Beyond the Institutional Logics: International Level Systemic Analysis of EU–Turkish Relations

Abstract

This article aims to explain the slowing down of European Union (EU)–Turkish relations since the start of the accession negotiations in 2005 with international level systemic analysis. For this purpose, it examines the current challenges the new rising powers pose to the US-led unipolar international order and it shows how both the EU's and Turkey's responses to these challenges influence their relative powers as well as the negotiation process. By focusing on international level systemic dynamics, the article differs from the institutional explanations that explain EU–Turkish relations either with the utility-based logic of consequentialism or the norms-based logic of appropriateness.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Paul Kubicek and Emel Parlar Dal for their insightful comments on the earlier draft of this article.

Notes on Contributors

Cerem I. Cenker Özek is an assistant professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Antalya International University, Antalya, Turkey. Her research interests are democratization, political and civic attitudes, social networks and EU–Turkish relations.

Tarık Oğuzlu is currently a Prof. Dr in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Antalya International University. His research interests are international relations theories, Europeanization of foreign policy, European Union foreign and security policy, transatlantic relations, Turkish foreign policy, Turkey's relations with EU and NATO/USA, Turkey–Greece relations, Cyprus dispute, and Turkey and the Middle East.

Notes

1. De Vreese, Boomgaarden, and Semetko, “Hard and Soft,” 511–30.

2. Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey's Accession to the European Union,” 201–19.

3. Oğuzlu and Kibaroğlu, “Incompatabilities in Turkish and European Security Cultures,” 945–62.

4. Milliyet, “Erdoğan.”

5. Euroactiv, “Davutoğlu.”

6. Schweller and Pu, “After Unipolarity,” 41–72.

7. Krahmann, “American Hegemony or Global Governance?” 531–45.

8. Layne, “The Unipolar Exit,” 149–64.

9. Cox, “Power Shifts, Economic Change and the Decline of the West?” 369–88.

10. Scheweller and Pu, “After Unipolarity.”

11. Ibid.

12. Art, “The United States and The Rise of China,” 359.

13. Ibid.

14. Welch, Shevchenko, and Shevchenko, “Status Seekers,” 84.

15. Scheweller and Pu, “After Unipolarity.”

16. Vom Hau, Scott, and Hulme, “Beyond the BRICs,” 187–204.

17. Welch, Shevchenko, and Shevchenko, “Status Seekers.” Also see Fontaine and Kliman, “International Order and Global Swing States,” 93–109.

18. Vom Hau, Scott, and Hulme,“Beyond the BRICs.” Also Fontaine and Kliman, “International Order and Global Swing States.”

19. Vom Hau, Scott, and Hulme, “Beyond the BRICs.”

20. Ibid.

21. Fukuyama, “The End of History?” 2.

22. Barma, Ratner, and Weber,“The Mythical Liberal Order,” 57.

23. Nielsen, “Continued Drift But Without the Acrimony,” 83–108.

24. Fabbrini and Sicurelli, “Bringing Policy-Making Structure Back In,” 292–309.

25. Calleo, “How to Govern a Multipolar World,” 366.

26. Kennet, “A New US Approach to Europe,” 348–63.

27. Ibid. Also Nielsen, “Continued Drift But Without the Acrimony.”

28. Oswald, “Soft Balancing Between Friends,” 145–60.

29. Layne, “It is Over, Over There,” 329.

30. Fabbrini and Sicurelli, “Bringing Policy-Making Structure Back In.”

31. Carpenter, “Delusions of Indispensability,” 50.

32. Oswald, “Soft Balancing Between Friends.”

33. Ibid.

34. Layne, “It is Over, Over There.”

35. Oswald, “Soft Balancing Between Friends.”

36. Layne, “It is Over, Over There.”

37. Oswald, “Soft Balancing Between Friends.”

38. Nielsen, “Continued Drift But Without the Acrimony.”

39. Fabbrini and Sicurelli, “Bringing Policy-Making Structure Back In.”

40. Ibid.

41. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Statement of Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit in Helsinki.”

