Devletler Egemenliklerini Neden Transfer Eder? Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 397 - 420, 30.12.2020

Hüsna Taş Yetim

Öz

Bu çalışma, devletlerin egemenliklerini neden kendilerinden başka bir otoriteye devrettiklerini 2010 sonrası dönemde uluslararası ilişkiler literatüründe popüler hale gelen hiyerarşi yaklaşımıyla açıklamayı hedeflemektedir. Bu konuyu ele almak iki nedenden ötürü önemlidir: Birincisi, son dönemlerde Amerikan hegemonyasına karşı ortaya çıkan meydan okumaların nedenlerini daha anlaşılır kılmaktır. Bir devletin otonomi arttırmak için otoritesi altında bulunduğu devlete neden meydan okuduğu bu devletin egemenliğini transfer etmesinin arkasındaki nedenler açıklanmadan anlaşılamaz. İkincisi, “bir devlet otonomisini neden devreder” sorusunun yanıtını ortaya koyan hiyerarşi metinleri sayıca fazla olmasına karşın, sistematik çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma hiyerarşi yaklaşımına dair yapılan okumalar sonucu bu sorunun yanıtına dair bazı hipotezler oluşturacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İkincil Devlet, Hegememonik Güç, Otonomi Transferi, Hiyerarşi Yaklaşımı

Why do States Transfer Their Sovereignity? Hierarchy Approach

Öz

Abstract
This paper aims to explain why states transfer their sovereignty to an authority other than themselves employing hierarchy approach that has become popular in international relations literature in the post-2010 period. Addressing this issue is important for two reasons: The first is to make clearer the reasons behind the recent challenges to American hegemony. Why a state challenges the state under its authority to increase autonomy cannot be understood without explaining the reasons behind this state's transfer of sovereignty. Second, although the number of hierarchy texts that put forward the answer to the question “why does a state transfer autonomy” are numerous, systematic studies are needed. In this context, this study will form some hypotheses regarding the answer to this question as a result of the readings on the hierarchy approach.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Secondary States, Autonmy Transfer, hegemonic power, hierarchy

Kaynakça

• Balcı, A. (2019). When Hierarchy Shattered: Turkey’s post-2013 Crisis with the US-led Order. TUBITAK, Program Code: 1002, Project No: 118K413, August.
• Barder, A. (2015). Empire Within: International Hierarchy and its Imperial Laboratories of Governance. New York: Routledge.
• Barnathan, G. P. (2012). “Western Europe, NATO, and The United States: Leash Slipping, Not Leash Cutting”, (eds.), Kristen W., Steven L., and Neal J., Beyond Great Powers and Hegemons: Why Secondary States Support, Follow, or Challenge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 112-27.
• Barnett, M. N. (1990). “High Politics Is Low Polıtıcs the Domestic and Systemic Sources of Israeli Security Policy: 1967-1977”. World Politics. 42: 529-62.
• Barnett, M. N. (2001). ”Authority, Intervention and the Outer Limits of International Relations Theory”. (eds.), Thomas C., Ronald K., and Robert L., Intervention and Transnationalism in Africa Global–Local Networks of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47-69.
• Barnett, M. N. ve Levy, J. S. (1991). “Domestic Sources of Alliences and Alignments: The Case f Egypt 1962-1973”. International Organization. 45 (3): 369-95. Barnett, M. ve Raymond D. (2005). “Power in International Politics”. International Organization. 59 (1): 39-75.
• Clapton, W. ve Shahar H. (2012). “The Domestic Politics of International Hierarchy: Risk Management and the Reconstitution of International Society”. International Politics. 49: 59-79.
• Clark, I. (1989). The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, I. (2009). “Bringing hegemony back in: the United States and International Order”. International Affairs. 85(1): 23-36.
• Clark, I. (2011). Hegemony in International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Colgan, J. D. ve Nicolas L. M. (2018). “Rival Hierarchies and the Origins of Nuclear Technology Sharing”. SSRN Electronic Journal, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3250854, (Erişim Tarihi: 06.06.2020).
• Cooley, A. (2003). “Thinking Rationally about Hierarchy and Global Governance”. Review of International Political Economy. 10 (4): 672-84.
• Cooley, A. (2005). Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Cooley, A. (2017). Command or Control?: Hierarchy and International Politics of Foreign Military Bases”. (ed.), Ayşe Z., Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 154-75.
• Cooley, A. ve Hendrik S. (2009). Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cooley, A. ve Daniel N. (2020). Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Donnelly, J. (2006). “Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society”. European Journal of International Relations. 12 (2): 139-70.
• Donnelly, J. (2009). “Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘Ordering Principles’ to ‘Vertical Differentiation’ and Beyond”. International Theory. 1 (1): 49-86.
• Dunne, T. (2003). “Society and Hierarchy in International Relations”. International Relations SAGE Publications. 17 (3): 303-20.
• Ebert, H. ve Daniel F. (2018). Regional Powers and Contested Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan: Springer International Publishing.
• Fınnemore, M. ve Kathryn S. (1998). “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”. International Organization. 52 (4): 887-917.
• Flemes, D. ve Leslie W. (2015). “Diverse of Strategic Contestation: The Case of South America”. International Politics. 52 (2): 163-77.
• Flemes D. ve Lobell, E. S. (2015). “Contested Leadership in International Relations”. International Politics. 52 (2): 139-46.
• Goh, E. (2013). The Struggle for Order: Hegemony, Hierarchy, and Transition in post-Cold War East Asia. US, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Goh, E. (2019). “Contesting Hegemonic Order: China in East Asia”. Security Studies. 28 (3): 614-44.
• Gowa, J. (1989). “Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and Free Trade”. The American Political Science Review. 83 (4): 1245-56.
• Grıffıth, I. L. (1993). The Quest for Security in the Caribbean: Problems and Promises in Subordinate States. US: Routledge.
• Gvallıa, G., David S., Bidzina L., ve Zurab I. (2013). “Thinking Outside the Bloc: Explaining the Foreign Policies of Small States”. Security Studies, 22: 98-131.
• Hınnebusch, R. (2011). “The Middle East in the World Hierarchy: Imperialism and Resistance”. Journal of International Relations and Development. 4 (2): 213-46.
• Hobson, J. M. (2007). “Back to the future of ‘one logic or two’?: forward to the past of ‘anarchy versus racist hierarchy”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 20 (4): 581-97.
• Hobson, J. M. ve J. C. Sharman (2005). “The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change”. European Journal of International Relations. 11 (1): 63-98.
• Holstı, Ole R., Terrence H. ve John D. S. (1973). Unity And Disintegration In International Alliances Comparative Studies. New York: John Willey.
• Hurd, I. (1999). “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics”. International Organization. 53(2): 379-408.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2003). Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2008). “The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive?”. Foreign Affairs. 23: 23-35.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2009). “Liberal Internationalism: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order”. Perspectives on Politics. 7 (1): 71-87.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2015). “Between the Eagle and the Dragon: America, China, and the Middle States Strategies in East Esia”. Political Science Quarterly. 20 (20), www.psqonline.org. (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2019).
