A Normative IR Theory Approach To Contemporary Turkish .
A Normative IR theory approach to contemporary Turkish Foreign policy through theCosmopolitanism-Communitarianism divideAbstractThis study seeks to open up a fertile ground for the empirical study of thecosmopolitanism-communitarianism divide of normative IR theory with a special focuson the increasing weight of ethics and morality in Turkish foreign policy in recent years.First, this study outlines the current debates in normative IR theory with a special focuson the divide between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. Second, it first seeks toassess whether Turkey has adopted in the past either a cosmopolitan or communitarianposition, or both in its foreign policy discourse and actions. Then, it examines the slowrise of cosmopolitanism in Turkish foreign policy in the 2000s, with particular referenceto the ruling political party in Turkey, the AKP (The Justice and Development Party)tenure. Third, it examines the cosmopolitanist/communitarianist dilemma that the AKPgovernment faces in the context of the ‘Arab Spring’ revolts, and specifically the Syriancivil war—and with reference to three conceptual tools: global ethics, internationaljustice-world order juxtaposition, world (global) citizenship-global governance.Key words: Turkish foreign policy, normative international relations (IR) theory,cosmopolitanism-communitarianism divide, global ethics, international justice-order, world(global) citizenship, global governance, Syrian crisis.IntroductionSince the end of the Cold War, the academic discipline of International Relations (IR) hasproduced a number of new theoretical normative orientations and connotations. These newnormative approaches also help explain the nature and the reasons of the emerging shift inthe existing international world order in favor of rising powers like Brasil, China, India, SouthAfrica, Turkey, etc. In addition, these countries seem to be contributing to a gradual and slownormative turn in international politics today with their own ethical, moral and value-basedcommitments to international developments. Of course, normative thought and the elaborationof new normative approaches have roots in history, and in modern times since the end of theCold War. The revival of normative issues with the end of the Cold War has now gainedmomentum to the extent that they started to occupy a wider place in current IR debates. Onthe other hand, the last decade seems to have ushered in a new moment in normative IRscholarship pertaining to political oppression, poverty, human rights, and forced migration.The new political environment can serve as an appropriate time for us to (re)assess andanalyze the challenges and promises of normative international relations theory, especiallythrough the lenses of the cosmopolitanism-communitarianism divide. At present thecentrepiece of contemporary normative theory seems to be the search for a dialogue betweenthe “communitarians” and “cosmopolitans”—which have so far been seen as two contrastingnormative approaches. Reassessing the international developments normatively alsonecessitates a deeper study of the normative and ethical approach that each government takesto international affairs. The core research question of this study is: To what extent doescurrent Turkish foreign policy discourse, through the lens of the Syrian conflict, shows some1
signs of cosmopolitanist tendencies to world politics rather than those of communitariantendencies or does the current foreign policy reflect a dual or merged foreign policy approachwhich is cosmopolitan at the rheotorical level, but at times communitarian in practice?With this aim in mind, this study seeks to open up a fertile ground for the empirical study ofthe cosmopolitanism/communitarianism divide in normative IR theory in Turkish foreignpolicy towards the ‘Arab Spring’ revolts—especially the Syrian civil war. What does this newdirection in ethics and morality in Turkish foreign policy tell us about the evolvingnormativity in international politics, particularly in notions of justice, state sovereignty, stateresponsibility and humanitarian intervention? For over a decade now, scholars have beendebating the changing dynamics and new regional directions of Turkish foreign policy—andthe impact of inter-cultural toleration and geopolitics on decision making. As yet the ethics ofTurkish foreign policy, the ethical challenges that modern Turkey has confronted in itsforeign policy choices, and the conceptual divide of cosmopolitanism/communitarianismhave not been the subject to investigation. This paper is a modest attempt to apply normativeIR theory to Turkish foreign policy on the basis of the cosmopolitanism-communitarianismdivide. Understanding this divide contributes to a better understanding of the changingparadigms of contemporary Turkish foreign policy, for instance, particularist and/or universalcommitments to ethics and morality in politics. It also sheds light on the transformation ofTurkish foreign policy towards a more ‘liberal-normative’ model within the context of widerglobal ethics, global justice, global citizenship, and global governance. Compared to the othertheories of international relations such as realism, liberalism, constructivism andpostmodernist and critical approaches—normative international theory has so far beenneglected and thus understudied in Turkish IR scholarship. In this respect, the paper aims toimprove theoretical and empirical understanding on the subject and to enrich the literatureabout Turkish foreign policy.However, this paper acknowledges that a purely cosmopolitan foreign policy does not exist inabsolute terms—since the existence of a cosmopolitan foreign policy