LEE- Siyaset Çalışmaları-Yüksek Lisans
Bu koleksiyon için kalıcı URI
Gözat
Yazar "Koçan, Gürcan" ile LEE- Siyaset Çalışmaları-Yüksek Lisans'a göz atma
Sayfa başına sonuç
Sıralama Seçenekleri
-
ÖgeContemplating climate justice with the natural law:The application of climate citizenship through public policies at the local level(Graduate School, 2022) Kızmaz, Melih Can ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 719597 ; Political Studies M.A. ProgrammeThis study argues the concept of climate justice. It provides a lens towards how the word justice have been conceptualized from climate justice scholars and how the scope of justice is considered within climate justice literature. This study contends that climate justice can be achieved if and only if from the basis of natural laws and public policy and local justice are necessary for the implication of these rights. In order to establish a well-grounded debate for this thesis, first, justice is argued as an essentially contested concept. Justice as an essentially contested concept can be understood from substantive and procedural accounts based on their consequentialist and process-oriented perspectives. In addition to this, throughout the history the word justice also has been thought alongside with an issue such as the lack of freedom. Due to this, concepts of environmental justice and climate justice can be regarded as contemporary conceptions of issue-oriented thinking of justice. Thus, since both concepts mainly have considered the lack of justice as an anthropocentric and substantive issue. But these concepts have overlooked to discuss that how decision-making bodies have structured, what is the role of rational agents, and is there any place for non-anthropocentric world within climate change policies. Though, justice should be considered from procedural perspective and natural law account of justice because of considering justice as an intrinsic value, people have a practical reason and the good of nature is indispensable from the good of people presents an encompassing view. Furthermore, climate justice studies have also overlooked the issue of the importance of the basic rights -climate citizenship rights- of all living beings because without ensuring the basic rights of all, climate justice cannot be achieved. Therefore, through considering public policy and local justice theories we can understand how decision-making process has shaped and how climate citizenship rights can be applied.
-
ÖgeHow to understand sovereignty through the prism of cosmopolitan morality(Graduate School, 2024-11-18) Sarıkaya, Yağız Kağan ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 419191006 ; Political StudiesHuman history is shaped by complex dynamics influenced by major transformations and divisions. These dynamics have continuously altered political, economic, and cultural structures, guiding the evolution of social organizations. Throughout history, humanity has formed various political and social units in response to changing needs, and these units have undergone transformations based on social, cultural, and moral developments. Tribes, religious communities, trade unions, political parties, and states represent historical examples of social groups, each with its own rules, structures, and definitions. To understand the concept of sovereignty, it is essential to explore its philosophical trajectory and evolution. Sovereignty is traditionally defined as the state's authority to exercise its will independently within its borders, free from external interference. However, globalization, social inequalities, environmental disasters, pandemics, and wars have necessitated a reevaluation of sovereignty. While modern states maintain their independence within national borders, these global challenges require increased international cooperation and collective solutions. Therefore, the concept of sovereignty must be reconsidered in light of current global conditions. From a global perspective, sovereignty is no longer confined to internal matters of states but has become a shared issue for individuals and the international community. This paper examines how sovereignty can be reinterpreted in a global context and its implications for social and political structures. It is based on the assumption that the traditional notion of sovereignty is inadequate and that new institutional and political approaches are required. Sovereignty, especially with the Peace of Westphalia and the revolutions of the 18th century, has been grounded in the nation-state system. Today, it emphasizes the right of states to maintain independence within their borders and to be protected from external interference. While this principle has underpinned nationalism and nation-state politics, global developments since the 20th century have shown that sovereignty cannot be limited to internal issues. The process of globalization, increasing international trade, the rapid flow of information, environmental crises, and human rights violations require a reassessment of state sovereignty. Many modern issues are transnational, prompting a shift towards international collaboration and a more collective, global approach to sovereignty. Cosmopolitan morality, which advocate for the universal rights and equality of all humans, should extend into political theory as cosmopolitan sovereignty. This idea moves beyond the sovereignty of nation-states, proposing a global political union centered on individual rights and freedoms. In this view, human rights violations should be seen as a global issue, not just a domestic one. This requires a sense of responsibility beyond national borders and emphasizes international solidarity. Today's global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, armed conflicts, and poverty, cannot be addressed within the confines of nation-states alone. Cosmopolitan sovereignty suggests that solving such issues requires international cooperation, with states acting together based on shared values. The implementation of cosmopolitan sovereignty, however, is a difficult process, as it involves balancing national sovereignty with global justice and equality. States must adopt a collective approach to global issues while still safeguarding national interests. Human rights, as a fundamental aspect of cosmopolitan sovereignty, are not limited to the internal affairs of nation-states but are universal rights for all humanity. The protection of these rights is a global responsibility, as human rights violations have increasingly become a global issue. For example, environmental disasters, such as climate change, affect not only local or national populations but pose a global threat. The actions of countries emitting the most carbon affect vulnerable regions and exacerbate global inequalities. This environmental injustice calls for the need for environmental justice and the protection of human rights. Global problems, such as the refugee crisis, wars, and ethnic cleansing, also transcend national boundaries. These issues demand international cooperation and solidarity, as they affect entire regions or the global community. The Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, demonstrated how a health crisis could quickly spread across borders, affecting social, economic, and cultural connections globally. These challenges require collective action based on shared moral values, as they are no longer the sole concern of individual nations but of the entire international community. Cosmopolitan sovereignty thus challenges the traditional notion of sovereignty based on nation-states, advocating for a global perspective. It calls for a normative framework that transcends national borders, urging the international community to collaborate on global issues, including human rights, environmental protection, and global peace. Sovereignty, from this cosmopolitan standpoint, is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical responsibility that requires global cooperation. International solidarity and cooperation are essential for addressing global challenges and ensuring justice, equality, and sustainability. The inadequacy of the current definition of sovereignty arises from its reliance on a geopolitical understanding rooted in the concept of the nation-state. Instead, sovereignty should be defined through a perspective of power that is based on cosmopolitan morality and requires all individuals to act as part of a global and environmental community, encompassing a set of principles that draw from both utilitarian and deontological approaches. The concept of national sovereignty is inherently contradictory. This constitutes a two-level problem: one at the ideal level, and the other in practical terms. In practice, this concept needs to be criticized, as it contradicts the necessity for equal consideration of interests. In this context, institutionalization is essential. There is a need to focus on the concerns about the pressures that power can create and to build a critical mindset. It is necessary to argue for a critical public space in order to ensure secure cosmopolitan institutionalization and reduce the risk of corruption. Furthermore, if institutionalization is to occur, it is crucial to develop a framework of thought that examines the behavior of these institutions in a holistic manner. If cosmopolitan morality are grounded in a foundation that does not include a critical mindset, they could turn into a source of oppression. Therefore, a critical mindset is required; otherwise, there is a risk of a shift from cosmopolitanism to particularism. In conclusion, the fight against global problems requires moving beyond the traditional understanding of sovereignty and adopting a broader humanitarian perspective. The principles of human rights, equality, and environmental protection are global responsibilities. Therefore, every individual and state must contribute to this responsibility and act toward common global goals. Cosmopolitan sovereignty extends beyond national borders to encompass the entire global community. This approach necessitates a new normative framework, a shared ethical system, and international cooperation to address global crises. In this context, cosmopolitan sovereignty is not only a moral stance but also a practical necessity for safeguarding human rights, protecting the environment, and establishing global peace.
-
ÖgeHubris: A conceptual analysis and its influence on individuals and societies(Graduate School, 2023-07-03) Erarslan, Edanur ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 419201002 ; Political StudiesThis thesis aims to investigate whether the concept of hubris is inherently political in nature, by highlighting the role of individual and social influence intertwined with power. Hubris is known to cause social injustice and monotony as it stems from the desire to assert one's superiority by suppressing others. Thus, this study contends that the nature of hubris should be primarily discussed within the realms of ethics and politics. To achieve this, a methodological discussion is undertaken to demonstrate the interdependent effects of the individual and social manifestations of hubris, culminating in an integrative approach. The ideas on hubris from ancient, theological, enlightenment scholars, and contemporary thinkers are then explored to establish a solid foundation for the ensuing analysis. Utilizing the method of conceptual analysis, this study integrates auxiliary concepts such as arrogance, pride, vanity, narcissism, and pathological grandiosity, which share distinct parallels with hubris, to develop a comprehensive understanding of the concept. The thesis proceeds to examine the immorality of hubris through the lenses of three major ethical theories and ethical egoism, as well as the concept of pride as a virtue. By employing these theoretical frameworks, particularly MacIntyre's idea of justice as a virtue, it becomes evident why hubris contributes to injustice. Furthermore, the study delves into various examples of social hubris, illustrating its political nature and its inclusiveness at both the individual and social levels, as emphasized in the methodological approach. A close examination of the relationship between political hubris and politics as a form of friendship reveals the damaging effects of hubris on politics, solidarity, and ultimately, the common good. Finally, drawing on these insights, the dissertation proposes solutions to address the social injustice and monotony engendered by hubris, rooted in the principles of dialogic and deliberative democracy. Overall, this dissertation contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding hubris, shedding light on its political nature and providing ethical insights that may help foster a more just and harmonious society.
-
ÖgeWhat justifies resistance? Resistance as the necessity of freedom(Institute of Science and Technology, 2016-06-02) Giray, Görkem ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 419131004 ; Political StudiesThe present thesis zeroes in directly on resistance and the question of how to justify resistance. In this study, resistance as a basic relational element is discussed not only as a political event but also as a natural becoming. In sovereignty theory, the boundaries of the right of resistance are drawn in accordance with law. However, since Power spreads beyond the frame defined by law, resistance overflows this frame. Thus we face a question of justification that is not determined by legitimization. To be able to focus on an extralegal right, going back to power relations is essential. The main argument of the present thesis is that the right of resistance is an effort to stay in being naturally and to affirm its power; that it can never be handed over or limited by law and that it is opposed to all forms of Power. A natural right is preserved in civil state, as well. That is why resistance as an expression of power is first separated from the domination of the fictional subject and laid within the framework of power relations. The subjective elements of resistance are worked through on epistemological terms and its objective elements on ontological terms and these terms form the basis respectively of speculative -based on consciousness- and actual -based on power- components. A resistance, considering the way it manifests itself, can be classified according to its quantitative, contextual and instrumental features. The types are decided upon considering affirmation and negation functions independently of form. What renders resistance meaningful and valuable is its affirmative and negative role in power relations. While handling bodies and becomings in, neglecting their affections or defining them as utopic subjects lead us to fall into some kind of a fallacy incompatible with the human nature. Therefore, a body strives to stay in being and increase its power of acting to the extent that its power as its essence defines its right. Negation has to be reduced to being a speculative and secondary element of resistance in regard to increment of power. As for the right of resistance, it is justified to the extent it can lead to that and it can produce life while refraining from nihilism –which is affirming difference in other words.