SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 43

The Organization of Turkic States through the Lens of Ontological Security and Security Governance: A Five-Stage Mechanism

Ontolojik Güvenlik ve Güvenlik Yönetişimi Merceğinden Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı: Beş Aşamalı Bir Mekanizma

Adem Ali İren(SULEYMAN DEMIREL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2369-1177
Pages
129–151
Publication Date
2026-10-15
🏛️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 article operationalizes identity continuity through observable organizational markers and shows how mnemonic narratives can function as capacity-producing resources in regional security governance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article analyzes the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) as a regional institutional site where security is constituted not only through material threat assessments but also through the pursuit of ontological security—the need to sustain coherent self-narratives and continuity over time.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Normative authorization legitimizes cooperation through mandate and status-elevating texts; framing stabilizes a mnemonic meaning universe via reproducible devices; institutionalization routinizes cooperation through organs and meeting series; codification consolidates routines into written regimes (rules, strategies/roadmaps, legal and technical frameworks, standards); and path dependence is visible in serial continuation and follow-up/resourcing provisions that normalize routines and raise reversal costs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article operationalizes identity continuity through observable organizational markers and shows how mnemonic narratives can function as capacity-producing resources in regional security governance.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı · Ontolojik Güvenlik · Güvenlik Yönetişimi

Abstract

This article analyzes the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) as a regional institutional site where security is constituted not only through material threat assessments but also through the pursuit of ontological security—the need to sustain coherent self-narratives and continuity over time. Moving beyond deterrence- or efficiency-centered accounts, it argues that the OTS increasingly translates identity-based claims and mnemonic politics into discursive–institutional governance capacity: the textualized design, specification and routinization of instruments through which a security-relevant agenda is made manageable inside the organization. Using a mechanism-oriented research design and qualitative document analysis, the study identifies a five-stage process. Normative authorization legitimizes cooperation through mandate and status-elevating texts; framing stabilizes a mnemonic meaning universe via reproducible devices; institutionalization routinizes cooperation through organs and meeting series; codification consolidates routines into written regimes (rules, strategies/roadmaps, legal and technical frameworks, standards); and path dependence is visible in serial continuation and follow-up/resourcing provisions that normalize routines and raise reversal costs. The article operationalizes identity continuity through observable organizational markers and shows how mnemonic narratives can function as capacity-producing resources in regional security governance.

Özet

Bu makale, Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı’nı (TDT) güvenliğin yalnızca maddi tehdit değerlendirmeleriyle değil, aynı zamanda ontolojik güvenlik arayışıyla—aktörlerin zaman içinde tutarlı benlik anlatılarını ve sürekliliği sürdürme ihtiyacıyla—kurulduğu bölgesel bir kurumsal alan olarak analiz etmektedir. TDT’nin kimlik temelli iddiaları ve mnemonik (hafıza) siyaseti giderek söylemsel–kurumsal yönetişim kapasitesine dönüştürdüğünü savunan çalışma caydırıcılık ya da salt verimlilik odaklı açıklamaların ötesine geçerek, güvenlikle ilişkili gündemlerin teşkilat içinde yönetilebilir kılınmasını sağlayan araçların metinlerde tasarlanması, ayrıntılandırılması ve rutinleştirilmesine odaklanmaktadır. Mekanizma odaklı araştırma tasarımı nitel belge analizine dayanan çalışma, beş aşamalı bir süreç saptamaktadır. Normatif yetkilendirme işbirliğini yetki ve statü yükseltici metinler üzerinden meşrulaştırır; çerçeveleme, tekrarlanabilir araçlar yoluyla mnemonik bir anlam evrenini istikrara kavuşturur; kurumsallaşma, organlar ve toplantı serileri üzerinden işbirliğini rutinleştirir; kodifikasyon, rutinleri yazılı rejimlere (usul kuralları, stratejiler/yol haritaları, hukuki ve teknik çerçeveler, standartlar) dönüştürerek pekiştirir; patika bağımlılığı ise rutinleri normalleştiren ve geri dönüş maliyetlerini artıran seri süreklilik ile takip/kaynak tahsisi hükümlerinde görünür hale gelir. Makale, kimlik sürekliliğini gözlemlenebilir örgütsel göstergeler üzerinden operasyonelleştirir ve mnemonik anlatıların bölgesel güvenlik yönetişiminde kapasite üreten kaynaklar olarak işleyebileceğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İren, A. A. (2026). The Organization of Turkic States through the Lens of Ontological Security and Security Governance: A Five-Stage Mechanism. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 43, 129–151. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1874156

