state exam

1. Select a particular type of actor within the system of global governance (IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, International Courts, Group of 8 etc.) and explain their major functions. Provide an empirical example to demonstrate relevance (or lack thereof) of such actors in international relations

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4uncu soruda baya acikladim tekrar global governance ama sen yine de her seyi oku yazdigim. Simdi bu soruya cevap verirken anlamamiz gereken en onemli sey - system of global governance`in ne oldugu. Governence`in turkce karsiligini yonetisim olarak dusunebilirsin. Yani government hukumet iken, governance kavrami daha genel bir cerceve icersinde politikanin isleyis surecini tasrif etmeye yariyor. Peki nasil tanimlayabiliriz governenci? Bak wikipedideki tabiri ile global governance soyle tanimlanmis: Global governance refers to institutions that coordinate the behavior of transnational actors, facilitate cooperation, resolve disputes, and alleviate collective action problems. Global governance broadly entails making, monitoring, and enforcing rules. ... Governance is thus broader than government Yani global governance kavramindan bahsederken- hukumetler disinda- uluslararasi iliskilerdeki belli aktorlerin, belli kurumlarin ve ulus devlet disindaki orgutlerin- politika sureclerine etki ettigini goruyoruz. Bu cok onemli bir kavram cunku Realism acisindan dusunursen, uluslrarasi iliskilerdeki temel aktorler devletler ve uluslararasi orgutler - en guclu devletlerin cikarlarina hizmet etmek icin varlar. Diger taraftan neo-liberalism, uluslaraarasi iliskilerde devlet disi aktorlerin onemini vurguluyor. Ayni sekilde, constructivism`de bu orgutler icerisinde olusturulan norm`larin collective pattern of behavior`I degistirebilecegini boylelikle- devletlerin cikarlar yerine degerler temelinde- positive sum game`lar kazanabilecegini ongoruyor. Positive sum game kavrami onemli cunku realism icin - uluslararasi system 0 sum game. Yani bir taraf kazanirken digeri kaybediyor. Ancak global governance kabraminda- soyle aimler var: is to provide global public goods, particularly peace and security, justice and mediation systems for conflict, functioning markets and unified standards for trade and industry Sayfa 29 devletleri ozetlemis- en onemlilerini- realism icin global governance aslinda bu devletlerin amacina hizmet eden kurumlari barindiriyor. Digger yandan ngo`lar var : 29`dan itibaren sorunun cevabinda devlet disi butun aktorleri tanimlamis. Burada vurgulaman gereken sey, realism icin bu kurumlar ikincil onemdeyken, liberalism - bu kurumlarin sisteme etki edebildigini ve bu nedenle anarsinin cconflictual nature`I yerine collective goods lar kazanilabilecegini onguruyor. Son olarak o sayfadaki non-state aktorlerden mesela bm gibi bir ornek verirsen- bence bu soruyu da cevaplamis oluyorsun gayet iyi bir sekilde. Sayfa 39 40 ozellikle bak

1. Summarize the origins and evolution of the Economic and Monetary Union . Discuss the reasons for the introduction of the euro as well as the political, institutional and economic deficiencies of the EMU

Bak simdi bu soruyu cevaplarken aklinda tutman gereken en onemli yil 2008 ekonomik krizi. Ecocnomic ve Monetary dedigi politika Alani, tek bir alan degil. Yani bir den cock politika Alani var. Oncelikle summarize ve evolution: What is the Economic and Monetary Union? (EMU) The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) represents a major step in the integration of EU economies. Launched in 1992, EMU involves the coordination of economic and fiscal policies, a common monetary policy, and a common currency, the euro. Whilst all 27 EU Member States take part in the economic union, some countries have taken integration further and adopted the euro. Together, these countries make up the euro area. Coordination of economic and fisal poliies vs common monetary policy and a common currency. Bu kavram onemli. Nitekim 2010 da euro krizinin sebeplerinden birisi bu ic yapidaki farklilik. The decision to form an Economic and Monetary Union was taken by the European Council in the Dutch city of Maastricht in December 1991, and was later enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). Economic and Monetary Union takes the EU one step further in its process of economic integration, which started in 1957 when it was founded. Economic integration brings the benefits of greater size, internal efficiency and robustness to the EU economy as a whole and to the economies of the individual Member States. This, in turn, offers opportunities for economic stability, higher growth and more employment - outcomes of direct benefit to EU citizens. In practical terms, EMU means: Coordination of economic policy-making between Member States Coordination of fiscal policies, notably through limits on government debt and deficit An independent monetary policy run by the European Central Bank (ECB) Single rules and supervision of financial Institutions within the euro area The single currency and the euro area Economic governance under EMU Within the EMU there is no single institution responsible for economic policy. Instead, the responsibility is divided between Member States and the EU institutions. The main actors in EMU are: The European Council - sets the main policy orientations The Council of the EU (the 'Council') - coordinates EU economic policy-making and decides whether a Member State may adopt the euro The 'Eurogroup' - coordinates policies of common interest for the euro-area Member States The Member States - set their national budgets within agreed limits for deficit and debt, and determine their own structural policies involving labour, pensions and capital markets The European Commission - monitors performance and compliance The European Central Bank (ECB) - sets monetary policy, with price stability as the primary objective and act as central supervisor of financial Institutions in the euro area The European Parliament - shares the job of formulating legislation with the Council, and subjects economic governance to democratic scrutiny in particular through the new Economic Dialogue Simdi bu noktada role of national governments is realyy important to understand the role of them in the process: National governments control other economic policy areas. These include fiscal policy that concerns government budgets tax policies that determine how income is raised structural policies that determine pension systems, labour- and capital-market regulations However, the EMU brings more economic integration, especially in the euro area. As a consequence, economic policy-making becomes a matter of common concern to all EU countries. To ensure the smooth operation of the EU economy as a whole, it is important that all countries coordinate their economic and fiscal policies with the common objective of stability and growth.v Simdi bir individual policy`e bakalim. Mesela bu alanda ECB yani avrupa Merkez bankasi yetkili. Monetary policy Monetary policy for the euro area is managed through the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the euro area countries, which together make up the Eurosystem. Decisions on monetary policy in the euro area can only be taken by the governing council of the ECB, made up of the governors of the national central banks of the euro area countries the members of the ECB's executive board These decisions are made free from outside influence. EU countries outside the euro area coordinate their monetary policy with the ECB within the European system of central banks. The treaty lays down the ECB's mission which is to ensure price stability within the euro area. The ECB aims to keep price inflation in the euro area below but close to 2% over the medium term. This 2% inflation target is considered optimal for promoting growth and employment. For more details, visit the dedicated pages on the website of the ECB Bu growth and stability ise flexible solidarity/ yani coordine ediyor devletler. Sayfa 55`de1990 lara kadar gelisimi anlatmis/ ben oradan devam ediyorum: Su kisim onemli: Historical development of the EMU: Initiative of the European Commission in 1969, which set out the need for "greater coordination of economic policies and monetary cooperation, " followed by the decision of the Heads of State and Gov. at their Hague summit October 1970: the Werner Plan - first commonly agreed blueprint to create an EMU in 3 stages The first stage, narrowing of exchange-rate fluctuations, was to be tried on an experimental basis without any commitment to the other stages. Unfortunately, the Werner strategy took for granted fixed exchange rates against the dollar. When the USA effectively floated the dollar from August 1971, the ensuing wave of market instability put upward pressure on the Deutschmark and squashed hopes of tying the Community's currencies more closely together. To retrieve the situation, in March 1972, the Member States created the 'snake in the tunnel'. This was a mechanism for managing fluctuations of their currencies (the snake) inside narrow limits against the dollar (the tunnel). Hit by oil crises, policy divergence and dollar weakness, within two years the snake had lost many of its component parts and was little more than a German-mark zone comprising Germany, Denmark and the Benelux countries. EMU: 1st stage JULY 1990 - 31 DECEMBER 1993 ● On July 1990, exchange controls are abolished, thus capital movements are completely liberalised in the ECC ● The Treaty of Maastricht establishes the completion of the EMU as a formal objective ● The Treaty enters into force on the 1 November 1993 2nd stage: JANUARY 1994 - 31 DECEMBER 1998 ● The European Monetary Institute is established (forerunner of the ECB) ● December 1995: the name of the new currency (the euro) as well as the transition periods are decided ● June 1997: the European Council decides at Amsterdam to adopt the Stability and Growth Pact, designed to ensure budgetary discipline ● June 1998: the European Central Bank is created and in 31 December 1998, the conversion rates between the 11 participating national currencies and the euro are established 3rd stage: JANUARY 1999 - and continuing ● From the start of 1999, the euro is now a real currency, and a single monetary policy is introduced under the authority of the ECB Ardindan sayfa 60`da aktorleri anlatmis/ bunlari da hatirlaman lazim: Economic governance under EMU The European Council sets the main policy orientations The 'Council' coordinates EU economic policy-making and decides whether a MS may adopt the euro The 'Eurogroup' coordinates policies of common interest for the euro-area Member States The EU MS set their national budgets within agreed limits for deficit and debt, and determine their own structural policies involving labour, pensions and capital markets The EC monitors performance and compliance The ECB sets monetary policy, with price stability as the primary objective The EP shares the job of formulating legislation with the Council, and subjects economic governance to democratic scrutiny in particular through the ne Economic Dialogue. Monetary policy ● Monetary policy for the euro area is managed through the ECB and the national central banks of the euro-area Member States, which together make up the Eurosystem Instruments at the Eurosystem's disposal: Open market operations: The most important instrument is the reverse transaction, which may be conducted in the form of a repurchase agreement or as a collateralised loan. The Eurosystem may also make use of outright transactions, issuance of debt certificates, foreign exchange swaps and collection of fixed-term deposits. Standing facilities: Marginal lending facility or Deposit facility Minimum reserve requirements for credit institutions ● Decisions on monetary policy in the euro area can only be taken by the Governing Council of the ECB, which comprises the governors of the national central banks of the euro-area Member States and the members of the ECB's Executive Board ➔ These decisions are made free from outside influence ● The ECB aims to keep price inflation in the euro area below but close to 2% over the medium term. This 2% inflation target is considered optimal for promoting growth and employment BUDGETARY SURVEILLANCE: Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) ● Adopted by the Council in 1997 and later revised in 2005, the SGP helps enforce fiscal discipline within EMU and ensure sound and sustainable public finances ● The sovereign debt crisis in the euro area highlighted the weaknesses in many EU countries' budget positions and also some gaps in the SGP, which had not been addressed sufficiently during the 2005 reforms ● The secondary law - the so-called "6-pack" - is a set of legislative measures to reform the SGP and introduces greater macroeconomic surveillance ● The Six-pack entered into force in December of 2011 ● In March 2013, the SGP was complemented (as part of the so-called "2-pack") by additional reporting and surveillance of draft budgetary plans for euro area Member States ● The Fiscal Stability Treaty (aka Fiscal Compact) - the treaty mirrored these two reforms, the two-pack and six-pack, the binding provision was that the member states undertake to adopt at the national level rules that limit their structural deficit to 0.5% of GDP ● The Fiscal Compact was signed by 25 member states in 2012, excluding the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, and would later come into force on the first of January 2013 ➔ Preventive arm of the SGP: ● The goal of the preventive arm is to ensure sound public finances by multilateral surveillance ● Its key concept is a medium-term sound fiscal position, called medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) ● Euro area Member States outline in Stability Programmes the way they intend to reach their MTOs and the country specific adjustment paths are adopted by the Council (as part of the Country Specific Recommendations) based on Commission proposals ➔ ➔ ➔ Corrective Arm of the SGP: ● The corrective arm refers to the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) ● The EDP is triggered by the deficit breaching the 3% of GDP threshold or the public debt being above 60% of GDP and not diminishing at a sufficiently rapid pace as defined by the debt reduction benchmark stipulating that the distance to the 60% threshold should be reduced by 5% on average per year (over the past 3 years or in the next 2 years) ➔ Preventive arm of the SGP: ● The goal of the preventive arm is to ensure sound public finances by multilateral surveillance ● Its key concept is a medium-term sound fiscal position, called medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) ● Euro area Member States outline in Stability Programmes the way they intend to reach their MTOs and the country specific adjustment paths are adopted by the Council (as part of the Country Specific Recommendations) based on Commission proposals ➔ ➔ ➔ Corrective Arm of the SGP: ● The corrective arm refers to the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) ● The EDP is triggered by the deficit breaching the 3% of GDP threshold or the public debt being above 60% of GDP and not diminishing at a sufficiently rapid pace as defined by the debt reduction benchmark stipulating that the distance to the 60% threshold should be reduced by 5% on average per year (over the past 3 years or in the next 2 years) Bak simdi, internetten financial crsis 2010 diger ararsan buradaki sorun su: Monetory policy Supranational kurumlarin elinde, ozellikle bagimsiz Merkez bankaci ECB amd Fiscal policy yani butce ve harcama politikalari devletlerin elinde. Bu nedenle, 2010 da euro krizi ortaya cikiyor, sonrasinda SGP revise ediliyor yukaridaki gibi. Bir de ek olarak 62 inci sayfada bahsedilen kurumlar olusturuluyor sirasiyla: FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE EURO: European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) (June 2010) ● The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was created as a temporary crisis resolution mechanism by the euro area Member States in June 2010 ● The EFSF has provided financial assistance to Ireland, Portugal and Greece ● The assistance was financed by the EFSF through the issuance of bonds and other debt instruments on capital markets ● The EFSF will not provide financial assistance to any further countries ● The final ongoing EFSF assistance programme (for Greece) has been extended to 30 June 2015 ● However, even after this date, the EFSF will continue to operate in order to receive loan repayments from beneficiary countries European Stability Mechanism (ESM) (October 2012) ● The ESM was established as a permanent rescue/crisis resolution mechanism ● The shareholders are the 19 eurozone Member States ● The ESM has provided financial assistance to Spain for the recapitalisation of its financial sector ● The ESM is providing financial assistance to Cyprus, which is implementing a macroeconomic adjustment programme ● The establishment of the ESM should not be regarded as a stand-alone response to the sovereign debt crisis, but rather as complementary to a series of measures undertaken at national and EU level ● The efforts taken by EU Member States with respect to fiscal consolidation and structural reforms, along with EU initiatives such as the strengthened Stability and Growth Pact, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU (fiscal compact), European Semester, the Euro Plus Pact and the new European system of financial supervision The European Semester, introduced in 2010 in the aftermath of the eurozone sovereign debt crisis, enables the coordination of Member States' budgetary and economic plans for the year. It also allows the Commission - in cooperation with Member States - to provide country-specific recommendations to EU countries and monitor their implementation Bu noktada sunu soylemelisin, after the global financial crisis we see a new changes and these new changes strengthen the role of EU level rules, their application and their monitoring in terms of application of supranational supervision to the new policy areas. Bak ikv`nin sitesini atiyorum, orada turkce guzel ozetlemis. Hem de diger butun politika alanlarina da bakabilirsin oradan: https://www.ikv.org.tr/ikv.asp?id=230

1. Discuss the functioning of key institutions providing global economic governance (WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund) and their ability to provide economic stability and development assistance. Use practical country specific case(s) to demonstrate their (in)effectiveness.

Bak yine governance kavramina geldik. Yani aslinda Soru 7 deki global governance`dan bahsediyoruz. Ama bu sefer bunun ekonomik kisminda. Soruyu uc kisimda ele almani istiyor ama aslinda 4` asamada cevaplaman daha mantikli. Yine once governance kavrami ile baslamalisin - sayfa 7 - ve ardindan economic gobernance kavramiyla devam etmelisin. Simdi sana ornek vermek icin Cin ornegini kullanicam, First of all global governance is a broad term - which is about regulation of human affairs on a worldwide basis. Relativelty new term. It is a multi level collection of governance related activities, rules, mecchanisms, formal and iformarmal, public and private existing in the world politics. So, when we talk about governance, we talk about states, corporations, civic associations, regional and international organizations etc. Bir ornek olarak World Bank`I verebilirsin kurum olarak: Soyle ki: The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans and grants to the governments of low- and middle-income countries for the purpose of pursuing capital projects.[5] It comprises two institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the International Development Association (IDA). The World Bank is a component of the World Bank Group. The World Bank's most recently stated goal is the reduction of poverty. Bir digger ornek ise WTO: Onu da soyle ozetleyebilirisz: The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world's trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business. The WTO is run by its member governments. All major decisions are made by the membership as a whole, either by ministers (who usually meet at least once every two years) or by their ambassadors or delegates (who meet regularly in Geneva). While the WTO is driven by its member states, it could not function without its Secretariat to coordinate the activities. The Secretariat employs over 600 staff, and its experts — lawyers, economists, statisticians and communications experts — assist WTO members on a daily basis to ensure, among other things, that negotiations progress smoothly, and that the rules of international trade are correctly applied and enforced. Trade negotiations The WTO agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property. They spell out the principles of liberalization, and the permitted exceptions. They include individual countries' commitments to lower customs tariffs and other trade barriers, and to open and keep open services markets. They set procedures for settling disputes. These agreements are not static; they are renegotiated from time to time and new agreements can be added to the package. Many are now being negotiated under the Doha Development Agenda, launched by WTO trade ministers in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001. Implementation and monitoring WTO agreements require governments to make their trade policies transparent by notifying the WTO about laws in force and measures adopted. Various WTO councils and committees seek to ensure that these requirements are being followed and that WTO agreements are being properly implemented. All WTO members must undergo periodic scrutiny of their trade policies and practices, each review containing reports by the country concerned and the WTO Secretariat. Dispute settlement The WTO's procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore for ensuring that trade flows smoothly. Countries bring disputes to the WTO if they think their rights under the agreements are being infringed. Judgements by specially appointed independent experts are based on interpretations of the agreements and individual countries' commitments. Building trade capacity WTO agreements contain special provision for developing countries, including longer time periods to implement agreements and commitments, measures to increase their trading opportunities, and support to help them build their trade capacity, to handle disputes and to implement technical standards. The WTO organizes hundreds of technical cooperation missions to developing countries annually. It also holds numerous courses each year in Geneva for government officials. Aid for Trade aims to help developing countries develop the skills and infrastructure needed to expand their trade. Outreach The WTO maintains regular dialogue with non-governmental organizations, parliamentarians, other international organizations, the media and the general public on various aspects of the WTO and the ongoing Doha negotiations, with the aim of enhancing cooperation and increasing awareness of WTO activities. SON OLARAK - CIN`IN WTO SAYESINDA NASIL digital bir guc haline geldigi ornegini verebilirsin- tabi burada poverty kalkinma gibi orneklerde kullanabilirsin ama ben bunu tercih ettim daha kolay arastirabilirsin:

1. The concept of the democratic deficit is frequently referred to in academic debates relating to European integration. Explain the concept and discuss it in relation to the functioning of the main European Union institutions. How can the European Union's institutions be reformed to decrease the democratic deficit?

