SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

Hegemonik istikrar(sızlık) teorisi ve Amerikan dış politikası: Orta Doğu’da yeni-muhafazakarların mirası

Hegemonic (in)stability theory and us foreign policy: the legacy of the neocons in the middle east

Yücel BOZDAĞLIOĞLU
Pages
1–12
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

This paper argues that it is the US hegemony that is responsible for much of the turmoil in the region and looks at the issue from more theoretical perspective-na- mely Hegemonic Stability Theory- and maintains that the existence of a hegemon does not always guarantee order and stability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Middle East has always been characterized as a conflict-ridden region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The common belief in the acade- mia is that the Middle East is a region with backward traditions in which democratic values cannot take ro- ots.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This paper argues that it is the US hegemony that is responsible for much of the turmoil in the region and looks at the issue from more theoretical perspective-na- mely Hegemonic Stability Theory- and maintains that the existence of a hegemon does not always guarantee order and stability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The Middle East has always been characterized as a conflict-ridden region. The common belief in the acade- mia is that the Middle East is a region with backward traditions in which democratic values cannot take ro- ots. This paper argues that it is the US hegemony that is responsible for much of the turmoil in the region and looks at the issue from more theoretical perspective-na- mely Hegemonic Stability Theory- and maintains that the existence of a hegemon does not always guarantee order and stability.

Özet

Orta Doğu daima çatışmaların hüküm sürdüğü bir bölge olarak tanımlanmıştır. Akademide yaygın olan inanç genellikle Orta Doğu’nun, demokratik değerlerin kök salamayacağı, çağdışı geleneklere sahip bir böl- ge olduğudur. Bu makale, Orta Doğu’da hakim olan karışıklıktan, çoğunlukla Amerikan hegemonyasının sorumlu olduğunu savunarak, konuya teorik bir pers- pektiften–Hegemonik İstikrar Teorisi- bakmakta ve tek bir hegemonun düzen ve istikrarın garantisi olmadığı görüşünü ileri sürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZDAĞLIOĞLU, Y. (2022). Hegemonik istikrar(sızlık) teorisi ve Amerikan dış politikası: Orta Doğu’da yeni-muhafazakarların mirası. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 1–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/439131

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Achcar, G. (2004). Greater Middle East: The US Plan. Le Monde Diplomatique, 4 April. Agnew, J. (2003). American Hegemony into American Empire? Lessons from the Invasion of Iraq. Antipo- de, 35 (5), 871-885.
  2. Atlas, P. M. (2012). U.S. Foreign Policy and the Arab Spring: Balancing Values and Interests. Digest of Middle East Studies, 21 (2), 353-385.
  3. Bailin, A. (2001). From Traditional to Institutionalized Hegemony. G8 Governance No. 6. Brilmayer, L. (1994). American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World. New Haven & London: Yale University. Burges, S. W. (2008). Consensual Hegemony: Theori- zing Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. International Relations, 22 (1), 65-84.
  4. Charbonneau, B. (2008).
  5. Global Order, US Hegemony and Military Integration: The Canadian-American Defense Relationship. International Political Socio- logy, 2 (4), 305-321.
  6. Cox, R. W. (1987).
  7. Production, Power and World Or- der: Social Forces in the Making of Modern History. New York: Columbia University. Cox, R. W. (1993).
  8. Gramsci, Hegemony and Interna- tional Relations: An Essay in Method. In Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and In- ternational Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity. Cui, Z. (2004). The Bush Doctrine: A Chinese Perspec- tive. In David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi (eds.), American Power in the 21st Century (p. 241- 251). Cambridge: Polity. Eichengreen, B. (1996). Hegemonic Stability Theory and Economic Analysis: Reflections on Financial Instability and the Need for an International Len- der of Last Resort. Web Address: http://repositori- es.cdlib.org/iber/cider/C96-080, 1-10.
  9. El-Affendi, A. (2004). Waiting for Armageddon: The ‘Mother of All Empires’ and its Middle East Qu- agmire. In David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archi- bugi (eds.), American Power in the 21st Century (p. 252-276). Cambridge: Polity. Falkner, R. (2005). American Hegemony and the Glo- bal Environment. International Studies Review, 7 (4), 585-599.
  10. Garfinkle, A. (2002). The Impossible Imperative? Con- juring Arab Democracy. The National Interest, 11 December. Germain, R. D. and Kenny, M. (1998). Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24 (1), 3-21.
  11. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Griffits, M (2004). Beyond the Bush Doctrine: Ame- rican Hegemony and World Order. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 23(1), pp. 63-76
  12. Held, D. and Koenig-