Today’s emerging order encompasses fundamental clash of norms of political economy in the sense t... more Today’s emerging order encompasses fundamental clash of norms of political economy in the sense that the key elements of the so-called Beijing Consensus seem to challenge the liberal developmental and democratic norms associated with Western-based norms of the Washington Consensus. This paper attempts to comparatively analyze emerging middle powers (MIKTA) material capabilities and ideational preferences in the changing global political economy dynamics throughout 2000s in order to depict any meaningful evidence illustrating enhanced cooperation under this minilateral initiative. To this aim, drawing on the emerging middle power concept, this study will compare and contrast the (1) material capabilities, (2) ideational roles, and (3) MIKTA perceptions of each member countries in the 2010s in a time of clashing norms of global political economy. The paper concludes that, among others, so far, sustainable development issues have played a relatively prominent role in MIKTA’s general rhetoric. However, MIKTA, for the time being, is far from being an influential and more effective model of global governance for middle powers due to various domestic political problems among its members diverting their attention away from the institutional empowerment of cooperation within this informal partnership.
PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 1-18. this transition remains as a fundamenta... more PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 1-18. this transition remains as a fundamental question requiring an answer. On the other hand, there exists confusion in the International Relations (IR) literature with regard to the conceptualization and categorization of the ‘rising powers’ and their similarities and differences. There is a general tendency in the literature to restrict the field of research to the key rising powers such as China, Brazil, Russia and India or the middle powers and their subcategories. ‘Regional powers’ also appear as another category of states which have become of greater concern to many scholars and observers in recent years. This overlapping conceptual fluidity adds new confusion to the literature and makes it harder for countries like Turkey to be appropriately conceptualized and categorized.
Although sharing some degree of middle power identification, big disparities exist among MIKTA (M... more Although sharing some degree of middle power identification, big disparities exist among MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia) countries with respect to their political and economic systems, domestic priorities and problems, and their regional context, which make it difficult to talk about a common MIKTA identity/role. This study draws on social constructivism to problematize and analyze Turkey’s changing middle power role among MIKTA countries through their debates at the United Nations (UN). To this aim, the chapter will conduct a detailed and comparative discourse analysis of Turkey’s and the other MIKTA countries’ statements at the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly from 2001 to 2017 with respect to their social claims about themselves, including the way they define their (1) roles in global governance, (2) attitude toward international order, and (3) the nexus between their global and regional roles. By doing so, the chapter will theoretically question and empirically analyze whether there exists any meaningful evidence demonstrating Turkey’s adoption of a middle power role that could create the opportunity for converging interests among these countries.
The Palestinian Question has been at the heart of the United Nations (UN) since its establishment... more The Palestinian Question has been at the heart of the United Nations (UN) since its establishment. Yet, the “intergovernmental” mechanisms of the world organization have proven to be largely ineffective in finding a just and sustainable solution to one of the most important and intractable issues of the UN-era. In between political and diplomatic struggles, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs on Palestine are increasingly regarded as the only truly independent and expert voices as well as valuable sources of information regarding the issue. However, the special rapporteurs are one of the least studied aspects of the UN regarding the Palestinian question. Drawing highly on the social constructivist premise on the role of ideas and norms in constructing/deconstructing the legitimacy discourse in international politics, this study attempts to theoretically question and empirically analyse how the “actorness” of the special rapporteurs have the potential to affect the course...
