Journals / Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 36

THE NAKHCIVAN PROBLEM IN TURKEY-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

TÜRKİYE VE ERMENİSTAN İLİŞKİLERİNDE NAHÇIVAN SORUNU

Pages
413–430
Publication Date
2018-10-19
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)

By studying the impact of the territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia on TurkishArmenian relations, this paper makes an original contribution to the literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Turkey became a guarantor state of the Nakhcivan Autonomous Region which is under the authority of Azerbaijan with the Moscow and Kars Treaties which were signed in 1921.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A foreign policy crisis emerged between Turkey and Armenia when Armenian insurgents attacked Sadarak, an administrative region of Nakhcıvan in 1992.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By studying the impact of the territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia on TurkishArmenian relations, this paper makes an original contribution to the literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Nahçıvan krizi · Türk dış politikası · Türkiye

Abstract

Turkey became a guarantor state of the Nakhcivan Autonomous Region which is under the authority of Azerbaijan with the Moscow and Kars Treaties which were signed in 1921. A foreign policy crisis emerged between Turkey and Armenia when Armenian insurgents attacked Sadarak, an administrative region of Nakhcıvan in 1992. The crisis period covers the years of 1992-1992 throughout which an intense fighting took place in Nakhcıvan. This study analyzes the Nakchıvan crisis’ dyamics, Turkish and Armenian decision makers’ discourses and political, diplomatic, and military tools they utilized during the crisis period. By studying the impact of the territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia on TurkishArmenian relations, this paper makes an original contribution to the literature.

Özet

Türkiye, 1921 yılında imzalanan Moskova ve Kars Antlaşmaları ile Azerbaycan’ın korucuyuluğundaki Nahçıvan Özerk Bölgesi’nin garantör ülkesi olmuştur. 1992 yılında Ermeni milis kuvvetlerin, Nahçıvan’ın idari bölgesi Sederek’e saldırmaları ile Türkiye ve Ermenistan arasında dış politika krizi ortaya çıkmıştır. İki ülke arasındaki kriz dönemi Nahçıvan’daki çatışmaların yoğun bir şekilde yaşandığı 1992-1993 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Nahçıvan krizinin dinamiklerini, Türk ve Ermeni karar alıcılarının kriz dönemindeki söylemlerini ve kullandıkları siyasi, diplomatik ve askeri araçları analiz etmektedir. Bu makale, Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan arasında ortaya çıkan teritoryal sorunun Türkiye-Ermenistan ilişkilerine etkisini inceleyerek literatüre özgün bir katkı yapmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTIĞ, L. İ. (2018). THE NAKHCIVAN PROBLEM IN TURKEY-ARMENIAN RELATIONS. Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 36, 413–430. https://ajindex.com/articles/17041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. ARAS, Bülent ve Pınar AKPINAR, “The Relations between Turkey and the Caucasus,” Perceptions, Cilt 16, Sayı 3 (2011), ss. 53-68.
  2. ASLANLI, Araz. “Karabağ Sorunu ve Azerbaycan-Türkiye-Ermenistan İlişkileri”, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Uluslararası Avrasya Strateji Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 1 (2012), ss.175-196.
  3. AYDIN, Mustafa “Kafkasya ve Orta Asya’yla İlişkiler”, Baskın Oran, Türk Dış Politikası Kurtuluş Savaşından bugüne olgular, belgeler, yorumlar Cilt: 1919- 1980 (İstanbul: İletişim, 2001).
  4. AZER, Candan, Babadan Oğula Güney Kafkasya, Türkiye-Güney Kafkasya İlişkileri,(Truva Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011).
  5. BRECHER, Michael. Crisis in World Politics (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993).
  6. BUCHANAN, Allen ve Margaret MOORE (der.) States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
  7. COHEN, Ariel. “Azerbaijan and U.S. Interests in the South Caucasus: Twenty Years After Independence,” Diba Nigar Göksel ve Zaur Shiriyev (der) The Geopolitical Scene of the Caucasus: A Decade of Perspectives (İstanbul: Toplumsal Katılım ve Gelişim Vakfı, 2013).
  8. DIEHL, Paul F. (der.) A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict (Vanderbilt University Press: Nashville and London, 1999).
  9. FORSBERG, Tuomas “The Ground Without Foundation? Territory as a Social Construct,” Geopolitics, Cilt 8, Sayı 2 (Summer, 2003), ss.7-24.
  10. GIBLER, Douglas M. “Alliances that Never Balance: The Territorial Settlement Treaty,” Paul F. Diehl (der.) A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict (Nashville and London: Vanderbilt University Press, 1999).
  11. GOERTZ Garry ve Paul F. DIEHL, Territorial Changes and International Conflict (New York: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1992).
  12. HENSEL, Paul R. “An Evolutionary Approach to the Study of Interstate Rivalry,” Conflict Management and Peace Science, Cilt 17, Sayı 2 (Fall, 1999), ss.175-206.
  13. HENSEL, Paul “Charting a Course to Conflict: Territorial Issues and Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992,” Conflict Management and Peace Science, Cilt 45, Sayı1 (1996), ss. 43-73.
  14. HILL, Fiona, Kemal KIRIŞÇI, Andrew Moffatt, “Armenia and Turkey: From Normalisation to Reconciliation,” Turkish Policy Quarterly, Cilt 13, Sayı 7 (2015), ss.127-138.
  15. HOLDIN, Nicholas. Armenia: With Nagorno Karabagh (Guilford: Guilford Press, 2011).
  16. HUTH, Paul K. “Enduring Rivalries and Territorial Disputes, 1950-1990,” Paul F. Diehl (der.) A Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict (Vanderbi