21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?

Hakan MEHMETCİK (Işık Üniversitesi, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü)
Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi
16 1
Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 22 Sayfa Aralığı: 31 - 59 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?

Öz:
Soğuk Savaş yıllarında teorik olarak en fazla gelişmiş ve pratikte en etkin şekilde uygulanmış olan "Caydırıcılık/Nükleer Caydırıcılık", stratejik düzeyde devletlerin yöneldiği en önemli dış politika araçlarından biri haline gelmiştir. Kendisi iki kutuplu yapı ve karşılıklı nükleer yok oluşa dayanan Soğuk Savaş'ın bir eseri olan caydırıcılık teori ve pratiği, farklı evrelerden geçerek gelişmiş ve çok yoğun bir şekilde çalışılmıştır. Soğuk Savaş'ın sona ermesiyle ise, akademik çalışma konusu olarak çekiciliğini bir süre kaybetmiştir. Fakat gerek 11 Eylül sonrası değişen tehdit algıları, gerekse de Doğu Avrupa, Doğu Asya ve Orta Doğu'da yaşanan son gelişmeler caydırıcılık teori ve pratiğine olan ilgiyi yeniden artırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 21. yüzyıl caydırıcılık teori ve pratiğine hâkim olan unsurların analizini sunmaktır. Bu amaçla makalede kavram olarak caydırıcılık, klasik caydırıcılık teorisinin önermeleri ve bunlara getirilen eleştiriler analiz edilerek günümüz caydırıcılık teorisine ve pratiğine egemen olan unsurlar karşılaştırmalı yöntemle incelenecektir. Türkçe literatürde eksikliği duyulan caydırıcılık kavram ve teorisinin bütünsel analizini sunması bakımında makale özgün bir değer içermektedir
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Siyasi Bilimler Uluslararası İlişkiler

Deterrence for 21st Century: Changes in Theory and Practice?