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D and Zangl, B. (2015). Two logics of indirect governance: Delegation and orchestration. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 719–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000593
  2. Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing A Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN And The Problem Of Regional Order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796673
  3. Acharya, A. (2014). The End of American World Order. Polity Press.
  4. Adler, E. and Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X
  5. Aggarwal, V. K. (1998). Institutional Designs For A Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting. Cornell University Press.
  6. Avant, D. D., Finnemore, M. and Sell, S. K. (Eds.). (2010). Who Governs The Globe?. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845369
  7. Aydın, M. E. and Liu, Y. (2024). Organization of Turkic States: Diverse motivations for a common aim. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 33(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2024.33.1363769
  8. Baghırov, O. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States’ economic potential and cooperation prospects among its members. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 53–73.
  9. Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor To Analytic Tool. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858472
  10. Berenskoetter, F. (2014). Parameters of a national biography. European Journal of International Relations, 20(1), 262–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066112445290
  11. Börzel, T. A. and Risse, T. (2010). Governance without a state: Can it work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01076.x
  12. Brunsson, N. and Jacobsson, B. (2000). A World of Standards. Oxford University Press.
  13. Budrytė, D., Resende, E. S. A. and Becker, D. (Eds.). (2025). Defending Memory in Global Politics: Mnemonical in/Security And Crisis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003342083
  14. Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (2009). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491252
  15. Cornell, S. E. (2025). The Rise of The Organization of Turkic States: Is Turkic Cooperation Filling A Geopolitical Vacuum?. Silk Road Paper.
  16. Demir, C. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States: Implications for the regional balance of power. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 39–71. https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1104776
  17. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  18. Ejdus, F. (2018). Crisis And Ontological Insecurity: Serbia’s Anxiety Over Kosovo’s Secession. Palgrave Macmillan.
  19. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789
  20. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies And Theory Development in The Social Sciences. MIT Press.
  21. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity And Self-Identity: Self And Society in The Late Modern Age. Polity Press.
  22. Hameiri, S. and Jones, L. (2015). Governing Borderless Threats. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Hedström, P. and Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
  24. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation And Discord in The World Political Economy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7sq9s
  25. Kinnvall, C., & Mitzen, J. (2020). Anxiety, fear, and ontological security in world politics. International Theory, 12(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000159
  26. Kirchner, E. J. and Sperling, J. (Eds.). (2007). Global Security Governance. Routledge.
  27. Koçak, M. (2023). Potential of Organization of Turkic States in the international system. Insight Turkey, 25(4), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2023254.8
  28. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C. and Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081801317193592
  29. Krahmann, E. (2003). Conceptualizing security governance. Cooperation and Conflict, 38(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836703038001001
  30. Lake, D. A. and Morgan, P. M. (Eds.). (1997). Regional Orders: Building Security in A New World. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  31. Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2012). Explaining Institutional Change. Cambridge University Press.
  32. Mälksoo, M. (2015). Memory must be defended. Security Dialogue, 46(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614552549
  33. March, J. G. And Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis Of Politics. Free Press.
  34. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346
  35. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice For Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315072258
  36. Musabay Baki, P. (2022). Turkic World Vision–2040: A step forward for the resilience of Turkic cooperation. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 26–52. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/perception/article/1149275
  37. Mustofaev, M. (2022). The Organization of Turkic States: A new approach to global and regional challenges. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 105–120. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2559564
  38. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change And Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
  39. Organization of Turkic States. (2009). Nakhchivan Agreement On The Establishment Of The Cooperation Council of Turkic-Speaking States. https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/nakhchivan-agreement-on-the-establishment-of-the-copperation-council-of-turkic-speaking-states-1-en.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  40. Organization of Turkic States. (2022). Declaration of The Ninth Summit of The Organization of Turkic States (Samarkand). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/ninth-summit-declarataion-16-en.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  41. Organization of Turkic States. (2023). Declaration of The Second Extraordinary Summit (Ankara). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/2nd-extraordinary-summit-ankara-declaration-2023-20-en.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  42. Organization of Turkic States. (2023). Declaration of The Tenth Summit of The Organization of Turkic States (Astana, Kazakhstan). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/basic-documents/tenth-summit-declaration-2023-21-en.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  43. Organization of Turkic States. (2024, July 6). Karabakh Declaration (Shusha İnformal Summit). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/haberler/garabagh-declaration-3357-261.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  44. Organization of Turkic States. (2024, November 6). Bishkek Declaration of the Eleventh Summit of the Organization Of Turkic States (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan). https://www.turkicstates.org/u/d/temel_belgeler/bishkek-declaration.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  45. Organization of Turkic States. (2025, May 21). Budapest Declaration of the Informal Summit of the Organization of Turkic States. https://turkicstates.org/u/tdt-budapeşte-bildiri.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  46. Organization of Turkic States. (2025, October 7). Gabala Declaration of The Twelfth Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (Gabala, Republic Of Azerbaijan). https://turkicstates.org/u/gabala-declaration-.pdf accessed on 14.12.2025.
  47. Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan.
  48. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011
  49. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press.
  50. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
  51. Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521775.003
  52. Rumelili, B. (2015a). Conflict Resolution And Ontological Security: Peace Anxieties. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315796314
  53. Rumelili, B. (2015b). Identity and desecuritisation: The pitfalls of conflating ontological and physical security. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2013.22
  54. Rumelili, B. (2020). Integrating anxiety into international relations theory. International Theory, 12(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971920000093
  55. Rumelili, B. and Adısönmez, U. C. (2020). Uluslararası ilişkilerde kimlik–güvenlik ilişkisine dair yeni bir paradigma: Ontolojik güvenlik teorisi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 17(66), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.720630
  56. Salihi, E. and Mehmetcik, H. (2025). Institutionalization of relationship and voting cohesion: A case study of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) at the UN General Assembly. Bilig, (112), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.7668
  57. Sarı, B. (2023). Security aspect of the integration in Turkic world under the Organization of Turkic States. Insight Turkey, 25(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2023254.9
  58. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE.
  59. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton University Press.
  60. Steele, B. (2008). Ontological Security in İnternational Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018200
  61. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
  62. Tamm Hallström, K. (2004). Organizing International Standardization: ISO And The IASC in Quest Of Authority. Edward Elgar.
  63. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369
  64. Turkish Language Association. (2024). The Turkic world agreed on a common Turkic alphabet. https://tdk.gov.tr/icerik/basindan/turk-dunyasi-ortak-turk-alfabesinde-uzlasti/ accessed on 20.12.2025.
  65. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Cornell University Press.
  66. Webber, M., Croft, S., Howorth, J., Terriff, T. and Krahman, E. (2004). The governance of European security. Review of International Studies, 30, 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210504005807
  67. Yaldız, F. (2023). The political vision of the Organization of Turkic States: An analysis of the Turkic World Vision 2040. Eurasian Research Journal, 5(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2023.2-05
  68. Yesevi, Ç. G. (2022). Examining the Organization of Turkic States: A teacher and norm-creator. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), 2–25. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2559482