The Bosnian, Kosovon and Macedonian crises in the framework of European security governance and the Turkish foreign policy

The central aim of this study is to explore how maintenance of European security has achieved after the Cold War. ?Security governance?, in this study, describes the development from the centralized security system of the Cold War era to the increasingly fragmented and complex security structures of today. Security governance comprises three features. First, that those relations take place between a large number of actors. Second, governance involves institutionalisation that relations under governance are ideational in character; they are structured by norms and understandings as much as by formal regulations. Finally, there is purpose to governance. In the cases of the crises in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, the UN, NATO, the EU and the OSCE spontaneously cooperated and coordinated in terms of complementary. This complementary also showed up in accepting the non-members for conducting security governance where necessary. Each organisation attended to accomplish the missions they were expected to do so. In this manner, both material capabilities and ideational roles gave directions to the organisations. Finally, the organisations moved purposefully in the face with security threats emanated from intra-state violence. In the third part of this study Turkey?s statute in European security governance is examined. Turkey is generally included; however, when the EU actively manages the security governance functions Turkey may potentially be excluded due to lack of full-membership of this institution. The validity of a security governance approach lies in its ability to locate some of the distinctive ways in which European security has been coordinated, managed and regulated. What security governance currently lacks, however, is a core ?why? question.