Öz:
Deterrence/Nuclear deterrence, which was theoretically the most developed and practically the best-applied strategy in the Cold War era, became one of the most important tools for the states to conduct foreign policy at the strategic level. Deterrence, as a product of the Cold War, which was itself a product of bipolar world order and mutual assured destruction between two heavily nuclear-armed super powers, had been developed gradually and studied heavily. Yet, with the end of the Cold War, it somehow lost its attraction for a while. However, with the 9/11 and recent developments in the Eastern Europe and wider Asia, it reiterated its position as the interests on deterrence studies extend. The aim of this article is to analyze the requirement of 21st century deterrence by presenting a brief of the nature and development of deterrence theory and practice. To this end, this article presents a comparative analysis of today’s deterrence theory and practice by analyzing deterrence as a concept, classic deterrence theory, and critics to the classic deterrence theory with a comparative methodology. As an integrated analysis, which is inadequate in Turkish literature on deterrence, the article has a unique contribution to existing literature
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Siyasi Bilimler Uluslararası İlişkiler
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • ACHEN, Christopher H., and SNIDAL, Duncan. “Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41, no. 2 (January 1, 1989): 143–169.
  • ACTON, James. Deterrence during Disarmament: Deep Nuclear Reductions and International Security. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. ALLISON, Graham. “How to Stop Nuclear Terror.” Foreign Affairs 83 (2004): 64.
  • ALLISON, Graham T, and ZELIKOW, Philip. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, 1999. BALDWIN, David A. “The Power of Positive Sanctions.” World Politics 24, no. 1 (October 1, 1971): 19–38.
  • BRAYBROOKE, David, and LINDBLOM, Charles Edward. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. Second Edition. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1967.
  • BRODIE, Bernard. Strategy in the Missile Age. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2007.
  • BRODIE, Bernard. The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order,. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972.
  • BUNDY, McGeorge. “The Bishops and the Bomb.” The New York Review of Books (pre-1986), June 16, 1983.
  • CRAWFORD, Timothy W. Pivotal Deterrence: Third-Party Statecraft and the Pursuit of Peace. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
  • DEUTCH, John. “A Nuclear Posture for Today.” Foreign Affairs 84, no. 1 (January 1, 2005): 49–60.
  • FREEDMAN, Lawrence. Deterrence. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2004.
  • GEORGE, Alexander L, and SMOKE, Richard. Deterrence in American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.
  • GEORGE, Alexander L. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace, 1993.
  • GEORGE, Alexander L., SIMONS, William E., and HALL, David K. The Limits Of Coercive Diplomacy: Second Edition. Boston: Westview Press, 1971.
  • GLASER, Charles L., and FETTER, Steve. “Counterforce Revisited: Assessing the Nuclear Posture Review’s New Missions.” International Security 30, no. 2 (October 1, 2005): 84–126.
  • GRAHAM, Cheryl M. “Deterrence Revalidated: An Investigation of the Practice and Application of Deterrence in the Post-Cold War World”. Ph.D., University of Aberdeen, 2010.
  • HUIGENS, Kyron. “Dead End of Deterrence, and Beyond, The.” Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 41 (1999): 943.
  • HUTH, Paul K. “Deterrence and International Conflict: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Debates.” Annual Review of Political Science 2, no. 1 (1999): 25–48.
  • HUTH, Paul K. Extended Deterrence and the Prevention of War. First Edition. Yale University Press, 1988.
  • JERVIS, Robert. “Deterrence Theory Revisited.” World Politics 31, no. 2 (January 1, 1979): 289–324.
  • JERVIS, Robert, and STEIN, Janice Gross. Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.
  • KISSINGER, Henry. World Order. Ibooks. United States, LLC: The Penguin Press, 2014
  • KISSINGER, Henry A. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. 1st Edition. New York: Published for the Council On Foreign Relations By Harper, 1957.
  • KLEIN, John J. “The Case for Tactical Nuclear Weapons.” International Relations and Security Network, November 25, 2014. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id= 185683 (accessed November 27, 2014).
  • KNOPF, Jeffrey W. “The Fourth Wave in Deterrence Research.” Contemporary Security Policy 31, no. 1 (2010): 1–33.
  • KNOPF, Jeffrey W. “Three Items in One: Deterrence as Concept, Research Program, and Political Issue.” In Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the Global Age, edited by T. V Paul, Patrick M Morgan, and James J. Wirtz, 31–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
  • KRISTENSEN, Hans M., and NORRIS, Robert S. “Slowing Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Endless Nuclear Weapon Modernizations: A Challenge to the NPT.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70, no. 4 (July 1, 2014): 94–107.
  • KUBRICK, Stanley. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Comedy, Sci-Fi, War, 1964.
  • LEBOW, Richard Ned, and STEIN, Janice Gross. “Rational Deterrence Theory: I Think, Therefore I Deter.” World Politics 41, no. 02 (1989): 208–224.
  • LENG, Russell J. Interstate Crisis Behavior, 1816-1980. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • LUCE, R. Duncan, and RAIFFA, Howard. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Reprint edition. New York: Dover Publications, 1989.
  • LUPOVICI, Amir. “The Emerging Fourth Wave of Deterrence Theory—Toward a New Research Agenda.” International Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (September 1, 2010): 705–732.
  • MAALOUF, Amin. Disordered World. Ebooks. London, Berlin, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury USA, 2011.
  • MEAD, Walter R. “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers.” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 4 (2014): 115–25.
  • MEHMETCİK, Hakan. “Level of Analysis Problem in the Post-Cold War Deterrence: Need for Regional Perspectives” presented at the ISA-West, Los Angeles, CA-United States, September 26, 2014.
