Preview

Political science

Advanced search

Contemporary Turkey’s Foreign Policy: Regional Power in Neoimperial Perspective

https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2022.01.11

Abstract

The article examines the conceptual foundations of Turkey's contemporary foreign policy. Based on comparing a range of empirical data with a list of theo- retical indicators compiled by D. Nolte the author classifies Turkey as a regional power and at the same time highlights the concept’s insufficient explanatory capacity for analyzing the country’s contemporary foreign policy. The author forms a hypothesis consistent with H. Spruyt's theory of institutional competition between political forms and of their selection. The hypothesis states that the current political dynamics lead to the emergence of novel political entities – neoempires. To test it, the autor defines ‘neoempireness’ as a feature of foreign policy and undertakes a comparative analysis of ‘empireness’, ‘post-empireness’ and ‘neoempireness’. It is noted that the term ‘post-empireness’ reflects spontaneous, unintended influence of the imperial past on the subsequent development of the former empire's core and peripheries as independent national states, whereas ‘neoempireness’ implies deliberate adaptation of the imperial experience to the contemporary realities for the purpose of engaging in the global competition more efficiently. The analysis of a range of significant political decisions and actions recently taken by the Turkish government allows to make the conclusion that its foreign policy has assumed a neoimperial nature.

About the Author

A. O. Beliakova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (Univer- sity), MFA Russia
Russian Federation

Moscow



References

1. Alekseeva T.A, Ananyev B.I. The Empire phantoms and the world order. Journal of law and administration. 2017, N 4(45), P. 86–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2017-4-45-86-90 (In Russ.)

2. Barton G.A. Informal Empire and the rise of one world culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 263 p.

3. Fedorenko S.P. Features of Empire understanding in the context of the Neo-Imperial state formation. Philosophy of law. 2013, N 6(61), P. 72–75. (In Russ.)

4. Ferguson N. Empire: how Britain made the modern world. London: Allen Lane, 2003, 392 p.

5. Ivanova I.I. Evolution of Turkey’s policy in the Middle East in XX–XXI centuries. Moscow: Editor Vorob’yov A.V., 2019, 380 p. (In Russ.)

6. Kaspe S.I. Centers and hierarchies: spatial metaphors of power and Western political form. Moscow: Moscow school of political studies, 2007, 318 p. (In Russ.)

7. Kudryashova I.V., Kozintsev A.S. Institutional solutions for sectarian conflicts in the Middle East in the context of imperial legacy. Political Science (RU). 2021, N 2, P. 140–164. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.02.05 (In Russ.)

8. Loshkariov I.D., Paren’kov D.A. Post-imperial trajectories in world politics. Journal of law and administration. 2017, N 4(45), P. 91–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2017-4-45-91-96 (In Russ.)

9. Meleshkina E.Y. Post-Imperial spaces: peculiarities of state and nation-building. Political science (RU). 2013, N 3, P. 10–29. (In Russ.)

10. Nolte D. How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics. Review of international studies. 2010, Vol. 36, N 4, P. 881–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s026021051000135x

11. Nye J. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs Group, 2004, 209 p.

12. Potseluyev S.P. “Symbolic politics”: history of concept. Symbolic politics. 2012, N 1, P. 17–53. (In Russ.)

13. Rokkan S., Urwin D.W. Economy, territory, identity: politics of West European peripheries. London: Sage publications, 1983, 228 p.

14. Snyder J. Myths of empire: domestic politics and international ambition. London: Cornell university press, 2013, 559 p.

15. Spruyt H. The sovereign state and its competitors: an analysis of systems change. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1996, 304 p.

16. Sucu A.E., Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Iskandarov Q. Transformation of middle powers with the decline of world hegemony: the case of Turkey. Strategic analysis. 2021, P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2021.1950409

17. Wendt A., Friedheim D. Hierarchy under anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State. International organization. 1995, Vol. 49, N 4, P. 689–721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300028484


Review

Views: 261


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1998-1775 (Print)