Building: Boyd Orr Floor: 2 Room: LT 2
The world crisis, which comes from antic Greek, is being used in various areas including the foreign policy. Even in foreign policy, one might find a wide variety of definitions on what a crisis is. Charles Hermann accepts the existence of a crisis, if, and only if, it threatens one or more important goals of a state; allows only a short time for decision before the situation is significantly transformed and occurs as a surprise to the policy makers (Hermann 1972, 187). As Hermann notes, not all incidents, defined as foreign policy crises, actually conform to this definition. The multifariousness -or the confusion- in defining a crisis is also being observed in states’ ways of dealing with their foreign policy crises. Scholars such as Brecher and Wilkenfeld (2003), Lehman (2011), George (1991) and Williams (1976) all deal with the question of classifying the crises and the states’ crisis management styles. In this context, this panel aims to reflect the findings of a project, supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), on the analysis of decision-making and crisis management processes in Turkish foreign policy. The papers brought together under this panel are formulated to make various conceptual, theoretical and practical discussions regarding crisis and crisis management as well as decision making in foreign policy. In this respect, the first paper aims to express the benefits of Neo-Classical realism in understanding the roots and routes of the foreign policy crises, while the second paper reflects a detailed model template, developed by the project group, to analyze the foreign policy crises in a much simple way. The rest of the papers, however, act on a practical ground to examine Turkey’s way of dealing with foreign policy crises through detailed case studies of Cyprus, Mavi Marmara and Syria crises.