discourse in support ofethical universality does not necessarily guarantee cosmopolitan practices on the ground.Indeed, states seeking to balance their national interests with ethics in the face of an unfoldinginternational crisis might embrace either communitarianism or cosmopolitanism or even theaccommodating forms of these two approaches,for instance, either cosmopolitanism withlimited particularist commitments or communitarianism with universalist claims. In thisrespect, the following study restricts itself to understanding the manner and the degree towhich cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, and combinations of both, have permeatedcontemporary Turkish foreign policy making, with a special focus on the last decade underthe Justice and Development Party (AKP).This paper contains three parts: In the first part, it seeks to understand the current debates innormative IR theory with a special focus on the divide between two normative conceptualcategories of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In the second part, it first seeks toassess whether Turkey has adopted predominantly a communitarian or cosmopolitan position,or both vis-à-vis international crises, both in rheotoric and practice in the 20th century. Then,it examines the slow rise of cosmopolitanism in Turkish foreign policy in the 21st century,with particular reference to the ruling political party in Turkey, the AKP (The Justice andDevelopment Party) tenure. While in the third part, it examines thecosmopolitanist/communitarianist dilemma that the AKP government faces in the context ofthe ‘Arab Spring’ revolts, and specifically the Syrian civil war—and with reference to threeconceptual tools within the normative IR theory: global ethics, international justice-worldorder juxtaposition, world (global) citizenship-global governance.2
1.Cosmopolitanism/communitarianism divide in normative IR theory: opening out thedebateNormative international relations (IR) theory consider moral judgements, ethicalconsiderations and prescriptions of states, as well as their responsabilities and obligations toothers strong and prevalent aspects of international politics.1It thus borrows intensively frompolitical theory, and moral philosophy and to a lesser extent from IR through the adaptation ofa variety of approaches and of key conceptual distinctions such as cosmopolitanismcommunitarianism (and deontology and consequentialism).2 Although normative IR theory ismostly based on philosophical discourses, it also engages in responding to practical problemsin world politics for instance humanitarian interventions, war, civilian casualties andquestions of morality.3The main concern of normative IR theory is to relate ethical values of the individus and thecore normative concepts ( such as freedom, equality, justice, democracy, state autonomy,human rights, etc) with social institutions within which they live. According to MervyneFrost, normative IR theory presupposes that people’s normative ideas ( norms, values, justiceand moral principles) can shape the international order in which they live.4 In short, normativeIR theory tries to make sense of ethical limitations of state sovereignty, distributive justice,ethics of intervention, state responsability and demands with regard to human rights and etc. 5The cosmopolitanism-communitarianism divide,6 represents two different standpoints inexplaining the moral significance of identities, memberships and shared practices. And1Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches , ( New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1992), 3.2Toni Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 9.While some scholars refer to normative IR theory ( Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of InternationalRelations, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 1996); Brown, International Relations Theory, 1992,Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach, ( Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999) , R. Jackson and G.Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations, ( Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2007), Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, 2008, Mervyne Frost, Ethics in InternationalRelations: A Constitutive Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) ) in their writings, sometheorists also label it as “international political theory ( IPT )” ( C.R. Beitz, Political Theory and InternationalRelations, ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979/1999), Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in thetheory of International Relations, (1982; reprint, London: Macmillan, 1990, Chris Brown, State, Sovereignty andJustice: International Political Theory Today, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), Kimberly Hutchings,International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era, ( London: Sage Publications, 1999) ) or“international ethics” ( C. R. Beitz et al., International Etthics: A Critical Introduction, (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1985), T. Nardin and D. Mapel, Traditions of International Ethics, ( New York:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992), T. Nardin, "Theorising the International Rule of Law", Review of International Studies34, (2008), Richard Shapcott, International Ethics: A Critical Introduction, ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).4Mervyne Frost, Ethics in International Relations, 52.5M. Hoffman, “Normative International Relations Theory: Approaches and Issues” in M. Light& A. J. R.Groom ( eds.), International Relations, (London: Pinter, 1994), 27-44.6The cosmopolitanism-communitarianism divide is the most familiar conceptual category within the NormativeIR theory. The cosmopolitanism-communitarianism dichotomy gained prominence in the field of IR afterhaving been employed in 1992 by Chris Brown in International Relations Theory : New NormativeApproachesand by JannaThompson in Justice and World Order: A philosophical Enquiry.With the use of a similiaropposition based on a different terminology, in his prominent 1982 book Men and Citizens in the theory ofInternational Relations, Andrew Linklater had already made a distinction between our necessarily delimitedmoral obligations as citizens and our more extensive moral duties as human beings. See J. Thompson, Justice33