This article aims to explore the relationship between regional powers and the United Nations (UN)... more This article aims to explore the relationship between regional powers and the United Nations (UN) with respect to regional issues by examining UN-Turkish ties concerning the Middle East during the 2000s. Bidding for a leading regional role in the Middle East, especially in the 2000s, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey has increasingly used international platforms, including the UN, to gain a signi cant regional position in the Middle East. Turkey’s relationship with the UN in this respect could provide a relevant example to explore multilateralism and multilateral instruments in Turkey’s perceived regional power role during the last decade. The term “regional power” will be used as a conceptual framework to explore Turkey’s behavioural pattern with respect to the UN in view of the regional-global linkage, as global activism is nearly a standard behaviour of any state with a leading regional power role/claim. In view of this, the period during which Turkey held a temporary seat on the UN Security Council between 2009 and 2010 will be given particular attention in order to identify any signi cant link or at least any tentative correlations between Turkey’s then-closer involvement in the UN and its regional power role/claim in the Middle East. Moreover, uctuations recorded in Turkey’s relations with the UN with respect to the Middle East during the last decade will be taken into account to examine a variety of challenges involved in any regional state’s relations with the UN regarding regional issues. Conducting a periodical analysis of Turkey-UN relations with respect to the Middle East could provide some provisional answers regarding both limitations and opportunities related to the future state of relations between any regional power and the most universal organization of world politics.
Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 2020
There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quan... more There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quantitative increase in multilateral development efforts since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the real qualitative progress of multilateral aid channeled through international organizations (IOs) has always been contested throughout history. Especially after 2008 financial crisis, neoliberal norms of development have been challenged by decreasing fate on democracy, multilateralism as well as competitive alternative models of development cooperation among developing countries of the Global South. In this context, this paper attempts to comparatively examine the policies of two main constitutive IOs, the UN and the EU in multilateral development efforts in the post-2008 era. To this aim, the paper will scrutinize official development aid statistics data from OECD between 2011-2017 in order to assess whether there has been a significant change in their aid efforts. The paper concludes that UN system has continued to be the main actor in the development cooperation funding in 2000s. While the EU still maintains the status of biggest core (direct/non-restricted) donor, the UN increasingly becomes a non-core (sector, program and region-driven) donor of the multilateral development system. Yet, crises of neoliberalism in the changing world order have an impact on the role of these IOs in terms of the implementation of a "rule-based" development cooperation system as well the sustainability of their "normative" actorness.
There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quan... more There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quantitative increase in multilateral development efforts since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the real qualitative progress of multilateral aid channeled through international organizations (IOs) has always been contested throughout history. Especially after 2008 financial crisis, neoliberal norms of development have been challenged by decreasing fate on democracy, multilateralism as well as competitive alternative models of development cooperation among developing countries of the Global South. In this context, this paper attempts to comparatively examine the policies of two main constitutive IOs, the UN and the EU in multilateral development efforts in the post-2008 era. To this aim, the paper will scrutinize official development aid statistics data from OECD between 2011-2017 in order to assess whether there has been a significant change in their aid efforts. The paper concludes that UN system has continued to be the main actor in the development cooperation funding in 2000s. While the EU still maintains the status of biggest core (direct/non-restricted) donor, the UN increasingly becomes a non-core (sector, program and region-driven) donor of the multilateral development system. Yet, crises of neoliberalism in the changing world order have an impact on the role of these IOs in terms of the implementation of a "rule-based" development cooperation system as well the sustainability of their "normative" actorness.
International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies. 2019; 7: 118-101., 2019
Brezilya, Güney Afrika, Endonezya, Güney Kore, Meksika, Türkiye gibi devletler 2000’li yılların
... more Brezilya, Güney Afrika, Endonezya, Güney Kore, Meksika, Türkiye gibi devletler 2000’li yılların
ilk yarısından itibaren hızla artan ekonomik güçleri, bölgesel düzlemde ve küresel yönetişim
mekanizmalarında artan rolleri ile ön plana çıkacaktır. Güneydoğu Asya bölgesinde ASEAN’ın
kurucu üyesi olan Endonezya, 2013 yılında kıtalar arası iş birliği platformu olarak ortaya çıkan
MIKTA’ya katılmış, 2019-2020 BM Güvenlik Konseyi geçici üyeliğine seçilmiştir. 2000’li yıllarda
Endonezya’nın gerek bölgesel düzlemde ASEAN, gerekse küresel düzlemde BM’de kendisini “küresel
çıkarları ve hedefleri olan bir bölgesel güç” olarak tanımladığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Defley
Nolte’un ortaya koyduğu bölgesel-küresel rol ilişkisi analiz çerçevesi kullanılarak Endonezya’nın BM
platformunda yükselen güç rolü ile bölgesel politikaları arasında nasıl bir etkişelim olduğu sorusuna
cevap aranacaktır. Bu amaçla, Endonezya’nın 2000’li yıllarda ASEAN ve BM platformundaki resmi
söylemleri, rol tanımlamaları ve politikaları analiz edilecektir.
Today’s emerging order encompasses fundamental clash of norms of political economy in the sense t... more Today’s emerging order encompasses fundamental clash of norms of political economy in the sense that the key elements of the so-called Beijing Consensus seem to challenge the liberal developmental and democratic norms associated with Western-based norms of the Washington Consensus. This paper attempts to comparatively analyze emerging middle powers (MIKTA) material capabilities and ideational preferences in the changing global political economy dynamics throughout 2000s in order to depict any meaningful evidence illustrating enhanced cooperation under this minilateral initiative. To this aim, drawing on the emerging middle power concept, this study will compare and contrast the (1) material capabilities, (2) ideational roles, and (3) MIKTA perceptions of each member countries in the 2010s in a time of clashing norms of global political economy. The paper concludes that, among others, so far, sustainable development issues have played a relatively prominent role in MIKTA’s general rhetoric. However, MIKTA, for the time being, is far from being an influential and more effective model of global governance for middle powers due to various domestic political problems among its members diverting their attention away from the institutional empowerment of cooperation within this informal partnership.
PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 1-18. this transition remains as a fundamenta... more PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 1-18. this transition remains as a fundamental question requiring an answer. On the other hand, there exists confusion in the International Relations (IR) literature with regard to the conceptualization and categorization of the ‘rising powers’ and their similarities and differences. There is a general tendency in the literature to restrict the field of research to the key rising powers such as China, Brazil, Russia and India or the middle powers and their subcategories. ‘Regional powers’ also appear as another category of states which have become of greater concern to many scholars and observers in recent years. This overlapping conceptual fluidity adds new confusion to the literature and makes it harder for countries like Turkey to be appropriately conceptualized and categorized.
Although sharing some degree of middle power identification, big disparities exist among MIKTA (M... more Although sharing some degree of middle power identification, big disparities exist among MIKTA (Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, and Australia) countries with respect to their political and economic systems, domestic priorities and problems, and their regional context, which make it difficult to talk about a common MIKTA identity/role. This study draws on social constructivism to problematize and analyze Turkey’s changing middle power role among MIKTA countries through their debates at the United Nations (UN). To this aim, the chapter will conduct a detailed and comparative discourse analysis of Turkey’s and the other MIKTA countries’ statements at the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly from 2001 to 2017 with respect to their social claims about themselves, including the way they define their (1) roles in global governance, (2) attitude toward international order, and (3) the nexus between their global and regional roles. By doing so, the chapter will theoretically question and empirically analyze whether there exists any meaningful evidence demonstrating Turkey’s adoption of a middle power role that could create the opportunity for converging interests among these countries.
The Palestinian Question has been at the heart of the United Nations (UN) since its establishment... more The Palestinian Question has been at the heart of the United Nations (UN) since its establishment. Yet, the “intergovernmental” mechanisms of the world organization have proven to be largely ineffective in finding a just and sustainable solution to one of the most important and intractable issues of the UN-era. In between political and diplomatic struggles, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs on Palestine are increasingly regarded as the only truly independent and expert voices as well as valuable sources of information regarding the issue. However, the special rapporteurs are one of the least studied aspects of the UN regarding the Palestinian question. Drawing highly on the social constructivist premise on the role of ideas and norms in constructing/deconstructing the legitimacy discourse in international politics, this study attempts to theoretically question and empirically analyse how the “actorness” of the special rapporteurs have the potential to affect the course...
This article aims to explore the relationship between regional powers and the United Nations (UN)... more This article aims to explore the relationship between regional powers and the United Nations (UN) with respect to regional issues by examining UN-Turkish ties concerning the Middle East during the 2000s. Bidding for a leading regional role in the Middle East, especially in the 2000s, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey has increasingly used international platforms, including the UN, to gain a signi cant regional position in the Middle East. Turkey’s relationship with the UN in this respect could provide a relevant example to explore multilateralism and multilateral instruments in Turkey’s perceived regional power role during the last decade. The term “regional power” will be used as a conceptual framework to explore Turkey’s behavioural pattern with respect to the UN in view of the regional-global linkage, as global activism is nearly a standard behaviour of any state with a leading regional power role/claim. In view of this, the period during which Turkey held a temporary seat on the UN Security Council between 2009 and 2010 will be given particular attention in order to identify any signi cant link or at least any tentative correlations between Turkey’s then-closer involvement in the UN and its regional power role/claim in the Middle East. Moreover, uctuations recorded in Turkey’s relations with the UN with respect to the Middle East during the last decade will be taken into account to examine a variety of challenges involved in any regional state’s relations with the UN regarding regional issues. Conducting a periodical analysis of Turkey-UN relations with respect to the Middle East could provide some provisional answers regarding both limitations and opportunities related to the future state of relations between any regional power and the most universal organization of world politics.
Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 2020
There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quan... more There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quantitative increase in multilateral development efforts since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the real qualitative progress of multilateral aid channeled through international organizations (IOs) has always been contested throughout history. Especially after 2008 financial crisis, neoliberal norms of development have been challenged by decreasing fate on democracy, multilateralism as well as competitive alternative models of development cooperation among developing countries of the Global South. In this context, this paper attempts to comparatively examine the policies of two main constitutive IOs, the UN and the EU in multilateral development efforts in the post-2008 era. To this aim, the paper will scrutinize official development aid statistics data from OECD between 2011-2017 in order to assess whether there has been a significant change in their aid efforts. The paper concludes that UN system has continued to be the main actor in the development cooperation funding in 2000s. While the EU still maintains the status of biggest core (direct/non-restricted) donor, the UN increasingly becomes a non-core (sector, program and region-driven) donor of the multilateral development system. Yet, crises of neoliberalism in the changing world order have an impact on the role of these IOs in terms of the implementation of a "rule-based" development cooperation system as well the sustainability of their "normative" actorness.
There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quan... more There has been tremendous evolution in terms of both the institutionalization as well as the quantitative increase in multilateral development efforts since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the real qualitative progress of multilateral aid channeled through international organizations (IOs) has always been contested throughout history. Especially after 2008 financial crisis, neoliberal norms of development have been challenged by decreasing fate on democracy, multilateralism as well as competitive alternative models of development cooperation among developing countries of the Global South. In this context, this paper attempts to comparatively examine the policies of two main constitutive IOs, the UN and the EU in multilateral development efforts in the post-2008 era. To this aim, the paper will scrutinize official development aid statistics data from OECD between 2011-2017 in order to assess whether there has been a significant change in their aid efforts. The paper concludes that UN system has continued to be the main actor in the development cooperation funding in 2000s. While the EU still maintains the status of biggest core (direct/non-restricted) donor, the UN increasingly becomes a non-core (sector, program and region-driven) donor of the multilateral development system. Yet, crises of neoliberalism in the changing world order have an impact on the role of these IOs in terms of the implementation of a "rule-based" development cooperation system as well the sustainability of their "normative" actorness.
