The process of 'othering' is not a concern only of foreigners, but also of citizens with an immigrant background, being a label that is passed down from generation to generation. This chapter will look at the perceived discrimination, alienation, and feelings of 'othering' among second-generation Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, involving an analysis of family reunification measures and how they are applied. To this end, the impact of the legal context on the lives of second-generation Turks is assessed not only through legal research, but also ethnographic field research. It can be concluded that the outcomes of the Dutch family reunification measures undertaken in the name of integration are in direct contravention with the stated intention. Rather than their legal situation, it is the administrative and legal hurdles that immigrants must overcome that alienate them and feed their feelings of exclusion and increase the distance between them and the native Dutch, just when they think they are getting closer.

Stuck between politics of ethnic nationalism and multiple responsibilities under international legal regimes, Bulgaria has introduced a laissez-passer integration model for refugees which is in stark contrast with integration policies in Western Europe, but ironically achieves similar results of 'othering' and exclusion. The reception of asylum-seekers and refugees has been similar in other Central and Eastern Europen countries, if not more problematic. This paper looks at the reasons for the preference for such an approach and claims that ethnic nationalism is still alive, albeit well disguised. Engaging with theories of 'othering' and 'otherness' from a historico-legal perspective, it aims to illustrate that, despite insurmountable differences between East and West, the increased mixed migratory flows of 2015 onwards have paradoxically contributed to more cohesion in response to migration and integration on a European level.

The chapter looks at categorisations as a form of ‘othering’ in the context of European refugee resettlement. Selection categories in resettlement provide insights into states’ preferences, when given the possibility to effectively select refugees before they present themselves at the border. As such, categorisations in such programmes are ways of 'othering' within the group of ‘others’, excluding but also including according to three logics: humanitarian, security, and assimilability. The chapter provides a panoramic view of official selection categories of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), European Member States, and the European Union (EU). The analysis shows that, while resettlement is framed as a humanitarian policy for the ‘most vulnerable’, some European states’ programmes and recent EU propositions indicate that besides a humanitarian logic, security and assimilability logics of ‘othering’ also draw the boundaries of access to this privileged form of refugee protection.

Summarising the book's main research findings, Chapter 7 argues that while part of the explanation for the persistence of human rights problems in Turkey lies in endogenous political and social factors, the ECtHR's effectiveness has also been impeded by the ECHR system itself in two distinct ways. First, the ECtHR did not make full use of its review powers in overseeing Turkey. Second, Council of Europe members failed to resort to available sanctioning mechanisms due to Turkey's geostrategic importance. Kurdish legal mobilisation has been adversely affected by these endogenous and exogenous factors, as well as Kurdish lawyers’ failure to develop a collaborative litigation practice and tendency to favour professional politics over legal work. The chapter concludes with reflections on the book's research findings for academic scholarship and the ECtHR practice. Arguing that the effectiveness of supranational courts can best be measured on the basis of their actual impact on authoritarian regimes, the chapter concludes with a call for the revision of existing theories on the basis of empirical research on the ECtHR's engagement in countries such as Turkey, Russia, Poland and Hungary.

From the late 1980s until the early 2000s, the Turkish state engaged in a systematic policy in the Kurdish region to criminalise non-violent resistance and intimidate the local population it viewed as the PKK’s support base. Claiming legality from an emergency regime put in place in the name of counterterrorism, the government encouraged, enabled and rewarded its official and unofficial agents to engage in atrocities against an entire population it considered unworthy of constitutional protection. The impunity regime shielding government agents against accountability was sustained by judicial complicity, leaving Kurdish civilians legally naked vis-à-vis state violence. This chapter maps the acts, actors and victims of state violence in the Kurdish region. In an effort to put names and stories to statistics, it provides detailed factual accounts of four ECtHR cases corresponding to each of the four types of gross violations laid out earlier– extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and forced displacement. Concluding the background part of the book, the chapter lays the ground for the subsequent empirical chapters.

Until the ECtHR entered the picture, Turkey’s legal landscape lacked the basic ingredients for access to justice. Justiciable rights were subject to significant restrictions, the judiciary was unreceptive to rights claims, and civil society was weak and disorganised. Without funding, rights-advocacy organisations or pro bono legal assistance, human rights victims lacked access to a support structure. Once Turkey recognised the ECtHR’s oversight, Kurdish lawyers mobilised owing to their historically embedded rights consciousness, relatively high level of organisation and resistance experience, and the sheer scale and density of state violence. They became the top litigant group in Strasbourg in terms of the number of petitions they filed and the precedent-setting judgements they won. Based on in-depth interviews, this chapter accounts how Kurdish lawyers have mobilised the ECtHR to resist state violence in an emergency context. It shows the complex ways in which Turkey’s recognition of the right of individual petition and efforts to accede to the EU, and the ECtHR’s post-enlargement reforms have affected and been affected by Kurdish legal mobilisation since the early 1990s.