USAK Yearbook of Politics and International Relations, the fifth edition of which was published in 2012, is an annual, peer-reviewed, English language scholarly journal. The Editorial Office of the Yearbook is in the central building of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) in Ankara, Turkey. However, the Yearbook is an independent publication in terms of scholarly research and the editors decide its publication policies. Esteemed academics dispassionately evaluate all submitted articles to ensure their conformity with academic rules and formats. While the focal points of published articles converge on international relations, international law and political science, essentially; subjects regarding Area studies of the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe are also spared considerable space. Additionally, pieces concerning international security, sociology, and anthropological studies are also regularly included in the Yearbook. Now entering its sixth year of compilation, the Yearbook provides a scholarly platform for academics and researchers throughout the world. The USAK Yearbook of Politics and International Relations is gifted to every dual subscriber to the Review of International Law and Politics (UHP) and the Journal of Central Asia and the Caucasus (OAKA) after their first year of subscription. Indexes through which our followers can browse and access Yearbook are as follows: Hein Online, International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), PAIS International, CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, CSA Sociological Abstracts, CSA Social Services Abstracts and ULAKBİM.
USAK Yearbook of Politics and International Relations, the fifth edition of which was published in 2012, is an annual, peer-reviewed, English language scholarly journal. The Editorial Office of the Yearbook is in the central building of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) in Ankara, Turkey. However, the Yearbook is an independent publication in terms of scholarly research and the editors decide its publication policies. Esteemed academics dispassionately evaluate all submitted articles to ensure their conformity with academic rules and formats. The review reports are confidentially stored in the Yearbook's archives for five years. While the focal points of published articles converge on international relations, international law and political science, essentially; subjects regarding Area studies of the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe are also spared considerable space. Additionally, pieces concerning international security, sociology, and anthropological studies are also regularly included in the Yearbook. Now entering its sixth year of compilation, the Yearbook provides a scholarly platform for academics and researchers throughout the world. The USAK Yearbook of Politics and International Relations is gifted to every dual subscriber to the Review of International Law and Politics (UHP) and the Journal of Central Asia and the Caucasus (OAKA) after their first year of subscription. Indexes through which our followers can browse and access Yearbook are as follows: Hein Online, International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), PAIS International, CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, CSA Sociological Abstracts, CSA Social Services Abstracts and ULAKBİM.
Bu kitap USAK'ın yılda bir kez İngilizce olarak yayınladığı, o yıl içinde USAK uzmanları ve araştırmacıları tarafından yazılan en seçkin makale ve yorumların yer aldığı yayınıdır. Alanında uzman kişiler tarafından yazılmış makaleler arasından seçilen en seçkinleri böylelikle okuyucunun beğenisine sunulmaktadır.
A Research Guide to Southeastern Europe: Print and Electronic Sources is designed to aid those interested in exploring this dynamic region in locating the best resources available, whether looking for archival collections in Albania or dissertations and theses in Greece. It provides readers up-to-date information on a variety of research collections from over twenty countries and in over a dozen languages. The focus of the volume is on the modern era, primarily the 18th century to the present, the subject areas of the humanities and social sciences, though researchers from outside of the subject and temporal scope of the work will find information of use, and the countries of Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova (including the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic), Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey. This volume is distinctive in that it is the only bibliographic resource that offers such extensive subject, linguistic, and regional treatment. This work is composed of five chapters and three appendices. The chapters are focused on research materials, giving readers access points for critical materials on Southeastern Europe both in print and digital formats from libraries, archives, journals, and databases. The appendices focus on library classification, educational programming geared to language instruction, and transliteration of non-Latin scripts.
The current research aims to provide analytical understandings on the costs and benefits of Korean unification from political, social, and economic aspects. Upon the two years of earlier works, we constructed an analytical model encompassing both spatial and temporal dimensions of the unification process, and built comprehensive architecture, ‘the Guiding Type of Unification.’ Based on this model, we have broaden the scope of the research by collecting diverse perspectives from the worldwide experts of the leading countries. We expect to observe the global trends of world governance. Indeed, the increasing importance of Group of Twenty (G‐20) countries in managing global problems reflects both political and social aspects of the changes occurring in global governance. Another reason for this would be South Korea’s diversified international relations in the recent years. Hence, it seems necessary to take a closer look on the international dimensions of Korean unification. In this vein, we requested thirteen experts of the leading countries to express their opinions on Korean unification. In order to collect international perspectives in a coordinated manner, scholars were provided with a guideline to include their perspectives on the expected effects of Korean Unification and the potential roles of their countries during and after the process. Participants were also asked to present candid implications for Korean unification. Argentina, whose food supply is abundant, laid stress on providing assistance in terms of food security during the unification. Australia, who has special concerns in Asian security, suggested a comprehensive support not only as a mediator but also as one of the U.S. alliance. Due to remote distance to Asia, Brazil is relatively less affected by the unification. Brazil, however, expressed that it has a keen interest in transmission of its experience regarding nuclear issues with Argentina. Similar to Brazil’s stance, the effects of the unification influence is indirect to Canada. Nevertheless, Canada could play a role in providing humanitarian assistance, and could be a potential destination for North Korean refugee resettlement. France, one of the most influential members in the European Union and the United Nations, made a suggestion to promote institution building in East Asia that can promote stability in the region. Germany, the only country who had experienced unification, presented its interest in participating actively in the process of Korean unification through public and private sectors. India assumed that the unification of Korea leads to the denuclearization of the peninsula, and would see this as a positive sign for stability of the region, since it would limit or end North Korea’s nuclear weapon transmits with Pakistan. Indonesia could contribute to regional peace and stability through ASEAN and its extensions as South Korea can call upon Indonesia to engage in the peace process. Italy, who especially pointed out the role of European Union as a whole, is well-poised to contribute to economic and social development with North Korea through technical assistance. Mexico can, and expressed its willingness to play an active role in the unification process through international organizations. South Africa, who had been successful in national reconciliation and denuclearization, is very likely to provide its experience and can be a strong voice for the NPT and arms control in the international society. Advocating South Korea’s policy in Korean unification, Turkey explicitly mentioned that it will side with Seoul if there is a possible conflict in the peninsula. The author emphasized that the international community must be well-informed on how Korean unification will take place. Last but not least, the United Kingdom author suggested that Koreans will have to resolve emotional conflicts for reconciliation. Considering how both Koreas have dealt educational matters concerning the division of the peninsula, this may face a major challenge in the future generation. Thirteen countries’ diversely manifested positions on the unifying process are indicative of perceptual change that the issue of Korean unification is no longer a regional issue, but an international one, in which multiple actors have their own stakes within. Upon the previously suggested implications, we categorized the countries into three groups: bystanders, supporters, and interveners. This categorization reflects the assertiveness of each country, or coercive level of each country’s assistance instrumented towards the two Koreas during the unifying process. In the conclusion, based on our final analysis, we provided recommendations for the policy makers. First, diversified diplomacy creates an amicable international environment for unification policies beyond the power politics of the Four Powers. Second, activation of leading countries’ roles is strategically advantageous to activate the meaningful roles of these leading countries to minimize the Four Powers’ concerns. Third, emphasizing the formation of multilateral system would provide leading countries with an additional motivation to actively participate in the unification process. Furthermore, multilateral efforts to achieve Korean unification are also expected to contribute to the furtherance of democratic elements in the dynamics of international relations as a whole. Fourth, it is now high time for us to conduct more public diplomacy by devising new and creative methodologies. The global research project of this kind could be one of the most effective public diplomatic tools. Lastly, the unification between two Koreas can no longer be considered as a regional issue within Northeast Asia since others, including the leading countries, conceive their national interests along the process of unification on the Korean peninsula in diverse ways. Overall, thirteen countries’ recommendations underline the significance of collective efforts in addressing the unification process and suggest South Korea to learn lessons from the experience that they have undergone in the past. Keywords: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, Expectation, Role, Effect ------------- CONTENTS ------------- Acknowledgments Abstract Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Ⅱ. EFFECTS AND ROLES 1. Argentina 2. Australia 3. Brazil 4. Canada 5. France 6. Germany 7. India 8. Indonesia 9. Italy 10. Mexico 11. South Africa 12. Turkey 13. United Kingdom Ⅲ. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 1. Expected Effect 2. Potential Roles 3. Classification of Leading Countries Ⅳ. CONCLUSION References Recent Publications
This book – through a collection of case studies covering Southern and East Africa, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia – offers insights into the nature of social exchanges between Africa and Asia. In the age of the ‘Rise of the South’, it documents the entanglements and the lived experiences of African and Asian people on the move. Divided into three parts, the authors look at Asians in Africa, Africans in Asia, and the ‘connected histories’ that the two share, which illuminate emerging and historical modalities of Afro-Asian human encounters. Cornelissen and Yoichi show how migrants activate multiple forms of transnational social capital as part of their survival strategies and develop complex relationships with host communities.
