Evaluation of the Organization of the Turkic States in the Light of Integration Theories

Türkiye and Kyrgyzstan are two Turkic states with close historical, linguistic and cultural ties. In addition, although both states are secular, their people mostly belong to the same religion, the religion of Islam. Türkiye sees Kyrgyzstan as its Atayurt (fatherland) and in this context, it is the first state to recognize the independence of Kyrgyzstan in 1991. Of course, bilateral relations are too complicated to be explained by ancestry, language, or religion alone. Because the two countries have been out of contact with each other for many years. The first contact was made with the collapse of the USSR. Since 1991, the two states have developed and continue to develop various political, economic, military and cultural relations. This study will present a holistic analysis by examining the relations of the two states from a constructivist perspective, that is, in an identity sense. The main purpose of the study is to identify the current state of bilateral relations and offer solutions on how to further develop them. In the study, current data were examined by a literature review conducted in Turkish, English and Kyrgyz. The current data in question were analyzed by combining them with a constructivist perspective.

Following the dissolution of the USSR, Turkic States came together for the first time in 1992 at the Summit of Heads of State of Turkic Speaking Countries. The Summit was transformed into the Turkic Council with the Nakhchivan Agreement in 2009 and renamed the Organisation of Turkic States in 2021. This Organisation is one of the most important institutions shaping Azerbaijan's foreign policy. In this context, the support of the Organisation's member Turkic states in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia is critical; in fact, during the Second Karabakh War, the Organisation of Turkic States issued a statement in support of Azerbaijan. Similarly, the Organisation has been an effective tool in supporting Azerbaijan's foreign policy and increasing its regional and global influence. Moreover, within the framework of the Organisation, Turkic States have had the opportunity to share their experiences in areas such as science, technology, education and culture. This study focuses on the importance of Central Asian countries in Azerbaijan's foreign policy and the relations developed within the framework of the Organisation of Turkic States.

ABSTRACTThis contribution re-engages grand theories of integration that have been developed with the European experience in mind. We ask to what extent these theories travel beyond Europe. Standard integration theories, such as neo-functionalism or liberal intergovernmentalism, privilege economic interdependence as a key driver of regional integration. We map intra-regional trade as a proxy of economic interdependence against the density and strength of regionalism in major world regions demonstrating that there is little correlation. Building upon post-functionalism, we then develop our own comparative regionalist account encompassing three building blocks: first, functional demands for regionalism stemming mainly from security interdependence and the quest for regime stability; second, the supply of regional integration through elite efforts at regional identity construction resonating with mass public opinion; and, last not least, the diffusion of institutional designs across regions. We claim that this account can not only explain regionalism across the globe, but even fits better the European experience than standard theories of integration.

After twenty‐five years, few scholars still dispute the leading role of Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) in theorizing EU history. Yet some question whether it can explain Europe's recent evolution. This article argues that LI retains its place as a ‘baseline’ integration theory. It is uniquely able to provide credible micro‐foundations of EU decision‐making, which even theories ostensibly critical of LI borrow. It offers a richer set of innovative opportunities for forward‐looking extension than is often thought. Compared to competitors such as Post‐Functionalism and Historical Institutionalism, LI generates more consistently satisfying empirical accounts of recent EU policy‐making, particularly with regard to the outcomes that ultimately matter most, namely substantive policies. And it remains a trustworthy guide to normative evaluation, for example on the issue of democratic legitimacy. The future of integration theory lies in creatively elaborating LI and, where possible, crafting more rigorous syntheses with alternative accounts.

This study thoroughly examines the institutionalization process in Türkiye’s foreign policy towards Turkic States in the post-Cold War era. Following the end of the Cold War, Türkiye’s relations with Turkic States in Central Asia and the Caucasus have undergone a significant transformation. Beyond historical and cultural ties, Türkiye has expanded these relations into various dimensions, including economic cooperation, security, and especially institutional integration. In order to ensure institutionalization in relations, Türkiye initially activated various organizations facilitating cultural cooperation and subsequently established institutional collaboration mechanisms such as the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). These institutionalization efforts have reinforced Türkiye’s cultural and historical influence in the region while simultaneously deepening regional cooperation and integration. Cooperation in areas such as security, energy, transportation, and education has significantly contributed to regional stability and enhanced the effectiveness of institutional structures. Türkiye’s effective use of institutional mechanisms has strengthened cooperation among Turkic States and bolstered regional solidarity. Consequently, this process of institutionalization demonstrates that Türkiye has adopted a comprehensive foreign policy strategy that is not only based on cultural ties but also aligned with regional security and economic interests. Türkiye’s strategic approach has amplified its regional and international influence, highlighting the importance of institutional collaboration.

This chapter focuses on liberal intergovernmentalism (LI), which has acquired the status of a ‘baseline theory’ in the study of regional integration: an essential first-cut explanation against which other theories are often compared. The chapter argues that LI has achieved this dominant status due to its theoretical soundness, empirical power, and utility as a foundation for synthesis with other explanations. After providing an overview of LI’s main assumptions and propositions, the chapter illustrates LI’s scope and empirical power with two recent cases: migration policy and the euro. It closes by considering common criticisms levelled against LI, as well as the scope conditions under which it is most likely to explain state behaviour. This chapter concludes by emphasizing LI’s openness to dialogue and synthesis with other theories and reiterating its status as a baseline theory of European integration.

This chapter focuses on liberal intergovernmentalism (LI), which has acquired the status of a ‘baseline theory’ in the study of regional integration: an essential first cut explanation against which other theories are often compared. The chapter argues that LI has achieved this dominant status due to its theoretical soundness, empirical power, and utility as a foundation for synthesis with other explanations. After providing an overview of LI’s main assumptions and propositions, the chapter examines common criticisms levelled against it as well as the scope conditions under which LI is most likely to explain state behaviour(s). It then illustrates LI’s scope and empirical power with two cases: agricultural policy, an ‘easy’ case, and enlargement, a harder case. It also assesses the current state of the European Union and concludes by emphasizing LI’s openness to dialogue and synthesis with other theories and reiterating its status as a baseline theory of European integration.

Pakistan and Iran share a long-standing relationship shaped by historical, cultural and religious ties. However, their bilateral relations have been influenced by complex geopolitical and geo-economic dynamics. This study examines the shift from geopolitics to geo-economics in Pakistan-Iran relations post-2008, assessing its key impacts and underlying challenges. Utilizing a neoliberal framework, the research explores how economic interdependence, trade and investment have redefined their diplomatic engagement. The study highlights the strategic significance of economic cooperation between the two nations, particularly in energy trade, border markets and joint infrastructure projects. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline remains a crucial yet contentious issue due to U.S. sanctions and financial constraints. Despite external pressures, economic diplomacy has emerged as a dominant feature in their bilateral engagement, with trade volume exceeding $2 billion in 2022 and plans to expand further. The research also identifies constraints such as regional rivalries, security concerns and political mistrust that hinder deeper collaboration. By analyzing Pakistan-Iran relations particularly with regards to geo-economics, this study underscores the potential for economic integration to enhance regional stability. It suggests that pragmatic economic policies, supported by multilateral cooperation, can help both nations overcome geopolitical barriers and foster a sustainable partnership.

Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) is the contemporary “baseline” social scientific and historiographic theory of regional integration—especially as regards the European Union. It rests on three basic assumptions, which in turn support a three-stage theoretical model of integration and the elaboration of numerous distinctive causal mechanisms. Considerable historical and social scientific evidence supports the LI view, but room also remains for scholars to extend and elaborate its framework in promising ways. Three prominent criticisms of LI exist. Some scholars of “administrative politics” charge that it applies only to treaty-amending decisions and other rare circumstances. “Historical institutionalists” charge that it overlooks endogenous feedback from previous decisions. “Post-functionalists” and “constructivists” revive discredited claims from the 1960s that functional theories neglect the central role of identity claims and ideology in explaining national interests. While each criticism contains some truth, LI possesses rich theoretical resources with which to address them fruitfully and musters compelling evidence to support its empirical claims. This confirms LI’s preeminent role in scholarly debates and suggests a soberly optimistic future for European and regional integration.

This monograph is the product of an international conference entitled “Russia — Turkey — Greece: Opportunities for Dialogue in the Balkans”, which was held on September 15, 2020. The conference was conducted by the Department of Modern History of Central and South-Eastern Europe of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The authors of the monograph studied a wide range of issues related to the roles of Russia, Turkey, and Greece in the Balkans. Researchers have examined both the history and future perspectives; namely, how their mutual interactions have affected their overall relations and how they may contribute to the dialogue and cooperation amongst the three nations. The topics examined include: wars and diplomatic relations in general, religious ties and their impact, historical memory and modern images, regional issues and migration, the ties among the three countries and their influence on mutual relations. The first part of the monograph entitled “Russian-Turkish-Greek relations in historical retrospect” deals with such topics as the historical memory of the Balkans between the Byzantine, Ottoman, and Russian Empires and the current foreign policy practices of several countries in the region; the first Russian consuls in the Ottoman Empire during peace and war of 1776–1787; the fate of Russians, Bulgarians, and Turks in the crucible of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878; and Khilandar Monastery on Mount Athos, Russian diplomacy in the context of Russian-Serbian relations in 1850–1870s, and the history of the relations between Russia and Mount Athos in the second half of the 19th century using the examples of Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin) and St. Panteleimon Monastery. The authors offer a historical context of imperial relations which serves as a “bridge” to understanding later events. In the second part, “Russia, Turkey, Greece at the present stage: opportunities for cooperation and partnership”, experts consider a number of regional problems, namely: political relations between the USSR, Turkey, and Greece on the Cyprus issue between 1950 and 1970; a comparative analysis of the policies of Turkey, the Russian Federation, and Greece towards the Kosovo issue from 1999 to 2008; Turkey’s policy in the Balkans and Turkish approaches to interaction with Russia and Greece; and Greek-Turkish disagreement over the Aegean Sea. Other chapters examine bilateral relations and their effects on the third party: Greece and Turkey, cooperation or rivalry in the migration sphere; the Turkish factor in Greek-Russian relations in the 2010s; problems and prospects of development of cooperation in the Balkans: Russia’s role. Two chapters explore the historical memories of the Balkan people: Friend forever — unfriend forever: Russia and Turkey as seen by modern Greeks, and “Revival Process” in the modern Bulgarian Turk’s memory according to the results of an expedition to Slavjanovo village. Finally, a chapter on mathematical tools for measuring the level of multilingualism of the population in the Russian Federation, the Turkish Republic, Greece, and the Republic of Cyprus concludes the monograph. In the last decades there has been a steady rapprochement in Russian-Turkish relations and a deepening of cooperation both at the bilateral and regional levels. In Greece, traditional cultural and historical ties with Russia have been preserved, and public opinion continues to demonstrate a high degree of trust in modern Russia and its leadership. In this context, the monograph is an important contribution to the study of the Balkans, has promoted the exchange of views and cooperation among scholars, and may further strengthen mutual understanding among the peoples of Russia, Turkey, and Greece. These works may be of interest to researchers of the history of the Balkans, Greece and Turkey, university students, and practitioners and experts interested in the region.

The purpose of this work is to research the historical and legal aspects of the formation of supranational military-political unions in a multipolar world, focusing on the concept of the Baltic-Black Sea Axis. The authors analyze the idea of the Baltic-Black Sea Axis as a geopolitical union that envisages cooperation between countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea and adjacent regions. It is noted that attempts to create similar international organizations have been discussed for over 100 years, but they rarely take on the character of full-fledged “unions” or “alliances”. The paper traces the development of the idea from the medieval route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, associations with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the “Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth” project. The development of the concept intensified in the late 19th – early 20th century, especially after the First World War, when “borderland states” sought ways to defend national interests. Initiatives of Finnish and Estonian diplomats, as well as Ukrainian figures such as Julian Bachynsky, Mykola Mikhnovsky, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, and Symon Petliura, are highlighted. Particular attention is paid to the Bulduri Conference of 1920, which, despite a developed program for a defense and economic union, did not lead to its full implementation due to “insurmountable differences”. The Polish “Intermarium” project of Józef Piłsudski is also considered, which, although ambitious, faced fears of imperialism and Polonization from neighboring states. The authors emphasize that the idea of a Baltic-Black Sea Union gained “a second wind” after the collapse of the USSR, mentioning initiatives by the presidents of Ukraine and Poland. The study identifies potential advantages of creating such a union: geostrategic location, economic complementarity, and shared historical and cultural ties. It is emphasized that such an association could neutralize Russia’s influence, integrate Eastern and Western Europe on democratic principles, and create a powerful Eastern European center of political influence within the EU. The economic potential of such a union is estimated as significant, with a combined GDP that could exceed Russia’s GDP, placing the union among the top ten global economies. Specific infrastructure and energy projects that could strengthen cooperation in the region are discussed.

The phenomenon of war or conflict has existed since the existence of mankind. War can have various reasons such as religious, political and economic. However, with the effect of globalization after the Cold War, even if the conflicts continued throughout the world, the wars between the great states decreased to a large extent. In this context, Russia's intervention in Ukraine is a rather surprising development. Ukraine has always been an important state for Russia due to its historical and cultural ties, especially the establishment of the first Russian state near Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. Even after the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued to make hidden interventions in Ukraine, which it saw as its backyard. However, starting a conventional war between the two states seemed to be a rather risky and unexpected option. But as it is seen, Russia took this risk and started a military intervention in Ukraine. The course of the intervention, the damages suffered by Russia, show that a conventional war is not very effective for the states in today's conditions. The aim of the study is to examine the beginning of Russia's intervention and the first two months of the process. The other aim of the study is to explain not only this crisis, but also the phenomenon of war and the changing elements of war today.

In the new world order established after the collapse of the USSR at the end of the 20th century, mutual and beneficial cooperation between states located in close geographical proximity came to the fore. In this regard, the South Caucasus, as one of the most sensitive geopolitical regions of the world with rich resources, stands out. New formats of cooperation began to emerge in the Caucasus. Principally, high-level strategic relations have been established between Türkiye, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Cooperation between the countries was expanded for the most part in the field of transport. Obviously, the creation of the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Türkiye triangle was caused by historical and cultural ties, geographic neighborhood, being part of a single transit corridor, favorable conditions and political will. The territory of Georgia was especially stand in need of the general infrastructure transport projects implementation in the region. Due to the fact that Georgia is a transit country, that ensures the transition between Europe and Asia. Furthermore, the aggressive policy of Armenia, another South Caucasus country, made Georgia a country of convenience. All the same, the establishment of a railway connection between the three countries has formed a favorable ground for Central Asian republics, which have great transport potential, to Türkiye and other European countries. Currently, cooperation relations between the three states in both bilateral and multilateral formats are to be remained unaltered. In terms of transport and transit issues, the region will gain a more significant position with the implementation of projects between Türkiye , Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina share deep historical, political, and cultural ties. Bilateral relations between the two have undergone several transformations in parallel with domestic and international political developments and in light of shifts in Turkey’s role in the international arena. After decades of negligent and isolationist policies, Ankara finally offered Bosnia a place in Turkish foreign policy following the end of the Cold War, as it came to occupy a position of significant importance for Turkey under the rule of political Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP). However, Turkey’s influence has been debated in positive and negative ways at the same time often creating a contradiction between reality and discourse. This article aims to evaluate Turkey’s influence in Bosnia through interviews with experts on political, economic, cultural, media and religious ties between the two in order to portray the potentials and limits of Turkish foreign policy towards Bosnia.

The paper elaborates on the history of the Russian foreign policy towards Serbia, with special emphasis on the national interests of the Russian state, which, in addition to undoubtedly strong traditional cultural and historical ties between the two Orthodox nations, still significantly guide Russian policies towards Serbia. In other words, the subject of the paper is numerous examples and evidence of opportunism in relation between these countries and its reflection on the countries of the Western Balkans. Namely, starting from the nineteenth century onwards, Russia has emerged as a strong foreign policy partner of Serbia, thus expanding its influence on other Western Balkans countries. In this way, Russia, as a great political power, capitalizing on its own power and strong ideological, historical and cultural ties, uses Serbia to strengthen influence in the region and beyond. Starting from the historical insight in this relationship, the paper focuses on the tendency to present opportunism and pragmatism of the Russian foreign policy, guided exclusively by the Russian national interests, which is visible, both from historical perspective, and in the last twenty years. The relationship between Russia and Serbia is presented through the military, economic and diplomatic cooperation.