Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

COSMOPOLITAN-COMMUNITARIAN DICHOTOMY: TOWARDS A THIRD WAY?

KOZMOPOLİTAN-TOPLULUKÇU AYRIMI: ÜÇÜNCÜ BİR YAKLAŞIM OLABİLİR Mİ?

Pages
21–48
Publication Date
2015-12-01
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 particularly focusing on two of the dominant articulations of cosmopolitanism, that are moral and political cosmopolitan approaches, this article attempts to analyze the possibilities and limitations inherent in the search for ethical universalism through a third way

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the current challenging study areas in International Relations discipline is normative theory which involves variety of approaches.
📊
Key Findings & Data:There are two main groups: cosmopolitan and communitarian based on the philosophical concerns of the 1980s.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By particularly focusing on two of the dominant articulations of cosmopolitanism, that are moral and political cosmopolitan approaches, this article attempts to analyze the possibilities and limitations inherent in the search for ethical universalism through a third way
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Normatif Kuram · Kozmopolitanizm · Toplulukçuluk

Abstract

One of the current challenging study areas in International Relations discipline is normative theory which involves variety of approaches. There are two main groups: cosmopolitan and communitarian based on the philosophical concerns of the 1980s. A third group began to question this dichotomy since the 1990s. The aim of this article is to present a critical review of the theoretical literature about cosmopolitan-communitarian dichotomy over the past three decades. It is argued that though it is difficult there can be a middle ground. By particularly focusing on two of the dominant articulations of cosmopolitanism, that are moral and political cosmopolitan approaches, this article attempts to analyze the possibilities and limitations inherent in the search for ethical universalism through a third way

Özet

Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinindeki başlıca güncel çalışma alanlarından bir tanesi de farklı yaklaşımlar barındıran normatif kuramdır. İki tane başlıca yaklaşım vardır: 1980’lerdeki felsefi tartışmalara dayanan Kozmopolitan yaklaşım ve Toplulukçu yaklaşım. Üçüncü bir grup 1990’lı yılların başından beri bu ayrımı sorgulamaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, Kozmopolitan-Toplulukçu ikilem hakkındaki son otuz yıldır devam etmekte olan kuramsal literatürü eleştirel olarak incelemektir. Bu makalede, zor olduğu kabul edilmekle birlikte üçüncü bir yaklaşımın olabileceği iddia edilmektedir. Özellikle Kozmopolitan yaklaşımdaki ahlaksal ve siyasal olmak üzere ikili ayrıma odaklanılarak, üçüncü bir yaklaşımın olabilirliği ve bununla beraber evrensel ahlak olasılığı araştırılmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

Karacasulu, N., Karakır, İ. A. (2015). COSMOPOLITAN-COMMUNITARIAN DICHOTOMY: TOWARDS A THIRD WAY?. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 21–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/74443

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Beitz, C. R. (1975). Justice and International Relations. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4 (4), 360-389.
  2. Beitz, C. R. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. Beitz, C. R. (2000). Rawls’s Law of Peoples. Ethics, 110(4), 669-696.
  4. Beitz, C. R. (2005). Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice. The Journal of Ethics, 9(1-2), 11-27.
  5. Bray, D. (2009). Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: A Deweyan Approach to Democracy beyond the Nation-State. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(3), 683-719.
  6. Bray, D. (2013). Pragmatic Ethics and the Will to Believe in Cosmopolitanism. International Theory, 5(3), 446-476.
  7. Brock, G. and Brighouse, H. (Eds.) (2005). The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  8. Brown, C. (1992). International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. London: Harvester. Brown, C. (2001).
  9. Ethics, Interest and Foreign policy. K. E. Smith and M. Light (Eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (pp. 15-32).
  10. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  11. Brown, C. (2010a). Practical Judgement in International Political Theory. New York: Routledge. Brown, C. (2010b). International Political Theory Then and Now: The Fate of the Ethical Middle Ground? Paper presented in ECPR –SGIR 7th Pan‐European IR Conference, Stockholm, September 9‐11. Accessed net.org/bebruga/eisa/files/events/stockholm/ECPR%20Middle%20 Ground%20Ethics.pdf 2015, http://www.eisa
  12. Buchanan, A. (2000). Rawls’s Law of Peoples: Rules for a Vanished Westphalian World. Ethics, 110(4), 697-721.
  13. Bulley, D. (2004). Foreign policy as Ethics: Toward a Re-Evaluation of Values. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(2), 165-180.
  14. Caney, S. (2005). Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Chen, X. (2012). Introduction: the boundary of our nation can only be measured by the sun: cosmopolitanism and humanity. Journal of East-West Thought, 4(2), 1-8.
  16. Cochran, M. (1999). Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Cochran, M. (2001). A Pragmatist Perspective on Ethical Foreign Policy. K. E. Smith and M. Light (Eds.), Ethics and Foreign Policy (pp. 55- 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Cochran, M. (2009). Charting the Ethics of the English School: What ‘Good’ is there in a Middle-ground ethics? International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 203-225.
  19. Donaldson, T. (2002). Kant’s Global Rationalism. T. Nardin and D. R. Mapel (Eds.), Traditio