Geographies and borders have become often-debated concepts, especially in the view of the increasing impact of globalization and regional integration processes. In such cases, borders are attributed certain imagined meanings and more so, they are associated with feelings. Considering such dynamics, EU-Turkey relations can be considered a good example of how borders, emotions and spatial dimensions interact. However, not much attention has been given to the emotional facets of spatial relations. By utilizing the concept of “hot places”, this study tries to fill this void. We separate EU-Turkey relations into three phases: the Cold War, post-Cold War, and the peak of migration politics, driven by the Syrian Civil War. We argue that there is a specific hot place for each of these periods: Kreuzberg, Berlin for the period between 1959 and 1989, Cyprus for the post-Cold War period, and the Syrian conflict for the last period. Thus, this paper aims at suggesting a novel approach to the study of emotions, spatiality, and EU-Turkey relations.

The International Relations (IR) discipline is ascendant because of the theoretical and methodological divisions and controversies within. As it is mostly placed in the Non-Western IR category, Turkish IR is an interesting case in that it reveals the temporal changes of theoretical debates in IR and their local resonance from the purview of a geography that is jammed between the West and the rest. For this reason, this paper examines the literature on the Turkish School of IR (if there is any) and draws some conclusions regarding its current state. This research first utilizes the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys conducted by the International Relations Council of Turkey (IRCT) between 2007 and 2018. More extensively, the top 20 journals categorized under Google Scholar’s “Diplomacy and International Relations” list are coded based on their titles containing “Turkey.” Articles from the 1922–2021 period are then analyzed considering their authors, abstracts, and keywords. From this analysis, the study finds that studies focusing on Turkey have improved over the years, although there is a need for more theoretical and methodological advancements. As a “peripheral” country in IR, Turkey is still a subject of study by the “center” countries.

No abstract