SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 14

Güvenliği ve barışı koruma: Nato'nun ' kritik güvenlik söylemi'ni stratejikleştirmenin ardında yatan nedenler

Keeping Security and Peace: Behind the Strategicalization of NATO’s ‘Critical Security Discourse'

Giovanni ERCOLANI
Pages
43–85
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Analyzing the construction process of the legitimacy of NATO’s existence by using Discourse Analysis Method, this study attempts to shed light on the “building blocks” of NATO’s contemporary purpose, and accordingly, the factors that determine the purpose of its existence in a globalized world.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:After the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO entered an era where it wants to re-establish the legitimacy of its existence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Throughout its two NATO New Strategic Concepts (1999 and 2010), NATO has been constructing its Post-Cold War legitimacy in producing its own identity-discourse and meaning of security which will determines its global policy based on a “Future Security Risks” narrative.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Analyzing the construction process of the legitimacy of NATO’s existence by using Discourse Analysis Method, this study attempts to shed light on the “building blocks” of NATO’s contemporary purpose, and accordingly, the factors that determine the purpose of its existence in a globalized world.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

After the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO entered an era where it wants to re-establish the legitimacy of its existence. Throughout its two NATO New Strategic Concepts (1999 and 2010), NATO has been constructing its Post-Cold War legitimacy in producing its own identity-discourse and meaning of security which will determines its global policy based on a “Future Security Risks” narrative. Analyzing the construction process of the legitimacy of NATO’s existence by using Discourse Analysis Method, this study attempts to shed light on the “building blocks” of NATO’s contemporary purpose, and accordingly, the factors that determine the purpose of its existence in a globalized world.

Özet

Sovyetler Birliği’nin 1991’de sona ermesiyle NATO kendi varlığının meşruiyetini yeniden temellendirme sürecine girmiştir. NATO bu meşruiyet zeminini öncelikle söylemsel olarak oluşturmakta ve bunun inşasını yaparken “Gelecek Güvenliği Riski” söylemi üzerinden politikasını belirlemektedir. Bu makale, NATO’nun varlığının meşruiyetinin inşa sürecini, söylem analizi yöntemiyle inceleyerek, NATO’nun günümüzdeki amacının yapı taşlarına ışık tutmayı ve bu bağlamda da bu “yeni” NATO’nun varlık sebebini belirleyen ve etkileyen faktörleri ortaya çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERCOLANI, G. (2022). Güvenliği ve barışı koruma: Nato'nun ' kritik güvenlik söylemi'ni stratejikleştirmenin ardında yatan nedenler. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 14, 43–85. https://ajindex.com/articles/528265

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Active Engagement, Modern Defence, Preface. (2010). “Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon. ADORNO, T. and HORKHEIM, M. (2002).
  2. Dialectic of Enlightenment, Standfort University Press.
  3. AIME, M. (2004).,
  4. Eccessi di Culture, Torino: Einaudi. ASH, T. G. (25 May 2011). “If Obama really wants to lead us to a free world, he should abolish the G8” (on USA President Barack Obama’s keynote speech in Westminster Hall), The Guardian, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ cifamerica/2011/may/25/barack-obama-free-world-g8. AYBET, G. “NATO's Developing Role in Collective Security”, SAM Papers, No: 4/99, available at: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ac/aca/acad/02/01.htm.
  5. BARNETT, T. (2004). The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty- First Century, Putnam Adult. BARRY, B. (2006). “Will the ‘global war on terrorism’ be the new Cold War?”, International Affairs, 82: 6. BARRY, P. (2002). Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory, Manchester: Manchester University press. BBC News – Today. (11 November 2010) “West 'paranoid' about world economy”, BBC News, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_ 9179000/9179739.stm. BOBBIT. P. (2003).
  6. The Shield of Achilles, New York: Anchor. BOOTH, K. (2007).
  7. Theory of World Security, Cambridge University Press.
  8. BOOTH, K. (2005). “Critical Explorations”, in Ken Booth (Ed), Critical Security Studies and World Politics, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Bucharest Summit Declaration, (3 April 2008). issued by the Heads of State and Government in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest, available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm?mode=pressrelease.
  9. BUZAN, B. (1991).
  10. People, State and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd edition. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. BUZAN, B. WAEVER, O. and DE WILDE, W. (1998). Security – A New Framework for Analysis, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  11. CAMPACCI, D. (2009). Il concetto di sicurezza nel mondo romano: spunti di rişessione, paper not published. CAMPBELL, D. (1998). Writing Security – United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester University Press.
  12. CASSIRER, E. (1974/1944). “An Essay on Man”, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
  13. COLBEY, P. (2006).
  14. Narrative, London: Routledge. COX, R. (1981). “Social Forces, St