International Journal of Political Science and Urban Studies. 2019; 7: 118-101., 2019
Brezilya, Güney Afrika, Endonezya, Güney Kore, Meksika, Türkiye gibi devletler 2000’li yılların
... more Brezilya, Güney Afrika, Endonezya, Güney Kore, Meksika, Türkiye gibi devletler 2000’li yılların
ilk yarısından itibaren hızla artan ekonomik güçleri, bölgesel düzlemde ve küresel yönetişim
mekanizmalarında artan rolleri ile ön plana çıkacaktır. Güneydoğu Asya bölgesinde ASEAN’ın
kurucu üyesi olan Endonezya, 2013 yılında kıtalar arası iş birliği platformu olarak ortaya çıkan
MIKTA’ya katılmış, 2019-2020 BM Güvenlik Konseyi geçici üyeliğine seçilmiştir. 2000’li yıllarda
Endonezya’nın gerek bölgesel düzlemde ASEAN, gerekse küresel düzlemde BM’de kendisini “küresel
çıkarları ve hedefleri olan bir bölgesel güç” olarak tanımladığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Defley
Nolte’un ortaya koyduğu bölgesel-küresel rol ilişkisi analiz çerçevesi kullanılarak Endonezya’nın BM
platformunda yükselen güç rolü ile bölgesel politikaları arasında nasıl bir etkişelim olduğu sorusuna
cevap aranacaktır. Bu amaçla, Endonezya’nın 2000’li yıllarda ASEAN ve BM platformundaki resmi
söylemleri, rol tanımlamaları ve politikaları analiz edilecektir.
Uploads
Papers by Gonca Oguz Gok
ilk yarısından itibaren hızla artan ekonomik güçleri, bölgesel düzlemde ve küresel yönetişim
mekanizmalarında artan rolleri ile ön plana çıkacaktır. Güneydoğu Asya bölgesinde ASEAN’ın
kurucu üyesi olan Endonezya, 2013 yılında kıtalar arası iş birliği platformu olarak ortaya çıkan
MIKTA’ya katılmış, 2019-2020 BM Güvenlik Konseyi geçici üyeliğine seçilmiştir. 2000’li yıllarda
Endonezya’nın gerek bölgesel düzlemde ASEAN, gerekse küresel düzlemde BM’de kendisini “küresel
çıkarları ve hedefleri olan bir bölgesel güç” olarak tanımladığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Defley
Nolte’un ortaya koyduğu bölgesel-küresel rol ilişkisi analiz çerçevesi kullanılarak Endonezya’nın BM
platformunda yükselen güç rolü ile bölgesel politikaları arasında nasıl bir etkişelim olduğu sorusuna
cevap aranacaktır. Bu amaçla, Endonezya’nın 2000’li yıllarda ASEAN ve BM platformundaki resmi
söylemleri, rol tanımlamaları ve politikaları analiz edilecektir.
ilk yarısından itibaren hızla artan ekonomik güçleri, bölgesel düzlemde ve küresel yönetişim
mekanizmalarında artan rolleri ile ön plana çıkacaktır. Güneydoğu Asya bölgesinde ASEAN’ın
kurucu üyesi olan Endonezya, 2013 yılında kıtalar arası iş birliği platformu olarak ortaya çıkan
MIKTA’ya katılmış, 2019-2020 BM Güvenlik Konseyi geçici üyeliğine seçilmiştir. 2000’li yıllarda
Endonezya’nın gerek bölgesel düzlemde ASEAN, gerekse küresel düzlemde BM’de kendisini “küresel
çıkarları ve hedefleri olan bir bölgesel güç” olarak tanımladığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada Defley
Nolte’un ortaya koyduğu bölgesel-küresel rol ilişkisi analiz çerçevesi kullanılarak Endonezya’nın BM
platformunda yükselen güç rolü ile bölgesel politikaları arasında nasıl bir etkişelim olduğu sorusuna
cevap aranacaktır. Bu amaçla, Endonezya’nın 2000’li yıllarda ASEAN ve BM platformundaki resmi
söylemleri, rol tanımlamaları ve politikaları analiz edilecektir.