OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between
Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025
6
EMERGING INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: EMERGING POWERS AND REGIONAL
MULTIPOLARITY IN THE CASE OF TURKEY
RAHMAN DAG
rahman.dag@marmara.edu.tr
Middle East Institute, Marmara University (Turkey). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4198-2851
Abstract
This study proposes a new approach to understanding the post-Cold War world order by
examining the changing structure of the international system through the conceptual
framework of regional multipolarity. Drawing on systemic theories in international relations
and the concept of multi-level institutional multipolarity, the article argues that emerging
powers increasingly pursue their national interests through regional rather than global
institutions. The analysis, taking Turkey as an example, shows that emerging powers are
expanding their political, economic, and cultural influence by instrumentalising regional
organisations while maintaining their relations with global institutions. The analysis defines
four fundamental principles of regional multipolarity. Firstly, regional organisations
encompass not only economic but also political, security, and cultural dimensions. Secondly,
emerging powers strengthen their regional autonomy while maintaining their global
membership. Thirdly, they establish and lead regional structures independently of
superpowers, and lastly, they engage in strategic interaction within multiple regional blocs.
The study argues that increasing regional organisations, spearheaded by emerging powers,
signals that the global order is evolving into a multipolar international system based on
regional organisations, defined as “regional multipolarity”.
Keywords
International Systems, Emerging Powers, Regional Multipolarity, Turkey.
Resumo
Este estudo propõe uma nova abordagem para compreender a ordem mundial pós-Guerra
Fria, examinando a estrutura em mudança do sistema internacional através do quadro
conceptual da multipolaridade regional. Baseando-se em teorias sistémicas das relações
internacionais e no conceito de multipolaridade institucional multinível, o artigo argumenta
que as potências emergentes procuram cada vez mais os seus interesses nacionais através
de instituições regionais, em vez de globais. A análise, tomando a Turquia como exemplo,
mostra que as potências emergentes estão a expandir a sua influência política, económica e
cultural, instrumentalizando as organizações regionais, mantendo as suas relações com as
instituições globais. A análise define quatro princípios fundamentais da multipolaridade
regional. Em primeiro lugar, as organizações regionais abrangem não só a dimensão
económica, mas também a política, a segurança e a cultural. Em segundo lugar, as potências
emergentes reforçam a sua autonomia regional, mantendo a sua adesão global. Em terceiro
lugar, estabelecem e lideram estruturas regionais independentemente das superpotências e,
por último, envolvem-se em interações estratégicas dentro de múltiplos blocos regionais. O
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
7
estudo argumenta que o aumento das organizações regionais, lideradas por potências
emergentes, sugere que a ordem global está a evoluir para um sistema internacional
multipolar baseado em organizações regionais, definido como “multipolaridade regional”.
Palavras-chave
Sistemas Internacionais, Potências Emergentes, Multipolaridade Regional, Turquia.
How to cite this article
Dag, Rahman (2025). Emerging International System: Emerging Powers and Regional Multipolarity
in the Case of Turkey. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Thematic Dossier - Emerging
Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations, VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1, December 2025, pp.
6-23. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0525.1
Article submitted on 15th May 2025 and accepted for publication on 14th September
2025.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
8
EMERGING INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: EMERGING POWERS AND
REGIONAL MULTIPOLARITY IN THE CASE OF TURKEY
RAHMAN DAG
Introduction
The systemic approach to international relations is a sort of macro approach to the
discipline. It requires making general assessments of power politics and determining the
particular way foreign policy preferences of all states are shaped, mainly by the level of
power. If there is a pattern, verbally or practically confirmed by all states, especially by
dominant(s) or hegemon(s) or superpower states, then it is possible to make a judgment
that there is an international system in operation. Historical perspective reveals that
several eras have been dominated by certain states or empires claiming control over
world politics (Degterev 2019).
Despite the logistical difficulties, the entire world’s terrain was explored, and political
control over these lands became a battlefield or conflict zone among powerful political
entities. This process evolved together with the colonisation of the lands by the European
great powers. The power disparity between Europe and the rest of the world led to world
politics being discussed in European palaces and parliaments. In nature, the concert of
Europe was a regional orientation of world politics, but it covered every inch of the world.
Given that the colonising process was still underway worldwide and the power politics in
Eastern Europe, a major war among great powers was quite possible. As stated by
Richard Elrod, “Certain constraining and moderating forces operated that compelled or
induced sovereign states to refrain from adventurous and aggressive foreign policies and
from 1815 to 1854, European interstate relations clearly conformed to that pattern. No
wars occurred between the great powers; a large measure of security and stability
characterised the international system” (1976, p. 159). Once an international system is
formed based on the balance of power among embedded great powers, it maintains that
there are formal or informal rules that great powers abide by, and dependent small states
or colonies are kept in line with these rules. For the first multipolar international system,
in which more than two nations had power roughly equal to each other, a conference
system was established that all great powers agreed to use to resolve issues. It meant
that great powers first communicated with each other and decided together whether
there was a conflictual disagreement, so that such an issue did not escalate into a war
(Schenk 1947). Especially experiencing Napoleon’s Wars in the European continent,
“Statesmen who had finally recognised the necessity of cooperation in the last coalition
against Napoleon continued to believe in the advantages of collaboration to maintain the
postwar settlement” (Elrod 1976, p.162).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
9
The core reason behind such an international system could be that none of the great
powers would want to go to war with another great power, which might alter the existing
balance of power in favour of the victorious one. In this sense, a war could trigger a chain
reaction, altering the balance of power and potentially encouraging one of the great
powers to subsume all others one by one if they felt powerful enough and desired to do
so. That was the lesson taken from the Napoleonic Wars and paved the way for
prioritising a diplomatic solution before, or during, a conflict to halt it. Preventing a major
war or maintaining the peace in a certain way of doing international politics has been a
driving force behind the international system. It is because systemic thoughts can
restrain all great or lesser powers from going to war before trying to prevent it. To
achieve this, either to avoid a possible war through coordination or to go to war by
forming an alliance, international institutions or regimes have played a crucial role. In
other words, “…all efforts at international cooperation take place within an institutional
context of some kind, which may or may not facilitate cooperative endeavours. To better
understand cooperation and discord, we need to investigate the sources and nature of
international institutions, as well as how institutional change occurs (Keohane 1988, p.
380). While it may sound strange to trace systemic changes through institutions, new
and successive systems designed in line with the balance of power can often be read in
terms of institutions led by leading states.
Emergence and Formation of International Systems
Since the establishment of the Concert of Europe, several shifts in the balance of power
have led to variations in the international system. Current diplomacy has been shaped
by these experiences and evolved into the formation of permanent international
institutions, rather than occasional diplomatic conferences. In this line, the literature on
the systemic approach and international systems surfaced. Cumulative literature on the
international system or world order has been classified into three main international
systems (Multipolarity, Bi-polarity and Uni-polarity) relying on historical experiences in
world politics (Chirot and Hall 1982; Shannon 2018; Buzan and Little 2000). In the
literature, it is widely acknowledged that the First and Second World Wars are the primary
reasons for systemic change, resulting from dramatic shifts in the balance of power.
While the time period between the two world wars is generally considered to be a
multipolar era, the post-Second World War period until the dissolution of the Soviet
Socialist Republics in 1990 is regarded as a bipolar era. Following the dissolution of the
Soviet Republics, a brief period from the 1990s to the early 21
st
century is viewed as a
unipolar era led by American supremacy, but it never represented a well-established
systemic aspect (Koslowski and Kratochwil 1994). Since then, systemic analysis of
multipolarity has become prevalent in the IR literature, seeking an explanation of the
new international system or world order (Buzan and Little 1994; Knorr and Verba 2019).
In parallel with the history of international systems, the Concert of Europe, a practice of
international conferences among great powers, created an international regime intended
to maintain the balance of power. The continuous multipolarity led by Great Britain in the
post-World War I period was associated with the League of Nations. Once a new balance
of power emerged in the post-WWII period, the United Nations (UN) took the lead among
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
10
nations, under the prominent figures of the US and the Soviets (Balci, 2023),
characterised by bipolarity. The Soviet Union was dissolved, and therefore, there were
no longer two superpowers; the US took the lead as the hegemonic power until its power
status was shaken by subsequent military, political, and economic crises. There was no
newly established international institution symbolising the US hegemony or any other
emerging great power, and that is why a decade-long unipolarity could not survive or
evolve into a well-embedded international system. Since the early years of the 21
st
century, it may be more accurate to include the so-called unipolarity period between
1990 and 2001. During this time, well-established international institutions have been
losing influence, while regional institutions led by emerging powers have been gaining
space in world politics. Whether international (global) or regional, the institutions’
functions are significant in order to “benefit from transaction costs” and “to facilitate the
negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement” (Keohane 1988, p. 387; Martin 1992, p. 789),
allowing states to maintain their national interests. In this sense, the loss of influence
and effectiveness of international (global) institutions, as well as the increasing
effectiveness of regional institutions, has been a significant part of international system
studies (Neuvonen, 2019, p. 230).
This study intersects with the literature on global governance and its ongoing debates,
arguing that rising global powers pursue their interests through regional
institutionalisation rather than through their own institutions (Tüfekçi and Dag 2022).
This paper is an initial part of a larger academic effort to explain the emerging
international system. As claimed by Barry Buzan, right after the end of bipolarity, “a
multipolar centre will be more complex and more fluid, and may well allow for the
development of militarily hesitant great powers (Buzan 1991, p. 435). Many studies
argue that an emerging international system and even a form of multipolarity are
developing. However, as current world politics do not fully align with this multipolarity,
the international relations literature seeks to determine the type of multipolarity we are
currently experiencing. Some started to seek to grasp a new kind of multipolarity in 2001
when 9/11 occurred, since it was the first time the USA was hit in its own land after
WWII. Others began to think about a new version of multipolarity right after the 2008
economic crisis, which had a significant global impact. However, the core point leading
to the search for understanding the new international system seems to be the dissolution
of the USSR, as Buzan perfectly substitutes his argument as follows;
“At the same time, the shift from two superpowers to several great powers
should mean both a reduction in the intensity of global political concerns and
a reduction in the resources available for sustained intervention. This, in turn,
points to the rise of regional politics. Because the great powers are spread
across several regions and do not include a dominating ideological or power
rivalry within their ranks, they will project their own conflicts into the
periphery much less forcefully and systematically than under the zero-sum
regime of the Cold War. Because regions are less constrained by the impact
of their conflicts on the global scorecard of two rival superpowers, local
rivalries and antagonisms will probably have more autonomy. Local great
powers such as India, China, and perhaps Brazil should also find their regional
influence increased” (Buzan 1991, p. 435).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
11
Additionally, universal membership based on multilateralism, such as the UN, IMF, WHO
and WB, were discussed through the prism of realism and neoliberalism due to the great
powers’ instinctive desire to follow national interests and “the apparent inefficiencies of
such a cumbersome system of rule creation and governance”, respectively (Kahler 1992,
p. 682). Kahler, even from an economic perspective, suggested that “both minilateral
great power” collaboration within multilateral institutions (to reduce the barriers to
cooperation raised by large numbers) and bilateral and regional derogations from
multilateralism (as the great powers exerted their bargaining power). Given that
economic regionalism had already begun by the last decade of the Cold War (Taylor
1993; Hurrell 1995), IR academics had just experienced the dissolution of the Soviets,
and the number of great powers in the early 1990s was relatively low, his insightful
criticism of universal-level multilateralism or international (global) institutions is quite
significant. Current emerging powers may not become fully-fledged great powers, but
the establishment of regional organizations
1
that they lead might indicate a path towards
what Kahler called “regional derogations from multilateralism”.
In this regard, Dag (2026) proposes a new concept of “multi-level institutional
multipolarity,” arguing that all international systems have their own specific institutions
to substantiate certain relations among states. That might be, from a realist perspective,
formed according to a hierarchy, based on military, economic, political, and normative
capabilities (Acharya 2005) —that is, power. His main argument is that the power
disparity between middle (emerging) powers that have levelled up from being lesser
powers and great powers that have levelled down from being superpowers has been
closing, leading to an increase in the number of regional institutions focusing on specific
issues. In this perspective, he suggests emerging great powers do not see international
(global) institutions as a platform where they can protect their national interests best,
and so they prefer to work with neighbouring states to solve the issues within a regional
circle by establishing multilateral and bilateral agreements, which is systematically called
“multi-level institutional multipolarity” (Dag 2026). This paper can be considered a case
study of his theoretical contribution to international systems studies.
In the currently growing multipolarity discussions, emerging powers play a vital role.
Distinct from bipolarity and unipolarity, they are not entirely dependent on superpowers.
In other words, they do not just bandwagon superpowers in international politics,
especially in regional conflicts that have great influence (Balci 2019). They have gradually
realised that their best interests may differ slightly or significantly from those of others.
In these cases, how they act determines their emerging power status. The initial point of
this conditionality can be found in the Balkan Wars, in which European states expected
the US to intervene and resolve the conflict, but the US initially showed little inclination
to do so. In this, European great powers’ perceptions of possible dissemination of conflict
in Europe were not received by the US at the same level and as a threat to its national
interest, especially in terms of economic, political, and military costs. This case may mark
1
Before a regional organization is established, some argue that a regional community or identity commonality
at regional level is required. It is a valid and common argument in the IR literature but the context of the paper
refrain to delve into this discussion as it requires much more space than a paper. For more details, please see,
(Clark 1966; Neuvonen 2019). Additionally, it might not be possible to have a commonly accepted definition of
what regional organization is and what makes them different from international (global) organization. Piero
Pennetta provides a comprehensive elaboration on these questions (Pennetta 2015).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
12
the initial shift in status and power of emerging powers, and subsequently, international
politics will witness more examples from the early 1990s to the present. The list can be
extended with others but no space for extensive analysis in this paper, such as Russia’s
resentments on NATO’s enlargement policy toward eastern Europe, Latin American
states’ eagerness for economic and political independence from the US, South Asian
states’ efforts to look for alternative regional economic structure, individually opposing
states against “global war on terror”, regional great powers’ involvement on regional
issues as they want to be more effective role in their imminent regionality and also
international politics, the most recently diplomatic frustration against Israel’s genocide
in Gaza (Dag 2025) and so on.
In general, the more economic, political and military power they get, the more emerging
powers go away from the footsteps of superpower(s) (alternatively dominant or
hegemonic powers). Instead, they seek to draw a new path that they see as more
appropriate to their national interests. Taking their own national interests at the core,
emerging powers have been seeking platforms where they can apply or at least have
their voice and preferences heard. Unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral agreements are
possible options for individuals to participate in an issue that interests them. What is
meant by “multi-level institutional multipolarity” actually corresponds with all these ways,
and emerging powers have been employing and trying to institutionalise them. In this
paper, not multi-level agreements but regional institutions, as a multilateral action, will
be considered as a case study of a new conceptualisation, the “regional multipolarity”.
Instrumentalising regional organisations by emerging (regional) powers
The concept of regionalisation as a subsystem is not a new idea. It has been discussed
in the literature since the late 1990s to analyse new economic regional organisations
following the end of bipolarity (Thompson 1973; Buzan and Wæver 2003; Katzenstein
2005; Goertz and Powers 2014; Özdemir 2015; Levaggi 2019). What makes it different
from the previous conceptualisation is that this is not just about economic integration at
the regional level but can be extended to every realm of international politics (Stewart-
Ingersoll and Frazier 2012, p. 4-6). As another distinctive feature of this
conceptualisation endeavour, in its regionalisation of world politics, each emerging power
attempts to become a leading power in a regional organisation while also maintaining
relations with other regional organisations. This feature is not just valid for the leading
state but also for the rest of the regional Organisation. In other words, all leading states
in regional organisations and member states continue to be full members of international
(global) organisations. Their commitments to them might be getting loose, but emerging
powers do not cut their full membership status in these international (global)
organisations. In general, emerging powers that become leading powers in a regional
organisation instrumentalise regional and international organisations to protect their
national interests. In this way, international (global) organisations will lose their
effectiveness in international politics. However, they will still address the needs of
emerging powers to raise their voice against dominant or hegemonic powers.