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2018a). “The End of the Liberal Order?”. International Affairs. 94 (1): 7-23.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2018b). “Why the Liberal Order Will Survive?”. International Affairs. 32 (1): 17-29.
• Ikenberry, G. J. ve Daniel H. N. (2019). “Hegemony Studies 3,0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders”. Security Studies. 28 (3): 395-421.
• Ikenberry, G. J., Michael M., ve William C. W. (2009). “Unipolarity, State Behavior, and Systemic Consuquences”. World Politics. 61 (1): 1-27.
• Ito, G. T. (2013). Alliance in Anxiety: Detente and the Sino-American-Japanese Triangle. Newyork&London: Routledge.
• Jesse, N. G. (2012). “Ireland’s Singular Stance: Pursuing Neutrality as a Means to Hegemon”, (eds.) Kristen W., Steven L., and Neal J., Beyond Great Powers and Hegemons: Why Secondary States Support, Follow, or Challenge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 65-80.
• Jesse, N. G., Steven L, Galia P.B, and Kristen W. (2012). ‘The Leader Can’t Lead When the Followers Won’t Follow: the Limitations of Hegemony’. (eds.), Kristen W., Steven L., and Neal J., Beyond Great Powers and Hegemons: Why Secondary States Support, Follow, or Challenge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1-32.
• Kang, D. C. (2004). “The Theoretical Roots of Hierarchy in International Relations”. Australian Journal of International Affairs. September. 58 (3): 337-52.
• Kang, David C. Dat X. N. Ronan Tse-min F. ve Meredith S. (2018). “War, Rebellion, and Intervention under Hierarchy: Vietnam-China Relations, 1365 to 1841”. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 20 (10): 1-27
• Keene, E. (2007). “A Case Study of the Construction of International Hierarchy: British Treaty-Making against the Slave Trade in the Early Nineteenth Century”. International Organization. 61 (2): 311-39.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Krasner, Stephen D. (2004). “The Whole in the Hole: Sovereignity, Shared Sovereignity, and International Law”. Michigan Journal of International Law. 25 (4): 1075-101.
• Kupchan, C. (2014). “The Normative Foundations of Hegemony and The Challenge Coming to Pax Americana”. Security Studies. 23: 219-57.
• Laı, B. ve Dan R. (2000). “Democracy, Political Similarity, and Interanational Allience. 1816-1992”, Journal of Conflict Resolution. 44 (2): 203-27.
• Lake, D. A. (1992). “Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War”. American Political Science Review. 86 (1): 24-37.
• Lake, D. A. (1996). “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations”. International Organization. 50 (1): 1-33.
• Lake, D. A. (2003). “The New Sovereignty in International Relations”. International Studies Review. 5: 303-23.
• Lake, D. A. (2006a). “American Hegemony and the Future of East-West Relations”. International Studies Perspectives. 7: 23-30.
• Lake, D. A. (2006b). “Hierarchy in International Relations: Authority, Sovereignty, and the New Structure of World Politics”. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2-5, Chicago.
• Lake, D. A. (2007). “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics”. International Security. 32 (1): 47-79.
• David, A. L. (2008). “The New American Empire?”, International Studies Perspectives, 9, 281–289.
• Lake, D. A. (2009a). Hirarachy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Lake, D. A. (2009b). “Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order”. Review of International Studies. 35 (1): 35-58.
• Lake, D. A. (2009c). “Relational Authority and Legitimacy in International Relations”. American Behavioral Scientist. 53 (3): 331-53.
• Lake, D. A. (2010). “Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance”. International Studies Quarterly. 54 (3): 587-613.
• Lake, D. A. (2011), “The Domestic Politics of International Hierarchy: Indirect Rule in the American System”, Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Seattle, WA, August 31-September 4.
• Lake, D. A. (2012). “Dominance and Subordination in World Politics: Authority, Liberalism, and Stability in the Modern International Order”. Prepared for G. John Ikenberry, Editor, Power, Order, and Change in World Politics, April.
• Lake, D. A. (2013a). “Legitimating Power: The Domestic Politics of U.S. International Hierarchy”. International Security. 38 (2): 74-111.
• Lake, D. A. (2013b). “Authority, Coercıon and Power ın Internatıonal Relatıons”. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3df3/7b90b975ef6be41fef4a81da5ef967b4b1f2.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 19.11.2018).
• Lake, D. A. (2017). “Domination, Authority, and the Forms of Chinese Power”. The Chinese Journal of International Politics”. 10 (4): 357-82.
• Lake, D. A. (2018). International Legitimacy Lost? Rule and Resistance When America Is First. Perspectives on Politics. 16 (1): 6-21.
• Lanoszka, A. (2013). “Beyond Consent and Coercion: Using Republican Political Theory to Understand International Hierarchies”. International Theory. 5 (3): 382-413.
• Layne, C. (1993). “The Unipolar Illusion: Why Great Powers Will Arise?. International Security. 17 (4): 5-51.
• Layne, C. (2003). “The Unipolar Illusion Revisited: The Coming End of “the United States’ Unipolar Moment”. International Security. 31 (2): 7-41.