Bu kavram governance ile cok alakali. Ilk bolumde governance kavrami uzerine konusmustuk. AB, dunyadaki en karmasik ve gelismis Muli-level governance ornegi. Karar alma surecleri cock karisik ve bu nedenle halkin dogrudan temsil edilmedigi- yahut denetleme yetkisi olmayan bir cok politika Alani var. Geleneksel teoriler yani intergovernmentalism ve NF , bu konuya pek odaklanmiyor cunku ekonomik dinamikler kazandirdikca, halk da butunlesmeyi destekler modundalar. Ama ozellike 90 lardan itibaren, transparency (acciklik) , accountability (hesap verilebilirlik) gibi kavramlar global governance`in onemli kavramlari haline geliyor ve ne zaman AB ye bu perspektiften baksak, demokratik deficit dedigimiz sorunla karsilasiyoruz. Peki nasil tanimlayabiliriz bu kavrami: Burada vvikipedinin yardimina basvuralim hemen: 'Democratic deficit', in relation to the European Union, refers to a perceived lack of accessibility to the ordinary citizen, or lack of representation of the ordinary citizen, and lack of accountability of European Union institutions. Bunun bazi sepebleri var. ozellikle iki temel kaynagi var bu demokratik deficit`in: In the European Union, there are two sources of democratic legitimacy: the European Parliament, chosen by the electorates of the individual EU countries; and the Council of the European Union (the "Council of Ministers"), together with the European Council (of heads of national governments), that represent the peoples of the individual states. The European Commission (the executive branch of the Union) is appointed by the two bodies acting together. Democratic legitimacy within the EU can be compared with the dual legitimacy provided for in a federal polity, such as the United States, where there are two independent sources of democratic legitimacy, the House of Representatives and the Senate, and, to become law, decisions must be approved both by one institution representing the people as a whole and by a separate body representing the peoples of the individual states.[10] Development of democratic legitimacy and transparency[edit] Over time, a number of constitutional changes have been introduced that have aimed to increase democratic legitimacy: · The Maastricht Treaty introduced o the status of EU citizenship, granting EU citizens the right to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament and municipal elections in their country of residence, irrespective of their nationality (subject to age and residency qualifications).[31] o the legislative procedure known as the "co-decision procedure", giving the directly elected European Parliament the right of "co-deciding" legislation on an equal footing with the Council of the European Union.[31] · The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009 introduced o a separate treaty title confirming that the functioning of the EU shall be founded on representative democracy and giving EU citizens both direct representation through the European Parliament and indirect representation via national governments through the Council of the European Union[32] o the establishment of the co-decision procedure as the standard ("ordinary") legislative procedure[32] o a significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament[32] o the right of any EU citizen or resident to petition the European Parliament "on any matter which comes within the Union's field of activity and which affects him, her, or it directly".[Article 227 TFEU].[33] o making meetings of the Council public when there is a general debate and when a proposal for a legislative act is voted on. These debates can be viewed[34] in real time on the Internet.[35] o enhancing the role of national parliaments in EU legislation.[36] o giving full legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was solemnly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in the year 2000.[37] According to a 2019 study, the empowerment of the EP does not always lead to more public support, and "further enhancement of public support can be achieved only in the institutional dimension involving proposal power".[38] Development of democratic legitimacy and transparency[edit] Over time, a number of constitutional changes have been introduced that have aimed to increase democratic legitimacy: · The Maastricht Treaty introduced o the status of EU citizenship, granting EU citizens the right to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament and municipal elections in their country of residence, irrespective of their nationality (subject to age and residency qualifications).[31] o the legislative procedure known as the "co-decision procedure", giving the directly elected European Parliament the right of "co-deciding" legislation on an equal footing with the Council of the European Union.[31] · The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009 introduced o a separate treaty title confirming that the functioning of the EU shall be founded on representative democracy and giving EU citizens both direct representation through the European Parliament and indirect representation via national governments through the Council of the European Union[32] o the establishment of the co-decision procedure as the standard ("ordinary") legislative procedure[32] o a significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament[32] o the right of any EU citizen or resident to petition the European Parliament "on any matter which comes within the Union's field of activity and which affects him, her, or it directly".[Article 227 TFEU].[33] o making meetings of the Council public when there is a general debate and when a proposal for a legislative act is voted on. These debates can be viewed[34] in real time on the Internet.[35] o enhancing the role of national parliaments in EU legislation.[36] o giving full legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was solemnly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission in the year 2000.[37] According to a 2019 study, the empowerment of the EP does not always lead to more public support, and "further enhancement of public support can be achieved only in the institutional dimension involving proposal power".[38] Kabaca tartisma bu sekilde. Yani bir soru yok. Bu noktada, Suraya baglamalisin konuyu, ab kurumlarinin guclenmesi halkin dogrudan katilimi zorlastirdikca bu tartisma daha da buyuyor. Bu alanda calisan bir akademiyen sorarlarsa, Vivien Schmidt demelisin. Asagiya bir makalesini birakiyorum konuyla alakali sadece ozeti okusan yeter aklinda kalsin. https://www.cairn-int.info/dossiers-2019-11-page-1.htm Sorunun son kisminda yorum yapman lazim bu bilgiler isiginda. Isini su turkce makale kolaylastirabilir: 6 safa ve ok guzel ozetlemis. https://acikerisim.isikun.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11729/3093/3093.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 1. The Maastricht Treaty is often described as a milestone of European integration. Explain the historical context within which this treaty was negotiated. How did the treaty revision change the European integration process? Refer in your discussion to concepts coming from European integration studies and/or international relations. Kabaca Maastricht Antlasmasini soyle tanimlayabiliriz: The Maastricht Treaty (1991-1992) was a milestone for European integration: it was in Maastricht that the then 12 Member States agreed to proceed with the economic and monetary union leading to the introduction of the Euro, to reinforce the democratic representation, and to extend the competences to new areas such as culture. The Province building in which the treaty was negotiated and then signed on 7th February 1992 is today its visitor and exhibitions centre. Simdi bu anlasma cok onemli cunku 1987 yilinda Single European Act imzalaniyor ve bu antlasma ile beraber AB Single Market` geciyor. The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market comprising the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) as well as - with certain exceptions - Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and Switzerland through bilateral treaties. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms" Iste single European act ile beraber Ortak Pazarin tamamlanmasi sonrasinda yapilan ilk antlasma Maastricht antlasmasi. Bu antlasma ile beraber daha once AB catisi altinda olmayan politika alanlari AB catisi altina dahil olmaya basliyor. O zamanki adi AB`nin European Economic Community - Maastricht ile birlikte adi European Union oluyor. Uc ayakli bir kurumsal AB yapisi olusturuluyor Maastricht antlasmasi ile bu alanlar: Economic and Monetary Union Justice and Home affairs Foreign and Seccurity policy Ilk ayak supranational fakat diger iki ayak intergovernmental yani uye devletler ortak politikalar izleyecceklerini taahut ediyor ama hala politika uygulama yetkisi, bu alanda devletlerde. Lizbon antlasi ile birlikde her uc ayak da ab catisi altinda ama dedigim gibi her politika alaninin yapisi farkli. Bu olayi teorik olarak ele aldiginda sunu idda edebilirsin, maastriht antlasmasinda, 4 freedom`un gelmesi, ve ic sinirlarin kalkamasi adalet isblirligi gibi konularda da isbirligi gerektirdi ve Maastricht bu surecicn donum noktasi. Bir nevi spillover oldu NF anlamda ekonomik alanlardan diger alanlara. Liberal intergovernmentalism acisindan bakarsan da sunu idda edebilirsin.devletler isbirligini garanti ediyor bazi kurumlar da olusturuyor ekonomi disindaki alanlarda ama hala devletlerin yetki ve denetiminde bu alanlar ve supranational kurumlarin gucu cok sinirli. Bu soru da tamamdir boylelikle. Yine de su turkce makale yardimci olabilir: https://www5.tbmm.gov.tr/kutuphane/AB/Maastricht_Anla%C5%9Fmasi.pdf Bu link`de kurumlarla ilgili sorudaki kisim da cevaplanmis oluyor ve bu soru da done. Sayfa 13-14 senin notlardaki de oku mutlaka ccok iyi isimleri aklinda tutman icin. 2. The Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009. What was the main objective(s) of this the latest treaty revision of the EU? How did the treaty change the EU? Aslinda az once en onemli cevabi verdim yukarida. Su yapi ile alakali olan 3 ayakli. Ama bu soruya iyi bir sekilde cevap vermen icin, soruyu yine parcalara bolelim: Lisbon Treaty: Proposed in 2007, the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by most member states in 2008, but a referendum in Ireland—the only country that put the Lisbon agreement to a public vote—rejected it on June 12, 2008, thus jeopardizing the entire treaty. More than a year later, on October 2, 2009, Ireland held a second referendum, which passed. Poland's government also had expressed reservations, but it ratified the treaty a week after the Irish vote, after securing opt-outs from EU policy on some social issues, such as abortion. The Czech Republic was the last remaining holdout: though its Parliament had ratified the treaty, the country's president, Václav Klaus, withheld his signature. Finally, after the Czech courts ruled that the treaty did not violate the country's constitution, Klaus signed it on November 3, 2009. The Lisbon Treaty, thus ratified by all 27 member states, entered into force on December 1, 2009. While it was not explicitly called a European constitution, the treaty addressed a number of issues that had been central to the 2004 EU draft constitution, an initiative that was scuttled after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected it in 2005. Under the amendments of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Community—which had provided the economic framework upon which the EU was built—disappeared, and its powers and structure were incorporated into the EU. 2004 de AB bir antlasma yapmak istedi - Constitutional Treaty diye ama bu antlasma hollanda ve fransada referandumda reddedildi sonra bunun yerine lizbon antlasmasi imzalandi yukarida yazildigi uzere. Before the Lisbon Treaty The Lisbon Treaty was signed by the 27 member states of the European Union and officially took effect in December of 2009, two years after it was signed. It amended two existing treaties, the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Treaty of Rome: Signed in 1957, this treaty introduced the European Economic Community (EEC), reduced customs regulations between member countries, and facilitated a single market for goods and the set of policies for transporting them. Also known as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Maastricht Treaty: Signed in 1992, this treaty established the three pillars of the European Union and paved the way for the euro, the common currency. Also known as the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Peki neler degisti: The Lisbon Treaty was built on existing treaties but adopted new rules to enhance cohesion and streamline action within the European Union. Important articles of the Lisbon Treaty include: 1) Article 18: Established protocol for electing a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Elected in or out of office by a majority vote, this Representative oversees the Union's foreign and security affairs. 2) Article 21: Detailed global diplomatic policy for the European Union, based on the principles of universal human rights, democracy, and development. The Union pledged to forge alliances with those countries that support these beliefs and reach out to third-world nations to help them develop. 3) Article 50: Established procedures for a member country to leave the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty also replaced the previously rejected Constitutional Treaty, which attempted to establish a Union constitution. Member countries couldn't agree on the voting procedures established in the constitution, since some countries, such as Spain and Poland, would lose voting power. 4) The Lisbon Treaty resolved this issue by proposing weighted votes and extending the reach of qualified majority voting. Buradaki en onemli degisiklikler: he most sweeping changes, though, were to the voting mechanisms that determined EU policy. Within the Council of the European Union—the EU's main decision-making body—the system of qualified majority voting (QMV), previously used only in certain circumstances, was extended to more policy areas, thereby easing the decision-making process. In addition, for most decisions, 55 percent of member states, provided they represented 65 percent of the EU's population, would be able to approve a measure. This "double majority" voting rule, which represents a simplification of the former system of weighted votes, would be phased in over time. Matters of defense, foreign policy, social security, and taxation would still require unanimous approval, however. While QMV and the "double majority" rule were designed to streamline decision making at the highest levels, critics argued that they would reduce the influence of smaller countries at the expense of larger ones. Partly to address this, the Lisbon Treaty introduced the European Citizens' Initiative, a process by which EU citizens could directly petition the European Commission (the EU's main executive body) by gathering one million signatures from a number of member states. he most sweeping changes, though, were to the voting mechanisms that determined EU policy. Within the Council of the European Union—the EU's main decision-making body—the system of qualified majority voting (QMV), previously used only in certain circumstances, was extended to more policy areas, thereby easing the decision-making process. In addition, for most decisions, 55 percent of member states, provided they represented 65 percent of the EU's population, would be able to approve a measure. This "double majority" voting rule, which represents a simplification of the former system of weighted votes, would be phased in over time. Matters of defense, foreign policy, social security, and taxation would still require unanimous approval, however. While QMV and the "double majority" rule were designed to streamline decision making at the highest levels, critics argued that they would reduce the influence of smaller countries at the expense of larger ones. Partly to address this, the Lisbon Treaty introduced the European Citizens' Initiative, a process by which EU citizens could directly petition the European Commission (the EU's main executive body) by gathering one million signatures from a number of member states. Yine mesela democratic deficit konusunu vurgulayabilirsin burada. Yine burada sana yardimci olabilecek efsane bir makale buldum. Zaten ben cok guzel ozetledim sana. Bu makaleye bir goz atarsan bu soru da done yorumlarinla. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/421916 Sendeki cevabi da oku bence orada da detaylandirmis bu soylediklerimi, eksikleri de tamamlamis oldum ben. Ozellikle sayfa 23-24 teki diger answer gayet guzel. Ama bu benim dediklerim esas anlatman gereken seyler. Bu kadar bilgi verirsen bu soru da done. 3. 6-Discuss the relevance of exogenous and endogenous factors for the historic development of European integration between the World War II and the end of the Cold War. Anchor your discussion in relevant theories from the field of European integration studies and/or international relations. Simdi bence bu cok guzel bir soru ve bu exogenous ve endogenous kavramlari AB konusurken ozellike onemliler. AB`nin tarihsel gelisime baktigimizda bir suru exogenous yani dissal ve icsel gelismenin- bu surecin olusmasinda onemli rol oynadigini goruyoruz. Bunu soylerken contingent factorler diyebilirsin. Yani tarihsel surece bagli bir cok factor ab nin olusuma oncculuk ediyor. Bu sorudaki cevap aslinda alakasiz bu soruyla bir usttekinin cevabi daha ccok. Simdi ab`nin gelisimine baktigimizde kurulusundaki en onemli dissal faktorler, Ikinci dunya savasinin sona ermesi ve ardindan soguk savas basliyor. Yani USA ve SSBC iki kutuplu dunya. Avrupadaki ulkeler ise 2, dunya savasi sonrasi bitik durumda, ekonomik sosyal demografik olarak falan. The termination of the Second World War signalled the conclusion of great power war in Europe, but it did not mark the end of great power competition. Rather, this time the competition that ensued was not between the powers of Europe, but between the 'West' and the Soviet Union. The 'Cold War', as this competition became to be known, was one of the defining features of the twentieth century and its impact on the future direction of European Integration and US-European relations should not be underestimated. Yani ne demek istiyorum, Avrupa Birliginin ilk kurulusunda ve soguk savas donemi boyunca ki gelisiminde, USA- Sovyet yarisi cok onemli bir rol oynuyor ve AB hem bir kalkan gibi hem de bu devletleri rus baskisina karsi koruyor birlikte hareket etmek anlaminda. Bunlar dissal sebepler. Nitekim Nato`da askeri kanadi bu west east ayriminin. The Cold War was a twentieth-century conflict between the United States of America (U.S.), the Soviet Union (USSR), and their respective allies over political, economic, and military issues, often described as a struggle between capitalism and communism—but the issues were actually far grayer than that. In Europe, this meant the U.S.-led West and NATO on one side and Soviet-led East and the Warsaw Pact on the other. The Cold War lasted from 1945 to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. It could be argued that without the Cold War and the NATO alliance European integration would never have been possible. This argument is based on the (largely realist) premise that European integration was dependent on the Marshal Fund and the NATO security guarantee for its success and that neither of these two would have existed (or would have existed to such an extent) had the Cold War not begun. The Marshall Fund, as you have seen, provided aid that helped rebuild the war-ravaged societies and economies of Europe. However, many would suggest that the Marshall plan was based more on dissuading European populations away from communism than on American altruism and that had the Soviet threat not existed, the Marshall plan may not have done either. Likewise, the NATO alliance is often seen as a key factor that facilitated European integration. It is argued that without the security guarantee provided by NATO, the European states would have been forced to spend more money on defence to protect themselves from each other and from the Soviet Union. In turn, European integration would have been much less likely and materially more difficult. Of course, some (of a less realist persuasion) would refute this line of argument and say that European states and peoples were ready for peace at the end of the Second World War and that this drive for peace would have been enough to spur European integration regardless of US intervention in the form of the Marshall Fund or NATO.v Biraz da icsel faktorlere ornek verelim AB`nin gelismesinin en onemli icsel faktoru ise devvletlerin birbirlerine olan ekonomik baglimlili ve sinir otesi ticarete ihtiyac duymalari. Bu cevap yeterli olucaktir. Yani Dissal faktorler cok onemli kisacasi, ama iceride de ekonomik sebeplerle ve kalkinma icin on ayak oluyor integration Soguk savas doneminde. Endogenous dynamic lere bir diger ornek de AB icerisindeki politikacilar ve onlarin on ayak olmasi gelismelere.

1. Discuss the phenomenon of migration in contemporary world politics. Distinguish different types of migrants within current global dynamics of human mobility. Evaluate international standards of migrant protection, especially of refugees and forced migrants in general. Identify some of the main policy and security aspects of international migration today.

