KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Entegrasyon Teorileri Işığında Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı'nın Değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of the Organization of the Turkic States in the Light of Integration Theories

Seyit Ali Avcu

Sayfa
323–344
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Beş Türk Cumhuriyeti—Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Türkiye ve Özbekistan—Sovyetler Birliği'nin dağılmasının ardından bağımsızlık kazandı. AB'ye benzer bir Türk Birliği tartışmaları, 2009 yılında Türk Konseyi'nin kurulmasına yol açtı ve 2021'de Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı (TDT) olarak yeniden adlandırıldı. Temel amacı, Türk devletleri arasındaki işbirliğini artırmaktır. Kurucu üyeler—Azerbaycan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan ve Türkiye—2019'da Özbekistan ile birleşti. Bu makale, TDT'nin mevcut durumu ve geleceğini, çoğunlukla AB deneyiminden geliştirilen entegrasyon teorileriyle incelemektedir; bunlar arasında Federalizm, Fonksiyonalizm, Neofonksiyonalizm, Hükümetler Arasıcılık, İnşacılık ve Liberal Hükümetler Arasıcılık bulunmaktadır. Çalışma, TDT'nin bölgeselleşme yerine, en az üç devlet arasında resmi bölgesel kurumlar oluşturan devlet odaklı bir süreç olan bölgeselcilikle uyumlu olduğunu savunmaktadır. Türk Birliği, kültürel, tarihi ve dini bağlara dayalı, hükümetler arası bir organizasyon olduğu için en iyi şekilde Hükümetler Arasıcılık ve İnşacılıkla açıklanır. Ancak, üyeler arasındaki ekonomik karşılıklı bağımlılık sınırlıdır ve enerji ve taşımacılık alanlarında yalnızca Türkiye ve Azerbaycan arasında önemli bağlar vardır.

Abstract

Five Turkic Republics—Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Türkiye, and Uzbekistan—gained independence after the Soviet Union's dissolution. Discussions of a Turkic Union, akin to the EU, led to the establishment of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (Turkic Council) in 2009, renamed the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) in 2021. Its primary goal is to enhance cooperation among Turkic states. Founding members—Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Türkiye—were joined by Uzbekistan in 2019. This article examines the OTS's current status and future through integration theories, primarily developed from the EU experience, such as Federalism, Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, Intergovernmentalism, Constructivism, and Liberal Intergovernmentalism. The study argues that the OTS aligns with regionalism, a state-led process creating formal regional institutions among at least three states, rather than regionalization, which involves increased interaction between adjacent states. The Turkic Union is a top-down process, better explained by Intergovernmentalism and Constructivism, as it is an intergovernmental organization rooted in cultural, historical, and religious ties. However, economic interdependence among members remains limited, with significant ties only between Türkiye and Azerbaijan in energy and transportation.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Avcu, S. A. (2025). Entegrasyon Teorileri Işığında Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı'nın Değerlendirilmesi. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 323–344. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1645742

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (54)