'The book represents an insightful historical and contemporary account of the Turkish-Chinese relationship, especially in the early periods it considers, and also in tracing the institutional developments between the two following Turkish domestic political changes. Moreover, Turkey and China covers how these two countries have reacted to each other over sensitive issues including Turkey's relation with Taiwan and China's policies towards the Turkic Uyghurs. The book is of interest to diplomats, journalists, students, and researchers working on Turkish foreign policy, Turkish-Asian affairs, and Chinese strategies in the Middle East.'Asian AffairsWhat are the dynamics of the relationship between Turkey and China? How is the Sino-Turkish cooperation affected by other large regional powers? Are Turkey and China compatible enough to sustain a strong and steady relationship in a turbulent future?The relationship between the Republic of Turkey and the People's Republic of China has had many ups and downs from 1949 to the present day. At the start of the Cold War, Turkey diplomatically recognized only the Republic of China (Taiwan) like its NATO allies. Following the Sino-American normalization in 1971, Ankara established diplomatic relations with Beijing and ceased contact with Taipei. Since then, relations between Turkey and China have grown steadily with some setbacks.Turkey and China analyses Turkey-China relations from political, economic, strategic, and cultural perspectives. Turkey's policies towards Taiwan and the Uyghur cause are covered from the beginning. The Sino-Turkish cooperation on the economy, trade, the defence industry, energy, and nuclear technology are also elaborated. Crucially, the Silk Road partnership in the context of China's Belt and Road Initiative and Turkey's Middle Corridor has a deep-rooted focus alongside future perspectives. Finally, the roles of other actors — particularly the United States and Russia — in Sino-Turkish relations have a primary focus, further clarified by the impact of international organizations and forums like the United Nations, NATO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the European Union, the G20, and BRICS.
Taking the period from the end of the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, this book critically examines the evolution of the strategic relationship between the US and Turkey during this period, with a particular focus on the Middle Eastern context. Strategic Relations Between the US and Turkey employs interviews with US, Turkish and Israeli officials and archival research in order to offer an alternative reading of the realities that shaped bilateral co-operation through multi-level analysis. The unraveling of these realities enlightens the reader about the past course of events but also aids the understanding of the dynamics of the relationship today. Essential reading for students and scholars of U.S. and Turkish foreign policy, this study of co-operation between a super-power and a relatively weak state in the international system will also be of use to those interested in International Relations, Diplomatic History and World Politics more broadly.
This book dwells upon the various aspects of the Turkish foreign policy in the different regions of the world, especially with the dawn of the twenty-first century. Turkey has attracted international attention due to a marked transformation in the country’s domestic and external realms, which in turn, has led to an increased activism in its foreign policy actions. Particularly, Turkey’s economic rise has fuelled the country’s ambition and quest for a more significant role in international affairs. These transformations have come about with the ascendance of the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) [or Justice & Development Party (JDP)] to power in 2002. Turkey, under the AKP, moved towards a ‘new’ direction in the foreign policy and consequently endeavoured to play a larger role in West Asia (Middle East), the Balkans, southern Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Africa and Asia. The country has emerged as a multi-regional player having stakes and tractions on a range of issues in these regions. The several discernible aspects of Turkey’s involvement are dealt with in the contributions to this volume.
Papers presented at the NATO Advanced Research Workshop entitled as "NATO, the Fight against International Terrorism in Afghanistan and Security Situation in Central Asia since 9/11," held at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey between April 10-11, 2011.