notably so when individuals, communities or states face ethical dilemmas in determining theirduties and responsabilities towards the outside actors and entities. Tony Erskine says:“ we engage in ethical deliberation either as members of particularist associations andadopt a limited moral purview (communitarianism), or we eschew the moral force ofthese specific ties in favour of a broader membership and universalist commitments (cosmopolitanism).” 7Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism have different uses depending on academicdiscipline. As stated by Tim Dunne, Mirja Kurki and Steve Smith, cosmopolitanism can bedescribed under two categories: (a) political cosmopolitanism defends the elimination orradical transformation of state borders in order to establish a world government or a similartransnational entity. (b) Ethical cosmopolitanism refers to the idea of creating “ global sphereof equal moral standing” 8 The common denominator of these two categories is ‘worldcitizenship’. In this light, ethical cosmopolitanism emphasizes our duties to the others,regardless of national territory. Its advocates say “one can achieve an impartial point of viewfrom which no one is excluded”9and we should rethink in more inclusive ways our particularidentities, loyalties and social ties. Conversely, communitarians argue that particular identitiesare relevant for arriving at moral judgements. For them membership of particularcommunities and participating in their practices are morally defining or moral startingpoints.10Cosmopolitanism, Chris Brown suggests, emanates from the idealist tradition, inspired byKantian ideas of rationality and equality in law for all.11 In Brown’s view, the cosmopolitanistidea links pure altruism to enlightened self-interest, between the ‘good’ and the political. Thisseparation is far from clear-cut in the communitarian approach which claims that thesedistinctions are inseperably fused together. Brown underlines that communitarianism comespartially from the realist tradition. For instance, Carr’s argument sees morality as relative andnot universal12— and this explains the relationship of realism with communitarian thought.Accordingly hard-line communitarians hold to the believe that different communities developdifferent ethical codes and practices, so a universal ethics does not exist. 13Another feature of the cosmopolitan/communitarian divide, as pointed out by Chris Brown,centers around the argument over the role of the ‘community’. For instance, cosmopolitanists,in his view, emphasize the universal moral dignity of the humans, while communitarianslocate it in the local or ‘national community’ or the human being’s relationship to thedominant culture and community. 14 Here, it is important to note that there exists manyand World Order: A philosophical Inquiry, (London:Routledge, 1992), Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens inthe theory of International Relations, (1982; reprint, London: Macmillan, 1990).7Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, 35.8Toni Erskine, ʺLocating Responsability: The Problem of Moral Agency in International Relationsʺ, inChristian Reus-Smith and Duncan Snidal ( eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2008), 15-23.9Toni Erskine, ʺNormative International Relations Theoryʺ, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith ( eds.),International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 42.10Alasdair Macintyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, ( Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre DamePress, 1981 and 1985), 220; Erskine, International Relations Theories, 42.11Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches, ( London: Harverster Wheatsheaf,1992), 39.12E.H.Carr, What is history?, ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), 19.13Julia Gallagher, Britain and Africa under Blair: In Pursuit of the Good State, ( Manchester: ManchasterUniversity Press, 2011), 29.14Duncan Bell ( ed.), Ethics and World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 175.4
studies challenging this dichotomy, or seeking to reconcile these two poles.15 For instance, innormative theory in international relations, Molly Cochran aims to achieve reconciliationbetween communitarianism and cosmopolitanism through the analysis of different authors,such as John Rawls and Mervyn Frost, two anti-foundationalist approaches (Frenchpoststructuralism and American pragmatism) and finally the analysis of pragmatic approachesto ethical problems, such as Habermas’s theory of discourse ethics. 16 Despite Cochran’sefforts, the core tension between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism still remainsstructural, and thus unsolved. Another reconciling effort comes from Toni Erskine inEmbedded Cosmopolitanism brought together insights from communitarian and feministpolitical thought and critically explored what can be achieved by taking a communitarianstarting point in analysis. The main assumption of Erskine is that conventional cosmopolitanarguments neglect the profound importance of community as the source of moral ideas, andthat community membership is morally constitutive—while underlining that communities arenot necessarily territorially bounded.17 Since cosmopolitan/ communitarian debate stillcontinues, these embedded approaches naturally seek to capture the middle ground forthemselves. In parallel to Erskine’s study, other alternative middle ground approaches startfrom the fact of shared humanity and accommodate particular attachments that could also beconceptualized as an attempt to go beyond the cosmopolitan/communitarian dichotomy and totest states’ ethical approaches against a war, humanitarian crisis, or a popular revolt. For thepurpose of facilitating the understanding of Turkey’s ethical approach to international affairs,this study will read Turkish foreign policy from the perspective of thecosmopolitanism/communitarianism divide and additionally, of some conciliating approaches.Accordingly, an outline of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism is given below.The cosmopolitanist approachThe term “cosmopolitan” which was first used by the Stoics18 was revived in the eighteenthcentury by the Enlightenment thinkers, especially Kant. Retaking the Kantian conception ofjustice, another theoricien, John Rawls wrote in his famous book The Theory of Justice thathumans can be disengaged from all social and contextual particularities. The Rawlsien ideaaiming to determine principles of international and distributive justice also influencedextensively international relations and most particularly the flourishing of normative IRtheory. Theorists like Thomas Pogge, Charles Beitz and Brian Barry later contributed to the15The recent works which have focused on this dichotomy are as follows: Fiona Robinson, Globalizing Care:Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations, ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999); Molly Cochran,Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000); Kimberly Hutchings, International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era, ( London: SagePublications, 1999) ; Charles Jones, Global Justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism, (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999); Peter Sutch, Ethics, Justice and International Relations: Constructing an International Community,(London: Routledge, 2001); Richard Shapcot, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) and Toni Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2008). Of these works, Molly Cochran and Toni Erskine engaged most particularly inreconciling these two poles. See Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, (New York: Oxford University Press,2008) and Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A pragmatic Approach, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2000).16Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A pragmatic Approach, ( Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000).17Erskine, Embed
normative IR theory with a special focus on the divide between two normative conceptual categories of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In the second part, it first seeks to assess whether Turkey has adopted predominantly a communitarian or cosmopolitan position,
The levels view: Political and moral theories are concerned with different normative facts, which belong to different ontological levels. The normative facts of political theory belong to a higher—more coarse-grained—ontological level than those of moral theory. Normative political facts are “multiply realizable” by moral facts, so
while income had a large effect on normative beliefs, with no effect on positive beliefs. This would support the view that positive and normative economics are disconnected. On the other hand, if education were the main determinant of both positive and normative beliefs, this would bolster the theory that the two categories of belief are .
types of influences: normative age graded, normative history graded, and non-normative. Normative age graded influences are'biolog:1 and environmental determinants that in terms of their onset and duration are highly correlated with chronological age. Examples are walking and talking, going
What influences of adult development result in change? Normative age-graded influences Normative history-graded influences Non-normative life events Let’s take a closer look at each of these! Normative age-graded influences include:
In the late 1990s, currcular material became available that taught the normative theory of CBNs.6 Standard introductions to the normative theory in computer science, philosophy, and statistics do not directly address the sorts of tasks that psychologists have investigated, however. First, as opposed to single trial learning, the focus is on .
The distinction between normative and descriptive decision theories is, in principle, very simple. We may, therefore, expect descriptive falsifications of a decision theory to be accompanied by claims that the theory is invalid from a normative point of view.
normative ethics, in that providing an answer would subsequently guide theory about how to live our lives. I begin this section by sketching one very influential answer - one which appears to have the consequence of rendering empirical psychology irrelevant to normative ethics.
tle introduction into state-of-the-art description logics. Before going into technicalities the remainder of this section will brie y discuss how DLs are positioned in the landscape of knowledge representation formalisms, provide some examples for modeling features of DLs, and sketch the most prominent application context: the Semantic Web. Section 2 starts the formal treatment by introducing .