• Leeds, B. A., Jeffry R., Sara M., ve Andrew L. (2002). “Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944”. International Interactions. 28 (3): 237-60.
• Levy, “J. S. (1988). “Domestic Politics and War”. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 18 (4): 653-73.
• Levy, J. S. ve Thompson R. W. (2010). “Balancing on Land and at Sea Do States Ally against the Leading Global Power?”. International Security. 35(1): 7-43.
• Lobell, E. Steven, J. G. Neal ve Kristen W. P. (2015). “Why Do Secondary States Choose to Support, Follow or Challenge”. International Politics. 52: 146-62.
• Macdonald, K. P. (2017). “Embedded Authority: A Relational Network Approach to Hierarchy in World Politics”. Rewiev of International Studies. January. 44 (1): 128-50.
• Macdonald, P. K. ve David L. A. (2008). “Correspondance: The Role of Hierarchy in International Politics”. International Security. 32 (4):171-81.
• Malıcı, A. (2005). “Discord and Collaboration Between Allies: Managing External Threats and Internal Cohesion in Franco-British Relations During the 9/11 Era”. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 49 (1): 90-119.
• Mccormack, D. (2019). Great Powers and International Hierarchy. New York: Springer, Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mcdonald, P. J. (2015). “Great Powers, Hierarchy, and Endogenous Regimes: Rethinking the Domestic Causes of Peace”. International Organization. 69 (3): 557-88.
• Mcconaughey, M., Paul M., ve Daniel N. (2018). “Beyond Anarchy: Logics of Political Organization, Hierarchy, and International Structure”. International Theory. 10 (2): 181-218.
• Mesquıta, B. B. (1978). “System Polarization and the Occurence and the Duration of War”. Journal of Conflıct Resolutıon, 22 (2): 241-67.
• Mıller, E. (2006). TO Balance or Not to Balance: Alignment Theory and Commonwealth of Independent States. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
• Morrow, J. D. (1991). “Alliances and Asymmetry: An Alternative to the Capability Aggregation Model of Alliances”. American Journal of Political Science. 35: 904-33.
• Musgrave, P. (2019). “International Hegemony Meets Domestic Politics: Why Liberals can be Pessimists”. Security Studies. 28 (3): 451-78.
• Nıeman, M. D. (2016). “The Return on Social Bonds: Social Hierarchy and International Conflict”. Journal of Peace Research. 53 (5): 665-79.
• Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization. 42 (3): 427-60.
• Renshon, J. (2017). Fighthing for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princenton: Princenton University Press.
• Rose, G. (1998). “Review: Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”. World Politics. October, 51: 144-72.
• Rosenau, J. N. (1966). “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy”, (ed.), R. B. Farrel, Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Evanston: Northestern Univesrity Press, 27-92.
• Rothsteın, R. L. (1968). Alliences and Small Powers. Newyork: Columbia University Press.
• Scharman, J. C. (2012), “International Hierarchies and Contemporary Imperial Governance: A Tale Of Three Kingdoms”. European Journal of International Relations. June, 19: 189-207.
• Scharman, J. C. (2017). “Hierarchy in an Age of Equality: Micro-States and Dependencies”. (ed.), Ayşe Zarakol, Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137-153.
• Scholvın, S. (2017). “Secondary Powers vis-à-vis South Africa: Hard Balancing, Soft Balancing, Rejection of Followership, and Disregard of Leadership”. GIGA Working Papers, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA): Hamburg, No: 306.
• Schroeder, P. W. (2007). “Is the U.S. an empire?”, (ed.) D. Skidmore, Paradoxes of power: US foreign policy in a Changing World, Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
• Sımon, M. W. ve Erik G. (1996), “Political System Similarity and the Choice of Allies: Do Democracies Flock Together, or Do Opposites Attract?”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40: 617-635.
• Sıverson, R. M. ve Harvey S. (1994), “Regime Change and the Restructuring of Alliances”, American Journal of Political Science, 38 (1): 145-161.
• Snyder, G. (1984). “The Security Dilemma in Allience Politics”. World Politics. July, 36: 461-491.
• Thompson, W. R. ve David R. P. (1981). “Collaboration, Consensus, and Detente: The External Threat-Bloc Cohesion Hypothesis”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 25 (4): 615-37.
• Towns, A. E. (2012). “Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion “from Below”. International Organization. 66 (2): 179-209.
• Walt S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Ithaca.
• Walt S. M. (1997). Why Alliences Endure or Collapse”. Survival. Spring, 39 (1): 156-79.
• Walt, S. M. (2009). “Alliences in a Unipolar World”. World Politics. 61 (1): 87-120.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Weber, K. (2000). Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: Transaction Costs and Institutional Choice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Wendt, A. ve Daniel F. (1995). “Hierarchy under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State”. International Organization. 49 (4): 689-721.
• Whıtaker, B. E. (2010). “Soft Balancing Among Weak States: Evidence From Africa”. International Affairs. 85 (6): 1109-27.
• Zarakol, A. (2017). Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zurn, Michael B. M., ve Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). “International Authority and Its Politicization”. International Theory, 4 (1): 69-106.