  • MORGAN, Patrick. “Evaluating Tailored Deterrence.” In NATO and 21st Century Deterrence, edited by Karl-Heinz Kamp and David Scott Yost, 32–49. Research Division, NATO Defense College, 2009. MORGAN, Patrick M. International Security: Problems and Solutions. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2006.
  • MORGAN, Patrick M. “Collective Actor Deterrence.” In Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the Global Age, edited by Thaza Varkey Paul and James J. Wirtz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
  • MORGAN, Patrick M. Deterrence Now. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  • MORGAN, Patrick M. Deterrence: A Conceptual Analysis. London: Sage Publications, 1977.
  • O’NEIL, Andrew. “Extended Nuclear Deterrence in East Asia: Redundant or Resurgent?” International Affairs 87, no. 6 (November 2011): 1439–1457.
  • PABIAN, Frank V. “South Africa’s Nuclear Weapon Program: Lessons for US Nonproliferation Policy.” The Nonproliferation Review 3, no. 1 (1995): 1–19.
  • PAUL, T. V, MORGAN, Patrick M., and WIRTZ, James J. Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the Global Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
  • PAYNE, Keith B. “Post Cold War Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Deterrence Policy.” Comparative Strategy 17, no. 3 (1998): 227–277.
  • PAYNE, Keith B. “Understanding Deterrence.” Comparative Strategy 30, no. 5 (2011): 393–427.
  • RUSSETT, Bruce M, STARR Harvey, and KINSELLA, David Todd. World Politics: The Menu for Choice. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2009.
  • RUSSETT, Bruce M. “Pearl Harbor: Deterrence Theory and Decision Theory.” Journal of Peace Research 4, no. 2 (June 1, 1967): 89–105.
  • RUSSETT, Bruce M. “The Calculus of Deterrence.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 7, no. 2 (June 1, 1963): 97–109.
  • SAGAN, Scott D., and WALTZ, Kenneth N. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, Second Edition. Second Edition. W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.
  • SAGAN, Scott Douglas. Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National Security. Princeton University Press, 1990.
  • SAGAN, Scott Douglas. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1993.
  • SANGER, David E., and BROAD, William J. “From Rogue Nuclear Programs, Web of Trails Leads to Pakistan.” The New York Times, January 4, 2004, sec. International Style. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2004/01/04/international/04NUKE.html (accessed April 29, 2014). SCHELLING, Thomas C. Arms and Influence, 2008.
  • SCHELLING, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London England: Harvard University Press, 1980. SHULTZ, George P., PERRY, William J., KISSENGER, Henry A., and NUNN, Sam. “Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Proliferation.” Wall Street Journal, Europe. Brussels, United States, March 8, 2011.
  • SHULTZ, George Pratt, and DRELL, Sidney D. “Deterrence: its Past and Future: A Summary Report of Conference Proceedings, Hoover Institution, November 2010”. Hoover Institution Press, 2011 . SINGH, Jaswant. “Against Nuclear Apartheid.” Foreign Affairs 77, no. 5 (September 1, 1998): 41–52.
  • SNYDER, Glenn H. Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National Security. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1975.
  • SPERANDEI, Maria. “Bridging Deterrence and Compellence: An Alternative Approach to the Study of Coercive Diplomacy.” International Studies Review 8, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): 253–280.
  • Staff, Joint Chiefs of. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Joint Publication 1-02). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.
  • TANNENWALD, Nina. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  • ULLMAN, Harlan K. “Is Deterrence Dead?” The RUSI Journal 130, no. 3 (September 1985): 31–36.
  • VERBA, Sidney. “Assumptions of Rationality and Non-Rationality in Models of the International System.” World Politics 14, no. Special Issue 01 (1961): 93–117.
  • WALTZ, Kenneth N. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981.
  • WALTZ, Kenneth N, and Robert J. Art, eds. The Use of Force: International Politics and Foreign Policy. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1971.
  • WALTZ, Kenneth N. “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities.” The American Political Science Review 84, no. 3 (September 1, 1990): 731–745.
  • WALTZ, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. 1st ed. Waveland Press Inc, 1979.
  • WEBER, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Fourth edition. University of California Press, 1978.
  • WOHLSTETTER, Albert. “The Delicate Balance of Terror.” Foreign Affairs 37, no. 2 (January 1, 1959): 211–234.
  • ZAGARE, Frank C. “Deterrence Is Dead. Long Live Deterrence.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 23, no. 2 (2006): 115–120.
  • “Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | The White House”, n.d. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered (accessed April 29, 2014).
APA MEHMETCIK H (2015). 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. , 31 - 59.
Chicago MEHMETCIK HAKAN 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. (2015): 31 - 59.
MLA MEHMETCIK HAKAN 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. , 2015, ss.31 - 59.
AMA MEHMETCIK H 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. . 2015; 31 - 59.
Vancouver MEHMETCIK H 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. . 2015; 31 - 59.
IEEE MEHMETCIK H "21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?." , ss.31 - 59, 2015.
ISNAD MEHMETCIK, HAKAN. "21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?". (2015), 31-59.
APA MEHMETCIK H (2015). 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 11(22), 31 - 59.
Chicago MEHMETCIK HAKAN 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 11, no.22 (2015): 31 - 59.
MLA MEHMETCIK HAKAN 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, vol.11, no.22, 2015, ss.31 - 59.
AMA MEHMETCIK H 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 2015; 11(22): 31 - 59.
Vancouver MEHMETCIK H 21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi. 2015; 11(22): 31 - 59.
IEEE MEHMETCIK H "21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?." Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 11, ss.31 - 59, 2015.
ISNAD MEHMETCIK, HAKAN. "21. Yüzyıl için Caydırıcılık: Teori ve Pratikte Neler Değişti?". Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi 11/22 (2015), 31-59.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 7:18

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları