçimleri arasındaki ilişkiyi temsil etmesi nedeniyle, çatışma dönüşümünde sürdürülebilir barışı sağlayabileceği ileri sürülmektedir.

References

  • Anam, S. (2018). Peacebuilding: The shift towards a hybrid peace approach. Journal Global & Strategis, 9(1):37, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.20473/jgs.9.1.2015.37-48
  • Azarkan, E. (2003). Uluslararası hukukta insanlığa karşı suçlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 52, 275-297.
  • Bantekas, I., & Nash, S. (2009). International criminal law. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Berghof Vakfı (2018). Berghof çatışma dönüşümü kavram dizini: Teori ve uygulamaya yönelik 20 kavramlaştırma. (Çev. Nisan Alıcı). Berlin: Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH.
  • Bhabha, K. H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
  • Buckley-Zistel, S. (2008). Conflict transformation and social change in Uganda: Remembering after violence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Cassese, A. (2003). International criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Chataway, T. (2007). Towards normative consensus on responsibility to protect. Griffith Law Review 16(1), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2007.10854588
  • Choabang, A. (2012). How well has the causality of the conflict in East Timor been reflected in its UN peacebuilding experience? United Nations Peace and Progress, 1(1), 33-46.
  • Chopra, J. (2002). Building state failure in East Timor. Development and Change 33(5), 979-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.t01-1-00257
  • Clark, R. S. (1980). The "decolonization" of East Timor and the United Nations norms on self-determination and aggression. The Yale Journal of World Public Order. 7(2), 2-44.
  • Cryer, R., Robinson D. & Vasiliev, S. (2007). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Çınar, Y. (2016). Çatışma sürecinden devlet inşasına: Doğu Timor. Bilge Strateji, 8(15), 85-112.
  • Dalar, M. (2014). Yeni savaşlar yeni mi? Schmitt ve Kelsen bağlamında bir değerlendirme. Mülkiye Dergisi 38(3), 7-28.
  • Eminoğlu, A., & Aydın, Y. (2021). Barış inşasında yeni bir yaklaşım olarak hibrit barış: Bosna-Hersek örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.716653
  • Evans, G. (2008). The responsibility to protect: Ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Washington: Brookings Institutions Press.
  • Francis, D. (2012). People, peace and power: Conflict transformation in action. London: Pluto Press.
  • Gieryzc, D. (2010). From humanitarian intervention (HI) to responsibility to protect (R2P). Criminal Justice Ethics. 29(2), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2010. 504424
  • Ishizuka, K. (2004). Australia's policy towards East Timor. The Round Table, 93(374), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358530410001679611
  • Jarstad, A. K. & Belloni, R. (2012). Introducing hybrid peace governance: Impact and prospects of liberal peacebuilding. Global Governance, 18, 1-6.
  • Katzenstein, S. (2003). Hybrid tribunals: Searching for justice in East Timor. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16, 245-278.
  • Kingsbury, D. (2009). East Timor: The price of liberty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace, sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington: Institute of Peace.
  • Lederach, J. P. (2014). The little book of conflict transformation. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace. Security Dialogue 41(4), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610374312
  • Maviş, V. (2017). İnsanlığa karşı suçlar ve soykırım suçu kapsamındaki cinsel şiddet fiilleri. TBB Dergisi 130, 13-54.
  • Miall, H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.
  • Myrttinen, H. (2009). Timor-Leste a relapsing ‘Success’ story. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 219-239.
  • Nair, S. (2000). Human rights, sovereignty, and the East Timor' question. Global Society, 14(1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820050001149
  • Nesbitt-Larking, P., Kinnvall, C., Capelos, T. & Dekker, H. (2014). The Palgrave handbook of global political psychology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • OHCHR (2003). War crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Geneva. Erişim Adresi: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/CD/F S-2_Crimes_Final.pdf
  • Richmond, O. P. (2015). The dilemmas of a hybrid peace: Negative or positive? Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714537053
  • Richmond, O. & Franks, J. (2008). Liberal peacebuilding in Timor Leste: The emperor’s new clothes? International Peacekeeping 15(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310802041436
  • Smith, A. L. (2010). The role of the United Nations in East Timor's path to independence. Asian Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 25-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370108434190
  • Smith, M. (2003). Peacekeeping in East Timor: The path to independence. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Pub.
  • Wallis, J., Kent L., Forsyth, M., Dinnen, S. & Bose, S. (2018). Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and development: Critical conversations. Australian National University Press.

CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION IN EASTERN TIMOR: THINKING ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND HYBRID PEACE

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 2255 - 2279, 30.11.2023
https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1282925

Abstract

This study examines the transformation in contemporary peacebuilding practice that is carried out and supported at the international level. The peacebuilding models realized to date reflect the 'liberal peace' method practically and conceptually. The liberal peace method includes steps towards the restoration or re-establishment of a political community after violent conflict. However, the need to rebuild isn't only at the level of state institutions; It'd also concern all areas of social and political relations, especially the level of people's daily life. The liberal peace method includes democracy, human rights, rule of law, etc. systems have failed to establish and institutionalize sustainable peace, as seen in Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, and other post-war states. For this reason, it’s argued in the study that peace (and security, development, restructuring) in societies emerging from war depends on the 'hybridity' between the external and the local. In the study, it’s shown through the UN's East Timor intervention that peacebuilding can only be successful with the interaction between the liberal and the local. Therefore, it’s argued in the study that the 'hybrid peace' approach can provide sustainable peace in conflict transformation as it represents the relationship between international norms, interests, local participation, and identity.

References

  • Anam, S. (2018). Peacebuilding: The shift towards a hybrid peace approach. Journal Global & Strategis, 9(1):37, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.20473/jgs.9.1.2015.37-48
  • Azarkan, E. (2003). Uluslararası hukukta insanlığa karşı suçlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 52, 275-297.
  • Bantekas, I., & Nash, S. (2009). International criminal law. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Berghof Vakfı (2018). Berghof çatışma dönüşümü kavram dizini: Teori ve uygulamaya yönelik 20 kavramlaştırma. (Çev. Nisan Alıcı). Berlin: Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH.
  • Bhabha, K. H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
  • Buckley-Zistel, S. (2008). Conflict transformation and social change in Uganda: Remembering after violence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Cassese, A. (2003). International criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Chataway, T. (2007). Towards normative consensus on responsibility to protect. Griffith Law Review 16(1), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2007.10854588
  • Choabang, A. (2012). How well has the causality of the conflict in East Timor been reflected in its UN peacebuilding experience? United Nations Peace and Progress, 1(1), 33-46.
  • Chopra, J. (2002). Building state failure in East Timor. Development and Change 33(5), 979-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.t01-1-00257
  • Clark, R. S. (1980). The "decolonization" of East Timor and the United Nations norms on self-determination and aggression. The Yale Journal of World Public Order. 7(2), 2-44.
  • Cryer, R., Robinson D. & Vasiliev, S. (2007). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Çınar, Y. (2016). Çatışma sürecinden devlet inşasına: Doğu Timor. Bilge Strateji, 8(15), 85-112.
  • Dalar, M. (2014). Yeni savaşlar yeni mi? Schmitt ve Kelsen bağlamında bir değerlendirme. Mülkiye Dergisi 38(3), 7-28.
  • Eminoğlu, A., & Aydın, Y. (2021). Barış inşasında yeni bir yaklaşım olarak hibrit barış: Bosna-Hersek örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.716653
  • Evans, G. (2008). The responsibility to protect: Ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Washington: Brookings Institutions Press.
  • Francis, D. (2012). People, peace and power: Conflict transformation in action. London: Pluto Press.
  • Gieryzc, D. (2010). From humanitarian intervention (HI) to responsibility to protect (R2P). Criminal Justice Ethics. 29(2), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2010. 504424
  • Ishizuka, K. (2004). Australia's policy towards East Timor. The Round Table, 93(374), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358530410001679611
  • Jarstad, A. K. & Belloni, R. (2012). Introducing hybrid peace governance: Impact and prospects of liberal peacebuilding. Global Governance, 18, 1-6.
  • Katzenstein, S. (2003). Hybrid tribunals: Searching for justice in East Timor. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16, 245-278.
  • Kingsbury, D. (2009). East Timor: The price of liberty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace, sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington: Institute of Peace.
  • Lederach, J. P. (2014). The little book of conflict transformation. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace. Security Dialogue 41(4), 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610374312
  • Maviş, V. (2017). İnsanlığa karşı suçlar ve soykırım suçu kapsamındaki cinsel şiddet fiilleri. TBB Dergisi 130, 13-54.
  • Miall, H. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.
  • Myrttinen, H. (2009). Timor-Leste a relapsing ‘Success’ story. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 219-239.
  • Nair, S. (2000). Human rights, sovereignty, and the East Timor' question. Global Society, 14(1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820050001149
  • Nesbitt-Larking, P., Kinnvall, C., Capelos, T. & Dekker, H. (2014). The Palgrave handbook of global political psychology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • OHCHR (2003). War crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Geneva. Erişim Adresi: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/CD/F S-2_Crimes_Final.pdf
  • Richmond, O. P. (2015). The dilemmas of a hybrid peace: Negative or positive? Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714537053
  • Richmond, O. & Franks, J. (2008). Liberal peacebuilding in Timor Leste: The emperor’s new clothes? International Peacekeeping 15(2), 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310802041436
  • Smith, A. L. (2010). The role of the United Nations in East Timor's path to independence. Asian Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 25-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370108434190
  • Smith, M. (2003). Peacekeeping in East Timor: The path to independence. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Pub.
  • Wallis, J., Kent L., Forsyth, M., Dinnen, S. & Bose, S. (2018). Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and development: Critical conversations. Australian National University Press.
There are 36 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Far East Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Elif Dilan Tütmez 0000-0001-7028-3016

Ayça Eminoğlu 0000-0001-6925-7339

Early Pub Date November 28, 2023
Publication Date November 30, 2023
Submission Date April 13, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 10 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Tütmez, E. D., & Eminoğlu, A. (2023). DOĞU TİMOR’DA ÇATIŞMANIN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ: KORUMA SORUMLULUĞU VE HİBRİT BARIŞ ÜZERİNE DÜŞÜNMEK. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 10(3), 2255-2279. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1282925

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The author(s) bear full responsibility for the ideas and arguments presented in their articles. All scientific and legal accountability concerning the language, style, adherence to scientific ethics, and content of the published work rests solely with the author(s). Neither the journal nor the institution(s) affiliated with the author(s) assume any liability in this regard.