Bücher von Emre Yildiz

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,33, University of Potsdam (Department of Economic and Social Sciences), language: English, abstract: The year 2012 marks the 67th year since which time the world has not seen any direct military confrontation between superpowers. When World War II ended in 1945 the ¿Cold War¿ came about and was fought out by the USA and Soviet Union with mediate means. Even the end of the US-Soviet conflict preceded peacefully ¿ a historical unusual demise for a struggling super power. Furthermore, there has been no war among the USA and the aspirants of super power including China, Japan, Russia and the European Union ever since. This discovery is named the long peace, also known as the great powers peace.However, it is hard to say whether a sixty four year long absence of direct military confrontations between great powers is already a significant indicator for a qualitative shift in international politics, or whether it is nothing but a historical and contemporary randomness. Could the long peace cease anytime resulting in an apocalyptic world war, or are we indeed justified to conclude a positive change in the relations among great powers compared with earlier times? More importantly even, are we right in calling this period a long peace, and if so, up to what degree?In this paper I want to undertake three things in turn. First I want to show due to what particularities inherent in the long peace we may conclude a significant change in great powers¿ relations. Next I will seek to grade the long peace in its nature and stability. And lastly, I shall turn to two theories in order to illustrate how the emergence of the long peace and its enduring appearance down to the present day has been made possible.I chose this topic for two reasons: Firstly, peace-studies are one of the greatest focuses in the discipline of International Politics. Finding appropriate ways and means to maintain peace in the world has been the original inducement of erstwhile historians, jurists and political scientists to arouse a new branch of science nearly a century ago. The second and more important reason is that the phenomena long peace reveals a noteworthy gap in International Politics. Neither of both theories, as will be seen, is capable of fully illuminating the long peace on its own.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,00, University of Potsdam (Department of Economic and Social Sciences), language: English, abstract: In this paper, I will illustrate how wars conducted by democracies are justified. I chose this topic because democracy, at least in the Western world, has been seen as a preferential and desirable constitution because of its association with peace and cooperation. The Democratic Peace Theory certainly bolsters this viewpoint, but still, we notice as we look at empirical data that democracies are not peaceful at all. This is a noteworthy gap in this theory. Through answering my central question, I want to explain this gap and also how democracies cleverly elude the constraints imposed on them to go to war, which one would not expect of them. Additionally, through outlining the justifications, I want to help understand why democracies are belligerent.I will first refer to the problem of definition, for democracy and war are not clear-cut terms in political science and outline how I understand democracy and war in this paper. In the second section, I will provide the theoretical ground, the Democratic Peace Theory which I will refute through empirical evidence, after which five arguments of justification will follow: First, humanitarian intervention and the role of the media, second, moral duties, third, the construction of images of the ¿other¿ and fourth, wars within democratizing states. Lastly, in the conclusion, I will summarize the arguments, briefly refer to their discrepancies and provide suggestions for further research. In each of the arguments, I will present what it is, how the justification comes about and add an example to illustrate it. In the first three arguments, I will also show how approaches used to explain the peacefulness of democracies are being reversed. As well, I will provide some definitions of a few major terms used in the arguments to establish clarity. Because justifications should not always be considered true, I will provide critical points for each argument incorporated in the respective section. Those are also summarized in the conclusion.

Studienarbeit aus dem Jahr 2013 im Fachbereich Organisation und Verwaltung - Sonstiges, Note: 1,00, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH (School of Humanities and Social Sciences), Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: (...) If policies are reactions to social problems, prior to action policymakers must determine what the most pressing issues are that deserve government attention. Policymakers are not only pushed by various interest groups, think tanks, and other organized constituents to pay attention to different issues, but are also in disagreement among each other regarding which issues merit space on the agenda (Dery, 2000, p. 39). The question therefore is: Who decides what a problem is and if it deserves government attention? And more importantly, how does policy agenda change and what role do policy actors play in this context? This essay attempts to find an answer to these questions. It aims to explain why, for instance, child care in the US suddenly moved from relative obscurity to the government agenda (Nelson, 1984). Further, what was decisive for education to become a highly important agenda item in the same period when child care became high-profile? This essay will show that neither the pluralist, nor the iron triangle framework is able to provide a convincing explanation. It will argue that agenda setting is a political power struggle in a highly complex and dynamic process where the way an issue is defined and perceived by the public matters most for agenda changes. It will show that the subsystem theory, the advocacy coalition framework, and the punctuated equilibrium model do all contribute to our understanding of how issues move up and down the agenda. However, it is, as the paper argues, Kingdon's policy window and three streams building up on the other theories that has the most explanatory power and is the most rigorous theoretical framework. The essay will first show in what way agenda setting is about political power. Secondly, it will turn to the early agenda-literature, the pluralist and the iron triangle frameworks. Thirdly, the essay will introduce Heclo's subsystems theory. In the fourth step, it will present Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition framework. After examining what Baumgartner and Jones put forward as "punctuated equilibrium", it will discuss Kingdon's policy window model and how it incorporates theoretical elements of the previous frameworks. In the end, the paper will give a conclusion.

Seminar paper from the year 2013 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: Western Europe, grade: 1,00, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH (School of Humanities and Social Sciences), course: International Relations of the 19th Century / Internationale Beziehungen im 19. Jahrhundert, language: English, abstract: Once the abolishment campaign started in 1806, the British increasingly engaged in persuading other countries to cease their trades in slaves, and further, by employing naval forces as of 1808 the British actively pursued the implementation of the prohibition laws in West Africa's Atlantic regions. However, thirty years after the Navy had started its counteracting work, by looking at the achievements of the Royal Navy, the British Parliamentary Committees saliently concluded that the suppression had been a failure so far. What were the difficulties the British Navy faced and made their activities considered as unsuccessful? While scholars dealt thoroughly with the Atlantic Slave Trade and its suppression between 1808 and 1867, little attention has been paid to the various limitations and difficulties the Royal Navy had to operate under in the first four decades of its commence. This essay aims to provide an understanding as to why the British Navy had achieved so little initially in suppressing the forced migration of slaves from Africa to the Americas. It will look at a variety of aspects and factors, which seem to play a significant role in exacerbating the Navy's operation until 1850. It will argue that the interplay of these factors is mainly responsible for preventing the Navy from working effectively against the Atlantic Slave Traffic.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - International Politics - General and Theories, grade: 1,00, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH (School of Humanities and Social Sciences), course: Internationale Institutionen / International Institutions, language: English, abstract: A variety of theories were set forth to explain the way international politics works and give reasons why it does so. Among the contributors are Waltz and Huntington. However, both seem to have emphasized different factors as the decisive ones shaping politics and relations among nations. Hence, the question arises which view is more in line with reality with regard to contemporary politics. In this paper I will consider the question of whether Waltz' or Huntington's explanation is more adequate when examining contemporary international politics. Since the publication of their theories date, relatively speaking, a long way back, this paper would examine the applicability in time of their explanatory power. For this purpose, I will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly summarize the main ideas of Waltz and Huntington. Second, by comparing them I will point out their similarities and differences, respectively. Third, I will give reasons why Huntington is more in accordance with current politics. Lastly, I will briefly summarize the findings and point to further research