Bu soru baya boktan, cunku cok detayli. Bu soruyu uce ayirarak cevaplamalisin. Oncelikle, migration in contemporary nedir: 1.1. Migration in Contemporary World Politics: There is no universally agreed definition of migration or migrant, however, several definitions are widely accepted and have been developed in different settings, such as those set out in UN DESA's 1998 Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration. B Technical definitions, concepts and categories of migrants and migration are necessarily informed by geographic, legal, political, methodological, temporal and other factors. For example, there are numerous ways in which migration events can be defined, including in relation to place of birth, citizenship, place of residence and duration of stay. The United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration defines an "international migrant" as any person who has changed his or her country of usual residence, distinguishing between "short-term migrants" (those who have changed their countries of usual residence for at least three months, but less than one year) and "long-term migrants" (those who have done so for at least one year). However, not all countries use this definition in practice.7 Some countries use different criteria to identify international migrants by, for example, applying different minimum durations of residence. Differences in concepts and definitions, as well as data collection methodologies between countries, hinder full comparability of national statistics on international migrants. Yani buradan sunu cikarmak gerekiyor, migrants`in ne oldugu konusunda UN genel bir cerceve ciziyor fakat migrant`in spefic tanimi, ulkeden ulkeye degisiyor. bu Mesela yukaridaki grafik 2019 yilina ait migration ile ilgili. Hep batiya dogru bir kayma var. Ekonomik, social, teknolojik ve bazen politik sebepler ile. Ikinci noka: 1.2. Distinguish different types of migrants within current global dynamics of human mobility. Buradaki en onemli ayrim, illegal ve legal migrant arasinda: In an August 2019 report on irregular migration, the authors come up with a global estimate of the number of irregular migrants that is based on a lack of understanding of migration and displacement policy, practice and normative settin Simdi bu ikinci kisimdaki en onemli nokta, irregular migration`daki artis. Bu da devletlerin ve uluslrarasi sistemdeki mevccut mekanizmalarin, irregular migration arttikca basa cikilamaz hale gelmesine sebep oluyor. Bu soruyu cevaplamaya rapordan devam ediyoruz simdi: The two global compacts sprang from a widespread sense of crisis, as the world faced large-scale movements involving people in several locations throughout the world. These events - most spectacularly in the Mediterranean, but also in the Gulf of Aden/Red Sea and the Bay of Bengal - led to the making of the New York Declaration. The Mediterranean crisis was notable not only for the huge numbers of people involved, but also for its visibility, unfolding as it did within sight of major Western news outlets. The movements brought home to the governments of wealthy European States (the intended destinations of migrants) that even these States, with all their legal and financial resources, could not cope with flows of this magnitude without cooperation among themselves and with countries of origin and transit.11 The United Nations Summit on Refugees and Migrants in September 2016, convened in the shadow of the crisis, produced a Declaration of commitment on the part of States, the most significant elements of which were pledges to negotiate the two global compacts. The initial conception was of a single compact that would cover both refugees and migrants. Several obstacles to this plan presented themselves, including a fear that, on the one hand, a dual-purpose compact would dilute the protection to which refugees are entitled under the Refugee Convention and, on the other hand, that equating refugees and migrants would entail stronger obligations toward migrants than States were willing to accept. Most destination countries, by and large, would have been content to have one global compact that dealt only with refugees, but other States, most notably countries of the Global South, insisted on a Global Compact for Migration as well. Both compacts were envisaged as being legally non-binding, unlike an international treaty that obligates all State parties to implement its provisions.12 In addition, conceptual discussions and debates on the various definitions of "refugees" and "migrants", as they relate to the New York Declaration and during the development of the two compacts, were prominent.13 While the New York Declaration noted that "refugees and migrants have the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms",14 a distinction between the two was upheld, as summarized in the Global Compact for Migration: Migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law.15 Yani mevcut trendlere baktigimizda, tanimda bir farklilik goruyoruz.

Select a theory of conflict resolution (prevention, peacekeeping, peacemaking, postwar reconstruction, peacebuilding, reconciliation), introduce it, and discuss its potential as well aslimitations in the context of a specific interstate or intrastate conflict

Bu soru benim alanimin cok disinda o yuzden ben senin yerinde olsam bu soruyu nasil ozetlerdim mevcut notlar ile, onu anlatacagim. Conflict resolution demek- birbiri arasinda catisma olan iki group yahut devlet , yahut bir orgut ve devlet arasindaki tension`in cozume kavusturulmasi icin yapilan hareketleri adlandirmak icin. Mesela bunun ornegi olarak 1995 de ABD nin Yugoslavvyaya, ve 1998`de Kosoya mudahalesini ornek verebilirsin. Tarihsel olarak bu mudahaleler NAto BM gibi uluslararasi orgutler yoluyla gerceklestiriliyor. Cevaplarda 3-4 tane klasik bakis accisi var, bunlari biraz hatirlaman lazim isimlerini insanlarin. Ve ardindan bir yontem olarak Preventation I ornek verebilirsin. Burada iki farkli preventation kavrami var, ilki structural olan yani mevcut sorunlarin kaynagi olan, esitsizlik, dislama vb gibi sorunlarin kaynaklarini bulmak ve onu duzeltmeye calismak, Bir digeri ise direct preventation yani diplomaty, sanctions ve peacebuilding ile. Eger su ucunu aklinda tutarsan, bu soru da tamamdir: a. Preventive Diplomacy ● The term, 'preventive diplomacy' was coined by UN Secretary General Hammarskjöld in the 1960s and referred to preventing the escalation of Cold War proxy wars in developing countries into global confrontations ● After the end of the Cold War, attention shifted to the threat of internal wars ● Secretary General Boutros-Ghali adapted the term then to mean not simply keeping regional conflicts from going global, but using diplomatic techniques (i.e. diplomatic persuasion, sometimes combined with military intervention) to prevent armed conflict between or within nations from arising in the first place b. Incentives and Sanctions: Incentive-based measures include: 1. Economic incentives (e.g. development aid), 2. Political incentives (e.g. diplomatic relations, recognition in international/multilateral institutions such as the EU), and 3. Security guarantees 4. Targeted sanctions, which have been the subject of increasing attention, focus on applying direct pressure on individuals who have political decision-making power in governments and groups that are parties to the conflict. This is considered to be an effective mechanism, and avoids the infliction of harm on the broader civilian population. c. Peacemaking - Dialogue

1. Introduce key assumptions of reflectivism and discuss the contribution to debates in international relations. Select one theory (critical theory, post-structuralism, post- colonialism, feminism) and discuss its main arguments.

Bu soru icin teorileri anlatan kisim gayet basarili, oradan her birisi icin ozet cikarabilirsin. Ancak soruya cevap verirken , reflectivism ile baslamak gerekiyor ve reflektivismin temel contribution`I uluslararasi iliskilere. Bu nedenle simdi sana bunu ozetliyorum bu soru icin ve ardindan ornek verebilirsin o teorilerden birini senin cevaplardaki gibi. Nedir reflectivism ? Simdi biz ne zaman Rationalism`den bahsetsek, aslinda temelde Liberal ve Realist yaklasimlardan bahsediyoruz. Bu yaklasimlar, identifies the actors of the politics with rational principles. However, constructivism and all the other critical approaches are beyond this assumption and they argue that the world is reflect our meaning about it. So it is an ontological as well as an epsistemolgical constribution. In this regards, one of most important rexlectivism is that states are not unitary and thus not rational - they are rather abstractions. Secondly- there is not such a national interest but it is our imagination about it. Foreign Policy and IR are irrational and thus unpredictable. This is also the differences between constructivism and reflextivism because construcivism argues that that is a logic of appropriateness logic and hence, kind of predictability and applicability of this argument to apply. But in construct, all other reflextivists, like postmodern, feminist etcc. Are rejection the notion of science. So constructivism kind of middle between Reflectivism and Rationalism.

Discuss the evolution of terrorism and counter-terrorism before and after 11 September 2001. Select specific terrorist organization/s in order to elaborate on the challenges of defining terrorism, "root" causes of terrorism and radicalization, and the debate concerning "new" vs. "old" terrorism. Contrast the key aspects of the (US) war on terror and the (European) criminal/law enforcement approach

Bu soru ve 4. Soru aslinda birbirleriyle cok yakindan iliskililer. Simdi oncelikle terrorism`in ne oldugu ile baslamak gerekiyor bu soruda. Ve unutma 90 lara kadar terrorist organizasyonlar dogrudan devlete saldiriyor Fakat sonrasinda ozellike el kaide ile birlikte - usame`nin - ve 11 eylul ataklari sonrasinda, terorismin dogasi degisiyor cunku bu orgutler, ikiz kuleler gibi sivilleri hedef almaya basliyor. Ardindan`da amerikanin afgan ve irak mudahaleleri var. Bu noktada cevap verirken sunu belirtmen lazim. Irak mudahalesi sirasinda, AB deki bir grup ulke mudahaleyi destekliyor digerleri bundan memnun degil ve bu grup avrupacilar olarak biliniyor. Bu grup Fransa basini cekiyor, ab nin kendi savunma sistemini gelistirmesi gerektigini savunuyor. Diger grup atlantikciler. Bu grubun basinda Ingiltere var. Bu noktada ABD ile AB arasinda terorisme karsi farkli yaklasim sekli var- 28`un sayfa, en onemli kisimlar sunlar: EU x US approach to terrorism Different threat: The far enemy vs. the Near enemy. AQ is not a monolithic threat to the US and EU. It is not able to carry out coherent campaigns of T. attacks. Instead of it, we face various groups (in size, organization, capacities). Bin Laden tried to convince many of such groups that they have a common enemy - US. They regarded it as a far enemy and by destroying that far enemy, the near enemy (the repressive puppet government in the Islamic world) could be easily overthrown. The US does not face any group that regards it as a near enemy, it is a prime target for AQ. The Europeans, on the other hand, feel that they are the near enemy (by not fully integrated Muslims in EU, by engaging in specific struggles in M. world and also by proximity). But with the exception of UK, they are still the secondary target. Those groups aim at the far enemy - US. So, Washington faces AQ, a global enemy, whereas Europeans fear of local groups inspired by Islamist ideology. Yet there is a clear distinction: near enemy groups prioritize battle against local govs, far enemy group against the US. The important distinction can also be perceived in the threats the states can face. The US needs to worry much more about catastrophic terrorism (far enemy oriented groups) using WMDs b/c they are more technical and highly trained. They are more nihilistic and show little accommodation with the enemy. Near enemy groups have civilian constituencies—potential financiers, recruits, and political supporters—whose opinions they value and whose assistance they need, and they often have more specific political goals that could conceivably be reached through compromise. They would thus benefit less from massive destruction that might fully mobilize their enemies or alienate their base. They also tend to be poorly trained and less capable of sophisticated operations and procurement efforts. Another difference: the US Muslim-Arab population is small and scattered throughout the country with above-average income and shows little interest in radicalism and thanks to melting pot they are integrated well. The EU M. are concentrated, poor and poorly integrated. The employment is bad, social unrest common, easily tend to radical M. preachers b/c integration is slow, long term. The acts of the riots in France, the bombings in London and Madrid, the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the furor over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, means that Arab and Muslim integration is becoming perhaps the most important domestic issue in a growing number of European countries. It is more contentious than the Hispanic community in US (sure, they are not fooled by medieval Islamic laws etc.). Difference in strategies The US wants to address the root causes of T. by winning hearts and minds - an important tool in combating T. The largest difference is in the place of fighting. The US fight T. abroad (externalization strategy), the EU CT fight begins at home. Therefore the term "war on terror" is differently perceived both by US and EU. The US fights abroad, the EU at home. For EU it therefore means an internal conflict upon their soil, image of violation of civil liberties, chaos. B/c of the externalization strategy, the US acts globally, EU thinks locally. The US never regard T. as other freedom fighters and tries to make political consensus about it across all political parties regardless their context. The EU is trying to play the T. as they do it with crime (they want to appease them). The US wants to win in Iraq to show that the spread of long term democracy solution is possible. The EU, however, regard it as a possibility for their Muslims to radicalize on their soil. Bu soruyu bu sekilde - ve sirada cevaplarsan bu da tamamdir.

1. Why is the EU more involved in some policy areas than in others? Discuss examples of both fields with an extensive EU involvement and areas where there is none or limited EU involvement.

Bu sorunun cevabi da yukarida verildi aslinda. Yani kabaca nedeni su: AB antlasmalarinda belirlenen yetki alanlari her bir politika Alani icin fakli yetki devirleri var. Bu nedenle kurumsal yapisi karmasik ve EU is involved in some policy areas more than in others. In other words, The European Union can only act in those areas where its member countries have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. The treaties specify who can pass laws in what areas: the EU, national governments or both. 3 principles determine how and in what areas the EU may act: conferral - the EU has only that authority conferred upon it by the EU treaties, which have been ratified by all member countries proportionality - the EU action cannot exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaties subsidiarity - in areas where either the EU or national governments can act, the EU may intervene only if it can act more effectively In certain areas, the EU alone is able to pass laws. The role of member countries is limited to applying the law, unless the EU authorises them to adopt certain laws themselves. In these areas, the EU has what the treaties call exclusive competences: or in other words an extensive EU involvement an extensive EU involvement/ customs union competition rules for the single market monetary policy for the eurozone countries trade and international agreements (under certain circumstances) marine plants and animals regulated by the common fisheries policy In certain areas, both the EU and member countries are able to pass laws. But member countries can do so only if the EU has not already proposed laws or has decided that it will not. In these areas, the EU has what the treaties call shared competences single market employment and social affairs economic, social and territorial cohesion agriculture fisheries environment consumer protection transport trans-European networks energy justice and fundamental rights migration and home affairs public health (for the aspects defined in Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) research and space development cooperation and humanitarian aid In certain areas, the EU can only support, coordinate or complement the action of member countries. It has no power to pass laws and may not interfere with member countries' ability to do so. In these areas, the EU has what the treaties call supporting competences public health industry culture tourism education and training, youth and sport civil protection administrative cooperation SON OLARAK: In certain areas, special competences enable the EU to play a particular role or to go beyond what it is normally allowed under the treaties: coordination of economic and employment policies definition and implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy the 'flexibility clause', which under strict conditions enables the EU to take action outside its normal areas of responsibility.

1. Define the meaning of state sovereignty. Select a particular phenomenon, which would demonstrate changing perception of state sovereignty within the global order (e.g. Responsibility to Protect, European integration, emergence of transnational actors etc.). Do you think the Westphalian concept of state is still relevant for understanding of world politics?

Bu soruyu cevaplarken de state sovereignty`nin ne oldugu ile baslamak gerekiyor yani egemenlik. When we talk about international relations, we talk about the relation between sovereign states because in the international politics there is no such an hierarchical entity or power that bonds the states. A sovereign state, also known as sovereign country, is a political entity represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. Bu aslinda state sovereignty`nin en genis tanimi. Alman sosyolog ve politika arastirmacisi Marx Weber, state `I "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"v seklinde tanimliyor. Yani belli sinirlar icinde mutlak egemen olunan bir topluma sahip bir guc- belirli bir cografi alanda. Bu da aslinda bizim Westpalian sekilde anladigimiz devletin temel tanimi. Bu arada westpahila bir anlasma 1648 yilinda. Bu anlasma ile - almanyadaki protestan sehir devletleri kutsal roma germen imparatorlugundan ayriliyor ve boylece bugun moden anlamda anladigimiz bagimsiz devletlerin orta cagdan itibaren ilk ornegine rastliyoruz. As a result, IR theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today: 1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination 2. The principle of legal equality between states 3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state Ancak ozellikle 1980 lerden itibaren uluslararasi sistemde degisen dinamikler, non state aktorleri de on plana cikmasina hatta bazi uluslararasi kurumlar vasitasiyla ve doktrinler vasitasiyla bu wespalian devlet anlayisinin degistigini gosteriyor. Bu da genelde, uluslrarasi orgutlerde olusan normlar yardimiyla oluyor. Responsibility to PROTECT BURADA verilebilecek en guzel ornek. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit in order to address its four key concerns to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[1][2] The doctrine is regarded as a unanimous and well established international norm over the past two decades.[3] The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations.[4][5][6] The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[7][8] The R2P has three pillars: 1. Pillar I: The protection responsibilities of the state - "Each individual state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity" 2. Pillar II: International assistance and capacity-building - States pledge to assist each other in their protection responsibilities 3. Pillar III: Timely and decisive collective response - If any state is "manifestly failing" in its protection responsibilities, then states should take collective action to protect the population.[9][10] While there is agreement among states about the Responsibility to Protect, there is persistent contestation about the applicability of the third pillar in practice.[9] The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.[11] The United Nations Secretary-General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity crimes.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for example Suradaki vvikipedi sayfasini hatirlarsan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect Son kisimda da sunu soylemelisin. Hala devletler en onemli aktorler, ama digger taraftan westapilan algi degisiyor ozellikle kurumlarin, globalizmin ve devlet disi aktorlerin artmasiyle. 1. Define thd Analyse the contribution and limits of geopolitics in understanding contemporary international relations. Discuss its relevance through a selected (sub)region (e.g. Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia et Bu soru benim cok iyi oldugum bir konu degil. Notlarin ve genel bilgimden yola cikarak bir cerceve ciziyorum nasil cevaplaman konusunda. Oncelikle elindeki no gayet guzel ozetlemis. Ama bunun yaninda sunlari eklebilirsin: Geopolitics provides the link between geography and strategy. Geopolitics is based on the undeniable fact that all international politics, running the gamut from peace to war, takes place in time and space, in particular geographical settings and environments. It then seeks to establish the links and causal relationships between geographical space and international political power, for the purpose of devising specific strategic prescriptions. Yani bence bu soruda middle east turkiye falan tartisabilirsin gibi. Geopolitics - (coined by Rudolf Kjellen who was inspired by Friedrich Ratzel) a method of FP analysis which tries to understand explain, and predict int. political behavior in term of geographic variables. Those variables are usually location, size, climate, demography, natural resources and technological advancement of the states/region in question. Academically, geopolitics analyzes geography, history, social science, studies the structure/nature of relations between the interests of int. political actors and interests focused on the area, space or various geographical elements. Geopolitics of Middle East (ME) ME is critically important. Global powers have also interests in this region, namely USA (its influence is declining), China and Russia. Though Russia is interested, ME is not a priority on its list. ME is gonna be strategically important and what will happen there will influence things around the globe. Reasons: ● Transformation of the region after the Arab Spring with not precisely known outcomes: will there be democracy, will islamists dominate, will there be a new wave of neo-dictators? The outcome will determine fate of the region and its incorporation into global order ● The region connects important global supply routes, place of energy resources ● Complex mix of politics, ethnicity and religion contributing to instability in and outside the R. ● Iran and its alleged strive to obtain nuke is also not OK Important is to analyze/asses the role of politics: Strategic equation in ME began to shift as it became clear Iran was becoming central to its security architecture and stability. SA and Israel don't like the fact that Iran has control of four regional capitals - Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sana. They think something must be done to stop Iran's expansion. As a result SA and Israel became perfectly aligned (in order to neutralize Iran and its regional allies; "when Israelis and Arabs are on the same page, people should pay attention!") Stable dictatorships US supports in the long term the stable dictatorship over the wicket governing coalitions that could easily escalate in conflict and government-changing process in some countries in ME. They supported Mubarak because he ensured their interests within the region, they support SA regime because of the oil. With the growing influence of Muslim Bros in Egypt and the Arab Spring, Mubarak's resignation cause huge decline of US influence in Egypt. - US can support dictators in region even though they're ruthless because they can ensure certain level of stability. Shia (Iran, Iraq) / Sunni (SA, Egypt, Turkey) Shia-Sunni matters are an important factor in the region's policy. They're fighting all the time, don't like each other and they'll continue support all rebellions even though they don't have to be based on religion (Iran supports Yemeni rebellion because they're Shia's fighting against Sunni's and it doesn't care about goals of the rebellion that much). The USA influence: We can say that the US influence declined, it does not mean however that it has no interest. The US still remains the major power in the region, but given the AS event, rules of engagement changed. The US had good relations with some dictators in the region (Mubarak) and although they were ruthless, the US knew how to engage them and were quite reliable. Now, they are replaced by a motley crew of political forces who still try to find their feet. So, the US sphere of influence has disappeared (Egypt mainly) and it will depend on what type of governance structure will finally and firmly root in the region. Before that, it's difficult to predict the situation. Yemen case! Yemen Geopolitically Yemen is important due to overseeing strategic maritime corridors (Al-Mundab, Gulf of Aden) Government sent to exile by Houthis (Shia's rebellion, getting weapons from Iran) - Shia vs Sunni Hadi overthrown because he planned with US to backtrack on the power-sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule Hadi's resignation was setback for US FP (CIA and Pentagon had to remove military personnel from Yemen) Houthi's takeover of Sana took place in the same timeframe as a series of regional victories for Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and the Resistance Bloc they form collectively. Iran: Important producer of oil, possible capabilities to close Strait of Hormuz, support of Hezbollah US - Iran relations have changed after the revolution in 1979 (pro-Western shah Pahlavi was overthrown, Islamic republic created by ayatollah Khomeini which caused decline in mutual relations) Iran's aspirations to have nukes (possible transform nuclear technology to weapons) caused UNSC to sanctions against Iran and furthering its economic isolation Important producer of oil, supports Hezbollah Maintains diplomatic relations with almost every member of the United Nations, except for Israel, (not recognized), and the US since the Iranian Revolution (1979). Saudi Arabia Considers Yemen as its sphere of influence. Moreover it fears that Yemen could become formally aligned to Iran which result into new rebellions against the House of Saud (this is US concern as well because it would lose influence in region). SA is too weak to challenge Iran alone thus it needs other regional countries (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, (US), Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan). They're Sunni's as well. US Wants to control Bab Al-Mandeb, Gulf of Aden and Socotra Islands because of the flow of the oil, freedom of navigation (Al-Mandeb is important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments, it connects Persian Gulf via Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via Red Sea and Suez). US wants to prevent other global powers (Russia, China) or regional powers (Iran) from controlling Al-Mandeb and Gulf of Aden. Israel Control of Yemen by hostile government could cut off Israel access to the Indian Ocean through Red Sea and it would easily prevent Israelis submarines from being deployed to the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran.

1. Why does the EU enlarge? Explain the EC/EU process of enlargement, comment on individual enlargement rounds and the general issues associated with them. Refer to concrete examples.

Bu soruyu direk kendi tezimden ornekler alarak cevapliyorum,: Avrupa Birliği ilk olarak altı üye ülke ile kurulmuş, ancak kuruluşunu takiben farklı dönemlerde genişleme politikası yürüterek üye sayısını artırmıştır. AB genişlemeleri Birliğin farklı ülke gruplarına genişlediği dört ayrı dönem olarak incelenebilir. Birlik ilk olarak 1973 yılında İngiltere, İrlanda ve Danimarka genişlemesini gerçekleştirmiş, bunu 1981 yılında Yunanistan ve 1986 yılında Portekiz ve İspanya genişlemeleri takip etmiş, 1995 yılında Avusturya, Finlandiya ve İsveç'i kapsayan EFTA [(European Free Trade Association), Avrupa Serbest Ticaret Birliği] ülkeleri Birliğe üye olmuş, Soğuk Savaş sonrası 10 Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkesi ile Kıbrıs ve Malta'nın katılımıyla Birliğin üye sayısı 27'ye çıkmıştır. Hırvatistan ile katılım müzakereleri 2011 yılında sonlandırılmış olup, bu ülkenin 2013 yılında AB'ye resmi olarak katılması beklenmektedir. Birlik hâlihazırda Türkiye ve 2008 krizi sonrası üyelik için başvuruda bulunmuş olan İzlanda ile katılım müzakerelerini sürdürmekte ve Batı Balkan ülkelerine genişlemeye yönelik hazırlıklarda bulunmaktadır. Avrupa Birliği, genişleme politikasına alternatif oluşturması ve komşuluk bölgesinde istikrarın sağlanmasına katkıda bulunması amacıyla, 2004 yılında Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası'nı (European Neighbourhood Policy) oluşturmuştur. Bu politika aracılığıyla AB, siyasi ve ekonomik değerlerinin komşuluk bölgesine yayılmasını ve böylece bu ülkelerdeki refah ve istikrara katkıda bulunmayı hedeflemektedir. Avrupa Birliği'ni kuran Roma Antlaşması uyarınca her Avrupa ülkesi AB üyesi olabilir. Söz konusu ülke öncelikle resmi üyelik başvurusunu yapar ve Avrupa Konseyi bu başvuruyu değerlendirir. Konseyin oybirliğiyle başvuruyu kabulünü takiben, Bakanlar Konseyi Avrupa Komisyonu'ndan ülkenin siyasi ve ekonomik açılardan tam üyeliğe hazırlık durumu ve muhtemel üyeliğinin Birliğe olabilecek etkilerine ilişkin bir rapor talep eder. Hazırladığı rapor temelinde Komisyon, söz konusu ülkeyle müzakerelerin başlatılması ya da ertelenmesi yönünde bir karar belirtir. Çoğu durumda Komisyon, müzakerelerin ertelenmesi yönünde karar alır ve ülkenin üyeliğe hazır duruma gelmesine ilişkin önerilerini içeren faaliyet planını hazırlar. Bu faaliyet planı daha sonra ülke ile imzalanan Ortaklık Antlaşması'na dâhil edilir. Bu noktadan itibaren Komisyon, her yıl düzenli olarak hazırladığı İlerleme Raporları ile ülkenin siyasi ve ekonomik durumunu takip ederek ülkenin katılım müzakerelerine hazır olup olmadığını değerlendirir. Komisyon, aday ülkenin yeterli kriterleri karşıladığına karar verdiğinde Avrupa Konseyi'ne müzakerelerin açılmasını önerir. Konsey müzakerelerin açılmasına oybirliğiyle karar vererek müzakerelerin başlayacağı tarihi belirler. Müzakerelerin açılmasını takiben Avrupa Komisyonu, AB'yi temsilen aday ülke ile müzakereleri yürütür. Katılım müzakereleri, aday ülkenin AB müktesebatını ne kadar sürede kendi iç hukukuna aktarıp yürürlüğe koyacağının ve etkili bir şekilde uygulayacağının belirlendiği bir süreçtir. Burada AB müktesebatı, AB hukuk sistemine verilen addır ve AB'yi kuran ve daha sonra değişikliğe uğrayan antlaşmaları, aday ülkelerin AB'ye katılırken imzaladıkları katılım antlaşmalarını, Konsey, Komisyon, Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı gibi topluluk organlarının çıkardıkları tüm mevzuatı ifade etmektedir. Müzakerelerin tamamlanmasını takiben Komisyon, Konsey'e ülkenin üye olarak kabul edilip edilemeyeceğine ilişkin öneride bulunur. Nihai karar Avrupa Konseyi'nde oybirliğiyle alınır. Tam üyeliğin gerçekleşmesi için Avrupa Parlamentosu'nun da karara onay vermesi gerekmektedir.(1) Ayrıca, söz konusu aday ülke, kendi anayasası uyarınca tam üyeliği ulusal parlamentosunda ya da ulusal bir referandumda onaylar (Nugent, 2006). ransa, Almanya, İtalya, Hollanda, Belçika ve Lüksemburg tarafından kurulan ve Avrupa Ekonomik Topluluğu (AET) adıyla anılan Birlik, bugüne değin dört genişleme dalgasıyla büyümüş ve 27 üyeli büyük bir dev haline gelmiştir. Bu genişleme dalgaları sırasıyla şu şekilde gerçekleşmiştir: 1) İngiltere, İrlanda ve Danimarka genişlemesi, 2) Akdeniz (Yunanistan, İspanya ve Portekiz) genişlemesi, 3) EFTA (Avusturya, Finlandiya ve İsveç) genişlemesi ve 4) Orta ve Doğu Avrupa genişlemesi (Nugent, 2004). A. İngiltere, İrlanda ve Danimarka Genişlemesi İngiltere, Birliğin kurulduğu günlerde üyeliğe olumlu bakmayan bir ülke olarak 1960 yılında Avrupa Serbest Ticaret Birliği'ne (European Free Trade Area -EFTA) üye olmuştur. (2) İngiltere'nin Birlik üyeliğine uzak durmasının en önemli nedenlerinden birisi, ülkenin uzun bir geçmişe dayanan ulusal egemenlik, özellikle de Parlamento'nun egemenliği vurgusu ve bunun kaybedileceğine dair gelişmiş olan korkulardır. Bu kapsamda İngiltere, Birliğin kuruluş aşamasında ulus-üstü yapısının güçlü olmaması için diretmiş, ancak bu alandaki isteklerin güçlü olduğunu görerek EFTA kurucu ülkeleri arasında olmayı seçmiştir. Gerek ekonomik alanda Topluluk üyesi ülkelerinden geri kalmakta olan, gerek Soğuk Savaş konjonktüründe dünya politikasındaki siyasi ağırlığı gerilemekte olan İngiltere'nin bu tavrı 1950'lerin sonlarına doğru değişmeye başlamış, ancak ülkenin 1961 ve 1967 yıllarında yaptığı tam üyelik başvuruları o dönemki Fransız Cumhurbaşkanı Charles de Gaulle tarafından veto edilmiştir. De Gaulle'un İngiliz başvurusuna karşı çıkmasının nedenleri arasında İngiltere'nin üyeliğinin Alman-Fransız ortaklığına zarar verme ihtimali, özellikle Ortak Tarım Politikası kapsamında Fransa'nın çıkarlarına aykırı bazı politikalar öne sürme olasılığı ve Fransa'nın Birlik içindeki siyasi ağırlığını zayıflatma ihtimali bulunmaktaydı. İngiltere'nin gittikçe güçlenmekte olan Almanya'yı dengeleyici bir güç odağı olabileceği ve Topluluk bütçesine net katkı yaparak Fransa'nın da ekonomik olarak bu üyelikten çıkar sağlayabileceği düşüncesiyle İngiltere'nin üyeliğine engel Fransız vetosu kalkmış ve İngiltere 1973 yılında Topluluk üyesi olmuştur. İrlanda ve Danimarka ise İngiltere ile uzun yıllara dayanan bağları dolayısıyla 1960'lı yıllarda İngiltere ile aynı zamanda üyelik başvurusu yapmışlar, İngiltere'nin başvurusunun reddiyle taleplerini geri çekmişler, ancak 1973 yılında İngiltere ile beraber üye olmuşlardır. B. Akdeniz (Yunanistan, İspanya ve Portekiz) Genişlemesi: Yunanistan, Topluluk ile 1962 yılında bir Ortaklık Antlaşması imzalamış, ancak ülkede yaşanan askeri darbe ve sonrasındaki askeri rejim dolayısıyla ilişkiler ancak 1974 yılında Yunanistan'ın demokrasiye geçişiyle beraber canlanmıştır. Avrupa Komisyonu'nun Yunanistan'ın ekonomik açıdan hazır olmadığını belirten ve üyeliğine karşı çıkan raporuna rağmen üye devletler 1976 yılında Yunanistan ile müzakereleri başlatmış ve Yunanistan 1981 yılında tam üye olmuştur. Bu karar, üyeliğin Yunanistan demokrasisini güçlendireceği ve ülkenin Batı ittifakına olan bağlılığını sağlamlaştıracağı düşünülerek alınmıştır. İspanya ve Portekiz ise 1960'lı yılların başından beri Topluluk üyesi olma taleplerini belirtmiş olsalar da bu ülkelerde diktatörlük sisteminin egemen olması Topluluğun bu taleplere olumlu yaklaşmasına engel olmuştur. 1974 yılında Portekiz'de Caetano rejiminin düşmesi ve 1975 yılında İspanyol lider General Franco'nun ölümüyle birlikte her iki ülkeyle de müzakereler başlatılmıştır. Güney Avrupa'da siyasi istikrarın sağlanması önceliğiyle hareket eden üye devletlerin gayretleriyle İspanya ve Portekiz 1 Ocak 1986 tarihinde AB üyesi olmuşlardır. C. EFTA (Avusturya, Finlandiya ve İsveç) Genişlemesi: 1990'lı yılların başında Avusturya, Finlandiya, İsveç ve Norveç AB ile müzakerelere başladı. Bu ülkelerin AB üyesi olma isteklerinin ardında ağırlıklı olarak ekonomik etkenler bulunuyordu. Yukarıda da belirtildiği üzere, bu ülkeler EFTA üyesiydi ve 1970'lerin sonuna gelindiğinde EFTA ülkeleri ve Topluluk arasında sanayi ürünlerinde serbest ticaret alanı oluşturulmuştu. EFTA üyeliği avantajlı olmakla birlikte bazı dezavantajları da beraberinde getiriyordu. Bu ülkeler, tam üye olmadıkları için AB'nin karar alma mekanizmalarına dâhil olamıyorlar ve EFTA Antlaşması uyarınca Birliğin ticaret politikasında alınan bazı kararlar çıkarlarına aykırı düşse de uygulamak durumunda kalıyorlardı. Bu durum, bu ülkelerin tam üyelik perspektifine daha sıcak bakmasına neden oldu ve Mart 1994'de bu ülkelerle yapılan müzakereler tamamlandı. Akdeniz genişlemesi ile kıyaslandığında bu müzakereler, ülkelerin refah düzeyi ve hâlihazırda AB müktesebatına sağlamış oldukları kısmi uyum nedeniyle daha rahat ilerledi. Ancak müzakerelerin tamamlanmasını takiben Norveç'te yapılan referandumda üyeliğin halk tarafından reddedilmesi sonucunda, sadece üç ülke resmen AB üyesi oldu. D. Orta ve Doğu Avrupa Genişlemesi: Soğuk Savaş'ın bitmesini takiben Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkeleri ile Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi (GKRY) ve Malta, AB üyeliği için başvuruda bulundu. Birlik, kendisini Soğuk Savaş sonrasında demokrasi ve insan hakları temelli bir kimlik ekseninde tanımlamaya başladıkça, demokratikleşme yolundaki irade ve istekleriyle kapısını çalmakta olan bu ülkelere kayıtsız kalması imkânsız hale gelmiştir. Buna ek olarak bu ülkelerin "Avrupalı" oldukları fikrinin altı çizilerek entegrasyonlarının AB'nin tarihi bir yükümlülüğü olduğu sıkça ifade edilmiştir. Özellikle Almanya, güvenlik kaygılarıyla, bu ülkelerin üyeliğinin Doğu komşuluk bölgesinde istikrarı güvence altına alacağını düşünmüştür. Tüm bu nedenler ışığında bu ülkelerin AB üyesi olabilecekleri resmi olarak ilk kez Haziran 1993'de toplanan Kopenhag Zirvesi'nde dile getirilmiş, yine aynı zirvede, "Kopenhag Kriterleri" adı verilen üyelik koşulları belirlenmiştir (Avrupa Konseyi, 1993). Kopenhag Kriterleri uyarınca bir ülkenin AB üyesi olabilmesi için ülkenin demokrasi, hukukun üstünlüğü, insan hakları ile azınlıklara saygı ve korunmalarını güvence altına alan kurumların istikrarına (Kopenhag siyasi kriterleri); işleyen bir pazar ekonomisine ve AB müktesebatından doğacak olan yükümlülükleri üstlenme kapasitesine sahip olması gerekmektedir. Kopenhag Zirvesi'ni takiben 1994 ve 1996 yılları arasında 10 Orta ve Doğu Avrupa ülkesi resmi üyelik başvurularını yapmıştır. Avrupa Konseyi de Aralık 1997'de yapılan Lüksemburg Zirvesi'nde, genişlemeyi olası kılan süreci başlatmıştır. Bu süreçte ilk seferde on iki ülke aday ülke statüsü almıştır. (3) Avrupa Komisyonu'nun tavsiyesi üzerine Mart 1998'de altı ülke ile müzakerelere başlanmıştır. (4) Malta, 1996'da "dondurmuş" olduğu üyelik başvurusunu Ekim 1998'de tekrar yürürlüğe koymuştur. Avrupa Konseyi Aralık 1999'da Helsinki Zirvesi'nde katılım sürecinin kapsamlı niteliğini teyit etmiş ve Avrupa Komisyonu'nun tavsiyesine dayanarak altı aday ülkeyle daha resmi katılım müzakerelerini başlatmaya karar vermiştir. (5) Bu altı ülke ile katılım müzakereleri 15 Şubat 2000'de resmen açılmış ve 1 Mayıs 2004 tarihinde 10 yeni üye ülkenin katılımı tamamlanmıştır. (6) Bulgaristan ve Romanya'nın üyelikleri henüz üyelik kriterlerini tam olarak sağlamadıkları gerekçesiyle 2007 yılına ertelenmiş ve 1 Ocak 2007'de gerçekleşmiştir. 2007 de Romanya vve Bulgarlar uye oldu 2014 de de Hirvatistan. Bence ornek olarak Turkiyeyi verebilirsisn ikinci kisimda gunumuzde Genisleme Politikasini tartisirken: 012 yılı itibariyle Avrupa Birliği'ne aday beş ülke bulunmaktadır: Sırbistan, Karadağ, Türkiye, Makedonya ve İzlanda. İzlanda ve Türkiye ile müzakereler sürmekte olup, diğer ülkelerle henüz müzakerelere başlanmamıştır. Sırbistan, Karadağ ve Makedonya dışındaki diğer Batı Balkan ülkelerine de (Arnavutluk, Bosna Hersek, Kosova) tam üyelik sözü verilmiş olup, hazır olduklarında sürecin başlatılacağı belirtilmiştir. Bu ülkelerle İstikrar ve Ortaklık Anlaşmaları imzalanmıştır. Bu anlaşmalar uyarınca söz konusu Batı Balkan ülkeleri reformlar için maddi yardım alabilmekte ve AB tek pazarında serbest ihracat hakkına sahip olmaktadırlar. Bu ülkelerle imzalanan vize kolaylaştırma anlaşmalarıyla da, belirli toplumsal gruplar için vize prosedürleri basitleştirilmiştir. Günümüzde genişleme politikasına dair tartışmaların odağında Türkiye bulunmaktadır. Türkiye'nin AB ile ilişkilerinin geçmişi 1959 yılında Türkiye'nin yapmış olduğu ortaklık başvurusuna dayanmaktadır. 1963 yılında özünde ekonomik bir anlaşma olan Ankara Anlaşması imzalanmış, ancak ilişkiler 1980 askeri darbesiyle sekteye uğramıştır. 1983 yılında sivil yönetime geçişle birlikte 1987 yılında tekrar tam üyelik başvurusu yapılmıştır. Bu başvuru, temelde Türkiye'nin üyeliğe siyasi ve ekonomik olarak hazır olmadığı ve Birliğin o dönem Tek Pazar'ın (Single Market) tamamlanmasına odaklanması gerektiği gerekçesiyle reddedilmiştir. Bunu takip eden dönemde Türkiye, AB ile Ankara Anlaşması ile öngörülmüş olan Gümrük Birliği'ni gerçekleştirmiştir. Doğu Avrupa genişlemesiyle beraber genişleme sürecine tekrar dâhil olmak istemiş, ancak 1997 Lüksemburg Zirvesi'nde belirlenen genişleme sürecinin dışında bırakılmıştır. Bunun üzerine Türkiye AB ile siyasi ilişkileri kısmen dondurmuştur. O dönemde Kosova Savaşı ile birlikte Güney Doğu Avrupa'da istikrar sağlama ihtiyacı ve bu bağlamda Türkiye'nin kaybedilmesi korkusu, 1999 yılında yaşanan Marmara depremi ile birlikte ivme kazanan Türk-Yunan yakınlaşması ve Yunanistan'ın Türkiye'nin tam üyeliği karşısında takınmış olduğu olumsuz tavrını değiştirmesi ve Avrupa'da Türkiye'nin üyeliğine daha sıcak bakmakta olan merkez sol hükümetlerin iktidara gelmesiyle beraber AB'nin de tavrı kısa zamanda değişmiş ve 1999 Helsinki Zirvesi'nde Türkiye'nin adaylığı resmen tanınmıştır. Helsinki Zirvesi'nin akabinde Türkiye, özellikle demokrasi ve insan hakları alanında önemli iyileştirmeler içeren 34 Anayasa değişikliği ile üç uyum paketini Meclis'ten geçirmiştir. 2002 Kopenhag Zirvesi'nde Türkiye ile müzakerelerin açılma kararı Aralık 2004 Zirvesi'ne bırakılmıştır. Kopenhag Zirvesi kararları uyarınca Avrupa Komisyonu, Türkiye'nin Kopenhag siyasi kriterlerine uyumuna ilişkin bir rapor hazırlayacak ve olumlu görüş vermesi durumunda Türkiye ile katılım müzakerelerini başlatma kararı 2004 Zirvesi'nde alınacaktı. Kopenhag'da ayrıca Türkiye'ye yapılmakta olan maddi ve teknik yardımın miktarının artırılmasına karar verildi. Bu kararlar Türkiye'deki reform sürecini hızlandırarak dört reform paketinin ve iki anayasa değişikliği paketinin yasalaşmasını sağladı. Avrupa Komisyonu'nun Aralık 2004'deki Türkiye İlerleme Raporu'nda Türkiye'nin Kopenhag siyasi kriterlerini yeterli düzeyde karşıladığını belirtmesi üzerine 3 Ekim 2005'de Türkiye ile müzakereler resmen açılmıştır. 3 Ekim 2005 tarihli Hükümetler arası Konferansta Müzakerelerin hangi usul ve esaslar çerçevesinde yürütüleceğini düzenleyen "Müzakere Çerçeve Belgesi" de kabul edilmiştir. Söz konusu belgede, müzakerelerin 3 temel unsur üzerinden yürütüleceği belirtilmektedir. Bunlar, Kopenhag siyasi kriterlerinin istisnasız olarak uygulanması, siyasi reformların derinleştirilmesi ve içselleştirilmesi; AB Müktesebatının üstlenilmesi ve uygulanması; sivil toplum diyaloğunun güçlendirilmesi ve bu çerçevede hem AB ülkelerinin kamuoylarına, hem de Türkiye kamuoyuna yönelik olarak bir iletişim stratejisinin yürütülmesidir. Haziran 2012 itibariyle 35 müzakere başlığından 13'ü açılmış olup, sadece biri geçici olarak kapatılmıştır. Türkiye ile aynı tarihte müzakerelere başlayan Hırvatistan ise 2011 yılında müzakere sürecini tamamlamıştır. Türkiye'nin müzakere sürecinin yavaş ilerlemesinin birçok nedeni vardır. Bunlardan biri Kıbrıs sorunudur. Türkiye, Kuzey Kıbrıs'a uygulanan izolasyonların kalkması karşılığında Ankara Anlaşması Ek Protokolü'nü, yani Gümrük Birliği'ni, Güney Kıbrıs Rum Yönetimi'ne (GKRY) uygulayacağına dair taahhütte bulunmuştur. Ancak AB'nin, özellikle de Avrupa Komisyonu'nun, izolasyonların kalkmasına ilişkin çabalarının GKRY tarafından bloke edilmesi sonucu Türkiye de bu taahhüdün gereğini yerine getirmemiştir. Bunun sonucu olarak, Konsey'in Aralık 2006'da aldığı bir kararla bu konuyla ilintili 8 müzakere başlığının açılması durdurulmuş ve Ek Protokol uygulanana kadar da hiçbir müzakere başlığının geçici olarak kapatılamayacağına karar verilmiştir. Söz konusu 8 başlığa ek olarak, "Eğitim ve Kültür" ve "Ekonomik ve Parasal Politika" fasılları, herhangi bir teknik açılış kriteri bulunmamasına, müzakere pozisyon belgesinin sunulmasına ve teknik olarak açılmaya hazır olmalarına rağmen, başta Fransa olmak üzere bazı üye ülkeler tarafından, AB Mevzuatı ile ilgili olmayan nedenlerle bloke edilmektedir. Buradan da görüleceği üzere, müzakere sürecinde Türkiye'nin önündeki en önemli engellerden biri ülkenin tam üyeliğine dair AB'de bir görüş birliğinin bulunmamasıdır. Başta Fransa ve Almanya olmak üzere bazı üye ülkeler, Türkiye'nin nüfusunun büyüklüğü, Birliğin kurumsal işleyişine ve bütçesine yapacağı etkiler, kültürel farklılıklar ve ülke kamuoylarındaki olumsuz algılar gibi nedenleri öne sürerek bu genişlemeye karşı çıkmaktadır (Aydın-Düzgit, 2006). Ancak AB'de hükümet değişimleri de muhtemeldir ve Türkiye'nin üyeliğine nispeten daha olumlu yaklaşan merkez sol hükümetlerin Almanya ve Fransa'da iktidara gelmeleri bu ülkelerin tavırlarında değişikliklere yol açabilir. Aynı şekilde Avrupa kamuoyları da sabit olarak değerlendirilmemelidir. Doğu genişlemesinde olduğu gibi siyasi elitin güçlü irade gösterdiği durumlarda kamuoyunun da olumlu yönde değişebileceği akılda tutulmalıdır. Öte yandan Türkiye de üyelik yönünde, özellikle de demokrasi ve insan hakları alanında, önemli ilerlemeler kaydetmiş, müzakere sürecinde yasal ve kurumsal reform adımları atılmıştır. Türkiye kamuoyunun ülkenin AB üyeliğine destek oranı son yıllarda düşmüş olsa da, AB'nin Türkiye'ye karşı olan belirsiz tavrının olumlu yönde netleşmesi durumunda bu oranın artması da beklenebilir. Bir de uc tane screenshot atiyorum diger benim tezimden:

Discuss main challenges to global security. Compare the traditional state security paradigm with human security and demonstrate their relevance through a selected country/region (e.g. Syrian crisis, Arab-Israeli conflict, Ukraine crisis, North Korea etc.)

Simdi bu soruya cevap verirken, aklinda tutman gereken sey su. 1990 lara kadar guvenlik konulari genel olarak ayni realist teorinin soyledigi gibi devletler uzerinden isliyor. Soguk savas doneminde Rusya ABD arasinda ve sonrasinda bolgesel catismalar seklinde. Ama 1990 lardan itibaren - terrorist gruplar ortaya cikmaya basliyor - el kaide gibi ve bu gruplar devletleri ve askerleri degil, bunun yerine sivilleri hedef adliyorlar. Bu da- ozellikle 1990`lardan itibaren insan guvenligini ve ayni zamanda guvenlik icin mucadele edilmesi gerekenin ne oldugu konusunda bir degisim yaratiyor. Notlardaki evolution 9/11 guzel anlatmis. Bu terimi de aklinda tutmalisin. Soruya ornek olarak Suriyeyi verebilirsin. Bir de 22inci sayfada, Shaprio nun AB ile EUSA arasindaki yaptigi ayrim var. O da guzel olarak destekler ornegi. Yani guvenlik konularindaki degisimi vurgulamalisin bu soru icicn. Security threatler 33 guzel ozetlemis o sayfada. Regional conflict ornekleri de 33 den itibaren var bu soru icin.

1. Consider the role of social constructivism and/or post-structuralism for the study of European integration. Discuss the notion of the EU as a value-based community of liberal democracies, including practical examples.

Simdi bu soruyu anlatirken, 1990`li yillarda uluslarasi iliskilerde Konstructivism`in cikisini anlatman lazim ilk bolumda anlattigim. Konstructivism yani Insacilik en temelde, sosyal gercekligin bizler tarafindan olusturuldugu ustune ve Avrupa Calismalarina bir kac farkli sekilde contribute ediyor. Yine ayni sekilde, post-structuralist calismalar`da AB`yi uluslrarasi iliskilerdekii devlet merkezli ve material power temelli yaklasimlar disinda bambaska bir bakis acisi ile ele almamizi sagliyor. Daha specific olmak gerekirse, AB uzerine yapilan calismalarda bazi katkilari var. Bu kismi sana kendi tezimden turkce olarak yaziyorum: \ Yani boylelikle, eger sana Neofunctionalism ile Constructivism`I karsilastirin derlerse, bu yukarida yazani ornek olarak gosterebilirsin. Simdi sana bir kac tane Insaci olup AB uzerine calisma yapan insanlardan ornek vericem. Bunlari aklinda tutarsan, cok begenirler: Internete Checkel AB yazarsan bulursun zaten. Social Learning konsepti AB icinde kullanildiginda, sunu idda ediyor: AB kurumsal yapisi icerisinde gelisen norm ve degerler ulusal ve yerel politikacilari etkiliyor ve bu ogrenme sureci degerleri degistiriyor ve boylelikle ciklarlari. Yani learning allows to change the actor`s interests. Insanlar daha sosyal varliklar. Bir baska ornek Thomas Risse. Son olarak Post-modernism uzerine de Ian manner`I ornek verebilirsin. Ian Manners Europe As a Normative Power diye bir konsept gelistirmis. Asagiya bir makale biraktim, bu makaleyi okursan hem bu konsepti anlarsin hem de nasil kullanildigini gorursun suriye kirizinde. Temel olarak arguman su, AB insani bir guc ve silah yerine normative sekilde bir guc olmaya ccalisiyor. Yani makalenin ozeti bile kavramani saglayacaktir buradaki nuansi: Avrupa Birliği'nin (AB) Suriye mülteci krizinin yönetimi noktasında izlediği politika uluslararası siyasette ve akademik literatürde eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Bu eleştirilerin önemli bir kısmı, AB'nin krize yönelik izlediği göç politikasının onun normatif güç kimliği ile uyumlu olup olmadığına odaklanır. AB, Ian Manners'ın teorik çerçevesine referansla sıklıkla normatif bir politik güç şeklinde tanımlanır. Normatif güç olan AB'nin mülteci krizine yönelik izlemesi gereken politikanın özetle şöyle bir nitelik göstermesi beklenir: AB değerleri ve bilhassa insan hakları odaklı, ulusüstü seviyede, kapsayıcı, proaktif ve uzun vadeli bir politika. Bu politika, başka bir deyişle, realist güç politikası eksenli, krizinin özellikle güvenlik boyutuna odaklanan, dışsallayıcı, reaktif ve kısa vadeli bir göç politikası olmamalıdır. Bu çerçevede, bu çalışmanın amacı, AB'nin Suriye mülteci krizine yönelik benimsediği göç politikasının AB'nin normatif güç kimliği ile uyumlu olup olmadığını incelemektir. Metodolojik olarak AB'nin göç politikası, teknik ve doktrinel yasal bir analizle detaylıca değil, AB'nin normatif kimliğine referansla teorik ve analitik olarak incelenmiştir. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sosbilder/issue/46266/502634 Post-modernizm material, sabit ve devlet merkezli cikar algisina karsi alternatif alastirma alanlari aciyor security uzerine boylelikle. Bu soru da done 😊

Explain main differences and similarities in how European integration is understood from the perspective of (liberal) intergovernmentalism and (neo-)functionalism. Illustrate your discussion with historical examples

Simdi, geldik fasulyenin faydalarina. Avrupa Butunlesme teorileri dedigimizde, yani European integration theory dedigimizde, Avrupa Birliginin karar yapim sureclerini aciklamaya calisan teorilerden bahsediyoruz. Yani this theories are different in a sense that they focus specifically the development of European integration within its history. Avrupa Butunlusmesine yonelik olarak olusturulan ilk teori Neo-functionalism. Bu teoriyi Ernst Haas 1958 yilinda AKCCT nin kurulum surecini aciklamak icicn kullaniyor. Buradaki Functionalism, Davvid Mitrany isimli iki savas arasi donemde yazan bir politik dusunure ait. Mitrany, functionalism teorisi 2-3 sayfalar guzel ozet gecmis. Functionalism fikrini Monnet ve Schuman gibi fikir babalari AKCT`nin kurulusunda uygulamaya calisiyor. Fakat en basindan beri devletlerin temsil edildigi Konsey var Avrupa butunlesmesinde ve bu nedenle tam olarak functionalism fikri yansimiyor. Buradan Neofunctionalism` e geliyoruz. Haas ve Lindberg (Sayfa 3 guzel ozetlemis) Monnet`in AB temellerine uyguladigi yontemi akademik olarak formule etmeye calisiyor. 1965 lere kadar bu teori baya popular. Ama 1965 de Luxemburg Comprimse (empty chair crisis) - diye bir kriz var bu krizden sonra, Hukumetlerarasiiclik fikri on plana cikiyor. Hoffmann tarafindan. Hoffman, devlet merkezli bir yaklasim ve NF`im aksine devletlerin Ab surecini yonettigini idda ediyor. 1990`lara kadar bu teori popular. Sonra 90lardan itibaren ani uluslararasi iliskilerde oldugu gibi, ab de de bazi gelismeler oluyor ve bu gelismeler neticesinde, eski AB kuramlari yeni akademisyenler tarafindan diriliyor. Liberal Intergovernmentalism Moravcsik tarafindan gelistirilen geleneksel hukumetlerarasiciligin update edilmis hali. Two level games metaphor dedikleri bir metafor kullarak ozetliyor yaklamisini. Temelde liberal sebeplerle devletler ab surecini iletletiyor ve devvletler istedikleri zaman bu sureci durdurabilir ona gore. Yani temelde, AB kuramlarina baktigimizda, iki paradigma goruyoruz, supranational yahut neofunctionalist paradigma; ve hukumetlerarasicilik paradigmasi. Bu acidan hukumetlerasiciligi Realism`e / Supranational okuluyla liberallere benzetebilirsin. Liberal Intergovernmentalism ise rationalism catisi altinda- yani ilk bolumdeki rational choice mantigi icerisinde AB`nin surecinin gelisimi accikliyor. Sorunun ikinci kisminda, bir kac ornek ver demis tarihten, sirasiyla sunlari verebilirsin: Empty chair: From 30 June 1965 to 29 January 1966, in disagreement with the Commission of the European Communities on the financing of the common agricultural policy (CAP), France's representatives refuse to attend any intergovernmental meetings of the Community bodies in Brussels. Sayfa 6- bu intergovernmentalism ornegi- bir de Spillover orgeni verebilirsin o da ayni sayfada cok iyi ozetlemis: The function of spill-over - if you want to enjoy the benefits of the first sector, you need to integrate also other related sectors. Example is Coal and Steel Community evolving into energy sector, creating Euratom. 3 types of spill-over: Functional: in economic context. You integrate coal and steel, then transport system so coal and steel is moved around easily. Political: political actors shift their allegiance to a new center. In EU case it could be political power of parliaments to Brussels. Political spillover is used to explain the importance of supranational and subnational actors in the integration process, as they create further pressure for more integration to pursue their interests. Cultivated: institutions (elites) drive further integration by being in practice - the EU Commission's growing autonomy. They put forward proposals unable to reject by state Transfer of domestic alliances: In NF thinking, in the integration process, different interest groups, associations and elites will shift their loyalty away from national institutions toward the supranational European institution. The explanation to this is that the national groups will recognize the newly formed institution as a better instrument through which they can achieve a better outcome in their interests rather than through national institutions. This will lead to an establishment of elite groups holding pan-European ideas and norms and they will try to persuade national elites to turn their loyalties to the supranational co-operation. Criticism: Loyalty shift did not happen. Technocratic automaticity: It describes the process when the integration is accelerated the supranational institutions themselves will be able to lead and sponsor the further integration because they will be more powerful than the Member States. Bunlari soylersen, bu soruyu gectin.

1. How does the EU legislate? Focus on the role of individual EU institutions in the decision-making process. Consider in the second step the role of national, regional and non-governmental actors using governance theories.

Simdi bu soru about decision-making system of the EU. Yani sorunun ilk kisminda, institutional olarak EU decision making nasil ilerliyor, bunu soruyor. Iki cesit var temel olarak: 1) Ordinary Legislation Procedure 2) Special legislation procedure 1) Ordinary: The ordinary legislative procedure, also called 'codecision' is used for around 85 EU policy areas, ranging from the fight against discrimination to common immigration policy. Most EU legal acts negotiated through this procedure are adopted at the first reading. The Council is an essential EU decision-maker. It negotiates and adopts new EU legislation, adapts it when necessary, and coordinates policies. In most cases, the Council decides together with the European Parliament through the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as 'codecision'. Codecision is used for policy areas where the EU has exclusive or shared competence with the member states. In these cases, the Council legislates on the basis of proposals submitted by the European Commission. In a number of very specific areas, the Council takes decisions using special legislative procedures - the consent procedure and the consultation procedure - where the role of the Parliament is limited. The Council is an essential EU decision-maker. It negotiates and adopts new EU legislation, adapts it when necessary, and coordinates policies. In most cases, the Council decides together with the European Parliament through the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as 'codecision'. Codecision is used for policy areas where the EU has exclusive or shared competence with the member states. In these cases, the Council legislates on the basis of proposals submitted by the European Commission. In a number of very specific areas, the Council takes decisions using special legislative procedures - the consent procedure and the consultation procedure - where the role of the Parliament is limited. Konsey icerisinde kararlari etkileyen 3 lever var: At each reading the proposal passes through three levels at the Council: working party Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) Council configuration This ensures that there is technical scrutiny of the proposal at working party level, political responsibility for it at ministers' level, as well as scrutiny by ambassadors in Coreper, who combine technical expertise with political consideration. 1. The working party The presidency of the Council, with the assistance of the General Secretariat, identifies and convenes the appropriate working party to handle a proposal. A working party begins with a general examination of the proposal, and then makes a line-by-line scrutiny of it. There is no formal time limit for a working party to complete its work; the time taken depends on the nature of the proposal. There is also no obligation for the working party to present an agreement, but the outcome of their discussions is presented to Coreper. 2. Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) Coreper treatment of the proposal depends on the level of agreement reached at working party level. If agreement can be reached without discussion, items appear on Part I of the Coreper agenda. If further discussion is needed within Coreper because agreement has not been reached in the working party on certain aspects of a proposal, items are listed in Part II of the Coreper agenda. In this case, Coreper can: try to negotiate a settlement itself refer the proposal back to the working party, perhaps with suggestions for a compromise pass the matter up to the Council Most proposals feature on the agenda of Coreper several times, as they try to resolve differences that the working party has not overcome. 3. Council configuration If Coreper has been able to finalise discussions on a proposal, it becomes an 'A' item on the Council agenda, meaning that agreement is expected without debate. As a rule, around two-thirds of the items on a Council agenda will be for adoption as 'A' items. Discussion on these items can nevertheless be re-opened if one or more member states so request. The 'B' section of the Council agenda includes points: left over from previous Council meetings upon which no agreement was reached in Coreper or at working party level that are too politically sensitive to be settled at a lower level The results of Council votes are automatically made public when the Council acts in its capacity as legislator. If a member wants to add an explanatory note to the vote, this note will also be made public, if a legal act is adopted. In other cases, when explanations of votes are not automatically published, it can be made public on the request of the author. As the Council is a single legal entity, any of its 10 configurations can adopt a Council act that falls under the remit of another configuration. 1. The working party The presidency of the Council, with the assistance of the General Secretariat, identifies and convenes the appropriate working party to handle a proposal. A working party begins with a general examination of the proposal, and then makes a line-by-line scrutiny of it. There is no formal time limit for a working party to complete its work; the time taken depends on the nature of the proposal. There is also no obligation for the working party to present an agreement, but the outcome of their discussions is presented to Coreper. 2. Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) Coreper treatment of the proposal depends on the level of agreement reached at working party level. If agreement can be reached without discussion, items appear on Part I of the Coreper agenda. If further discussion is needed within Coreper because agreement has not been reached in the working party on certain aspects of a proposal, items are listed in Part II of the Coreper agenda. In this case, Coreper can: try to negotiate a settlement itself refer the proposal back to the working party, perhaps with suggestions for a compromise pass the matter up to the Council Most proposals feature on the agenda of Coreper several times, as they try to resolve differences that the working party has not overcome. 3. Council configuration If Coreper has been able to finalise discussions on a proposal, it becomes an 'A' item on the Council agenda, meaning that agreement is expected without debate. As a rule, around two-thirds of the items on a Council agenda will be for adoption as 'A' items. Discussion on these items can nevertheless be re-opened if one or more member states so request. The 'B' section of the Council agenda includes points: left over from previous Council meetings upon which no agreement was reached in Coreper or at working party level that are too politically sensitive to be settled at a lower level The results of Council votes are automatically made public when the Council acts in its capacity as legislator. If a member wants to add an explanatory note to the vote, this note will also be made public, if a legal act is adopted. In other cases, when explanations of votes are not automatically published, it can be made public on the request of the author. As the Council is a single legal entity, any of its 10 configurations can adopt a Council act that falls under the remit of another configuration. Simdi gelelim bu procedure nasil isliyor: The ordinary legislative procedure How do proposals become EU law? The codecision procedure was first introduced in 1992 and its use extended in 1999. With the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, codecision was renamed the ordinary legislative procedure and it became the main decision-making procedure used for adopting EU legislation. It applies to around 85 policy areas.The ordinary legislative procedure How do proposals become EU law? The codecision procedure was first introduced in 1992 and its use extended in 1999. With the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, codecision was renamed the ordinary legislative procedure and it became the main decision-making procedure used for adopting EU legislation. It applies to around 85 policy areas. Simdi 3`lu okuma denen bir kavram var, semasal olarak aklinda tutman icin paylasiyorum: Sorunun ilk kisminin cevabi aslinda bu sema. Bu semayi da soyle acikliyor AB resmi sitesi: The Ordinary Legislative Procedure Under the Treaty of Lisbon, codecision officially became the 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure' and the general rule for passing legislation at EU level, covering the vast majority of areas of Union action. The main characteristic of the ordinary legislative procedure is the adoption of legislation jointly and on an equal footing by Parliament and the Council. It starts with a legislative proposal from the Commission (normally for a regulation, directive or decision) and consists of up to three readings, with the possibility for the co-legislators to agree on a joint text - and thereby conclude the procedure - at any reading. At first reading, Parliament and Council examine in parallel the Commission's proposal. It is, however, the Parliament that acts first, voting by a simple majority (i.e. a majority of the votes cast) and usually on the basis of a report prepared by one of its committees, in most cases either amending the Commission's proposal or adopting it without amendments. It can also reject the proposal altogether. After the Parliament has adopted its position, the Council may decide to accept Parliament's position, in which case the legislative act is adopted, or it may adopt a different position at first reading and communicate it to Parliament for a second reading. Neither the Parliament nor the Council is subject to any time limit by which it must conclude its first reading. In very general terms, the second reading in the ordinary legislative procedure follows a similar logic and pattern. However, when compared to the first reading, there are key differences, in particular as regards the deadlines and the voting procedure in Parliament. Thus at second reading each of the co-legislators has three months, extendible by one month, to adopt its position. As regards the voting majorities in Parliament at second reading, Parliament rejects or amends the Council's first-reading position by an absolute majority of its Members (currently 353 out of 705 votes), rather than by a simple majority as it is the case in first reading. Conciliation is the third and final stage of the ordinary legislative procedure. The conciliation procedure is opened if the Council cannot accept all the amendments adopted by Parliament at second reading. It consists of negotiations between the two co-legislators in the framework of the Conciliation Committee, with the objective of reaching an agreement in the form of a 'joint text' which then has to be confirmed by both Parliament and the Council. Bir de special decision making var, onlar da su sekilde 2- ssSpecial legislative procedures At a glance Legislator: The Council is, in practice, the sole legislator. The European Parliament is required to give its consent to a legislative proposal or be consulted on it. Right of legislative initiative: The European Commission Types of procedures: Consent: the European Parliament has the power to accept or reject a legislative proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it Consultation: the European Parliament may approve, reject or propose amendments to a legislative proposal Legal base: Article 289(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Rules: The treaties do not give a precise description of special legislative procedures. The rules are therefore defined ad hoc, on the basis of the relevant treaty articles. In detail 1. Consent Under the consent procedure the Council can adopt legislative proposals after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The Parliament therefore has the power to accept or reject a legislative proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it. The Council has no power to overrule the Parliament's opinion. As a legislative procedure, consent is used when new legislation on combating discrimination is being adopted and it also gives the Parliament a veto when the subsidiary general legal basis is applied in line with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Parliament's consent is also required as a non-legislative procedure, when: the Council adopts certain international agreements negotiated by the EU in cases of a serious breach of fundamental rights (Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union) for the accession of new EU members arrangements for withdrawal from the EU 2. Consultation Under the consultation procedure the Council adopts a legislative proposal after the Parliament has submitted its opinion on it. In this procedure the Parliament may approve, reject or propose amendments to a legislative proposal. The Council is not legally obliged to take the Parliament's opinion into account, but according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it. The procedure is applicable in several areas, such as internal market exemptions and competition law. The Parliament's consultation is also required as a non-legislative procedure when international agreements are adopted under common foreign and security policy. Simdi sorunun ikinci kismina gecelim: Special legislative procedures At a glance Legislator: The Council is, in practice, the sole legislator. The European Parliament is required to give its consent to a legislative proposal or be consulted on it. Right of legislative initiative: The European Commission Types of procedures: Consent: the European Parliament has the power to accept or reject a legislative proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it Consultation: the European Parliament may approve, reject or propose amendments to a legislative proposal Legal base: Article 289(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Rules: The treaties do not give a precise description of special legislative procedures. The rules are therefore defined ad hoc, on the basis of the relevant treaty articles. In detail 1. Consent Under the consent procedure the Council can adopt legislative proposals after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. The Parliament therefore has the power to accept or reject a legislative proposal by an absolute majority vote, but cannot amend it. The Council has no power to overrule the Parliament's opinion. As a legislative procedure, consent is used when new legislation on combating discrimination is being adopted and it also gives the Parliament a veto when the subsidiary general legal basis is applied in line with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Parliament's consent is also required as a non-legislative procedure, when: the Council adopts certain international agreements negotiated by the EU in cases of a serious breach of fundamental rights (Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union) for the accession of new EU members arrangements for withdrawal from the EU 2. Consultation Under the consultation procedure the Council adopts a legislative proposal after the Parliament has submitted its opinion on it. In this procedure the Parliament may approve, reject or propose amendments to a legislative proposal. The Council is not legally obliged to take the Parliament's opinion into account, but according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it. The procedure is applicable in several areas, such as internal market exemptions and competition law. The Parliament's consultation is also required as a non-legislative procedure when international agreements are adopted under common foreign and security policy. Sorunun ikincci bolumunde ise consider role of different actors diyor- burada da aslinda karar alma sureci her ne kadar council elinde olsa da ayni multi level governance approachlarin soyledigi gibi bir cok aktorun rol oynadigini ve ozellikle kuirumsal ab yapisi icerisinde karmasik - bir karar alma sureci oldugunu bu surecte, ulusal hukumletler, onlarin calisma gruplari ve ayni sekilde supranational olanlarin karmasik bir sekilde, yukarida anlatilan sekilde iletisim icerisinde karar alma sureclerini gerceklestirdigini soylemen gerekiyor. Bu soru da done 😊 1. Comment on internal and external security issues in the EU. How has the security situation and the EU's activities within the field changed over the last two decades? Bu soru da iki dimension`li oncelikle internal ve external security konulari uzerinde durmalisin. Senin ozetlerde bunu guzel anlatmis. Su sekilde baslayabilirsin: Council document - ISS for the EU: Towards a European Security Model - political rather than legal Challenges for ESM: ● protection of rights and freedoms ● improvement of cooperation and solidarity ● addressing the causes of insecurity (noj just effects) ● prevention and anticipation ● recognition of the interdependence between internal and external security ESM integrates action on: ● law enforcement and judicial cooperation ● border management ● civil protection and disaster management MAIN CHALLENGES TO INTERNAL SECURITY: 1. Terrorism 2. Serious and organized crime: Drug trafficking, economic crime, human trafficking, smuggling of persons, arms trafficking, sexual exploitation of minors and child pornography, violent crimes, money laundering and document fraud are only some of the ways in which organized and serious crime manifests itself in the EU. 3. Cybercrime represents a global, technical, cross-border and anonymous threat to our information systems and, because of that, it poses many additional challenges for law-enforcement agencies. 4. Cross-border crime, such as petty or property crime, often carried out by gangs, when it has a significant impact on the daily lives of people in Europe, poses a common threat. 5. Violence itself, such as youth violence or hooligan violence at sports events, increases the damage already caused by crimes and can significantly harm our society. 6. Natural and man-made disasters, such as forest fires, earthquakes, floods and storms, droughts, energy shortages and major information and communication technology (ICT) breakdowns, pose safety and security challenges. In this day and age, civil protection systems represent an essential element of any modern and advanced security system. 7. other common phenomena (road traffic accidents) Principles: a. respect for fundamental rights, intl protection, rule of law and privacy b. protection of citizens, especially vulnerable c. transparency and accountability in security policies d. dialogue to resolve differences e. integration, social inclusion and fight against discrimination f. solidarity g. mutual trust GUIDELINES: I. a wide and comprehensive approach to internal security II. ensuring effective democratic and judicial supervision of security activities (EP, ECJ, national govs) III. prevention and anticipation (early warning systems, PNR; threat assessments) IV. information exchange V. operational cooperation & effectiveness (COSI, Europol, Frontex, Eurojust, Cepol, SitCen) VI. judicial cooperation in criminal matters VII. integrated border management (EUROSUR, Frontex, VIS, SIS) VIII. innovation and training IX. external dimension of internal security/cooperation with 3rd countries (Common European Security and Defense Policy) X. flexibility to adapt to future challenges Commission document - 2010-2014 EU Internal Security Strategy in Action 5 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & some ACTIONS 1. serious and organized crime a. disrupting criminal networks ■ PNR ■ EU Anti-money laundering legislation ■ joint operations of Eurojust, Europol, joint investigation teams ■ European Arrest Warrant ■ confiscation of criminal assets (Asset Recovery Offices) 2. terrorism a. prevention ■ a radicalisation-awareness network ■ CBRN law enforcement units ■ transport protection 3. cybercrime a. security in cyberspace ■ EU shall establish a cybercrime center ■ reporting by public ■ cooperation strenghtened thru European Public-Private Partnership for Resilience (Ep3r) ■ every MS should have CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) ■ national contingency plans 4. border security a. border management ■ SIS I, II; VIS ■ new technology - European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) ■ info sharing for maritime domain ■ enhanced cooperation thru Frontex 5. natural and man-made disasters a. resilience to crises and disasters ■ legal obligation to assist each other ■ solidarity clause ■ risk assessment, disaster management ■ to develop a European Emergency Response Capacity for tackling disasters EXTERNAL SECURITY 9/11 EU's response - EU Action Plan ● proposal for European Arrest Warrant ● the operational powers: police forces, judiciaries and intelligence agencies -remained under national jurisdiction -thus the Union has provided 'support', rather than 'alternative', primary efforts within the JHA pillar, rather than the CFSP [interior ministers would collaborate with foreign ministers, esp. when third party is involved] 2003 Iraq ● internal tensions within the EU ● Coalition of Willing vs. the rest ● doctrine of "pre-emptive attack" European Security Strategy ● none of the new security threats is purely military, nor can they be tackled by purely military means called for a closer coordination between JHA and external relations 5 key threats: terrorism ● Europe is both a target and a base for such terrorism: European countries are targets and have been attacked. Logistical bases for Al Qaeda cells have been uncovered in the UK, Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium. ● now top priority to complement national counterterrorism capacities & strengthen coop with EU's allies ● following Madrid (2004) and London (2005): ■ blurred lines between internal and external security (carried out by EU citizens) ■ funds to Europol and Eurojust ■ Situation Center - to process intelligence; counter-terrorism coordination ● 2005 Counter-terrorism strategy ■ protection of key infrastructures - transport, power generational, chemical refineries, gov buildings, food distribution and healthcare system ■ Successes: foiled plots in Germany and Denmark ■ Weaknesses ● (i) not everyone equally keen on adopting the principle of mutual recognition of legal decisions, e.g. European Arrest Warrant ● (ii) not sharing the intelligence with everyone - lack of support to create an EU-wide intelligence agency: The Group of 6 (Fr, Germany, UK, It, Sp, Poland) ● cooperation with the US - an important component of the EU CT program ■ Guantanamo Bay x EU; criminal law approach ■ US' extraordinary rendition - torture! ■ influence of US Dept of Homeland Security --> US has an access to EU CT institutions - screening cargoes, sharing PNRs proliferation of WMD ● Especially if terrorists acquire them regional conflicts ● Ukraine, Kashmir can lead to extremism, terrorism and state failure; it provides opportunities for organized crime state failure organized crime ● Europe is a prime target for organized crime, may be linked to terrorism ● backbone of internal security agenda for most of the 1990s (abolition of borders, transition of CEECs) ● increased priority following the enlargements (no buffer zone between Belarus, Ukraine and Russia) ● wide range of trafficking (illegal drugs, cigarettes, weapons, human being, prostitution, money laundering etc.) Strategic objectives ● Addressing threats ● arms proliferation strengthening international treaties and their verification provisions, ● restoration of good governance democracy ● Building security in its neighborhood ● promote a ring of well-governed countries to the east of the European Union and on the shores of the Mediterranean with whom we can enjoy close and cooperative relations ● Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a strategic priority ● Developing an international order based on effective multilateralism ● best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic states POLICY IMPLICATIONS ● be more active in pursuing its strategic objectives ● needed to counter new threats, develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid and, when necessary, robust intervention = to have greater political weight ● increase its capabilities ● develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid and, when necessary, robust intervention, needs more capacity to bring all necessary civilian resources to bear in crises and post-crisis situations ● pursue coherent policies ● work with partners & bring together the different tools and capabilities of EU policy, such as European assistance programs, the European Development Fund and the Member States' military and civilian capabilities ● external JHA strategy ● mainstream JHA issues in the EU's external relations ● Stabilisation and Association Agreements, which the EU signed with Western Balkan countries ● the ENP Action Plans with neighbouring countries ● substantial JHA components that provide for intense cooperation on issues such as reinforcing the rule of law, migration and asylum, money laundering and illicit drugs ● Frontex ● joint operations carried out by Frontex in the Mediterranean have operated not only in the high sea but also in the maritime waters of African states to dissuade small, wooden boats laden with would-be immigrants from setting off from the African coast ● agency's cooperation with third countries is not limited to the implementation of joint operations ● CSDP civilian crisis management ● Since the 2000 Feira European Council, the EU has developed a civilian dimension of CSDP (formerly ESDP) and has launched a variety of operations in the Western Balkans, South Caucasus, Africa, the Middle East and Asia ● Objectives: ● border management (e.g. EUBAM to Moldova and Ukraine; EUBAM Rafah) ● rule of law (e.g. EULEX Kosovo; EUJUST Themis/Georgia) ● police (e.g. EUPOL PROXIMA/FYROM; EUPM Bosnia and Herzegovina) ● security sector reform (e.g. EU SSR Guinea-Bissau; EUSEC RD Congo) ● engagement with international organizations ● United Nations and the Council of Europe ● EU's general commitment to effective multilateralism ● based on the understanding that to be able to respond to global security challenges the international system needs 'functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order' ● linking areas such as humanitarian aid and development assistance with migration control and counter-terrorism was seen to contribute to the 'securitisation' of these areas ● based on the 'root causes' approach which is preventive in nature and strives towards eliminating the causes of irregular migration, instability and radicalisation ● development and humanitarian aid and economic cooperation ● might also have negative reverberations on human rights and civil liberties standards in individual European countries LISBON TREATY ● High Rep. of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (= VP of the Commission - "HR/VP" - 2009 Catherine Ashton, now Federica Mogherini) ● inclusion of common defence (mutual assistance) and solidarity clauses ● expansion of Petersberg tasks ● European Council --> COSI (Standing Committee on internal security) - "shall facilitate coordination of the action of MS' competent authorities and shall also evaluate the general direction and efficiency of operational cooperation" ● enhanced the democratic and parliamentarian oversight mechanism by abolishing the 'pillar structure' = transferring police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the Community pillar ● 'ordinary legislative procedure' in AFSJ strengthened the role of the European Parliament and the Commission and enlarged the jurisdiction of the ECJ ● European Parliament has become fully involved in the definition of Europol and Eurojust's structure, operation, field of action and tasks and has acquired, together with national parliaments, an enhanced role in scrutinizing the agencies' activities both inside and outside the Union ● EU's new single order and legal personality make it easier for the EU to negotiate with third countries and conclude these agreements on behalf of the Union ● Civilian and Military Headline Goals CIVILIAN GOALS - first set in 2000 - 4 priority areas: i. policing ii. rule of law iii. civil administration iv. civil protection ● from 2008 - focus on training, staffing, mission planning + monitoring missions ● from 2010 - synchronize more with the Military Headline Goal and creation of Civilian Response Team (100 experts) MILITARY GOALS ● an autonomous military capacity to respond to crisis - voluntary coop, up to 15 brigades of 50-60k people ● preventive engagement ● Battlegroup - high readiness of 1,5k personnel, deployed within 10 days, sustained for up to 30 days; fully operational in 2007 2011 - European Ext Action Service launched (= the EU diplomatic corps; the conduct of CFSP) ESDP/CSDP ● failure of European Defense Community, failure of Fouchet Plan ● WEU (1948, modified 1954) ● a defensive alliance (10MS) - mutual military assistance in case of external aggression ● framework for the creation of European defense policy ● functions incorporated into the EU with Lisbon ● structure: ● political and security committee ● military committee ● military staff I. Petersberg Tasks 1992 ● humanitarian and rescue tasks ● peacekeeping tasks ● tasks of combat forces in crisis management ● up to 15 brigades consisting of 50-60k persons, deployable within 60 days ● rapidly deployable EU Battlegroups by 2007 II. 1997 Amsterdam Treaty High Representative for CFSP (1999 Javier Solana) III. 1998 Saint Malo Declaration ● the EU needs the capacity for autonomous action in managing intl crises IV. 2001 ECAP (European Capability Action Plan) ● to reduce internal operating costs (leasing, pooling of national assets etc.) V. 2002 EUISS (EU Institute for Security Studies) ● analysis of foreign, security and defence policy issues VI. 2003 - EUPM BiH - first CSDP civilian mission launched VII. 2003 A common action plan to fight against the proliferation of WMD ● a common strategic concept "A secure Europe in a better world" ■ outlines differences in the EU's approach to security challenges and policy responses from those by the US ■ Europe is in peace, not at war ● joint planning capacity to conduct operations without the involvement of NATO (supported by Fr and UK) VIII. 2003/4 - European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) ● set up by 1999 Helsinki EC ● "Headline Goal" IX. 2003 BERLIN PLUS ● US supported the ESDP and the use of NATO assets in EU-led operations - but conditioned since 1998 - 3Ds i. no decoupling from NATO (ESDP to complement NATO) ii. no duplication of NATO command structures iii. no discrimination against European NATO countries (non-EU members) X. 2003 - Operation Artemis - first autonomous EU-led military operation XI. 2004 European Defense Agency (EDA) ● to improve European military capabilities and interoperability ● increased cooperation among MS in weapons research Council document - ISS for the EU: Towards a European Security Model - political rather than legal Challenges for ESM: ● protection of rights and freedoms ● improvement of cooperation and solidarity ● addressing the causes of insecurity (noj just effects) ● prevention and anticipation ● recognition of the interdependence between internal and external security ESM integrates action on: ● law enforcement and judicial cooperation ● border management ● civil protection and disaster management MAIN CHALLENGES TO INTERNAL SECURITY: 8. Terrorism 9. Serious and organized crime: Drug trafficking, economic crime, human trafficking, smuggling of persons, arms trafficking, sexual exploitation of minors and child pornography, violent crimes, money laundering and document fraud are only some of the ways in which organized and serious crime manifests itself in the EU. 10. Cybercrime represents a global, technical, cross-border and anonymous threat to our information systems and, because of that, it poses many additional challenges for law-enforcement agencies. 11. Cross-border crime, such as petty or property crime, often carried out by gangs, when it has a significant impact on the daily lives of people in Europe, poses a common threat. 12. Violence itself, such as youth violence or hooligan violence at sports events, increases the damage already caused by crimes and can significantly harm our society. 13. Natural and man-made disasters, such as forest fires, earthquakes, floods and storms, droughts, energy shortages and major information and communication technology (ICT) breakdowns, pose safety and security challenges. In this day and age, civil protection systems represent an essential element of any modern and advanced security system. 14. other common phenomena (road traffic accidents) Principles: h. respect for fundamental rights, intl protection, rule of law and privacy i. protection of citizens, especially vulnerable j. transparency and accountability in security policies k. dialogue to resolve differences l. integration, social inclusion and fight against discrimination m. solidarity n. mutual trust GUIDELINES: XI. a wide and comprehensive approach to internal security XII. ensuring effective democratic and judicial supervision of security activities (EP, ECJ, national govs) XIII. prevention and anticipation (early warning systems, PNR; threat assessments) XIV. information exchange XV. operational cooperation & effectiveness (COSI, Europol, Frontex, Eurojust, Cepol, SitCen) XVI. judicial cooperation in criminal matters XVII. integrated border management (EUROSUR, Frontex, VIS, SIS) XVIII. innovation and training XIX. external dimension of internal security/cooperation with 3rd countries (Common European Security and Defense Policy) XX. flexibility to adapt to future challenges Commission document - 2010-2014 EU Internal Security Strategy in Action 5 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & some ACTIONS 2. serious and organized crime a. disrupting criminal networks ■ PNR ■ EU Anti-money laundering legislation ■ joint operations of Eurojust, Europol, joint investigation teams ■ European Arrest Warrant ■ confiscation of criminal assets (Asset Recovery Offices) 3. terrorism a. prevention ■ a radicalisation-awareness network ■ CBRN law enforcement units ■ transport protection 4. cybercrime a. security in cyberspace ■ EU shall establish a cybercrime center ■ reporting by public ■ cooperation strenghtened thru European Public-Private Partnership for Resilience (Ep3r) ■ every MS should have CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) ■ national contingency plans 5. border security a. border management ■ SIS I, II; VIS ■ new technology - European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) ■ info sharing for maritime domain ■ enhanced cooperation thru Frontex 6. natural and man-made disasters a. resilience to crises and disasters ■ legal obligation to assist each other ■ solidarity clause ■ risk assessment, disaster management ■ to develop a European Emergency Response Capacity for tackling disasters EXTERNAL SECURITY 9/11 EU's response - EU Action Plan ● proposal for European Arrest Warrant ● the operational powers: police forces, judiciaries and intelligence agencies -remained under national jurisdiction -thus the Union has provided 'support', rather than 'alternative', primary efforts within the JHA pillar, rather than the CFSP [interior ministers would collaborate with foreign ministers, esp. when third party is involved] 2003 Iraq ● internal tensions within the EU ● Coalition of Willing vs. the rest ● doctrine of "pre-emptive attack" European Security Strategy ● none of the new security threats is purely military, nor can they be tackled by purely military means called for a closer coordination between JHA and external relations 5 key threats: terrorism ● Europe is both a target and a base for such terrorism: European countries are targets and have been attacked. Logistical bases for Al Qaeda cells have been uncovered in the UK, Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium. ● now top priority to complement national counterterrorism capacities & strengthen coop with EU's allies ● following Madrid (2004) and London (2005): ■ blurred lines between internal and external security (carried out by EU citizens) ■ funds to Europol and Eurojust ■ Situation Center - to process intelligence; counter-terrorism coordination ● 2005 Counter-terrorism strategy ■ protection of key infrastructures - transport, power generational, chemical refineries, gov buildings, food distribution and healthcare system ■ Successes: foiled plots in Germany and Denmark ■ Weaknesses ● (i) not everyone equally keen on adopting the principle of mutual recognition of legal decisions, e.g. European Arrest Warrant ● (ii) not sharing the intelligence with everyone - lack of support to create an EU-wide intelligence agency: The Group of 6 (Fr, Germany, UK, It, Sp, Poland) ● cooperation with the US - an important component of the EU CT program ■ Guantanamo Bay x EU; criminal law approach ■ US' extraordinary rendition - torture! ■ influence of US Dept of Homeland Security --> US has an access to EU CT institutions - screening cargoes, sharing PNRs proliferation of WMD ● Especially if terrorists acquire them regional conflicts ● Ukraine, Kashmir can lead to extremism, terrorism and state failure; it provides opportunities for organized crime state failure organized crime ● Europe is a prime target for organized crime, may be linked to terrorism ● backbone of internal security agenda for most of the 1990s (abolition of borders, transition of CEECs) ● increased priority following the enlargements (no buffer zone between Belarus, Ukraine and Russia) ● wide range of trafficking (illegal drugs, cigarettes, weapons, human being, prostitution, money laundering etc.) Strategic objectives ● Addressing threats ● arms proliferation strengthening international treaties and their verification provisions, ● restoration of good governance democracy ● Building security in its neighborhood ● promote a ring of well-governed countries to the east of the European Union and on the shores of the Mediterranean with whom we can enjoy close and cooperative relations ● Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a strategic priority ● Developing an international order based on effective multilateralism ● best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic states POLICY IMPLICATIONS ● be more active in pursuing its strategic objectives ● needed to counter new threats, develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid and, when necessary, robust intervention = to have greater political weight ● increase its capabilities ● develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid and, when necessary, robust intervention, needs more capacity to bring all necessary civilian resources to bear in crises and post-crisis situations ● pursue coherent policies ● work with partners & bring together the different tools and capabilities of EU policy, such as European assistance programs, the European Development Fund and the Member States' military and civilian capabilities ● external JHA strategy ● mainstream JHA issues in the EU's external relations ● Stabilisation and Association Agreements, which the EU signed with Western Balkan countries ● the ENP Action Plans with neighbouring countries ● substantial JHA components that provide for intense cooperation on issues such as reinforcing the rule of law, migration and asylum, money laundering and illicit drugs ● Frontex ● joint operations carried out by Frontex in the Mediterranean have operated not only in the high sea but also in the maritime waters of African states to dissuade small, wooden boats laden with would-be immigrants from setting off from the African coast ● agency's cooperation with third countries is not limited to the implementation of joint operations ● CSDP civilian crisis management ● Since the 2000 Feira European Council, the EU has developed a civilian dimension of CSDP (formerly ESDP) and has launched a variety of operations in the Western Balkans, South Caucasus, Africa, the Middle East and Asia ● Objectives: ● border management (e.g. EUBAM to Moldova and Ukraine; EUBAM Rafah) ● rule of law (e.g. EULEX Kosovo; EUJUST Themis/Georgia) ● police (e.g. EUPOL PROXIMA/FYROM; EUPM Bosnia and Herzegovina) ● security sector reform (e.g. EU SSR Guinea-Bissau; EUSEC RD Congo) ● engagement with international organizations ● United Nations and the Council of Europe ● EU's general commitment to effective multilateralism ● based on the understanding that to be able to respond to global security challenges the international system needs 'functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order' ● linking areas such as humanitarian aid and development assistance with migration control and counter-terrorism was seen to contribute to the 'securitisation' of these areas ● based on the 'root causes' approach which is preventive in nature and strives towards eliminating the causes of irregular migration, instability and radicalisation ● development and humanitarian aid and economic cooperation ● might also have negative reverberations on human rights and civil liberties standards in individual European countries LISBON TREATY ● High Rep. of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (= VP of the Commission - "HR/VP" - 2009 Catherine Ashton, now Federica Mogherini) ● inclusion of common defence (mutual assistance) and solidarity clauses ● expansion of Petersberg tasks ● European Council --> COSI (Standing Committee on internal security) - "shall facilitate coordination of the action of MS' competent authorities and shall also evaluate the general direction and efficiency of operational cooperation" ● enhanced the democratic and parliamentarian oversight mechanism by abolishing the 'pillar structure' = transferring police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the Community pillar ● 'ordinary legislative procedure' in AFSJ strengthened the role of the European Parliament and the Commission and enlarged the jurisdiction of the ECJ ● European Parliament has become fully involved in the definition of Europol and Eurojust's structure, operation, field of action and tasks and has acquired, together with national parliaments, an enhanced role in scrutinizing the agencies' activities both inside and outside the Union ● EU's new single order and legal personality make it easier for the EU to negotiate with third countries and conclude these agreements on behalf of the Union ● Civilian and Military Headline Goals CIVILIAN GOALS - first set in 2000 - 4 priority areas: v. policing vi. rule of law vii. civil administration viii. civil protection ● from 2008 - focus on training, staffing, mission planning + monitoring missions ● from 2010 - synchronize more with the Military Headline Goal and creation of Civilian Response Team (100 experts) MILITARY GOALS ● an autonomous military capacity to respond to crisis - voluntary coop, up to 15 brigades of 50-60k people ● preventive engagement ● Battlegroup - high readiness of 1,5k personnel, deployed within 10 days, sustained for up to 30 days; fully operational in 2007 2011 - European Ext Action Service launched (= the EU diplomatic corps; the conduct of CFSP) ESDP/CSDP ● failure of European Defense Community, failure of Fouchet Plan ● WEU (1948, modified 1954) ● a defensive alliance (10MS) - mutual military assistance in case of external aggression ● framework for the creation of European defense policy ● functions incorporated into the EU with Lisbon ● structure: ● political and security committee ● military committee ● military staff II. Petersberg Tasks 1992 ● humanitarian and rescue tasks ● peacekeeping tasks ● tasks of combat forces in crisis management ● up to 15 brigades consisting of 50-60k persons, deployable within 60 days ● rapidly deployable EU Battlegroups by 2007 III. 1997 Amsterdam Treaty High Representative for CFSP (1999 Javier Solana) IV. 1998 Saint Malo Declaration ● the EU needs the capacity for autonomous action in managing intl crises V. 2001 ECAP (European Capability Action Plan) ● to reduce internal operating costs (leasing, pooling of national assets etc.) VI. 2002 EUISS (EU Institute for Security Studies) ● analysis of foreign, security and defence policy issues VII. 2003 - EUPM BiH - first CSDP civilian mission launched VIII. 2003 A common action plan to fight against the proliferation of WMD ● a common strategic concept "A secure Europe in a better world" ■ outlines differences in the EU's approach to security challenges and policy responses from those by the US ■ Europe is in peace, not at war ● joint planning capacity to conduct operations without the involvement of NATO (supported by Fr and UK) IX. 2003/4 - European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) ● set up by 1999 Helsinki EC ● "Headline Goal" X. 2003 BERLIN PLUS ● US supported the ESDP and the use of NATO assets in EU-led operations - but conditioned since 1998 - 3Ds iv. no decoupling from NATO (ESDP to complement NATO) v. no duplication of NATO command structures vi. no discrimination against European NATO countries (non-EU members) XI. 2003 - Operation Artemis - first autonomous EU-led military operation XII. 2004 European Defense Agency (EDA) ● to improve European military capabilities and interoperability ● increased cooperation among MS in weapons research Bu soruyu AB`NIN nasil bir guvenlik orgutu oldugu konusuyla birlike ele almalisin. Teori kisminda Ian Manners ve AB normative manner seklinde bir konu anlattim. Onu burada mutlaka kullanmalisin. Burada vurgulaman gereken sey, AB NIN GENISLEMESI ILE BIRLIKTE SINIRLARI GENISLEDI VE IC VE DIS SECURITY KONULARINI BIrbirinden tamemen bagimsiz sekilde dusunemeyiz cunku bunlar functionally linked. Bu notta yazan copy yaptiklarim son 20 yilda gelismeleri ele almis, fakat bu soru aslinda butun su ana kadar gordugumuz konularin bir ozeti seklinde. Ozellikle bahsettigim ab normative power cok onemli bu soru icin. Bu Yukaridaki de - aslinda ic vve disin bagimsiz dusunulemeyeceginin 2020 Seccurity Union Strategy belgesi temelindeki semasi. 16 sayfa turkce cok guzel ozetlemis su makale: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/270763 Bu soru da done 😊

1. Select an existing international regime (e.g. prohibition of genocide, non-proliferation of weapons, protection of the environment etc.) and explain its major aims, institutions and mechanisms. Discuss the effectiveness of governance within the regime

Simdi bu soruda onceki soruyla benzer bir sekilde hazirlanmis. Aslinda yine unutmaman gereken, bir uluslararasi rejimin niye olusturulacagi. Bu soruyu da cevaplarken bir onceki soruda oldugu gibi - farkli teorilerin, yani realism, neoliberalism ve cconstructivism`in bu rejmleri nasil ele aldigini anlatarak soruyu cevaplamaya baslamalisin. Burada bir digger onemli noktada bir cok rejimin UN catisi altinda olusturuldugu, yani hangi teoriden bakarsan farkli amaca hizmet ediyor gibi gorunebilir. Simdi gelelim bir ornege. Ben ornek olarak \ prohibition of genocide`in veriyorum: Bu asagidakiler UN resmi sitesinden ozetim, ardindan da genel bir ozet gecicem: prohibition of genocide: Genocide was first recognised as a crime under international law in 1946 by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/96-I). It was codified as an independent crime in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Convention has been ratified by 149 States (as of January 2018). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. his means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed. The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention. Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Many States have also criminalized genocide in their domestic law; others have yet to do so. Yani bak - aslinda rejim dedigin sey, specific bir amac, yani bizim konumuzda, genocide I onlemek icin kuruluyor, ve ardindan bunu denetlemesi iccin uluslrarasi bir mahkeme sorunmlu oluyor ICJ. Simdi construtivistlerin norm perspektifinden bakarsan sunu idda edebilirsin bu rejim genocide I onlemede bir norm olusturuor illardir. Definition Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Genocide effective`nis icin Ruanda katliamini ornek verebilirsin, turkce bak vvikipediden. Arindan da sunu diyebilirsin, bir suru insan oldu cunku yeterli degildi bu mekanizmalar realist acidan bakinca. Fransanin cikarlari mudahale edilememesine sebep oldu genocide` a ragmen seklinde.

1. What kind of actor is the European Union in relation to the external world? Explain how (through which institutions) is the EU represented in the international arena. Compare EU competencies in external trade, foreign and security policies and provide examples of EU actions in each of these three areas

The discussion of the EU as an actor in international politics is one of the most important discussion around the European integration. As I mentioned earlier, there is no 1 single way of structure of the EU , but rather different policy areas have different institutional structures and in this regard depends to which policy are we talk at hand, the representation of the EU in international politics change. Bunu dedikten sonra literaturde bu konunun nasil tartisildigina bakmalisin. Yani actorness of the EU darken aslinda, the role of EU in global governance`dan bahsediyoruz. The role of the EU in global governance has been analysed from many different theoretical perspectives in the academic literature. Various concepts have been used to describe and analyse the EU as an international actor. One perspective is to look at European integration and to analyse the circumstances that lead to a delegation of power and sovereignty to the EU. Agency models describe how and why the Member States (MS) transfer sovereignty to the EU institutions by investigating mechanisms of delegation and control, and the consequences of this delegation (Pollack, 2003; Linder and Foss, 2015; Delreux and Adriaensen, 2017). Bu perspektifiin adi Actor centric approaches. Bu yaklasim bir anlamda Liberal Intergovernmentalism`e benziyor ve mantik su:evet sovereignty veriliyor kurumlara ama bu delegasyon ve control yoluyla oluyor. Diger yaklasim ise structural perspective: concentrates on the framework conditions and external context in which the EU is operating. For example, this includes windows of opportunity resulting from changes in the external environment. This may be of global trends like globalisation, digitalization or others or a change in the global power balance, a change in preferences of other actors in the international arena Ucuncu perspective ise Ikisini combine eden bir model. Bretherton and Vogler's concept of international actorness (Vogler and Bretherton, 2006) broadened the concept considerably by integrating structural perspectives and agency models as well as combining internal and external factors in their actorness model. Bu iki adami hatirlarsan bu soruyu gecmene izin verirler. Their model: "precisely the interconnection between structure and agency which is of interest in a study of the evolving identity, roles and actorness of the EU" ((Vogler and Bretherton, 2006, p. 22). However, there is no actorness model yet, that is sufficiently differentiated and complex to capture all aspects that influence EU actorness and effectiveness. Bu nedenle politika specific sekilde ele aliniyor bu calismalar ve biz de boyle degerlendirmeliyiz. Hill (1993, 1998)), for example, pointed to the necessary preconditions of being able to agree on a joint stance and the necessary resources and available policy instruments that can be utilized by the EU in its foreign policy. In this way, it links to the observation of Sjöstedt, that internal cohesion and capabilities of the EU to take action are the necessary requirements for taking action. This definition of actorness also links to the conclusion of Bretherton and Vogler (2006), that actorness is determined by opportunities and presence of the EU in the international system. Bretherton and Vogler (Bretherton and Vogler, 2000; Vogler and Bretherton, 2006) point to coherence as one key factor for the EU's actorness, which they describe as the level of internal coordination of EU policies. The second main criterion for them is consistency, which refers to the degree of congruence between the external policies of the EU and its MS. This requires a shared commitment to a set of overarching values, but also the availability of policy instruments and the capacity to utilize these instruments, which can be diplomacy, economic tools, and military action 3 TANE "C" unutma: coherene, cosistenccy and commitment to set of values. The differentiation between internal and external dimensions is helpful to better understand and further develop a model of actorness Recognition seems to be a commonly agreed factor, that is important for establishing and maintaining actorness. In addition, Kratochvil and his colleagues also introduce attractiveness as a second external dimension of actorness. It refers to other actors' perception of the EU in the international arena and their evaluation of the benefits a cooperation with the EU has. This does not only cover the EU's economic and military powers, but also includes other soft power, for example establishing norms and cultural beliefs. It is particularly relevant in the context of European neighborhood policy but also beyond ((Rohrbacher and Jenickova, 2013). Secondly, looking at the internal dimension of actorness, Kratochvil and his colleagues describe legitimacy and framing capabilities as the two main characteristics of actorness. According to Koci and Rolenc (Koci and Rolenc, 2013), legitimacy is a complex concept that is broadly discussed in the literature. With regards to actorness, however, we can conclude, that input and throughput legitimacy as one aspect of the overall concept largely overlaps with the above mentioned concept of authority, output legitimacy corresponds with the cohesion dimension, but appears to be broader than cohesion by also including questions of efficiency and raises attention for the perception of the EU by others Bu son paragrafatki kratocvhil - cek - mup de ccalisiyordu onceden. Bunu hatirlamak da iyi olur. Simdi bunun arkasindan, bir ornek vermen lazim politika alanlarindan. Bence en kolayi foreign policy olucaktir. Asagidaki sekilde cevaplayabilirsin: a closer collaboration in the field of political and military cooperation of the Member States and a creation of coherent strategy of foreign and security policy, which still has not been common. However, the military and security capacity should not be analyzed without a relation to the North-Atlantic Alliance (NATO), which since the end of World War II has been playing an essential role of military security of Europe. The Transatlantic relationship could be considered as the most important geopolitical and economic relationship in the international politics. The United States of America (the USA) and the European Union are seen as major players in the field of international politics and are also the most important partners both in terms of trade, as well as in solving international conflicts and crises The European Security and Defence Policy until the end of the 90s had become as an attempt to overcome a vacuum of the creation of armed forces at the European level. The remarkable reasons for the formation of the ESDP were the escalating conflict in Kosovo and the ongoing crisis in Yugoslavia. Declaration of St. Malo in 1998 said that "the European Union needs to be in a position to play its full role on the international stage. To this end, the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises, acting in conformity with our respective obligations to NATO" (Deighton, 2002: 725). On the basis of this declaration, signed primarily by France and the United Kingdom, it was possible to create the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in Cologne a year later (1999)1. From the institutional perspective, the ESDP created Due to the security and defence changes and the new geopolitical challenges after 11th September 2001, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, energy security and climate change, was established the European Security Strategy (the ESS). In 2003, a document was adopted as the European Security Strategy, which has been the ambition to be the core strategy for further changes of the foreign policy. Even the European Security and Defence Policy represents a relatively young level of foreign policy, achievements and decisions have been gradually incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty. „In so far as ESDP is concerned, this evolution paves the way towards more structural synergy between ESDP operations and other EU instruments in crisis management and, notably, to a stronger connection between CFSP priorities and ESDP activities " (Grevi, Keohane, 2009: 62). According to Molling (2008), The Lisbon Treaty in 2007 brought a few challenges. First, the name was changed to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes both civilian and military capabilities. There was no change in the intergovernmental approach and the CFSP has still remained characteristic by unanimous vote. In foreign policy can be applied a qualified majority voting only in the cases of decisions that do not concern military and defense issues. Among other things, such as the effect of diminishing the powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission within the security and defense policy, there has Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2 | 53 become a creation of the new institutional framework for the foreign and security policy. There was appointed a double-hat position of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, which provides the seat on the European Commission and also the chair of the Council of EU foreign ministers. The agreement also established the European Defence Agency for the first time in 2004, where member states could support each other in the time of a terrorist attack or other disaster. Sayfa 43`den itibaren 49 a kadar tarihsel olarak ele almis sendeki cevaplar, orada- bu ustte yazan kurumlarin gelisimini anlatmis ama yorumsal olarak bu soruyu sana anlattigim sekilde cevaplamalisin

2) Introduce key theoretical assumptions of social constructivism. Discuss some shared concepts among proponents of social constructivism and their contribution to debates in International relations

The name of constructivism used firstly by Nicholas Onuf but Alexander Wendt is the key scholar of the tradition - he argues that Anarchy is what states make of it. In other words, what states constructed, He is trying to explain the end of Cold Awe in this way. Above mentioned classic theories cannot explain the change in IR dynamics and end of Cold War. Critical point of Constructivism is about material power assumption of classic theories. Rather construtivvism argues that ideas are more important. The world is not rational but complex and intertwined. Different states behave different in a similar conditions - each can be rational but its own way- does not need to be survival. The image is reality based on a state`s history, culture, norms, values etc.c Culture and Language - because the perception! Is the key point and perception of states and people, and perceptions determines hence policies. The reality is not objective- it is a subjective because it is a social construction. States have different interpretations and point of views about similar events. This causes the political conflicts. Main assumptions of Constructivisim: Rational theories are wrong because rationality cannot have singularity - humans and states are not machine. The social dimensions of politics allow for possibility of change. Human interactions make international politics possible. National interests are not struturually determined by constructed socially. Role of Values- values and perception of self - create the interests. Relations between states take place in a specific historical, cultural and political context. They are the product of human interaction in a social world. The role of Agency - is important factor. So constructivism is based on the idea that the history is consequences of the relationship between agency and structure and it is not predeterminate. Role of norms, shared understanding , relationship between agency and structure. When we talk about constructivism, it is also important to know about what is ontology and epistemology. There two are meta-theoretical concepts and ontology is about what is out of the real world - is it independent from our knowledge or dependent to the fact that we know about it. The second issue is ontology - which is about how do we know it - So- in regards to the meta-theoretical position, the differences between social constructivism and rationalism is that the former defines the logic of appropriateness and the second one logic of consequences. Sorunun senin verdigin cevap bolumunde- yazarlar var- bu yazarlari bakip aklinda tutarsan ve bu bilgilerin ozetiyle beraber bir kac ornek verirsen, bu soru tamamdir.

1.1. Evaluate international standards of migrant protection, especially of refugees and forced migrants in general. Identify some of the main policy and security aspects of international migration today.

The processes leading to the two compacts were very different. The Global Compact on Refugees was drafted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the lead-up to the September 2016 United Nations Summit on Refugees and Migrants, and during UNHCR's piloting of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF).18 UNHCR organized a series of thematic discussions with States and other stakeholders, and then entered into consultations with States (see figure 2). It received in total more than 500 written contributions from United Nations Member States and other stakeholders throughout the process.19 UNHCR produced the final draft, which was adopted during the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly in December 2018 after a vote in the Third Committee, with 176 in favour, 1 against (the United States of America) and three abstentions.20,2 The Global Compact for Migration process, by contrast, was firmly in the hands of States, although with the close involvement and support of the Office of the Special Representative of the United Nations SecretaryGeneral for International Migration. Two States, Mexico and Switzerland, were appointed as co-facilitators of the process, and they took responsibility for drafting the Compact. The first stage of development consisted of six months of consultations at the global, regional and country levels, followed by a stocktaking exercise. The Global Compact for Migration process, by contrast, was firmly in the hands of States, although with the close involvement and support of the Office of the Special Representative of the United Nations SecretaryGeneral for International Migration. Two States, Mexico and Switzerland, were appointed as co-facilitators of the process, and they took responsibility for drafting the Compact. The first stage of development consisted of six months of consultations at the gloal, regional and country levels, followed by a stocktaking exercise Biraz turkce kaynaklara da bak bu soru icin. Ama genel olarak bu yukaridaki sekilde ilerlemelisin verdigim ornekleri kullanarak. Umarim bu soru gelmez.

Introduce key theoretical assumptions of (neo)realism and (neo)liberalism. Apply one of these theoretical perspectives to explain one concrete historical or contemporary development in international relations (such as the emergence of WWII; dissolution of the bi-polar world, emergence of the EU, U.S. response to 9/11 terrorist attacks, 2008 financial crisis etc.).

● Thucydides: the History of the Peloponnesian War (realpolik) ● Machiavelli: The Prince: the sole aim of a prince was to seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations ● Hobbes: Leviathan: the state of nature: "the war of all against all" ● Otto von Bismarck: Prussian statesman who coined the term balance of power ● 20th century: Morgenthau, Kissinger, De Gaulle, Stalin Realism as a theory of International Relations become to the forth after the WW2. After the WW1 the idealist tradition was having its heads days. However, Starting from he 1919 o 1939- There is a stagnation on the world politics and then, WW2 starts. Idealists or Utopianists were thinking that if governments create international organizations with the aim of peace and commit to follow them in terms of the rule of law, then there will be no war. The league of Nations was the institution which created for this purpose. However, this organization was not able to prevent the occurring of wars, then we are facing with the WW2. So the realist ideas raised with the criticism of the idealists after the WW2. One of the most important book in regards to realism is Edward H. Carr`s book of `Twenty Year Crisis`. In this book, he criticized the idealists as utopianists and he argued that the real investigation should focus what goes in reality rather then thinking how the international politics ought to be. In this book, Carr thinks that Machiavellian maxim ( he is a old Italian political thinker from Italy - check when he lived but during the city states of Italy), - he thinks that the politics is different then the daily life and the morality is irrelevant for the governments/ rather they should maximize their power. So morality is a part of the power and not important in ethical terms. His book name is Prince, in this book he gives some ideas to prince of Florence in regards to how to govern the country as I explained. So the importance Carr is about emphasizing that the pursuit of power is the key feature of international politics. After the WW2, the most important scholar is Hans Morghentau - His book`s name is Politics among nations. In this book, he is trying to provide an overview of the realist thinkers. Starting from the Tuchidides to WW2. He is encapsulation the main tenets of the Realism in International Relations wih Six Principles: 1-Politics is governed by objective laws that have root in human nature. 2-Concept of national interest defined in terms of power which is subject of the international politics 3-Power is a concept it should be understand as the control of man over man - but meaning of power can change from a context to context- not fixed. 4- Morality is not unimportant but successful political action can be different than it is. 5- Concept of power is defined in terms of power so moral aspirations hence not important as power. 6- The political sphere is a different from all other social aspects of human ( yani kendi kendine bir bilim). These assumptions take us to the point that there are several characteristics of Classis Realism: 1-International Relations has state-centric domination 2-Survival is the main task of all states 3-The international relations is a self help system in an Anarhical environment. The anarchy means that there is no authority over the independent member states. 4- Balance of power is the key concept to understand explain IR. 5- National security is most important aim of the state. 6- States are the main important in IR and other organizations are depend on states. 7- Military capabilities are the key tool to pursuit power Neo-realism: Emergence of Neo-realism is in 1970s, and especially with the rise of positivism in sciene - and IR scholars tried to use quantitative analysis and applied the methods of natural science to social science. Kenneth Waltz is the most important figure of NR. His book, 'Theory of International Politis'. He is providing a structrucal approach which tried to understand and explain IR in terms of system and structure. Similarities of Neorealism and Realism: 1-International system is anarhical 2-States can never be sure about the intensions of others 3-Some states have offensive capacity in terms of military ypower 4-Survival is the key aspect of International politics But the biggest differences between the Classic Realism and Neorealism is that : the classic realism focuses the behavior of actors and it thinks that states are trying to pursuit of power due to human nature. But Neo-realism rejects this and tries to explain the International Relations from the systemic point of view. What is system: system is regulatory interaction of the group of all. Kenneth Waltz is defensive realism because hhe thinks that survival is not about domination of others but ensuring your own security as state. Similar to CR, For NR - the main actors are states. But international organization can also contribute the system in marginal power. Defensive realists (Waltz) vs. Offensive realists (Mearsheimer) The aims of the state is to create kind of status quo- \s So what is structure: structure is how the elements become together: For example, it can be : Bipolar: Where there are two supopower- counterbalancing each other - most stable is this one for NR- Example: Cold War SSCB and USA Multipolar: Theree or more power balancing each other like 19th century before the WW1- Unipolar: One hegemon- domination others- like the world after Cold War- Amerian hegemony. Example of Bipolar World during cold war- only 2 dominants: Another important dimension of the Neo-realism is SECURITY DILEMMA - Security dilemma is the situation - where one states action increase of fear on the other`s eyes . For example, Thuydides argues that during the Polapones Wars, the growth of the power of Athens mmade the war inevitable. Here is the example of the security dillemm`s example on the arm race. So you can give The above two as the case example. Neorealism is tried to argue that this is a universal theory of international politics. Liberal Theory In IR: So there are three different stages of Liberal thinking in IR. These stages are important to understand to understand what is today Neo-liberalism in IR. Stages: 1) Liberal Internationalism of Englighment (17. And 18. Centuries). 2)Liberal Idealism - emerged after the WW1 3)Neo-liberalism - after the WW2 and Cold War Liberalism is based on the Christian tradition in terms of the idea of the nature of the human being. For Realism, human nature is bad and sabit. In contrast, Liberalism thinks that human nature can be improved and not pessimistic as Realism described. In this regard, I it has normative elements and argue that conflicts can be reduced, wars can be stopped with cooperation - How? With international institutuions, rules, norms, values - Hence, liberal theory focuses on cooperation, international law, international institutions, and spread of democracy. The other dimension is that human individual is the center of the universe so starting point should be this. So it is not state centric like realism but human-centric. States are not only the form of organizations of individuals in IR but there are also other actors 'beyond nation states'. Such as : business, interest groups, international organizaitons. Non state actors e. He focus of IR should be limitations and overcoming state sovereignty for the human emanticipation. You should keep in mind that at the beginning of the IR- which is after WW1 the dominant theory is liberalism. After the WW1 - Woodrow Wilson provided internationalist tradition of the US foreign policy with his 14 point. He is father of idealist liberalism - and influence of liberlalism is IR is not seperable with the American politics after the WW1. Neoliberalism: There are two important figures of Neo-liberal theory Keohane and Nye Neo-liberalism focuses rise of International institutions after the WW2. They especially focuses on the emergence-rising of international organizations, regimes and integrations. Neo-liberalism similar to Neo-realism in a sense that it accepts the anarchical nature of the International OPoliticsl. States are key actors but not only the significant ones. All actors are r o maximize their interests in all issue areas. International Institutions natural and they lower transaction costs, advance international cooperation. Institutions are creating and holding certain kind of norms, rules, expected patterns of behaviors. Provide flow of information and facilitate negotiations. UN for example, GATT, World Bank, IMF Etc. There are also specific versions of the neoliberal theory- such as regime theory, complex interdependence theory, theories of integration, democratic peace theory. Neo-realism vs Neo-liberal Both agree IR system is anarchcical. NL: Anarchy can be mitigated via international institutions, regimes, norms , values etc. NR: Anarhcy can be reduced through the system structure- distribution of power. NR: International cooperation difficult to reach NL: International cooperation easy where states have mutual interest. NL: actors maximize absolute gains - it means does not care what others achieved NR: States concerned about relative gains - which is about what other states win/lose because they don't want others to gain more.