ResearchPDF Available

From the security dilemma to the human-centered survival dilemma in the Eastern Mediterranean: The environmental security approach



Why do riparian states of the Eastern Mediterranean seemingly fight over fossil resources down at the sea bottom, miles and miles away, instead of developing joint projects accelerating optimum use of their renewable energy resources, that are also compatible with the climate act. Analytical tools that are used in the discussions over the concept of “security” in the International Relations (IR) literature might be instructive for being able to answer this thorny question.
From the security dilemma to the human-centered survival dilemma in the
Eastern Mediterranean: The environmental security approach
Our EastMed dossier concludes with the article of Emre İşeri, where he suggests seeing the matter primarily
from an environmental perspective.
licence infos
The scale of humans’ activities transforming the nature points to the fact that we now are in a new geologic age:
the Anthropocene. In the face of pressures triggered by environmental degradation and in particular climate
change, this age necessitates a relatively comprehensive agenda of environmental security.[1] Both the sustainable
development targets set by the United Nations (UN) and the criteria determined at the Paris Climate Conference
(COP21) have reasserted the need for taking immediate measures against climate change. Within this context, not
only has the issue of climate change been brought up to the global agenda, it also functions as leverage for energy
transition policies in certain countries/unions. Aiming at becoming carbon-neutral by the year 2050, the European
Union (EU) has declared the “green deal”.[2] However, concerning the fight against climate change at the global
level, we still lag behind the targets that were set in Paris. Considerable decreases in carbon emission release rates
have only been observed during the economic downsizing that emerged parallel to the Covid-19 process.[3] What
course the fight against climate change will take after Covid-19 is directly connected to which steps decision-
makers will take on their path to a sustainable “green economy” to reverse the positive correlation between
economic growth and carbon emission releases.[4]
It is beyond doubt that struggling against climate change is not being easy for those “developing countries”, which
are based on carbon-intensive economies. Those countries are not capable of breaking the abovementioned link
between their economic growth and carbon emission releases. Fortunately, parallel to the gradual improvement in
sustainable energy technologies, prices of those technologies are on the decline, which makes the effective
development of renewable energy resource potentials more feasible.[5]
In addition to the fore mentioned developments regarding climate change and the global energy sector, some
regions/countries are pretty far behind in terms of realizing their potential for renewable energy development.
One of these regions is the East Mediterranean, which has high potentials of renewable energy resources,
especially solar and wind.[6] The region is overexposed to the effects of climate change (e.g. water shortage) by
being warmed up 20% faster than the world average.[7] Along the same line, the island of Cyprus should be
mentioned here too, as one that is dependent on fossil energy. However, along with both sides of the island, Turkey
and Greece quarrel apparently over natural gas reserves located at thousands of kilometers under the sea, as well
as over the East Med, projected to export those reserves to the gradually shrinking EU energy market. (Map 1)
Map 1: Route of theEastern Mediterranean Pipeline (East Med) Project
licence infos
Well then, why do riparian states of the East Mediterranean seemingly fight over fossil resources down at the sea
bottom, miles and miles away, instead of developing joint projects accelerating optimum use of their renewable
energy resources, that are also compatible with the climate act. Analytical tools that are used in the discussions
over the concept of “security” in the International Relations (IR) literature might be instructive for being able to
answer this thorny question.
From traditional security to the new security agenda
In simple terms, security may stand for being protected from threats. However, security is a very contested
concept and no consensus exists over a single definition. The most fundamental discussion is concerned with who
(referent object) and what will be secured, what the threats are, and through which means it would be possible to
be protected from these threats (Table 1). Roughly speaking, there are two sides/aspects involved in the discussion:
1) Traditional state-centered approach 2) New security studies.
Energy/ Environment in the traditional state-centered security approach
The answer of the traditional state-centered approach to the question “security of whom?” is clear: the state. It is
easy to understand why those who adopt this approach are exclusively interested in the security of the state. The
pioneers of the realist tradition within the IR (Edward H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz), who have
written at a time of destruction caused by the First and Second World Wars and the threat of the Cold War,
suggested interstate conflicts to be the primary research area of the discipline. Based on the assumption that
security can be objectively perceived, independently of the observing individuals as well as language,[8] the realist
tradition puts forward that under the absence of overarching authority the anarchic structure of the international
system would lead states to engage in military rivalry with other states, in order to safeguard their security (i.e.
their sovereignty within a specific territory). Yet this exposes states with a “security dilemma”: military steps taken
by any state in order to increase its own security will trigger reactions from other states, which in turn will end up
causing a decrease rather than increase in the security of the state in question. Another point is that an excessive
increase in military power would drag a state into economic weakness.
The realist tradition also looks at energy issues from a state-centered perspective. Accordingly, there are three
aspects of energy security: 1) Supply (consuming states) 2) Demand (producing states) 3) Energy technologies
(transmission lines, refineries). In consuming states, the priority of politics is about controlling energy resources.
As US president Richard Nixon stated in 1974: “security and economy are interconnected and energy is
inseparable from both”. Geographical factors such as the place of continents and oceans, in addition to the
distribution of natural resources, further complicate international energy relations. In other words, geopolitics is
important. This importance derives not only from the fact that finite vital resources are concentrated in specific
geographical regions, but should also be seen as an outcome of those resources being located within national
borders, i.e. on territories of sovereign states. Therefore, the “realist” tradition understands the access of states to
energy resources as a zero-sum game and deems strategic alliances as well as the use of military power necessary.
[9] Consequently, global environmental issues, which belong to the category of “low-politics”, get on the realists’
radar only as far as they represent a threat to state security, such as a possibility of military conflict.[10]
Considering the discussion over the geopolitics of climate change, the rivalry between NATO member states (USA,
Norway, Denmark) and Russia with regard to the melting Arctic can be mentioned within this context.[11]
This line, which accepted issues related to the security of the state as belonging to the realm of “high-politics”
alone, and approached developments in the fields of energy/security from a narrow-angle. Those alternative
approaches calling for a widening security agenda have achieved their objectives only after the Cold War.
The new security agenda and environment
It was in the 1970s, when threats against the environment and economic development, issues that were perceived
by the realist security approach as part of “low-politics”, started to become more evident and that critical voices
were raised. This period marks the emergence of modern environment movements: in 1971 Green Peace was
found, in 1972 the United Nations (UN) held the first environment conference in Stockholm. Despite the differences
between them, there was one thing they had in common: their belief in the need to take responsibility for the
environmental destruction caused by humans. In a similar vein, Richard Ullman in his work on “Redefining
Security” (1983) has focused on the need for enlarging the concept of security so that it can encompass
environmental and economic issues as well. Eventually the issue of environmental security effectively entered the
agenda of international politics through the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
report “Our Common Future”. Advocating for sustainable development and acting as a catalyst in paving the way
for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, the report emphasized
environmental security as the necessary condition for sustainable development.
The new security agenda that this article discusses with reference to environmental developments has evolved
parallel to critical studies, which targeted the security concept within the IR discipline. Suggesting that security
cannot be confined to military threats and that security policies have to be expanded for covering also the
happiness and well-being of people, the visibility of the “New security studies” has increased noticeably in the
post-Cold War period. To put it differently, the answer to the question “Whose security?” started to shift from the
state to the ecosystem and the human. This “extended” approach to the security concept (Table 1) is increasingly
being accepted in many places, particularly among the European governments.[12]
Table 1: Extended Security Concepts
licence infos
 The Copenhagen School, which is one of the pioneers of the “New Security Studies”, analyses security in five
different sectors[13]: military, political, economic, social, and environmental. The most known postulate of the
school reads: The unification of Europe is a construction of a “security community” through de-securitization- a
process that was initiated by the decision-makers of the period to sustain regional peace without relying on
military measures.[14] Starting from this point, the Copenhagen School defines securitization as an inter-
subjective social process, whereas it differentiates between issues that might be constructed as security problems
through speech-act as non-politicized, politicized, and securitized. In the process of securitization, securitizing
actors can eliminate issues (such as the economy sector for energy, or environment for climate change) by
presenting them as existential threats and by making use of post-political, non-routine urgent (unlawful) decisions
as well as means (such as the use of violence). Within a securitization process, not only do securitizing actors bring
an issue into the private sphere and turn it into a security issue, but they also construct a privileged status for
themselves, as the ones who can overcome the problem.[15] Thus, a policy of securitization is a discursive field of
competition between various political actors, which also has internal political reflections.[16]
 For securitization as an inter-subjective political process to be successful, the existential threats that they
claim to exist, as well as the political decisions made to overcome these threats, have to be accepted by the
followers. According to the Copenhagen School, there are several facilitating conditions, which make it easy for the
process to gain success: the language used by the securitizing actor (internal) and historical affinity the audience
has about the issue that is being constructed as a threat (external).[17]
The Securitization of Energy in East Mediterranean
 Although towards the end of the 2000s, various optimistic thinkers have evaluated the natural gas
discoveries off Cyprus as an opportunity that may bring peace to the island, far from bringing peace, the
developments have only sharpened the already existing conflicts. By approaching the issue with the theoretical
framework of securitization vs. de-securitization, it becomes obvious that regional state actors don’t see the energy
resources within their conflicting maritime zones as a political means for conflict resolution (Map 2).
Map 2: Conflicting Maritime Zones
licence infos
On the contrary, decision-makers prefer to exploit those resources for securitization and they are successful in
doing so to the extent that their citizens approve them. As securitizing actors, the decision-makers in Turkey
utilized speech-acts in the process as follows: the other state (Greece, France) / non-state actors (Greek Cypriot side,
ENI, Total) are “sources of threat”, energy resources/ export routes (such as the East Med pipeline) within maritime
zones are “values/assets under threat”, and the answer to the question “Whose security?” is the Turkish state. With
the approval of the Turkish public opinion, which has been molded with dominant historical narratives that depict
Greece as the other, and in accordance with the “Blue Motherland” doctrine,[18] Turkey’s securitizing actors have
defined the security strategy for the region. Within this context, Turkey has been resorting to several means of
gunboat diplomacy, such as a show of force with warships, seismic exploration activities in conflict zones, and
issuing messages through maritime navigational communication systems (NAVTEX).[19] On the other hand, the
parties of the conflict (Greek Cypriot part and Greece) carry out search operations in the zones, which Turkey
claims to be in its jurisdiction, appeal diplomatically to the European Union to impose sanctions on Turkey, and
continue to buy arms and conduct military exercises/cooperation against Turkey with various states, notably
Concluding remarks: environmental security and climate change in the East Mediterranean
What we see now is that the parties of the conflict, while trying to guarantee their energy security, are stuck in a
“security dilemma” – just as the state-centered security approach would predict. If the current situation should
continue, the military, economic and environmental insecurities of both sides will increase, let alone ensuring
security. A continuous, mutual increase in military power as well as military cooperation will further augment
insecurity. Additional military expenditures will also deepen the economic insecurity in both Turkey and Greece,
where causes related to the Covid-19 pandemic have already created an economic recession. Furthermore, the
ongoing tension will prevent the optimum development of joint projects for making use of the rich, potential
renewable energy resources, particularly in Cyprus.
The environmental insecurity of the parties will escalate in two ways: while developing resources and
constructing transmission lines will destruct the marine ecosystem, the struggle against climate change will be put
on ice. Beyond these, one point is obvious: The plan for feasible production of securitized natural gas reserves,
their transmission through the 1900 km long East Med pipeline, which will cost 6 billion Euros to build, and finally,
their export to the European Union that is aiming at moving to a carbon-free economy and whose energy market is
already shrinking, contains a lot of incalculability.[20]
 As one of the regions that will be affected most by climate change, the East Mediterranean is face to face
with various existential risks, water shortage being in the fırst place. Decision-makers of the involved states should
be aware of the fact that the main security threat for the common fate of the people living in the region is
sustainability. In other words, they should act with responsibility to address the “survival dilemma”[21] for the
well-being of the whole region. For this, it is required that decision-makers move beyond narrow security
perspectives and that they –parallel to the enlarged security approach- securitize climate change, so that they can
immediately work on joint, renewable energy projects for the construction of a sustainable East Mediterranean
region. This paradigmatic change suggested for the region can have a solid base with the support of great powers.
Thus, if the EU, in coordination with the USA under the presidency of Biden, increases its support for sustainability
projects (such as “EMME-CARE”[22] and “Ecocity Mağusa/Farmagusta”[23]) that could create the real “positive
agenda” in the region. Eventually, this would enhance prospects for building sustainable Eastern Mediterranean
[1] Dalby, Simon. “Environmental Security and Climate Change.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International
Studies. 2020:1.
[2] “ Green Deal”, European Commission,
[3]“Stop CO2 emissions bouncing back after Covid plunge, says IEA”, Guardian, 13.10.2020;
[4]“Green Economy”, UN Environment Programme,
[5]“Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA”, Carbon Brief, 13.10.2020;
[6] Tsangas, Michail, Antonis A. Zorpas, Mejdi Jeguirim, and Lionel Limousy. “Cyprus energy resources and their
potential to increase sustainability.” In 2018 9th International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), pp. 1-7. IEEE,
2018; Asumadu-Sarkodie, Samuel, Ҫağlan Sevinç, and Herath MPC Jayaweera. “A hybrid solar photovoltaic-wind
turbine-rankine cycle for electricity generation in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.”Cogent Engineering3, no.
1 (2016): 1-19; Kylili, Angeliki, and Paris A. Fokaides. “Competitive auction mechanisms for the promotion
renewable energy technologies: The case of the 50 MW photovoltaics projects in Cyprus.”Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews42 (2015): 226-233.
[7] Pietrapertosa, Filomena, Valeriy Khokhlov, Monica Salvia, and Carmelina Cosmi. “Climate change adaptation
policies and plans: A survey in 11 South East European countries.”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews81
(2018): 3041-3050; “Risks associated to climate and environmental changes in the Mediterranean region”, MEDCC,
[8] Baysal, Başar and Çağla Lüleci. “Kopenhag Okulu ve Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi” [The Copenhagen School and the
Securitization Theory].Security Strategies Journal11, no. 22 (2015): 68.
[9]Kuzemko, Caroline, Michael F. Keating and Andreas Goldthau (ed.).The global energy challenge: Environment,
development and security. Macmillan International Higher Education (2015):8-9.
[10] Erçandırlı, Yelda. “Yeşil Teori”[Green Theory], in Ramazan Gözen (ed.),Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri Theories
of International Relations], İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul(2014): 498.
[11] Rowe, Elana Wilson. “Analyzing frenemies: An Arctic repertoire of cooperation and rivalry.”Political
Geography76 (2019): 1-10;
[12] Brauch, Hans Günter, “Güvenliğin Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılması: Barış, Güvenlik, Kalkınma ve Çevre
Kavramsal Dörtlüsü.” [Reconceptualizing Security: Conceptual Quartet of Peace,
Security, Development and Environment], Uluslararası İlişkiler 5, no. 18 (2008):5; Bilgin, Pınar. “Güvenlik
Çalışmalarında Yeni Açılımlar: Yeni Güvenlik Çalışmaları” [New Approaches in Security Studies: New Security
Studies] SAREM Stratejik Arastirmalar Dergisi 8, no. 14 (2010): 32.
[13] The analysis of specific aspects of a holistic “reality” through looking at the patterns of relations or
interactions among various aspects.
[14] Bilgin 2010:42.
[15] Hisarlıoğlu, Fulya, “Güvenlikleştirme” [Securitization], Güvenlik Yazıları Serisi, No.24, October 2019:4.ıoglu_v.1.pdf
[16] See for example Kaliber, Alper. “Securing the ground through securitized ‘Foreign’policy: The Cyprus
case.”Security Dialogue36, no. 3 (2005): 319-337; Çelenk, Ayşe Aslihan. “The restructuring of Turkey’s policy
towards Cyprus: The Justice and Development Party’s struggle for power.”Turkish Studies8, no. 3 (2007): 349-363.
[17] Baysal and Lüleci (2015): 83.
[18]The security strategy that Turkey pursues in the region is the result of an approach, which in the Western
literature is called “forward defence” and by encompassing various maritime jurisdiction zones, it grew into the
“Blue Motherland” doctrine. See İlhan Uzger, “Mavi Vatan ve Türkiye’nin yeni güvenlik doktrini”, Gazete Duvar,
; “Doğu Akdeniz: Mavi Vatan doktrini nedir, Türkiye ve Yunanistan neden anlaşamıyor?” BBCTürkçe, 31.07.2020,
[19] See; Emre İşeri, “Turkey’s Entangled (Energy) Security Concerns and the Cyprus Question in the Eastern
Mediterranean”, in Alexis Heraclides & Gizem Alioğlu Çakmak (ed.) Greece and Turkey in Conflict and Cooperation:
From Europeanization to De-Europeanization, London:Routledge, 2019, ss. 257-270; Emre İşeri & Ahmet Bartan
Çağrı “Turkey’s Geostrategic Vision and Energy Concerns in the Eastern Mediterranean Security Architecture: A
View from Ankara”, in Tziarras Zenonas (ed.), The New Geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean: Trilateral
Partnerships and Regional Security. Re-imagining the Eastern Mediterranean Series: PCC Report, 3. Nicosia: PRIO
Cyprus Centre, 2019, ss. 111-124.
