Journals / Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

International System and Stability: A Conceptual Assessment

Uluslararası Sistem ve İstikrar: Kavramsal Bir Değerlendirme

Pages
209–229
Publication Date
2015-04-24
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)

According to this logic, international stability can be considered an outcome of states’ calculations of possibilities

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study is about international system and stability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By comparing different theoretical approaches, it discusses the relation between polarity and stability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to this logic, international stability can be considered an outcome of states’ calculations of possibilities
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Uluslararası Sistem · Uluslararası İstikrar · Kutupluluk

Abstract

This study is about international system and stability. By comparing different theoretical approaches, it discusses the relation between polarity and stability. It is quite common to identify international systems as unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar structures. There is a wide ranging discussion over which one of these structures represents the most stable system. Although multipolar structures were admitted as more stable previously, later the claim of bipolar stability became more common. Recently, the idea that unipolar structures are more stable compared to bipolar structures has gained more ground. This study identifies two main theoretical logics behind the discussions over the relation between polarity and stability: a logic of motivations and a logic of obligations. Although the logic of obligations appears as doing better than the logic of motivations in predicting international stability, it has its own theoretical shortcomings. The study further offers the logic possibilities in order to theoretically explain and predict the relation between polarity and stability. According to this logic, international stability can be considered an outcome of states’ calculations of possibilities

Özet

Bu çalışma uluslararası sistem ve istikrar üzerinedir. Farklı teorik perspektiflerimukayese ederek, kutupluluk ile istikrar arasındaki ilişkiyi tartışır.Uluslararası sistemler sistem içerisindeki güç dağılımına göre tek kutuplu,çift kutuplu ve çok kutuplu yapılar olarak isimlendirilir. Bu yapılardan hangisinindaha istikrarlı olduğu üzerine uzun tartışmalar yaşanmıştır. Bahsigeçen tartışmaların ana gündem maddesi hangi uluslararası güç dağılımınındaha istikrarlı olduğu üzerinedir. Önceleri çok kutuplu yapının daha istikrarlıolduğu düşünülürken, zaman içerisinde çift kutuplu sistemlerin dahaistikrarlı olduğu iddiası yaygınlık kazanmıştır. Günümüzde ise tek kutuplusistemlerin çift kutuplu sistemlere kıyasla daha istikrarlı olabileceği fikri öneçıkmaktadır. Çalışma bu ilişki üzerine yapılan tartışmaların arkasındaki ikitemel teorik mantığı ortaya koyar: güdüler mantığı ve mecburiyetler mantığı.Mecburiyet mantığı uluslararası istikrarı öngörmede daha başarılı gibigörünmesine rağmen, bu mantığın temel teorik sorunları olmadığı söylenemez.Çalışma kutupluluk ile istikrar arasındaki ilişkiyi teorik olarak açıklamakve öngörmek adına imkânlar mantığını teklif etmektedir. Bu mantığagöre uluslararası istikrar devletlerin imkân hesaplamalarının bir sonucu olarakgörülebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, H. (2015). International System and Stability: A Conceptual Assessment. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 209–229. https://ajindex.com/articles/4714

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Brooks, S. G. ve Wohlforth, W. C. (2008). World out of balance: International relations and the challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. Christensen, T. J. ve Snyder, J. (1990). Chain Gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization, 44 (2), 137-168.
  3. Copeland, D. C. (1996). Neorealism and the myth of bipolar stability: Toward a new dynamic realist theory of major war. Security Studies, 5 (3), 29-89.
  4. Crawford, T. W. (2011). Preventing enemy coalitions: How wedge strategies shape power politics. International Security, 35 (4), 155-189.
  5. Desch, M. C. (2007/2008). America’s liberal illiberalism: The ideological origins of overreaction in U.S. foreign policy. International Security, 32 (3), 7-43.
  6. Deutsch, K. W. ve Singer, D. (1964). Multipolar power systems and international stability. World Politics, 16 (3), 390-406.
  7. Furniss, E. S. J. (1961). De Gaulle’s France and NATO: An interpretation. International Organization, 15 (3), 349-365.
  8. Gaddis, J. L. (1986). The long peace: Elements of stability in the postwar international system. International Security, 10, (4), 99- 142. Gilpin, R. (1981).
  9. War and change in world politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (4), 591-613.
  11. Gulick, E. V. (1955). Europe’s classical balance of power: A case history of the theory and practice of one of the great concepts of European statecraft. Westport: Greenwood Press.
  12. Guzzini, S. (1993). Structural power: The limits of neorealist power analysis. International Organization, 47 (3), 443-478.
  13. He, K. (2012). Undermining adversaries: Unipolarity, threat perception and negative balancing strategies after the Cold War. Security Studies, 21 (2), 154-191.
  14. Hopf, T. (1991). Polarity, the offense defense balance, and war. The American Political Science Review, 85 (2), 475-493.
  15. Hughes, J. L. (1988). The origins of World War II in Europe: British deterrence failure and German expansionism. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18 (4), 851-891.
  16. Huntington, S. P. (1999). The lonely superpower. Foreign Affairs, 78 (2), 35-49.
  17. Ikenberry, J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  18. Kagan, R. (2008). The eeturn of history and the end of dreams. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Kennedy, J. F. (1962). Why England slept. New York: Dolphin