SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2026 / Volume: 4 Issue: 1

International Relations Theories and Turkish International Relations: Observations Based on a Book

Seçkin Köstem
Pages
—
Publication Date
2015-01-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Drawing attention to the discursive construction of Turkey’s

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Akif Okur and Hakan Övünç Ongur argue in Chapter 8 that Turkey’s troubled relationship with American hegemony has been established through the interaction of ideas, material opportunities, and institutions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Akif Okur and Hakan Övünç Ongur argue in Chapter 8 that Turkey’s troubled relationship with American hegemony has been established through the interaction of ideas, material opportunities, and institutions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Drawing attention to the discursive construction of Turkey’s
🔬Design:Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Akif Okur and Hakan Övünç Ongur argue in Chapter 8 that Turkey’s troubled relationship with American hegemony has been established through the interaction of ideas, material opportunities, and institutions. Drawing attention to the discursive construction of Turkey’s

🔖

Cite This Article

Köstem, S. (2015). International Relations Theories and Turkish International Relations: Observations Based on a Book. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Volume: 4 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.167333

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Aktürk, Şener. Regimes of Ethnicity and Nationhood in Germany, Russia, and Turkey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  2. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Matthews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (October 2008): 693-712.
  3. Aytaç, S. Erdem, and Ziya Öniş. “Varieties of Populism in a Changing Global Context: The Divergent Paths of Erdoğan and Kirchnerismo.” Comparative Politics 47, no. 1 (October 2014): 41-59.
  4. Checkel, Jeffrey. “Theoretical Pluralism in IR: Possibilities and Limits.” In Handbook of International Relations, 2nd Edition, edited by Beth A. Simmons, Thomas Risse, and Walter Carlsnaes, 220- 41. London: Sage Publications, 2013.
  5. Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (September 2013): 405-25.
  6. Hopf, Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policy, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
  7. Kayaoğlu, Turan. Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, Ottoman Empire and China. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  8. . “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10 (2010): 193- 217.
  9. Katzenstein, Peter, and Rudra Sil. Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
  10. Moravcsik, Andrew. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998.
  11. Rumelili, Bahar. “Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU’s Mode of Differentiation.” Review of International Studies 30, no. 1 (January 2004): 27-47.
  12. . “Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisinde Yerel-Görüşlülük ve Doğu’nun Özneselliği.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 45-71.
  13. Zarakol, Ayşe. After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  14. . “What Made the Modern World Hang Together: Socialisation or Stigmatisation?” International Theory 6, no. 2 (July 2014): 311-32.
  15. . “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10 (2010): 193- 217.
  16. . “Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisinde Yerel-Görüşlülük ve Doğu’nun Özneselliği.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 45-71.
  17. . “What Made the Modern World Hang Together: Socialisation or Stigmatisation?” International Theory 6, no. 2 (July 2014): 311-32.