This article analyzes the Kurdish question in the Middle East from the English School perspective in international relations. The central argument is that the international community consistently deals with the Kurdish question through the principle of order rather than justice. It has respected the sovereignty of those nation-states hosting the Kurds rather than protecting the Kurdish population from grave human rights violations. Consequently, the Kurds have failed to achieve a semblance of autonomy, let alone independence. However, I argue that while the implementation of the no-fly-zone over northern Iraq in 1991 by the international community is a case for justice, it is not necessarily a case against the principle of order. In other words, the international community only dealt with the Kurdish issue using the principle of justice when implementing the 1991 no-fly-zone—but, notably, this was not against the principle of order.
Al-JabbarFaleh Abd. 1992. “Why the Uprisings Failed.” Middle East Report (176): 2–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3012605(accessed November 120, 2021).
2.
BengioOfra. 2017. The Kurds in a Volatile Middle East. Ramat Gan, IL: Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
3.
BlackGeorge. 1993. Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
4.
BruinessenMartin van. 1992. Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London, UK: Zed Books.
5.
BullHedley. 1966. “The Grotian Conception of International Society.” In Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, edited by ButterfieldH.WightM., 51–73. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BullHedley. 2012 [1977]. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London, UK: Red Globe Press.
7.
BullHedleyWatsonAdam. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
8.
BurchillScottLinklaterAndrewDevetakRichardDonnellyJackNardinTerryPatersonMatthewReus-SmitChristianTrueJacqui. 2013. Theories of International Relations. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education.
9.
BuzanBarry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation 95. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CarolSteven. 2019. Understanding the Volatile and Dangerous Middle East: A Comprehensive Analysis. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
11.
DaddowOliver. 2017. International Relations Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12.
DelanHandren. 2007. “The Plight of Kurdish Nationalism: Critical Analysis of the Kurdish National Movement in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria Around the First World War.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/8738(accessed November 12, 2021).
13.
DunneTim. 2010. “The English School.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, edited by Reus-SmitChristianSnidalDuncan, 730–47. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
GeriMaurizio. 2016. “From a History of Exclusion to the Securitization of the Kurdish Issue: A Step of Democratic Regression in Turkey.” Muslim World Journal of Human Rights13 (1): 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/mwjhr-2016-0006.
GunterMichael M. 1993. “A de Facto Kurdish State in Northern Iraq.” Third World Quarterly14 (2): 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599308420326 (accessed November 12, 2021).
18.
HamaHawre Hasan. 2017. “Systematic Oppression of Kurdish Society in Iraq Between 1925 and 2003.” Masher Politics and Culture Journal2 (6): 1–12. https://www.kurdistanc.com/en/details.aspx?jimare=1078(accessed November 12, 2021).
19.
HamaHawre Hasan. 2021. “Kurdish–Iraqi State Conflict (De-) Escalation Following the Independence Referendum.” Digest of Middle East Studies30 (3): 221–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/dome.12240.
20.
HamaHawre HasanAbdullaFarhad Hassan. 2019. “Kurdistan’s Referendum: The Withdrawal of the Kurdish Forces in Kirkuk.” Asian Affairs50 (3): 364–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2019.1636522.
21.
HamaHawre Hasan. 2020a. “Iraqi Kurdistan’s 2017 Independence Referendum: The KDP’s Public and Private Motives.” Asian Affairs51 (1): 109–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2019.1706338.
22.
HamaHawre Hasan. 2020b. “The Securitization and De-Securitization of Kurdish Societal Security in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.” World Affairs183 (4): 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820020962772.
23.
HobsonJohn M.2000. The State and International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
JacksonRobert. 1990. Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JacksonRobert. 2003. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
KadioğluAyse. 2013. “Necessity and the State of Exception. The Turkish Sate’s Permanent War with its Kurdish Citizens.” In Turkey Between Nationalism and Globalization, edited by RivaKastoryano, 142–62. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
28.
KaplanMorgan L. 2019. “Foreign Support, Miscalculation, and Conflict Escalation: Iraqi Kurdish Self-Determination in Perspective.” Ethnopolitics18 (1): 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1525164.
29.
KarakoçJülide. 2020. “Revisiting Multilateralism in the Middle East Between Securitization and Desecuritization of the Kurds.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2020.1737915.
30.
MalanczukPeter. 1991. “The Kurdish Crisis and Allied Intervention in the Aftermath of the Second Gulf War.” European Journal of International Law2 (2): 114–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035787.
31.
McDowallDavid. 2021. A Modern History of the Kurds. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
32.
MearsheimerJohn J.2007. “Structural Realism.” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, edited by DunneTimKurkiMiljaSmithSteve, 77–94. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
MurrayRobert W. 2015. System, Society and the World: Exploring the English School of International Relations. E-International Relations.
RooseveltArchieJr.1947. “The Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.” The Middle East Journal1 (3): 247–69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4321887(accessed November 12, 2021).
TezcürGüneş MuratGursesMehmet. 2017. “Ethnic Exclusion and Mobilization: The Kurdish Conflict in Turkey.” Comparative Politics49 (2): 213–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24886198(accessed November 12, 2021).
VincentR.J.1986. Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
WaltzKenneth N. 2000. “Structural Realism After the Cold War.” International Security25 (1): 5–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626772(accessed November 12, 2021).
43.
WheelerNicholas J.2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
YeğenMesut. 1996. “The Turkish State Discourse and the Exclusion of Kurdish Identity.” Middle Eastern Studies32 (2): 216–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4283801(accessed November 12, 2021).
