Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hpxsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T06:28:14.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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.

Review products

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

A. Nuri Yurdusev
A. Nuri Yurdusev*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 17 , fall 1997 , pp. 181 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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
Burns, C.D. 1920. International Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1946. The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939. Second edition. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, H.A. 1922. An Introduction to World Politics. New York: Macmillan.Google 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
Reinch, P.S. 1900. World Politics. New York: Macmillan.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
Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.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
Wittgenstein, L. 1988. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar