Europe as an agent of change: the role of the European Court of Human Rights and the EU in Turkey's Kurdish policies

Notwithstanding the ongoing negotiations between the PKK and the government, the crux of Turkey’s Kurdish issue remains the structural inequalities against the Kurds, which are deeply rooted in an anti-democratic politico-legal regime. Certainly, Turkey has come a long way in acknowledging the Kurdish issue and taking steps to address the Kurds’ demands for equality and the rule of law. Once banned from speaking their language, Kurds can now use it to attain a university education. The Kurdish region is no longer governed by a state of emergency, nor are Kurdish civilians disappearing under detention. There is no doubt that the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union have played an indispensable role in this transition. However, European institutions’ engagement in the Kurdish issue has not always been coherent, while their impact on Turkey’s policies has been limited, and at times negative, particularly in the post-9/11 context. Their uncritical oversight has facilitated Turkey’s reluctance to undertake structural reforms to bring an end to the selective prosecution of Kurdish politicians, the criminalisation of non-violent advocacy of enhanced rights for the Kurds, the armament of civilians in the Kurdish region and the impunity of state officials who commit human rights violations. Recent developments in Turkey have shown, once again, that a genuine democratic transition will only be possible with the coherent, continuous and critical engagement of European institutions in the Kurdish issue

Rethinking Enmeshment and the Rule of Law in Authoritarian Contexts

Scholars frequently cite Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rule among the leading examples of populism and authoritarianism in contemporary politics. Long an authoritarian regime, Turkey has in indeed evolved into a full-blown autocratic regime engaged in serious human rights violations and systemic rule of law violations. What makes this case particularly striking, however, is that this backsliding has occurred under the watch of European institutions. Claiming that the Turkish case speaks to broader issues concerning the ways in which transnational human rights and rule of law organizations interact with authoritarian regimes, this article puts forth theoretical insights for the rule of law scholarship. Going beyond conventional analyses which characterize interactions between international institutions and nation states as one-way relationships where norms flow (or not) from the top-down, it looks into the “enmeshment” of domestic and international law in authoritarian settings described in the introductory article of this special issue. Doing so, however, the article does not solely ask whether and how human rights norms are applied in authoritarian contexts, but also looks into how international organizations tasked with upholding the rule of law can not only permit illiberal states to violate those norms, but also themselves undermine these principles. Conceptually, the article illustrates that the rule of law-rule by law spectrum fails to account for authoritarian contexts, where states go beyond rule by law to engage in legal repression and resort to lawlessness towards certain (racialized) segments of the population. Thus, it argues, if the rule of law is at one end of the analytical spectrum on the arbitrary exercise of power, what lies at the other end is lawless rule, not rule by law, and the dual state lies somewhere in between. Empirically, the article analyzes Turkey’s decades-long relationship with the European Union and in particular the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It zooms in on the latter’s case law concerning Erdoğan’s resort to the law to consolidate his power (rule by law) and utter disregard of legal rules, including domestic ones, in repressing democratic dissent and engaging in state violence (lawlessness). Methodologically, to display and contest conventional scholarship’s depiction of the ECtHR as a supranational court exercising strict scrutiny of authoritarian regimes, the article goes beyond judgments, which constitute a mere 9 percent of jurisprudence, and takes a close look at inadmissibility decisions and strike-out rulings concerning Turkey’s resort to rule by law and lawlessness

Kein Fahrplan für den Frieden: Erdogans Demokratiepaket enttäuscht kurdische Erwartungen

Viele hatten weitaus mehr von dem »Demokratiepaket« erwartet, das der türkische Premierminister Recep Tayyip Erdogan am 30. September angekündigt hatte. Schließlich wurde es fast ein Jahr nach Aufnahme der informellen Friedensgespräche beschlossen, die die Regierung mit Abdullah Öcalan führt, dem inhaftierten Führer der Arbeiterpartei Kurdistans (PKK). Doch anstelle von Reformen zur Lösung der Kurdenfrage stellte Erdogan lediglich allgemeine Maßnahmen in Aussicht, die dazu dienen sollen, türkische Gesetze mit dem Acquis der Europäischen Union (EU) zu harmonisieren. Mit der formalen Öffnung von Kapitel 22 im Rahmen der Verhandlungen über den Beitritt der Türkei zur EU ist auch die europäische Politik gefordert, Einfluss auf den Friedensprozess zu nehmen. Denn dieses Kapitel betrifft die Regionalpolitik, die eng mit der Frage der Dezentralisierung zusammenhängt. (Autorenreferat

Country report : Non-Discrimination Turkey

The report, drafted for European Equality Law Network (the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination), is part of a study into measures to combat discrimination in the EU Member States and candidate countries, funded by the European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. The report provides an overview of Turkey's implementation of the EU anti-discrimination Directives up to 31 December 2015 and follows up on earlier reports drafted by the author for the same project