No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fuat Keyman, Mahmut Mutman, and Meyda Yeğenoğlu (eds.). Oryantalizm, Hegemonya ve Kültürel Fark (Orientalism, Hegemony and Cultural Difference). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1996, 253 pp. - Atila Eralp (ed.). Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Yaklaşımlar (The State, System and Identity: Main Approaches in International Relations). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1996, 311 pp.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2015
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Book Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1997
References
Banks, M. 1984. “The Evolution of International Relations Theory,” in Banks, M. (ed.), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations. Brighton: Wheatshaf Books.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Bull, H. 1972. “The Theory of International Politics 1919–1969,” in Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919–1969. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1946. The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939. Second edition. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gönlübol, M. 1978. Uluslararası Politika: İlkeler, Kavramlar, Kurumlar. Ankara: A.İ. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Grant, A.J.et. al. 1916. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Grosser, A. 1956. “L'Etude des Relations Internationales: Specialite Americaine?,” Revue Française de Science Politique, 6(3), pp. 631–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathley, D.P. 1919. Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. 1987. “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), pp. 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus, 106(3), pp. 41–60.Google Scholar
Holsti, K.J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Relations. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M.A. 1957. System and. Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lapid, Y. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), pp. 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linklater, A. 1992. “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21(1), pp. 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, G.M. 1982. “Expanding the Study of International Relations: The French Connection,” World Politics, 35(1), pp. 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, G.M. 1986. “The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections,” World Politics, 38(4), pp. 626–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, W.C. 1972. “The Growth of a Discipline”, in Porter, B. (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919–1969. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1978/1995. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1981. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Smith, S. 1987. “Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), pp. 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sönmezoğlu, F. 1995. Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi. Istanbul: Filiz Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Wight, M. 1987. “An Anatomy of International Thought,” Review of International Studies, 13(3), pp. 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, M. 1991. International Theory: Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar