Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Dijital Diplomasi: ABD ve İngiltere Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 51 - 68, 30.06.2025

Merve Altuntaş Koç

Öz

Bu araştırmada, dijital diplomasi kavramı Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ve Birleşik Krallık (İngiltere) örnekleri üzerinden incelenilerek, bu yeni diplomasi biçiminin modern uluslararası ilişkilerdeki yeri ve uygulama alanları analiz edilecektir. Dijital diplomasi, devletlerin dış politika hedeflerini gerçekleştirmek ve küresel kitlelerle etkileşim kurmak için bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinden faydalanan bir yöntem olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Çalışmada, dijital diplomasinin benimsenmesine yol açan temel faktörleri, bu alandaki başarıları ve iki ülkenin dijital diplomasi uygulamalarının uluslararası etkisi değerlendirilmektedir. ABD ve İngiltere’nin dijital diplomasi stratejileri, karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. ABD, 11 Eylül terör saldırılarından sonra dijital diplomasiyi daha fazla ön plana çıkarmış, E-Diplomasi Ofisi gibi yapılar oluşturarak ve sosyal medya platformlarını aktif biçimde kullanarak önemli ilerlemeler kaydetmiştir. İngiltere ise dijital diplomasiye stratejik bir biçimde yaklaşmış, özellikle pandemi sürecinde bu araçların kullanımını genişleterek dış politika uygulamalarında etkinliğini artırmıştır. İki ülke, dijital diplomasi araçlarını farklı yöntem ve kapasitelerde kullanmaktadır. ABD’nin yaklaşımı genellikle doğrudan iletişim ve halkla ilişkiler odaklıdır. Buna karşılık, İngiltere dijital araçları diplomatik süreçlere entegre ederek verimlilik ve şeffaflık sağlamayı hedeflemiştir. Her iki ülke de dijital diplomasi ile uluslararası iletişim stratejilerini yeniden şekillendirmiş ve bu alanda yenilikçi yaklaşımlar geliştirmiştir. Dijital diplomasi, geleneksel diplomasi yöntemlerine alternatif bir yöntemden ziyade, bu yöntemleri destekleyici bir araç olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, sürekli değişen teknolojik bağlamda dijital diplomasinin evrimine ışık tutulmakta ve devletlerin bu yeni diplomasi biçimini benimseme süreçleri değerlendirilmektedir. Aynı zamanda, dijital diplomasinin uluslararası ilişkilerde artan etkisine dikkat çekilerek gelecekteki araştırmalara zemin oluşturma hedeflenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital Diplomasi İngiltere Amerikan Birleşik Devletleri E-Diplomasi

Kaynakça

  • Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.
  • Akıllı, E., Güneş, B., & Gökbel, A. (Eds.). (2023). Diplomacy, Society and the COVID-19 Challenge. Routledge.
  • Aldemir, M. T. (2024). Kamu diplomasisinde haber ajanslarının rolü: Karadeniz Tahıl Koridoru Anlaşması haberleri ve Anadolu Ajansı örneği [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi]. https://acikerisim.erbakan.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/84a957ce-60e1-4818-9604-89ac23b88b21/content
  • Andjelković, K., Höne, K., ve Perućica, N. (2021). Digital Foreign Policy: Actors, trends and issues in 2023. Diplo. Digital Foreign Policy. https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/digital-foreign-policy/
  • Arthuis, J., & Farrell, H. (2018). What future for a democratic Europe following Brexit?. The Tocqueville Review, 39(1), 37-48.
  • Baştan, Y., ve Karagül, S. (2021). Diplomasinin Dönüşümü ve Dijital Diplomasi. TroyAcademy, 6(3), 777-803. https://doi.org/10.31454/troyacademy.959312
  • Beck, U. (2014). Risk society. In J.-F. Morin & A. Orsini (Eds.), Essential concepts of global environmental governance. Routledge.
  • Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2006). User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 163-168.
  • Bjola, C. (2015). Introduction: Making sense of digital diplomacy. In C. Bjola &M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
  • Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social Media and Public Diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola &M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy. Routledge
  • Bogdanor, V. (2020). Britain and Europe in a Troubled World. Yale University Press.
  • Böhme, G. (2013). The art of the stage set as a paradigm for an aesthetics of atmospheres. Ambiances. Environnement sensible, architecture et espace urbain. Volume 38, 207- 226
  • Bremmer, I. (2021). The technopolar moment: How digital powers will reshape the global order. Foreign Affairs, 100, 112.
  • Castells, M. (2001). Local And Global: Cities In the Network Society. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography), 93(5).
  • Chiriatti, A. (2023). Virtual Diplomacy as a New Frontier of International Dialogue. In in E. Akıllı, B. Güneş, A. Gökbel (Eds.), Diplomacy, Society and the COVID-19 Challenge (39-46). Routledge.
  • Constantinou, C. M., Sharp, P., ve Kerr, P. (Eds.) (2016). The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy. Routledge.
  • Critchlow, J. (2004). Public Diplomacy during the Cold War: The Record and Its Implications. Journal of Cold War Studies, 6 (1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/152039704772741597
  • Demirtepe, M., & Özertem, H. S. (2013). Yükselen Tehdit Algısı Karşısında Çin’in Yumuşak Güç Siyaseti: Politikalar ve Sınırlılıkları. Bilig Dergisi, Sayı 65, 95-118.
  • Dikmengil, N. (2022). Siber-ulus: dijital egemenlik alanı ve Barbados’ un Metaverse elçiliği. Işık Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Diplomacy, n. Meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/diplomacy_n
  • Dittmer, J., & McConnell, F. (Eds.) (2015). Diplomatic cultures and international politics. Routledge.
  • Eghtesadi, M., ve Florea, A. (2020). Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and TikTok: A proposal for health authorities to integrate popular social media platforms in contingency planning amid a global pandemic outbreak. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 111(3), 389-391. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0
  • Galtung, J., ve Ruge, M. H. (1965). Patterns of Diplomacy: A Study of Recruitment and Career Patterns in Norwegian Diplomacy. Journal of Peace Research, 2(2), 101-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200201
  • Gilboa, E. (2016). Digital diplomacy. In C. M. Constantinou,P. Kerr and P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 540-551). SAGE
  • Gomichon, M. (2013). Joseph Nye on soft power. E-international Relations, 8.
  • Grant, R. (2004). The democratisation of diplomacy: negotiating with the Internet. OlI Research Report. No. 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1325241
  • Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics. 25 (3), 275-296.
  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2006). Globalization and the choice of governing instruments: The direct, indirect, and opportunity effects of internationalization. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 175-194.
  • Huxley, A. (2014). Discovering digital diplomacy: The case of mediatization in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland [Master Thesis, Uppsala Universitet]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:747680/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  • Iran International (2022). Iran to Continue Social Media Ban, Grant Access to Regime Insiders. 26 October. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202210268565.
  • josh, H. (2024). Top 35 Social Media Platforms (June 2024). Exploding Topics. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/top-social-media-platforms
  • Kemp, S. (2018, January 30). Digital in 2018: World’s internet users pass the 4 billion mark. We Are Social UK. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018/
  • Kostecki, M., & Naray, O. (2007). Discussion papers in diplomacy. Commercial Diplomacy and International Business, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.
  • Kotabe, M., & Czinkota, M. R. (1992). State government promotion of manufacturing exports: a gap analysis. Journal of international business studies, 23, 637-658.
  • La Cour, C. (2018). The evolution of the ‘public’in diplomacy. Place branding and public diplomacy, 14(1), 22-35.
  • Leroux, K., ve Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political Advocacy By Nonprofit Organizations: A Strategic Management Explanation. Public Performance and Management Review, 32(4), 514-536. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576320402
  • Lichtenstein, J. (2010). Digital diplomacy. New York Times Magazine, 16(1), 26-29.
  • Marks, S., ve Freeman, C. W. (2024, May 9). Diplomacy | Definition, Meaning, Types, & Examples | Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy
  • Marzano, G. (2020). Crowd-Based Applications and Societal Challenges, JAHR, 11/1, 247-260.
  • Mashiah, I. (2023). Tech-diplomacy: High-tech driven rhetoric to shape national reputation. E-International Relations, 16.
  • Mbang, E. B., ve Urom, C. (2013). Actualizing the Vision of Universal Basic Education (UBE) through Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Nigeria. Journal of Qualitative Education, 9(3). https://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/qualitative%20education/Ekpo3.pdf
  • Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (pp. 3-27). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1
  • Murray, S., Sharp, P., Wiseman, G., Criekemans, D., ve Melissen, J. (2011). The Present and Future of Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies. International Studies Review, 13(4), 709-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01079.x
  • Navari, C. (2021). The International Society Tradition: From Hugo Grotius to Hedley Bull. Springer Nature. 143-160.
  • Nye, J. S. (2021). Soft power: the evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14 (1), 196-208.
  • O'Rourke, S. P. (1994). Cultivating the “higher law” in American jurisprudence: John Quincy Adams, neo‐classical rhetoric, and the Amistad case. Southern Journal of Communication, 60(1), 33-43.
  • Özdemir, G. S., ve Yıldız, A. K. (2024). Bringing Diplomacy to the Digital Age: The Implementation and Impact of Digital Diplomacy in the USA. In E. Akıllı, B. Güneş and O. Güner (Eds.). Digital Diplomacy in the OSCE Region: From Theory to Practice (pp. 113-123). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  • Özlü, Ö., & Alan, G. A. E. (2020). Kamu diplomasisi oluşturulmasında dijital diplomasinin etkisi: Türkiye’de bulunan büyükelçiliklerin Twitter kullanımı (Doctoral dissertation, Erciyes University).
  • Pamment, J. (2016). British public diplomacy and soft power: Diplomatic Influence and the Digital Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Pamment, J. (2018). Towards a new conditionality? The convergence of international development, nation brands and soft power in the British national security strategy. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21, 396-414.
  • Paşinyan: Anlaşma halkımız için acı verici, kararı ordunun ısrarı üzerine aldım. (2020, November 9). BBC News Türkçe. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-54882585
  • Reuters (2012). U.S. “Virtual Embassy” Blocked by Iran Net Censor. 8 December. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-website-idUSTRE7B610E20111208.
  • Robert, J., ve Feilleux, L. (2009). Lynne Rienner Publishers | The Dynamics of Diplomacy. https://www.rienner.com/title/The_Dynamics_of_Diplomacy
  • Roberts, K. (2020). Russophobia in the Obama Era Foreign Policy Discourse (2009-2017). Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 20(3), 476-490.
  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Overview converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (NBIC). In Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 1-27). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Rust, R. T., Kannan, P. K., & Peng, N. (2002). The customer economics of internet privacy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 455-464.
  • Sayın, F. M., & Sayın, B. A. (2013). Old and new diplomacy and the role of communication. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15-30.
  • Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and planning, 38(2), 207-226.
  • Snow, N., & Cull, N. J. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. Routledge.
  • Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. Justice spatiale/Spatial justice, 1(1), 1-5.
  • Şeker, Ş. E. (2014). Aktör Ağ Teorisi (Actor Network Theory). YBS Ansiklopedisi, 1(1), 14-15.
  • TDK. (2024). Diplomasi ne demek TDK Sözlük Anlamı. https://sozluk.gov.tr/?kelime=diplomasi
  • The Times of India (2012). USʼ Embassy for Iranians a Hit. 7 December. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech-news/us-virtual-embassy-for-iranians-a-hit/articleshow/17522467.cms.
  • Tsvetkova, N. A., Sytnik, A. N., ve Grishanina, T. A. (2022). Digital diplomacy and digital international relations: Challenges and new advantages. Current Issues of the Contemporary Internatıonal Relatıons, 15 (2), 174-196.
  • Westcott, N. (2008). Digital diplomacy: The impact of the internet on international relations. Oll Working Paper, No. 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1326476
  • Yücel, G. (2016). Dijital diplomasi. TRT Akademi, 1(2), 748-760.

Digital Diplomacy: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and the United Kingdom

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 51 - 68, 30.06.2025

Merve Altuntaş Koç

Öz

This study examines the concept of digital diplomacy through the cases of the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), analyzing its role and applications in contemporary international relations. Digital diplomacy is defined as a method through which states utilize information and communication technologies to achieve foreign policy objectives and engage with global audiences. The research explores the driving factors behind the adoption of digital diplomacy, highlights key achievements in the field, and evaluates the international impact of the digital diplomacy practices of both countries. The digital diplomacy strategies of the US and the UK are addressed comparatively. The US has prioritized digital diplomacy particularly after the September 11 attacks, making significant advancements through the establishment of entities such as the Office of eDiplomacy and by actively utilizing social media platforms. The UK, on the other hand, has approached digital diplomacy with a strategic perspective, notably expanding the use of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance its foreign policy effectiveness. While both countries employ digital diplomacy tools, they do so with varying methods and capacities. The US model is generally centered on direct communication and public relations, whereas the UK emphasizes integration of digital tools into diplomatic processes to foster efficiency and transparency. Both countries have reshaped their international communication strategies and developed innovative approaches in the field of digital diplomacy. Rather than replacing traditional diplomacy, digital diplomacy emerges as a complementary tool that enhances existing practices. This study sheds light on the evolution of digital diplomacy in an ever-changing technological context and assesses how states adapt to and adopt this emerging form of diplomacy. Furthermore, it emphasizes the growing influence of digital diplomacy in international relations and aims to provide a foundation for future research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital Diplomacy United Kingdom United States eDiplomacy

Kaynakça

  • Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.
  • Akıllı, E., Güneş, B., & Gökbel, A. (Eds.). (2023). Diplomacy, Society and the COVID-19 Challenge. Routledge.
  • Aldemir, M. T. (2024). Kamu diplomasisinde haber ajanslarının rolü: Karadeniz Tahıl Koridoru Anlaşması haberleri ve Anadolu Ajansı örneği [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi]. https://acikerisim.erbakan.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/84a957ce-60e1-4818-9604-89ac23b88b21/content
  • Andjelković, K., Höne, K., ve Perućica, N. (2021). Digital Foreign Policy: Actors, trends and issues in 2023. Diplo. Digital Foreign Policy. https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/digital-foreign-policy/
  • Arthuis, J., & Farrell, H. (2018). What future for a democratic Europe following Brexit?. The Tocqueville Review, 39(1), 37-48.
  • Baştan, Y., ve Karagül, S. (2021). Diplomasinin Dönüşümü ve Dijital Diplomasi. TroyAcademy, 6(3), 777-803. https://doi.org/10.31454/troyacademy.959312
  • Beck, U. (2014). Risk society. In J.-F. Morin & A. Orsini (Eds.), Essential concepts of global environmental governance. Routledge.
  • Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2006). User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 163-168.
  • Bjola, C. (2015). Introduction: Making sense of digital diplomacy. In C. Bjola &M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
  • Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social Media and Public Diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola &M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy. Routledge
  • Bogdanor, V. (2020). Britain and Europe in a Troubled World. Yale University Press.
  • Böhme, G. (2013). The art of the stage set as a paradigm for an aesthetics of atmospheres. Ambiances. Environnement sensible, architecture et espace urbain. Volume 38, 207- 226
  • Bremmer, I. (2021). The technopolar moment: How digital powers will reshape the global order. Foreign Affairs, 100, 112.
  • Castells, M. (2001). Local And Global: Cities In the Network Society. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography), 93(5).
  • Chiriatti, A. (2023). Virtual Diplomacy as a New Frontier of International Dialogue. In in E. Akıllı, B. Güneş, A. Gökbel (Eds.), Diplomacy, Society and the COVID-19 Challenge (39-46). Routledge.
  • Constantinou, C. M., Sharp, P., ve Kerr, P. (Eds.) (2016). The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy. Routledge.
  • Critchlow, J. (2004). Public Diplomacy during the Cold War: The Record and Its Implications. Journal of Cold War Studies, 6 (1), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/152039704772741597
  • Demirtepe, M., & Özertem, H. S. (2013). Yükselen Tehdit Algısı Karşısında Çin’in Yumuşak Güç Siyaseti: Politikalar ve Sınırlılıkları. Bilig Dergisi, Sayı 65, 95-118.
  • Dikmengil, N. (2022). Siber-ulus: dijital egemenlik alanı ve Barbados’ un Metaverse elçiliği. Işık Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Diplomacy, n. Meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://www.oed.com/dictionary/diplomacy_n
  • Dittmer, J., & McConnell, F. (Eds.) (2015). Diplomatic cultures and international politics. Routledge.
  • Eghtesadi, M., ve Florea, A. (2020). Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and TikTok: A proposal for health authorities to integrate popular social media platforms in contingency planning amid a global pandemic outbreak. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 111(3), 389-391. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00343-0
  • Galtung, J., ve Ruge, M. H. (1965). Patterns of Diplomacy: A Study of Recruitment and Career Patterns in Norwegian Diplomacy. Journal of Peace Research, 2(2), 101-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200201
  • Gilboa, E. (2016). Digital diplomacy. In C. M. Constantinou,P. Kerr and P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 540-551). SAGE
  • Gomichon, M. (2013). Joseph Nye on soft power. E-international Relations, 8.
  • Grant, R. (2004). The democratisation of diplomacy: negotiating with the Internet. OlI Research Report. No. 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1325241
  • Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics. 25 (3), 275-296.
  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2006). Globalization and the choice of governing instruments: The direct, indirect, and opportunity effects of internationalization. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 175-194.
  • Huxley, A. (2014). Discovering digital diplomacy: The case of mediatization in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland [Master Thesis, Uppsala Universitet]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:747680/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  • Iran International (2022). Iran to Continue Social Media Ban, Grant Access to Regime Insiders. 26 October. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202210268565.
  • josh, H. (2024). Top 35 Social Media Platforms (June 2024). Exploding Topics. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/top-social-media-platforms
  • Kemp, S. (2018, January 30). Digital in 2018: World’s internet users pass the 4 billion mark. We Are Social UK. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018/
  • Kostecki, M., & Naray, O. (2007). Discussion papers in diplomacy. Commercial Diplomacy and International Business, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.
  • Kotabe, M., & Czinkota, M. R. (1992). State government promotion of manufacturing exports: a gap analysis. Journal of international business studies, 23, 637-658.
  • La Cour, C. (2018). The evolution of the ‘public’in diplomacy. Place branding and public diplomacy, 14(1), 22-35.
  • Leroux, K., ve Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political Advocacy By Nonprofit Organizations: A Strategic Management Explanation. Public Performance and Management Review, 32(4), 514-536. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576320402
  • Lichtenstein, J. (2010). Digital diplomacy. New York Times Magazine, 16(1), 26-29.
  • Marks, S., ve Freeman, C. W. (2024, May 9). Diplomacy | Definition, Meaning, Types, & Examples | Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy
  • Marzano, G. (2020). Crowd-Based Applications and Societal Challenges, JAHR, 11/1, 247-260.
  • Mashiah, I. (2023). Tech-diplomacy: High-tech driven rhetoric to shape national reputation. E-International Relations, 16.
  • Mbang, E. B., ve Urom, C. (2013). Actualizing the Vision of Universal Basic Education (UBE) through Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Nigeria. Journal of Qualitative Education, 9(3). https://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/qualitative%20education/Ekpo3.pdf
  • Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (pp. 3-27). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1
  • Murray, S., Sharp, P., Wiseman, G., Criekemans, D., ve Melissen, J. (2011). The Present and Future of Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies. International Studies Review, 13(4), 709-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01079.x
  • Navari, C. (2021). The International Society Tradition: From Hugo Grotius to Hedley Bull. Springer Nature. 143-160.
  • Nye, J. S. (2021). Soft power: the evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14 (1), 196-208.
  • O'Rourke, S. P. (1994). Cultivating the “higher law” in American jurisprudence: John Quincy Adams, neo‐classical rhetoric, and the Amistad case. Southern Journal of Communication, 60(1), 33-43.
  • Özdemir, G. S., ve Yıldız, A. K. (2024). Bringing Diplomacy to the Digital Age: The Implementation and Impact of Digital Diplomacy in the USA. In E. Akıllı, B. Güneş and O. Güner (Eds.). Digital Diplomacy in the OSCE Region: From Theory to Practice (pp. 113-123). Springer Nature Switzerland.
  • Özlü, Ö., & Alan, G. A. E. (2020). Kamu diplomasisi oluşturulmasında dijital diplomasinin etkisi: Türkiye’de bulunan büyükelçiliklerin Twitter kullanımı (Doctoral dissertation, Erciyes University).
  • Pamment, J. (2016). British public diplomacy and soft power: Diplomatic Influence and the Digital Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Pamment, J. (2018). Towards a new conditionality? The convergence of international development, nation brands and soft power in the British national security strategy. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21, 396-414.
  • Paşinyan: Anlaşma halkımız için acı verici, kararı ordunun ısrarı üzerine aldım. (2020, November 9). BBC News Türkçe. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-54882585
  • Reuters (2012). U.S. “Virtual Embassy” Blocked by Iran Net Censor. 8 December. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-website-idUSTRE7B610E20111208.
  • Robert, J., ve Feilleux, L. (2009). Lynne Rienner Publishers | The Dynamics of Diplomacy. https://www.rienner.com/title/The_Dynamics_of_Diplomacy
  • Roberts, K. (2020). Russophobia in the Obama Era Foreign Policy Discourse (2009-2017). Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 20(3), 476-490.
  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Overview converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (NBIC). In Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 1-27). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Rust, R. T., Kannan, P. K., & Peng, N. (2002). The customer economics of internet privacy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 455-464.
  • Sayın, F. M., & Sayın, B. A. (2013). Old and new diplomacy and the role of communication. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15-30.
  • Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and planning, 38(2), 207-226.
  • Snow, N., & Cull, N. J. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge handbook of public diplomacy. Routledge.
  • Soja, E. (2009). The city and spatial justice. Justice spatiale/Spatial justice, 1(1), 1-5.
  • Şeker, Ş. E. (2014). Aktör Ağ Teorisi (Actor Network Theory). YBS Ansiklopedisi, 1(1), 14-15.
  • TDK. (2024). Diplomasi ne demek TDK Sözlük Anlamı. https://sozluk.gov.tr/?kelime=diplomasi
  • The Times of India (2012). USʼ Embassy for Iranians a Hit. 7 December. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech-news/us-virtual-embassy-for-iranians-a-hit/articleshow/17522467.cms.
  • Tsvetkova, N. A., Sytnik, A. N., ve Grishanina, T. A. (2022). Digital diplomacy and digital international relations: Challenges and new advantages. Current Issues of the Contemporary Internatıonal Relatıons, 15 (2), 174-196.
  • Westcott, N. (2008). Digital diplomacy: The impact of the internet on international relations. Oll Working Paper, No. 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1326476
  • Yücel, G. (2016). Dijital diplomasi. TRT Akademi, 1(2), 748-760.
Toplam 66 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Uluslararası Siyaset
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Merve Altuntaş Koç 0000-0003-1183-7378

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 3 Şubat 2025
Kabul Tarihi 16 Mayıs 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Altuntaş Koç, M. (2025). Dijital Diplomasi: ABD ve İngiltere Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. Adana Alparslan Türkeş Bilim Ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 51-68.
 Kapak Resmi İndir