Thirdly, theoretically, in the regional multipolar system as a new international system,
there is no direct involvement of previous superpowers. Even currently hegemonic or
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
13
great powers seek to extend their sphere of influence through regional organisations, as
they have been acting as leading powers within them. The Shanghai Cooperation
Organization led by China, US’ membership in the Latin American regional organizations
and Russia’s initiative to form regional organizations with newly independent states from
the Soviet Union, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS, in 1991),
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO, in 2002) and Eurasian Economic
Community in 2015 (Tüfekçi and Aksu 2024). The fourth and final principle in regional
multipolarity concerns the interaction between emerging powers and other regional
organisations led by emerging powers. This type of interaction keeps emerging powers
connected and cooperating when the issue requires more international support.
To prove the applicability of this new conceptualisation, regional multipolarity and
regional organisations led by emerging powers should be individually considered, at least
some of which have been mostly regarded as emerging powers, such as Brazil, South
Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey (Godehardt and Nabers 2011). There is no
space to cover all of them and explore the regional organisations they initiated, as well
as how to act in regional and international (global) organisations. In this paper, this new
conceptualisation will be verified in the case of Turkey, which, as the case study of this
paper, has been mainly evaluated as a middle power or regional power. Since it does not
fully follow the footsteps of the foreign policies of super or great powers in regional and
global issues, it might be because there are no more superpowers in world politics that
other states could entirely depend on, or most of the states are no longer lesser powers
and want to prioritise their own national interests (Garzón Pereira 2014). In either of
these, Turkey has pursued an active foreign policy since the early 21
st
century, becoming
involved in regional and global issues through bilateral relations, the establishment of
regional organisations, and engagement with other regional organisations.
The Case of Turkey
The emerging powers, along with membership in international (global) organisations,
take the initiative to form a regional organisation with which they share similar interests
on a specific issue. Thanks to that, they can interact with various international and
regional actors and issues. To solidify the main argument of the paper, it is beneficial to
examine the organisations with which Turkey is affiliated, including full member,
observer, participant, and founding member status. It can be generalised for all emerging
powers, specifically for Turkey, when the power balance and political strains of the Cold
War disappeared from world politics. Most emerging powers then found a political vacuum
in which they could make manoeuvres. It meant they no longer needed a security
guarantee from one superpower against another. In this case, most of them focused on
their economic, political, and military development by enriching their interactions with
others. To do that, they have been addressing the issues that they could not raise under
bipolar world politics. This paper seeks to demonstrate these initiatives by forming
regional organisations for better communication, reducing transaction costs, addressing
previously untouched foreign issues, and fostering ideational/normative commonality
through regulations and transformations (Acharya 2005, p. 97), without the direct
involvement of previously superpowers.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
14
It is pretty difficult to instantly break all inherited embedded relations with the super or
great powers, but in an enduring process, gradual independence from those inherited
economic, military, and political relations seems to make it possible for emerging powers
in an alternative platform (regional organisations) cooperating with adjacent neighbour
states. “Such regional (emerging) powers possess the opportunity to pursue their own
national interests in an effective manner with neighbouring states, due to their advantage
in relative power” (Stewart-Ingersoll and Frazier 2012, p. 6). Here is a chronologically
listed list of international (global) and regional organisations with which Turkey has been
affiliated. The status of membership in these organisations is quite indicative of emerging
powers, in this case, Turkey, in terms of taking the initiative to address regional issues
or regional interactions. The list is compiled from the website of the Foreign Ministry of
Turkey, which provides detailed information on the context of the organisations and
Turkey’s status within them (International Organisations / Republic of Türkiye Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, n.d.). Several multilateral agreements might also be included in the list,
but the list provided on the official website is limited to those that adequately offer a
number of regional and international organisations to examine the main argument of the
paper.
Providing brief information on the various statuses would be more explanatory in terms
of Turkey’s positions in the regional organisations listed above. Founding member status
mostly means being among the states that drive the main doctrine behind the
establishment of a regional organisation. It also means a full membership status, but
leading one in terms of normative, military or economic dynamics (Destradi 2008, p. 21).
In this context, it refers to full rights and obligations under the Organisation’s founding
treaty or charter. This status grants the state the authority to participate in the
Organisation’s decision-making processes, to vote, to be represented, and to be subject
to the Organisation’s obligations. Full members have the power to shape the
Organisation’s agenda, but they are also subject to normative pressures within the
Organisation (Abbott and Snidal, 1998).
On the other hand, associate membership allows states or regions to participate in the
Organisation’s activities to a limited extent; they typically do not have voting rights but
may attend meetings as observers. In this type of membership, Turkey may not have
the full right to vote or participate in the decision-making process. Still, this status
certainly makes Turkey involved in regional and international issues within the context
of that regional Organisation.
