Conference Program

This paper presents a discursive analysis of the negotiations about multilateral liberal interventions in the Turkish parliament by focussing on the discussions between the Government party and the opposition. By using the Post-structuralist Discourse Theory, this research explains how foreign policy elite articulates liberal interventions in some areas (especially Libya and Syria), and how these discourses are challenged by the opposition.

The research concentrates the analysis of parliamentary speeches (coded by using a qualitative discourse analysis tool) from 2010 to 2016. In this analysis, negotiations over the identities (in-group and out-group), relationships, frames and policies are evaluated. Furthermore, the analysis goes beyond these variables, and investigates contestations between different political groups, and references to the domestic politics. In doing so, this research contributes to the analysis of foreign policy making by middle size powers by opening the black box. Moreover, a structured analysis of discursive articulations in a venue like the Parliament (where the consent should be taken by the Government before sending a military mission) tells us about the contestations and re-production of power relations as well as sedimentary discourses and articulatory practices.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 raised questions about American aid for the attacked country, especially since previously such support was only limited. This paper aims to determine what role domestic and international factors played in the transfer of USD 113 billion in assistance to Ukraine in 2022-2023. The text is divided into three parts. In the first one, the role of domestic factors in providing aid to Ukraine is analyzed. In particular, the focus is on the position of the President and votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The second part analyzes the international factors that could have influenced the U.S. support for Ukraine. Factors such as Ukraine's successes on the front, the scale of aid granted to Ukraine by other countries, as well as the support provided to Russia by its partners (e.g., China, Iran, and North Korea) will be monitored. The last part compares the impact of domestic and international factors, trying to indicate which of them had a greater time correlation with subsequent aid packages granted to Ukraine by the U.S. authorities. The paper is based on a comparative case study. The method of data collection is qualitative text analysis.

Although terrorism and insurgency studies have been dominated by Realist theory in the International Relations literature, Ontological Security Studies (OSS) can provide a unique perspective on the subject. This is because the purpose of terrorism is to instil fear and disrupt everyday life through imposing anxiety, which can be addressed by OSS. This study focuses on the intersection of uprisings and ontological (in)security within the context of the Israeli response to the Palestinian Intifadas of 1987 and 2000, together with examining whether the ideological differences have any significance in foreign policy output in the ontological security crisis by analysing the discourses of the leaders of Israel's two most popular parties, the Labour Party and the Likud, during the period. In that regard, the study challenges the conventional belief that physical power and superiority play a significant role in ensuring security. Additionally, it disputes the idea that there is a fundamental difference between right and left perspectives during the ontological insecurity crises. To achieve it, the research employs narrative analysis, a qualitative research strategy that scrutinises the construction and portrayal of narratives. From a broader perspective, the main objective of the research is to challenge preconceived notions and to offer a fresh perspective, contributing to the broader understanding of the relationship between uprisings, foreign policy and ontological security. The use of narrative analysis to improve the depth and richness of the investigation and provide insights into the complex dynamics of state response and societal perceptions during times of ontological (in)security crises.

US and Israel have special relations resulting US unwavering support to Israel. US was not always the strongest Israel’s ally. But thing changed in 1967 when Israel occupied five territories after the Six Day War. Since then, US unequivocally supported Israel from various reasons. We will examine how US helps Israel in political, economic and military ways. We will examine domestic affairs in the US like Israel lobby, role of evangelists as well as strategic importance of Israel’s position to the Middle East for the US foreign policy. We can emphasize US-Israel relations in four phases: from 1948 to 1967, from Six Day War to the end of Cold War, from the ‘90s to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and finally from withdrawal until now. First phase was characterized providing Israel with financial support keeping them alive. Further, US shifted its foreign policy towards Israel. US was more engaged in preservation of Israel trying to reach agreements between Israel and Arab states. In 1973, Egypt became the first Arab state which reached peace agreement with Israel. Third phase started by signing Oslo agreements and going to solve Palestinian state issue. Camp David summit in 2000 failed to establish Palestinian leading to Sharon’s win in Israel 2002 election. After Bush’s failure to implement his own Roadmap, Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza in 2005. Finally, US supported IDF’s military operations to Gaza trying to eradicate Hamas. So far, it has not happened exposing people to untenable living conditions.