Ali Onur Özçelik’s research while affiliated with Eskişehir Osmangazi University and other places

This study extensively reviews the EU Law curriculum in Turkish higher education institutions and further draws conclusions on the state of this curriculum as compared to the general EU courses. Based on the findings and the conclusions, the authors then discuss the factors for the inertia to place greater emphasis upon teaching the EU Law with reference to how Europeanization has been understood and interpreted in Turkey. The findings suggest that the reforms have not been appropriately backed by the curriculum and that Turkey has acted in conformity with its own peripheral agenda rather than committing itself strongly to internalize the EU legislation and incorporate it in its entirety into its legal domain.

Bu makale, AB’nin doğuya yönelik genişlemesinin ardından Birliğe komşu olan yeni ülkelere demokrasiyi teşvik etmek için uyguladığı “Yeni Komşuluk Politikası ve Doğu Ortaklığı” politikalarını analiz etmek üzerine yazılmıştır. Yakın gelecekte Birliğe üye olması neredeyse imkânsız olarak değerlendirilen bu ülkeler (Ukrayna, Gürcistan, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaycan ve Ermenistan), bütünleşme olmadan genişleme stratejisi bağlamında AB’nin Doğu komşularına yönelik uyguladığı normatif politikaların etkisi altında kalmıştır. AB’ne uyum konusunda göstermiş olduğu çaba, AB’nin Gürcistan’ı komşuluk politikasında örnek olarak seçmesi ve tek bir ülke üzerinden derinlemesine analiz yapmanın sağladığı avantaj, Gürcistan’ın seçilmesindeki temel motivasyonlardır. AB’nin normatif gücünün Gürcistan özelinde nasıl bir değişim sağladığını analiz etmek için, makalenin kavramsal çerçevesinde Avrupalılaşma literatürüne başvurulmuştur. Ayrıca “Dışsal Yönetişim Modeli”nden yola çıkarak “AB Komşuluk Politikası” ve onun halefi olan “Doğu Ortaklığı”nın Gürcistan'da insan hakları ve temel özgürlükler ile suç ve yolsuzlukla mücadele konusunda ne tür bir değişim sağladığı araştırılmıştır.

The chapter argues that Iran being amongst the most distinct states can neither be considered as a true model of democracy nor autocracy. Iranians, once citizens of the Great Persian Empire ruled by monarchs, nevertheless prefer to live under democracy. The 1979 revolution brought Iranians the hope to espouse democracy which although was partially fulfilled. The popular uprisings in Middle East, termed as Arab Spring, were no different from the Iranian revolution. Massive crowds of hopeless people protesting peacefully against the dark rule of monarchs and autocrats from Tunisia to Libya were hoping to bring a change to reclaim their rights, freedom and destiny for a better future. Iranian support for the Arab Spring, especially in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen was reflective of its own experience with the dictatorship. However, subsequently Iranian position changed dramatically once the Arab Spring reached Syria. Iranian regional ambitions of dominating the Middle East remained the primal factor in its dichotomous policy of initially supporting the cause of Arab Spring while later extending support to the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad. Iran considered Assad a key factor in exercising control over Shiite militia Hezbollah and in manipulating the political landscape of Lebanon. Iranian foreign policy regarding the Arab Spring thus doesn’t seek an inspiration from the classical Islamic principle of ‘Adal’ or justice but rather depicts of the classical realism approach. Iranian foreign policy and intervention remains decisive which successfully stalled the process of peaceful transformation through Arab Spring and paved the way for the bloody civil war in Syria. This Iranian policy remained the prominent reason in formation of the ISIS and subsequent irreversible sectarian divide in the Middle East. Therefore, Middle East is likely to become the battle ground for sectarian wars in future besides making existing state boundaries irrelevant.