[20] For similar discussions, see; Paul Hockenos, “No Gas, No War in the Mediterranean”, 10.09.2020; Global Witness,
Pyrrhic Victory:Why Europe and Turkey should not fight over offisl gas we cannot use, 2020,
[21] First used by Hans Günter Brauch as a term to define the relations between security, environment and
development, which are being caused by global environmental changes through natural and human interventions.
See, Brauch (2008).
[22] The Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East – Climate and Atmosphere Research (EMME-CARE) Project;
[23] See, “The Famagusta Ecocity Project”
30 November 2020
by Prof.Emre İşeri
© Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung e.V.
Schumannstraße 8
10117 Berlin
T +49 (30) 285 34-0
F +49 (30) 285 34-109
While frictions among the Eastern Mediterranean countries about maritime zones and continental shelf limits related to sovereign claims and to some degree with ambitions of finding oil and gas have abounded in recent years nearly provoking large-scale conflicts, the impact of a climate crisis on the same countries has been extreme, especially in 2021. The Mediterranean’s more than half-a-billion inhabitants seem to face highly interconnected climate risks. Reasons for concern include sea-level rise-related risks, land and marine biodiversity losses, risks related to drought, wildfire, alterations of water cycle, endangered food production and health risks in both urban and rural settlements from heat and altered disease vectors. Notably, the lack of resources caused by droughts leads to mass migration to the cities, civil wars, crossing borders to other countries, ethnic conflicts and tensions. Against this background, energy transition and fight against common existential threats such as climate change or climate crisis are emerging as more daunting challenges as geopolitical competition to secure control of fossil fuels or assert sovereign claims in the Mediterranean Sea. However, it has not been realised that the Eastern Mediterranean, like other critical ecosystems around the world, is a global common responsibility that national sovereigns should steward. In this regard, the two countries, under the pressure of the high energy prices, have clung to the exploration of hydrocarbons, disregarding their vast potential in clean energy resources.KeywordsClimate changeThe Mediterranean as hotspot of the climate changeCooperationConflictGreen transition
Full-text available
Intensive transnational cooperation and manifestations of the NATO-Russia security rivalry have endured for over 30 years in the post-Cold War Arctic. Drawing upon the concept of repertoires from the social movement literature, this article seeks to make a conceptual contribution as to how we might better analyse and articulate the simultaneity of these practices and narratives of cooperation and rivalry in the circumpolar region. Repertoires are typically defined as bundles of semi-structured/semi-improvisational practices making up a context-contingent performance (for example, by civil society towards the ‘state’). These repertoires are argued to be created and performed in ‘contentious episodes’, rather than structured by long-term trends or evidenced in single events. Translated to global politics, a repertoires-inspired approach holds promise for privileging an analysis of the tools and performance (and audience) of statecraft in ‘contentious episodes’ above considerations of how different forms of global order or geopolitical narratives structure options for state actors. The emphasis on the performance of statecraft in key episodes, in turn, allows us to consider whether the interplay between the practices of cooperation and rivalry is usefully understood as a collective repertoire of statecraft, as opposed to a messy output of disparate long-term trends ultimately directing actors in the region towards a more cooperative or more competitive form of Arctic regional order. The article opens with two key moments in Arctic politics – the breakup of the Soviet Union and the 2007 Arctic sea ice low. The strong scholarly baseline that these complex moments have garnered illustrates how scholars of Arctic regional politics are already employing an episodic perspective that can be usefully expanded upon and anchored with insights and methods loaned from social movement literature on repertoires. The 18-month period following Russia's annexation of Crimea is then examined in detail as a ‘contentious episode’ with an attending effort to operationalize a repertoires-inspired approach to global politics. The article concludes that a repertoire-inspired approach facilitates systematic consideration of the mixed practices of amity and enmity in circumpolar statecraft over time and comparison to other regions, as well as offers one promising answer to the growing interest in translating the insights of constructivist scholarship into foreign policy strategy.
Full-text available
The supply and demand of energy, its security and environmental sustainability are increasingly central issues in the contemporary world. This broad-ranging new textbook provides an international and interdisciplinary introduction to today's political, economic, security, policy and technological challenges set in a clear historical context.
The chapter aims to examine the reasons why those energy discoveries have failed to help bring peace to Cyprus. Drawing on Regional Security Complex Theory and Securitization Theory , it argues that the Eastern Mediterranean's peculiar regional characteristics, particularly those of Turkey, have created the political conditions for the securitization of these energy discoveries and their proposed export routes.
Building a climate-ready adaptation society is an urgent question that cannot be postponed. Along the path towards an increase in climate resilience, a stimulating role is played by EU projects as well as by international climate networks such as the Covenant of Mayors Initiative on Climate Change Adaptation (Mayors Adapt), launched in 2014, and the new Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy which “pledge to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 40% by 2030 and to adopt an integrated approach to tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change”. These initiatives stimulate engagement and networking among cities and raise public awareness encouraging policy makers to take action to adapt to climate change. Adaptation operates at different spatial and societal scales. Accordingly, the development of climate change adaptation strategies requires a holistic and multi-perspective approach with scale-specific studies.
There are a range of policy frameworks and support mechanisms to promote the penetration of renewable energy technologies into the energy mix assembled by the governments and regulatory bodies around the world. The three dominant and most common support schemes that have also been implemented within the EU and proven successful in the past include the competitive auctions, the Feed-in Tariff scheme (FiT), and Tradable Green Certificates (TGCs). This study reviews the use of the competitive auction mechanism for the promotion of power generation from renewable energy technologies. The process of the specific policy instrument as well as its pros and cons are introduced. Successful and failed case studies from countries that have already incorporated this mechanism into their renewable energy technologies development policies are also presented. Among these cases is the Cyprus auction procurement for the licensing of 50 MW of photovoltaic power plants, conducted in January 2013, which is thoroughly elaborated in this paper. The timeline of the bids is presented, and the auction winner strategy is tracked and examined. A discussion is also presented on the feasibility of the awarded projects. Eventually, the entire auction procurement procedure is evaluated to expose the defects of the mechanism and to offer some recommendations for the viability of the process.
Particularly since the beginning of the new millennium, the Cyprus issue that had hitherto been successfully securitized and bureaucratized has turned out to be the main ‘discursive battlefield’ of the polarization among ruling elites in Turkey. Framed within a historical perspective, the present article re-examines Turkey’s security discourse on Cyprus with particular reference to its implications for the (re)configuration of political balances and power relations between the conservative state elite - namely, the civilian and military bureaucracy - and the reformist political elite in Turkey. It concludes that the security language devised by the Turkish ‘foreign’ policy and security establishment has been operational in both inscribing the legitimate boundaries of the political sphere and crippling the manoeuvring ability of governments vis-à-vis the strong bureaucratic establishment in Turkey. The article also aims at encouraging the reader to critically reflect on power politics of ‘foreign’ policymaking in Turkey and its implications for domestic politics.
This study aims to analyze the significance of the “Cyprus question” in Turkish politics in terms of the interplay between international political developments and the domestic political situation and among domestic political actors. The main focus of the study is the restructuring of Turkey’s policy towards Cyprus with the establishment of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. In order to analyze this restructuring process, the study deals with international factors such as the improvement of Turkey’s image in the international arena, Turkey’s EU membership process, and past foreign policy choices of Turkey, as well as with the impact of changing domestic political alignments and the power struggle among the Turkish political elite, with a special focus on the latter. The main conclusion drawn from the analysis is the fact that the restructuring of Turkey’s policy towards Cyprus was not only a matter of foreign policy but was also a means for the AKP to strengthen its domestic position vis‐à‐vis the other major political actors in Turkey.
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies
  • Simon Dalby
Dalby, Simon. "Environmental Security and Climate Change." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2020:1. ( Security-and-Climate-Change.pdf
Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri Theories of International Relations
  • Yelda Erçandırlı
Erçandırlı, Yelda. "Yeşil Teori"[Green Theory], in Ramazan Gözen (ed.), Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri Theories of International Relations], İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul (2014): 498.