42. Ergin, “Erdoğan AB'ye resti çekiyor.”

43. “Şangay Beşlisine alın, AB sürecini bitirelim.” Yeni Şafak, January 26, 2013. Accessed April 12, 2013. http://yenisafak.com.tr/politika-haber/sangay-beslisine-alin-ab-surecini-bitirelim-26.01.2013-462629

44. Roberts, “Russia's BRICs Diplomacy,” 57.

45. Welch, Shevchenko, and Shevchenko, “Status Seekers.”

46. Özbudun, “Democratization Reforms in Turkey,” 85–99.

47. “Burhan Kuzu AB raporunu fırlattı.” Accessed April 12, 2013. http://webtv.hurriyet.com.tr/2/39541/0/1/burhan-kuzu-ab-raporunu-boyle-cope-atti.aspx

48. Ministry of EU Affairs, “2012 Progress Report.” Also see, “Türkiye'den AB'ye Hodri Meydan.” Yeni Şafak, December 31, 2012. Accessed April 12, 2013. http://yenisafak.com.tr/dunya-haber/turkiyeden-abye-hodri-meydan-31.12.2012-441928?ref=manset-15

49. Müftüler-Baç, “Turkey's Accession to the European Union.”

50. Oğuzlu and Kibaroğlu, “Incompatabilities in Turkish and European Security Cultures.”

51. Heisbourg, “The European Union and the Major Powers,” 17–40.

52. Ibid.

53. Renard, “A BRIC in the World.”

54. Holslag, “Europe's Normative Disconnect with the Emerging Powers.”

55. Renard, “A BRIC in the World,” 38–9.

56. Ibid.

57. Gros, “The EU and the Rise of China,” 1–8.

58. Rosato, “Europe's Troubles,” 45–86.

59. Barysch, “A Multi-Tiered Europe.”

60. James Chapman, “Cameron Finally Concedes Britain Could Quit Europe as he Prepares to Offer Referendum on the Subject.” Mail Online, December 18, 2012. Accessed April 18, 2013. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249736/Cameron-finally-concedes-Britain-quit-Europe-prepares-offer-referendum-subject.html#ixzz2Qnlvcc1t

61. Schild, “Mission Impossible,” 1367–90.

62. Rosato, “Europe's Troubles.”

63. Fontaine and Kliman, “International Order and Global Swing States.”

64. The World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2011.

65. Öniş and Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism,” 7–24

66. Müftüler-Baç, “Turkish Foreign Policy,” 279–91

67. Davutoğlu, “Turkey's Foreign Policy Vision,” 78.

68. Öniş and Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism.” Also Kirişçi, “Turkey's Engagement with Its Neighborhood,” 319–41.

69. Öniş and Yılmaz, “Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism.” Also Müftüler-Baç,“Turkish Foreign Policy.” Also Kardaş, “Turkey's Development Assistance Policy.”

70. Kirişçi, “Turkey's Engagement with Its Neighborhood.”

71. Kardaş, “Turkey's Development Assistance Policy.”

72. Öniş, “Multiple Faces of the ‘New’ Turkish Foreign Policy.”

73. Ishaan Tharoor, “Exclusive: TIME Meets Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.” TIME World, September 26, 2011. Accessed April 19, 2013. http://world.time.com/2011/09/26/exclusive-time-meets-turkish-prime-minister-recep-tayyip-erdogan/

74. Oğuzlu, “Turkey and Europeanization of Foreign Policy?” 657–83.

75. Sayarı, “New Directions in Turkey-USA Relations,” 129–42.

76. Ibid.

77. Robins, “Turkey's ‘Double Gravity’ Predicament,” 397.

78. Redmond, “Turkey and the European Union,” 312.

79. Ishaan Tharoor, “Exclusive: TIME Meets Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.” Accessed April 21, 2013.

80. Eurobarometer, “Public Opinion in the European Union, No. 57.” Eurobarometer, “Public Opinion in the European Union, No. 76.”

81. The protests against the urban redevelopment plan of Taksim Square in Istanbul turned into country-wide demonstrations with the police's excessive use of force against demonstrators on May 31, 2013. Once the protests became widespread, their focus went beyond the demand for the protection of trees in Gezi Park and they voiced discontent for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's overtly paternalistic style of ruling which is found at odds with individual's expressive rights. The police left Taksim Square and the Park to protestors on June 1, 2013 and as of June 10, 2013, peaceful demonstrators continue in Gezi Park. The police sometimes clash with the demonstrators elsewhere. For more information, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22780773, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/timeline-of-gezi-park-protests-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48321&NewsCatID=341.