Observer Status is a form of membership that grants states or international organisations
the right to attend the Organisation’s meetings and obtain information, but does not
grant them the right to participate in the decision-making processes. This status strikes
a balance between political recognition and avoiding legal obligations (Kerwin, 1981). In
international relations, observer status typically indicates that a country seeks to develop
closer ties with the Organisation or supports its principles, and is often considered a
preliminary step towards full membership (Claude 1966). Partnership or dialogue status
enables states to collaborate with an international or regional organisation at a thematic
level. Such relationships are typically conducted in specific areas such as security,
economy, environment, or technology. Unlike membership, this status offers flexibility
and voluntary participation to the parties involved. For example, NATO’s Partnership for
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
15
Peace program or ASEAN’s Dialogue Partner mechanism enable strategic cooperation
without the obligations of full membership (Schimmelfennig 2003).
Regarding the first principle of “regional multipolarity”, since the end of the bipolarity
(Cold War), given the regional organisations’ characteristics in Table 2, they do not
solemnly depend on economic development, but continental, geographic, and ethnic
commonality played a crucial role in the core idea of establishing a regional organisation.
As an emerging power, Turkey has led the establishment of diplomatic relations to create
the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), aiming to define the borders of exclusive
economic zones in the Black Sea, which has both geographic and economic origins
(Bayram and Tüfekçi 2018). It formed TÜRKSOY to enhance economic, political, and
cultural cooperation among Turkic states, which subsequently led to the establishment
of the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS). This sort of de-centralization of Western
orientation has also attracted the attention of academics in the case of Turkey (Öniş
2010; Kutlay and Öniş 2021).
In terms of the second principle of regional multipolarity, these tables, especially the first
one, clearly indicate that Turkey, as one of the emerging powers, does not cut its
relations or halt its membership status in international (global) organisations while
seeking to establish a regional organisation that Turkey leads and encourages. In this
regard, there are no international (global) organisations that Turkey has withdrawn from.
Even with a prolonged relationship with the EU, which is literally a regional organisation
despite its global influence, Turkey has not ceased its applications to the EU (Öniş 2010).
On the contrary, if not a founding member, Turkey has gradually become a full member
of international organisations after the Second World War. The first feature of the newly
conceptualised international system, in Regional Multipolarity, is that emerging powers,
in this case, Turkey, do not substitute regional organisations with international ones.
Even if they believe that international (global) organisations do not serve their best
national interests, it is essential to remain part of the international community by
maintaining full membership (Dag 2026).
Table 1. The Organisations of which Turkey is a Full Member
Organisation (Full
Name)
Start
Date
Turkey’s
Membership
Status
Full
Members
Notes
United Nations (UN)
1945
Full Member
193 states
Universal
organization
International Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development (World
Bank - IBRD)
1947
Full Member
189 states
Global
development
International Monetary
Fund (IMF)
1947
Full Member
190 states
Financial
cooperation
Council of Europe (CoE)
1949
Full Member
46 states
Human rights
North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO)
1952
Full Member
32 states
Military
alliance
International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)
1957
Full Member
178 states
Nuclear
energy
oversight
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
16
Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA)
1957
Full Member
34 states
Nuclear safety
& policy
World Food Programme
(WFP)
1961
Full Member
120+
states
UN food
assistance
Organisation for
Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD)
1961
Full Member
38 states
Developed
economies
Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC)
1969
Full Member
57 states
Islamic
countries
Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE)
1975
Full Member
57 states
Security
cooperation
International Fund for
Agricultural Development
(IFAD)
1977
Full Member
177 states
UN
agricultural
agency
International Centre for
Agricultural Research in
the Dry Areas (ICARDA) /
CGIAR
1977
Full Member
Global
Agricultural
research
Economic Cooperation
Organisation (ECO)
1985
Full Member
10 states
Central Asia &
Middle East
Australia Group
1985
Full Member
43 states
Chemical and
biological
export
controls
Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR)
1987
Full Member
35 states
Missile export
controls
European Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD)
1991
Full Member
73 states
Development
finance
Black Sea Economic
Cooperation (BSEC)
1992
Full Member
13 states
Black Sea
region
World Customs
Organisation (WCO)
1992
Full Member
184
members
Customs
cooperation
International
Organisation of Turkic
Culture (TÜRKSOY)
1993
Full Member
14 states
Turkic
cultural
cooperation
Wassenaar Arrangement
1994
Full Member
42 states
Arms export
controls
World Trade Organisation
(WTO)
1995
Full Member
164 states
Trade
organization
Developing Eight
Organisations for Econ.
Cooperation (D-8)
1997
Full Member
8 states
Muslim eco.
cooperation
Group of Twenty (G-20)
1999
Full Member
20
members
Major
economies
Black Sea Naval
Cooperation Task
Group (BLACKSEAFOR)
2001
Full Member
6 states
Black Sea
naval
Conference on
Interaction and
Confidence-Building
Measures in Asia (CICA)
2002
Full Member
28 states
Asian security
dialogue
Asia Cooperation
Dialogue (ACD)
2002
Full Member
35 states
Asia-wide
cooperation
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
17
Union for the
Mediterranean (UfM)
2008
Full Member
43 states
Euro-Mediter.
region
Organisation of Turkic
States (OTS)
2009
Full Member
6 states
Turkic world
International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA)
2009
Full Member
169 states
Renewable
energy
The Standards and
Metrology Institute for
Islamic Countries (SMIIC)
2010
Full Member
37 states
Islamic
standards
MIKTA (Mexico,
Indonesia, South Korea,
Turkey, Australia)
2013
Full Member
5
members
Middle powers
group
Table 2. The Organisations of which Turkey is an Observer / Dialogue Partner /
Participant Member
Organisation (Full
Name)
Turkey’s
Member
Status
Status
Grante
d Year
Start
Date
Full
Member
s
Leading
State
Notes
Organisation of
American States (OAS)
Observer
1998
1948
35 states
United
States
Americas
South Asian Association
for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC)
Dialogue
Partner
2012
1985
8 states
India
South
Asia
Southern Common
Market (MERCOSUR)
Dialogue
Partner
2010
1991
4 full
members
Brazil
South
America
South-East European
Cooperation Process
(SEECP)
Participant
1996
1996
11 states
Romania
/ Bulgaria
Southeast
Europe
Regional Arms Control
Verification and
Implementation
Assistance Centre
(RACVIAC)
Participant
2000
2000
16 states
Croatia
Arms
control in
Southeast
Europe
Association of
Caribbean States (ACS)
Observer
2000
2000
35 states
Cuba /
Mexico
Caribbean
basin
European Union (EU)
Candidate
1999
1993
27 states
Germany
/France
European
States
African Union (AU)
Observer
2005
2002
55 states
Nigeria /
South
Africa
African
continent
League of Arab States
(Arab League)
Turkish-
Arab
Cooperatio
n Forum
2008
1945
22 states
Egypt
Arab
world
Regional Cooperation
Council (RCC)
Participant
2008
2008
10 states
European
Union
Southeast
Europe
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC)
Strategic
Dialogue
2008
2008
6 States
Saudi
Arabia
Gulf Arab
states
Community of Latin
American and
Caribbean States
(CELAC)
Participant
2013
2011
33 states
Brazil /
Mexico
Latin
America
Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO)
Dialogue
Partner
2012
1996
9 states
China /
Russia
Eurasian
security &
economy
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
18
Association of
Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN)
Sectoral
Dialogue
Partner
2017
1967
10 states
Indonesia
Southeast
Asia
Table 3. The Organisations of which Turkey is a Signatory / Associate / Other Status Member
Organisation (Full
Name)
Status
Turkey’s
Membership
Status
Leading State
Notes
Western European
Union (WEU)
Associate
Member
(defunct)
Signatory /
Associate / Other
Status
France / United
Kingdom
1992–2011
Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty Organisation
(CTBTO)
Signatory
Signatory /
Associate / Other
Status
United States
Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty
International Criminal
Court (ICC)
Signatory
no-ratified
Signatory /
The Netherlands
International
Court
Thirdly, the tables above indicate that Turkey has initiated several regional organisations
with specific commonality, whether driven by national interests or national identities. It
might not have been possible to begin a regional organisation with the Soviet Union
under the political, economic, systemic conditions before the 1990s, but it has been
possible after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and then Turkey launched diplomatic
relations to deal with a fair share of maritime issues with all the states that have shore
in the Black Sea, including Russia. Again, in association with the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, Turkey sought to engage with post-Soviet Eurasian politics through ethnic
commonalities in Central Asia. Leading an organisation with newly independent Turkic
states clearly demonstrates the regionalisation of world politics in Turkish foreign policy.
In terms of new conceptualization of international system in world politics, Regional
Multipolarity, refraining from direct involvement of superpower (US) as in the times of
bi-polarity and also interacting with the states which were under rival superpower (Soviet
Union) provide clues on basic features of the “Regional Multipolarity”, that is, self-
initiated regional politics origins from its national interest rather than being a part of
superpower’s agents in a region. In practice, the early years of the International
Organisation of Turkic Culture (TÜRKSOY) did not yield positive results due to the
resistance of Turkic states, but in the long term, they paved the way for the establishment
of the Organisation of Turkic States (OTS). As a founding member and leading power,
Turkey has been successful in agenda setting, bolstering Turkic identity among members
and initiating economic, political, cultural, and even military projects as part of OTS’s
members.
The fourth characteristic of a regional multipolarity system is a balance in interaction
between leading states and other regional or international organisations. In this case,
Table 2 suggests that, as an emerging power, Turkey applied for and was granted a
status in most of the regional organisations. Turkey’s status in these regional
organisations, from Sectoral Dialogue Partner to Observer, enables it to strategically
observe regional dynamics and position itself accordingly at both the regional and
international levels of politics. In addition, high-level participation in these regional
organisations also creates official platforms that allow Turkey to clarify its position on
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
19
specific issues among member states and offer potential political and economic
contributions. In this regard, despite initiating a foreign policy orientation discussion
(Öniş and Kutlay 2017), Turkey has always been a significant player in world politics,
from Latin America to Southeast Asia, and, even as an observer, is able to discern
regional developments and their international (global) implications.
In recent years, Turkey’s instrumentalisation of regional institutions has become
increasingly visible through its leadership initiatives, agenda-setting capabilities, and
examples of institutional entrepreneurship. For instance, within the Organisation of Turkic
States (OTS), Turkey has moved beyond cultural solidarity to develop concrete economic
and security cooperation. The Turkish Investment Fund, established under Ankara’s
diplomatic leadership in 2023, demonstrates Turkey’s use of OTS as a strategic platform
to promote regional financial integration and infrastructure investments. Similarly, during
its term as president of the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC),
Turkey aligned its energy and transportation agendas with the Middle Corridor and
Zangezur Corridor projects, thereby successfully integrating its national priorities into the
regional policy framework (Tüfekçi, Bayrak, and Uslu 2024). These examples
demonstrate that Turkey utilises regional organisations not only as platforms for
cooperation but also as tools for transforming its national interests into collective regional
policies.
In addition, Turkey’s diverse participation patterns, ranging from full membership to
dialogue partnership (e.g., founding/leading roles in organisations such as the BSEC and
D-8; and observer or dialogue partner status in structures such as ASEAN, MERCOSUR,
and the SCO), demonstrate a versatile and flexible foreign policy approach. Furthermore,
Turkey’s hosting of high-level events such as the 2021 Istanbul Turkic Council Summit
and the 2023 Ankara MIKTA Ministerial Meeting positions it not only as an active
participant but also as a norm-setting and policy-making regional actor. These trends
demonstrate that Turkey does not passively participate in regional institutions; rather, it
strategically utilises them to consolidate its position as a central actor within the
multipolar order.
Conclusion
While Barry Buzan sought a theoretical integration between structural realism and
international society, he emphasised that “…international societies, like international
systems, will emerge initially within regional subsystems and only later develop at the
level of the international system as a whole” (Öniş 2009). It was the time of post-
bipolarity and referred to the evolution of international society into an international
system from regional origins to global extent. By the end of the first quarter of the 21st
century, it is highly likely that a regionally oriented bloc, interacting and competing with
each other, will emerge as one of the great powers or great power candidates (emerging
powers) that dominates international politics.
This paper is a humble intellectual effort to introduce a new conceptualisation in
international system studies, arguing that current international world politics can be
defined as regional multipolarity. Previous systemic studies at the regional level have
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
20
mostly conceptualised this phenomenon under the subsystem conceptualisation, but this
paper elevates the regional orientation of world politics to the global level. Given that
global rivalry between the US and China currently occupies the focus, this paper proposes
an alternative conceptualisation through the emerging powers’ struggle to integrate their
own foreign and regional policies into world system studies. They neither bandwagon
super nor great powers nor bow their head to international pressure. Instead, they seek
to enforce their regional economic, security, political and military visions to be accepted
by the other powers, whether super, great or hegemonic powers.
In summary, the paper argued that there are four main principles of regional
multipolarity. First, Turkey, as an emerging power, has regional organisations that
extend beyond economic development to encompass political interests, security
provision, and cultural and ethnic identity. Secondly, they, including Turkey, continue to
collaborate with the embedded international organisations but do not refrain from
establishing a regional organisation that serves their national interests. Thirdly, there is
no need for emerging powers to be encouraged or supported by a superpower or
hegemonic power to initiate a regional organisation. Lastly, emerging powers, such as
Turkey, not only focus on the regional organisations they initiate but also participate in
almost all regional organisations by obtaining official status in other regional
organisations.
Within the context of the paper, it might sound as if there are no more
super/hegemonic/great powers in world politics, but it does not suggest that. It indicates
that the number of emerging powers increases, and that leads to the formation of
regional organisations led by emerging powers, which would drive a new international
system in world politics. To support this argument, there should be more extensive case
studies focusing on other emerging powers. That is for sure. Only in this way can the
four principles of regional multipolarity and their conceptualisation be tested. This paper,
as mentioned earlier, is a preliminary step to an extended examination of regional
multipolarity.
References
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 1998. ‘Why States Act through Formal
International Organisations’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(1): 3–32.
doi:10.1177/0022002798042001001.
Acharya, Amitav. 2005. ‘Do Norms and Identity Matter? Community and Power in
Southeast Asia’s Regional Order’. The Pacific Review 18(1): 95–118.
doi:10.1080/09512740500047199.
Balci, Ali. 2019. ‘A Three-Level Analysis of Turkey’s Crisis with the U.S.-Led Order’.
Insight Turkey 21(4): 13–24.
Balci, Ali. 2023. ‘Do Gladiators Fight for Their Masters? Voting Behaviour of the US-
Promoted United Nations Security Council Members in the Early Cold War’. PS: Political
Science & Politics 56(1): 36–41. doi:10.1017/S1049096522001019.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
21
Bayram, Duygu Çağla, and Özgür Tüfekçi. 2018. ‘Turkey’s Black Sea Vision and Its
Dynamics’. Karadeniz Arastırmaları 15(57): 1–16. doi:10.12787/KARAM1272.
Buzan, Barry. 1991. ‘New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First Century’.
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 67(3): 431–51.
doi:10.2307/2621945.
Buzan, Barry. 1993. ‘From International System to International Society: Structural
Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’. International Organisation 47(3):
327–52.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 1994. ‘The Idea of “International System”: Theory Meets
History’. International Political Science Review 15(3): 231–55.
doi:10.1177/019251219401500302.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2000. International Systems in World History: Remaking
the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511491252.
Chirot, Daniel, and Thomas D. Hall. 1982. ‘World-System Theory’. Annual Review of
Sociology 8: 81–106.
Clark, W. Hartley. 1966. ‘The Problem of Membership in International Organisation’. (2).
Claude, Inis L. 1966. ‘Collective Legitimisation as a Political Function of the United
Nations’. International Organisation 20(3): 367–79.
Dag, Rahman. 2025. ‘Uluslararası Sistem Değişikliği ve İsrail-Gazze Savaşı Görünümü’.
Nous Academy Journal 2025(4): 75–87. doi:10.5281/zenodo.15210377.
Dag, Rahman. 2026. ‘Security Provision of International Systems: International (Global)
and Regional Institutions’. In Palgrave Handbook on International Security:
Legitimisation and Post-Modernity.
Degterev, Denis Andreevich. 2019. ‘Multipolar World Order: Old Myths and New
Realities’. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations 19(3): 404–19. doi:10.22363/2313-
0660-2019-19-3-404-419.
Destradi, Sandra. 2008. ‘Empire, Hegemony, and Leadership: Developing a Research
Framework for the Study of Regional Powers’. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.1143902.
Elrod, Richard B. 1976. ‘The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System’.
World Politics 28(2): 159–74.
Garzón Pereira, Jorge F. 2014. ‘Hierarchical Regional Orders: An Analytical Framework’.
Journal of Policy Modelling 36: S26–46. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.10.007.
Godehardt, Nadine, and Dirk Nabers, eds. 2011. Regional Powers and Regional Orders.
London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203815984.
Goertz, Gary, and Kathy Powers. 2014. Regional Governance: The Evolution of a New
Institutional Form. Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
22
Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. ‘Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics’.
Review of International Studies 21(4): 331–58. doi:10.1017/S0260210500117954.
‘International Organisations / Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs’.
https://www.mfa.gov.tr/sub.en.mfa?7cafe2ef-78bd-4d88-b326-3916451364f3 (October
14, 2025).
Kahler, Miles. 1992. ‘Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers’. International
Organisation 46(3): 681–708.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2005. A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American
Imperium. Cornell University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvrf8bbc
(October 19, 2025).
Keohane, Robert O. 1988. ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’. International
Studies Quarterly 32(4): 379–96. doi:10.2307/2600589.
Knorr, Klaus Eugen, and Sidney Verba. 2019. International System: Theoretical Essays.
Princeton University Press.
Koslowski, Rey, and Friedrich V. Kratochwil. 1994. ‘Understanding Change in
International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System’.
International Organisation 48(2): 215–47. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028174.
Kutlay, Mustafa, and Ziya Öniş. 2021. ‘Turkish Foreign Policy in a Post-Western Order:
Strategic Autonomy or New Forms of Dependence?’ International Affairs 97(4): 1085–
1104. doi:10.1093/ia/iiab094.
Levaggi, Ariel Gonzalez. 2019. Confrontational and Cooperative Regional Orders:
Managing Regional Security in World Politics. London: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429198199.
Martin, Lisa L. 1992. ‘Interests, Power, and Multilateralism’. International Organisation
46(4): 765–92.
Neuvonen, Päivi Johanna. 2019. ‘Transforming Membership? Citizenship, Identity and the
Problem of Belonging in Regional Integration Organisations. European Journal of
International Law 30(1): 229–55. doi:10.1093/ejil/chz007.
Öniş, Ziya. 2009. The New Wave of Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey. Danish Institute
for International Studies.
Öniş, Ziya. 2010. ‘Contesting for Turkey’s Political “Centre”: Domestic Politics, Identity
Conflicts and the Controversy over EU Membership’. Journal of Contemporary European
Studies 18(3): 361–76. doi:10.1080/14782804.2010.507919.
Öniş, Ziya, and Mustafa Kutlay. 2017. ‘The Dynamics of Emerging Middle-Power Influence
in Regional and Global Governance: The Paradoxical Case of Turkey’. Australian Journal
of International Affairs 71(2): 164–83. doi:10.1080/10357718.2016.1183586.
Özdemir, Haluk. 2015. ‘An Inter-Subsystemic Approach in International Relations’. All
Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 4(1): 5–5.
doi:10.20991/allazimuth.167329.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1
Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations
December 2025, pp. 6-23
Emerging International System: Emerging Powers
and Regional Multipolarity in the Case of Turkey
Rahman Dag
23
Pennetta, Piero. 2015. ‘International Regional Organisations: Problems and Issues’. In
Evolutions in the Law of International Organisations, Brill, 70–115.
doi:10.1163/9789004290198_005.
Schenk, Hans Georg. 1947. The Aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars: The Concert of
Europe, an Experiment. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282269977829376 (May 26, 2025).
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2003. ‘Strategic Action in A Community Environment: The
Decision to Enlarge the European Union to the East’. Comparative Political Studies 36(1–
2): 156–83. doi:10.1177/0010414002239375.
Shannon, Thomas R. 2018. An Introduction to the World-System Perspective: Second
Edition. 2nd edn New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429494154.
Stewart-Ingersoll, Robert, and Derrick Frazier. 2012. Regional Powers and Security
Orders: A Theoretical Framework. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203804995.
Taylor, Paul Graham. 1993. International Organisation in the Modern World: The Regional
and the Global Process. Pinter.
Thompson, William R. 1973. ‘The Regional Subsystem: A Conceptual Explication and a
Propositional Inventory’. International Studies Quarterly 17(1): 89–117.
doi:10.2307/3013464.
Tüfekçi, Ozgur, and Zehra Aksu. 2024. ‘Energy Regionalism in Theory and Practice: The
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
27(3): 29–57. doi:10.5782/2223-2621.2024.27.3.29.
Tüfekçi, Özgür, Muharrem Bayrak, and Hakan Uslu. 2024. ‘Connectivity and Corridors:
Türkiye’s Middle Corridor Vision through International Trade’. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of
International Affairs 29(2): 120–47.
Tüfekçi, Ozgur, and Rahman Dag. 2022. ‘Whither Global Governance? An Approach to
World Politics’. In Trends and Transformations in World Politics, London: Bloomsbury,
137–50. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/trends-and-transformations-in-world-
politics-9781793650245/ (October 22, 2025).