SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

Conceptual Cultivation and Homegrown Theorizing: The Case of/for the Concept of Influence

Eyüp ERSOY
Pages
47–64
Publication Date
2018-06-13
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating
📊
Key Findings & Data:The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Conceptual cultivation · homegrown theorizing · influence

Abstract

The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating

🔖

Cite This Article

ERSOY, E. (2018). Conceptual Cultivation and Homegrown Theorizing: The Case of/for the Concept of Influence. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 47–64. https://ajindex.com/articles/119810

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Abdelkader, Deina, Nassef Manabilang Adiong, and Raffaele Mauriello, eds. Islam and International Relations: Contributions to Theory and Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
  2. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619-37.
  3. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 1-25. Oxon: Routledge, 2010.
  4. Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New York: Frederick A.Praeger, 1968.
  5. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34 (2008): 693-712.
  6. Ayoob, Muhammed. “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (2002): 27-48.
  7. Baldwin, David A. “The Concept of Security.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 1 (1997): 5-26. ———. “Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies.” World Politics 31, no. 2 (1979): 161-94.
  8. Biltekin, Gonca. “Özgün teori inşasi ve bati-dişi uluslararasi ilişkiler teorileri [Homegrown theorizing and non-western international relations theories].” In Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri [International relations theories], edited by Ramazan Gözen, 517-64. İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, 2014.
  9. Briggs, Asa, and Patricia Clavin. Modern Europe, 1789-Present. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
  10. Boening, Astrid et al., eds. Global Power Europe-Vol. 2: Policies, Actions, and Influence of the EU’s External Relations. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.
  11. Booth, Ken. Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
  12. Buzan, Barry. People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Problems. Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983.
  13. Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  14. Caballero-Anthony, Mely, Ralf Emmers, and Amitav Acharya, eds. Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitisation. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.
  15. Callahan, William A. “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-Hegemonic or a New Hegemony?” International Studies Review 10 (2008): 749-61.
  16. Carlson, Allen. “Moving Beyond Sovereignty? A Bri