  1. Ab Rahman, A. H., Wan Ahmad, W. I., Ali, N., Ismail, D., & Adam, F. (2015). Modernization of Turkey under Kamal Ataturk. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p202
  2. Acharya, A. (2016). Regionalism beyond EU-centrism. In T. A. Börzel & T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism (pp. 109–130). Oxford University Press.
  3. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
  4. Akçali, P. (2003). Nation-state building in Central Asia: A lost case? Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 2(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1163/156915003322986334
  5. Akçora, Y. (1976). Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset. Türk Tarih Kurumu. http://aton.ttu.edu/pdf/uc_tarzi_siyaset.pdf
  6. A preferential trade agreement between Azerbaijan and Turkey has entered into force. (2021, March 1). Azerbaijan and World Trade Organization. https://wto.az/en/article/a-preferential-trade-agreement-between-azerbaijan-and-turkey-has-entered-into-force/80
  7. Aydin, E. (2007). The tension between secularism and democracy in Turkey: Early origins, current legacy. European View, 6(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-007-0017-3
  8. Aydın, M. (2005). Türkiye’nin Orta Asya ve Kafkaslar politikası. In M. Aydın (Ed.), Küresel politikada Orta Asya (Avrasya Üçlemesi I) (pp. 1–22). Nobel Yayınları.
  9. Azerbaijan’s January-November oil exports via BTC pipeline down 2.9%. (2024, December 18). Commersant. https://commersant.ge/en/news/finance/georgias-international-investment-position-worsened-by-3556-million-compared-to-the-previous-quarter-nbg
  10. Balassa, B. (2013). The theory of economic integration. Routledge.
  11. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2016a). Introduction: Framework of the handbook and conceptual clarifications. In T. A. Börzel & T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682300.013.1
  12. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2016b). The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682300.001.0001
  13. Djanibekova, N. (2020, February 6). Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan border crises complicated by mutual distrust.
  14. Eurasianet. https://eurasianet.org/kyrgyzstan-kazakhstan-border-crises-complicated-by-mutual-distrust
  15. Erkan Aydın, M., & Liu, Y. (2024). Organization of Turkic States: Diverse motivations for a common aim. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 33(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2024.33.1363769
  16. Fawcett, L. (2012). The history and concept of regionalism (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2193746). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2193746
  17. Fehlings, S., & Karrar, H. H. (2022). Informal markets and trade in Central Asia and the Caucasus. In Informal markets and trade in Central Asia and the Caucasus (pp. 130–140). Routledge.
  18. File:Turkeli.png. (n.d.). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved February 23, 2025, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turkeli.png
  19. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, social, and economic forces, 1950–1957. Stanford University Press.
  20. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford University Press.
  21. Hettne, B., Inotai, A., & Sunkel, O. (Eds.). (1999). Globalism and the new regionalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=TsQI0AEACAAJ
  23. Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe.
  24. Daedalus, 95(3), 862–915. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027004
  25. Hurrell, A. (1995). Regionalism in theoretical perspective. In Regionalism in world politics: Regional organization and international order (pp. 37–73). Cornell University Press.
  26. Kaminski, B., & Mitra, S. (2012). Borderless bazaars and regional integration in Central Asia: Emerging patterns of trade and cross-border cooperation. World Bank Publications.
  27. Kazakhstan to scale up BTC pipeline oil exports thirteenfold. (n.d.). Caspian News. Retrieved January 1, 2025, from https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/kazakhstan-to-scale-up-btc-pipeline-oil-exports-thirteenfold-2024-11-27-0/
  28. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.
  29. Kocatepe, Ö. F. (2024). Türk Devletleri Teşkilatı politik ve askerî iş birliği. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  30. Kudaibergenov, Z. (2022). Orta Asya Birleşik Enerji Sistemi’ndeki elektrik kesinti sorunları ve çözüm önerileri. Avrasya Araştırma Enstitüsü. https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/orta-asya-birlesik-enerji-sistemindeki-elektrik-kesinti-sorunlari-ve-cozum-onerileri/?lang=tr
  31. Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to reopen Kara-Suu border crossing after 14-year closure. (2024, September 7). Kun.uz. https://kun.uz/en/news/2024/09/07/kyrgyzstan-and-uzbekistan-to-reopen-kara-suu-border-crossing-after-14-year-closure
  32. Lindberg, L. N. (1970). Political integration as a multidimensional phenomenon requiring multivariate measurement. International Organization, 24(4), 648–731. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:intorg:v:24:y:1970:i:04:p:648-731_01
  33. Luo, H. (2024, July 20). China-Europe Railway Express opens new southern route via Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, cuts transit time. iChongqing. https://www.ichongqing.info/2024/07/20/china-europe-railway-express-opens-new-southern-route-via-baku-tbilisi-kars-railway-cuts-transit-time/
  34. Mitrany, D. (1943). A working peace system: An argument for the functional development of international organization. The Royal Institute of International Affairs; Oxford University Press.
  35. Moravcsik, A. (1991). Negotiating the Single European Act: National interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community. International Organization, 45(1), 19–56. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706695
  36. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University Press. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=008341999&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
  37. Najibullah, F., & Eraliev, S. (2017). ‘It changes lives’: Families welcome reopening of Kyrgyz, Uzbek border posts. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-uzbekistan-reopening-border-crossings-mirziyoev/28735887.html
  38. Nye, J. S. (1968). International regionalism: Readings. Little, Brown. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=67NCAAAAIAAJ
  39. Omuraliev, K. (2024, November 11). Empowering Turkic world: Highlights from 11th summit of Organization of Turkic States | Opinion. Daily Sabah. https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/empowering-turkic-world-highlights-from-11th-summit-of-organization-of-turkic-states
  40. OTS member states have no negative stance toward Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. (2025, May 2). Apa.az. https://en.apa.az/foreign-policy/ots-member-states-have-no-negative-stance-toward-turkish-republic-of-northern-cyprus-binali-yildirim-466639
  41. Salihi, E., & Mehmetcik, H. (2025). Institutionalization of relationship and voting cohesion: A case study of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) at the UN General Assembly. Bilig, 112, Article 112. https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.7668
  42. Smeets, S., & Beach, D. (2020). Intergovernmentalism and its implications – New institutional leadership in major EU reforms. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(8), 1137–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1699940
  43. Sorbello, P. (2025, April 18). Central Asia opens diplomatic rift with Türkiye over Cyprus. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/central-asia-opens-diplomatic-rift-with-turkiye-over-cyprus/
  44. Söderbaum, F. (2016). Old, new, and comparative regionalism: The history and scholarly development of the field. In T. A. Börzel & T. Risse (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism (pp. 16–37). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199682300.013.2
  45. TANAP considers expansion to supply more gas to European markets. (2024, October 6). Pipeline Technology Journal. https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/tanap-considers-expansion-supply-more-gas-european-markets
  46. Taninchev, S. B. (2015). Intergovernmental organizations, interaction, and member state interest convergence. International Interactions, 41(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.932784
  47. Tavares, R., & Schulz, M. (2006). Measuring the impact of regional organisations on peace building. In Assessment and measurement of regional integration. Routledge.
  48. The history. (2023, December 24). Assembly of Turkic-Speaking States. https://aots.ilerimun.com/study-guide/the-history
  49. Ulu Türk Kağanlığını kuramasak bile kuvvetli bir Türk birliği yapmalıyız. (2012, January). Hürriyet. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/19669519.asp
  50. Ünsal, H. (1989). Secularism and Atatürk's policy of secularism. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 5(15), 595–606. https://atamdergi.gov.tr/ozet/322/eng
  51. Vahapzade, B. (1991). Azerbaycan—Türkiye. https://www.siirparki.com/bvahapzade6.html
  52. Yesevi, Ç. G. (2022). Examining the Organization of Turkic States: A teacher and norm-creator. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 27(1), Article 1. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/perception/issue/71446/1149277
  53. Zhambekov, N. (2015). Central Asian Union and the obstacles to integration in Central Asia. The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst. https://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13116-central-asian-union-and-the-obstacles-to-integration-in-central-asia.html?tmpl=component&print=1
  54. Zuenko, I. (2020). Integration in post-Soviet Central Asia: Shadow-economy practices and the cross-Eurasian flow of commodities. In Shadow exchanges along the new Silk Roads (pp. 120–140). Cambridge University Press.