LEE- Siyaset Çalışmaları Lisansüstü Programı

Bu topluluk için Kalıcı Uri

http://hdl.handle.net/11527/19463

Gözat

Konu "political philosophy" ile LEE- Siyaset Çalışmaları Lisansüstü Programı'a göz atma
  • Öge
    How to understand sovereignty through the prism of cosmopolitan morality
    (Graduate School, 2024-11-18) Sarıkaya, Yağız Kağan ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 419191006 ; Political Studies
    Human 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.
  • Öge
    What justifies liberal education in John Stuart Mill's theory of freedom?
    (Graduate School, 2024-01-31) Yıldız, Ayşe İrem ; Çalkıvik, Emine Aslı ; 419201015 ; Political Studies
    John Stuart Mill is among the prominent names of the classical liberalism movement and utilitarian ethics. He argues that freedom is the natural right of man and the source of development, therefore it cannot be limited by the state. For this reason, individualist readings of Mill are very common. However, the social interpretation of Mill is also possible. Therefore, it is necessary to look at Mill's work on liberal education since it has bold references to social development as well as individual progress. Mill uses the term liberal education in his speech at the University of St. Andrew and he explains the qualities of such an education. Since there is not a single agreement on what liberal education is there have been varied roles attributed to it. While it is considered to be the national training of citizens. It is also referenced as a marketplace to make a profit in the economic perspective of contemporary times. It used to be an aristocratic education for high classes during the Middle Ages. However, in the Enlightenment period, classical liberal tradition offered a new perspective and as one of the key figures in this period, J.S. Mill argues that man is free, and the existence of the abilities given to him from birth is proof that he is expected to use them freely. However, education, how people establish and develop the greatest civilization, ignores this nature of people. It makes them unable to use their innate abilities, let alone use them. Hence, education impedes both individual and social development. Mill explained the qualities of liberal education in his speech at the University of St. Andrew. According to Mill liberal education should recognize individual freedom because this will ensure individual development. An education that ensures individual freedom doesn't restrict people's interests, indeed should offer them options in line with their tastes and capacities. For this reason, the curriculum should be scientific, artistic, literary as well as philosophic. However, individuals' development should not be separated from the principle of freedom, therefore it is also important to create a society that embraces this principle. In other words, the purpose of liberal education is to ensure both individual and social development by protecting individual freedoms. Liberal education is a means to creating this structure without losing the individual will.
  • Öge
    What justifies resistance? Resistance as the necessity of freedom
    (Institute of Science and Technology, 2016-06-02) Giray, Görkem ; Koçan, Gürcan ; 419131004 ; Political Studies
    The 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.