Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:05:56.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Logics of Supranational Human Rights Litigation, Official Acknowledgment, and Human Rights Reform: The Southeast Turkey Cases before the European Court of Human Rights, 1996–2006

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Başak Çalı
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the domestic impact of supranational human rights litigation on acknowledgment of state violence in the context of macroprocesses of global governance. The article's argument is that the impact of supranational human rights litigation on the process of acknowledgment must be seen through counternarratives on state violence. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of the truth claims and denial strategies that emerged from the European Court of Human Rights proceedings on state violence during Turkey's struggle against the armed group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It assesses these in the context of the human rights reforms that were created following pressure from European‐level governance processes. The article argues that attention must be paid to agency in acknowledgment and truth‐telling processes, and points to the limits of technical‐bureaucratic forms of human rights reform interventions in the context of state violence.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 311 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Akvahan, Payam. 2005. The Lord's Resistance Army Case: Uganda's Submission of the First State Referral to the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law 99:403–21.Google Scholar
Ayata, Bilgin, and Yükseker, Deniz. 2005. A Belated Awakening: National and International Responses to the Internal Displacement of Kurds in Turkey. New Perspectives on Turkey 32:5–42.Google Scholar
Bell, Christine, and Keenan, Johanna. 2005. Lost on the Way Home? The Right to Life in Northern Ireland. Journal of Law and Society 32 (1): 68–89.Google Scholar
Boyle, Kevin, Hampson, Francoise, and Reidy, Aisling. 1997. Gross Violations of Human Rights: Invoking the ECHR in the Case of Turkey. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 15 (2): 161–73.Google Scholar
Çalı, Başak. 2004. Bargaining Transnationalism: The European Court of Human Rights. Finnish Yearbook of International Law 15:111–28.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 1995. Accountability, Lustration, and the Policing of the Past. Law & Social Inquiry 20 (1): 7–50.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 2002. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Committee of Ministers. 2008. Committee of Ministers First Annual Report 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 1999. Annexe à la Résolution DH (99) 434 Informations fournies par le Gouvernement de la Turquie lors de l'examen par le Comité des Ministres des mesures d'exécution qui concernent les activités des forces de sécurité en Turquie [Action of the security forces in Turkey measures of a general character Cases of Akdıvar and others, Aksoy, Çetin, Aydin, Mentes and others, Kaya, Yilmaz and others, Selçuk and Asker, Kurt, Tekin, Güleç, Ergi, Yasa against Turkey]. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=454443&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75 (accessed October 23, 2009).Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2002. Appendix 1 to Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 Information provided by the Government of Turkey to the Committee of Ministers on the additional general measures to comply with the European Court's judgments (adopted since Interim Resolution DH(99)434). https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=IntResDH(2002)98&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75 (accessed October 23, 2009).Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2005. Appendix I to Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 Information provided by the Government of Turkey to the Committee of Ministers on the additional general measures to comply with the European Court's judgments (adopted since Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1344121 (accessed November 7, 2009).Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2007. Actions of Security Forces in Turkey: Progress Achieved and Outstanding Issues. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Inf/DH(2006)24&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=rev2&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75 (accessed October 21, 2009).Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2008. Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008) 69 on the Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Actions of Security Forces in Turkey: Progress achieved and outstanding issues. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1344121 (accessed November 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Cowan, Jane. 2006. Culture and Rights after Culture and Rights. American Anthropologist, 108 (1): 9–24.Google Scholar
Cowan, Jane. 2007. The Supervised State. Identities 14 (5): 545–78.Google Scholar
Cumhuriyet. 1994. Çiller PKK'yı Helikopterlendirdi (Çiller Claims that the PKK Has Helicopters), Cumhuriyet, October 28, 5.Google Scholar
Dembour, Marie‐Benedicte, and Kelly, Tobias, eds. 2007. Paths to International Justice: Social and Legal Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ensalaco, Mark. 1994. Truth Commissions for Chile and El Salvador: A Report and Assessment. Human Rights Quarterly 16:656–75.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2003. Regular Report on Turkey's Progress towards Accession. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/rr_tk_final_en.pdf (accessed November 7, 2009).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2004. Regular Report on Turkey's Progress towards Accession. Brussels, October 10. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2004/rr_tr_2004_en.pdf (accessed November 7, 2009).Google Scholar
Feldman, Gregory. 2005. Culture, State and Security in Europe: The Case of Citizenship and Integration Policy in Estonia. American Ethnologist 32 (4): 676–94.Google Scholar
Goodale, Mark, and Merry, Sally. 2007. The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gündüz, Aslan. 2001. Human Rights and Turkey's Future in Europe. Orbis 45:15–30.Google Scholar
Gültekingil, Murat, and Bora, Tanıl. 2001. Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düşünce Cilt 1: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet'in Birikimi [Political Thought in Turkey Volume I: The Legacy of Tanzimat and Meşrutiyet]. Istanbul: İletişim.Google Scholar
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis. A. Coser . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kurban, Dilek, Yükseker, Deniz, Çelik, Ayşe Betül, and Aker, A. Tamer. 2007. Coming to Terms with Forced Migration: Post‐Displacement Restitution of Citizenship Rights in Turkey. Istanbul: TESEV.Google Scholar
Laplante, Lisa. 2007. Entwined Paths to Justice: The Inter‐American Human Rights System and the Peruvian Truth Commission. In Paths to International Justice: Social and Legal Perspectives, ed. Dembour, Marie‐Benedicte and Kelly, Tobias, 216–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larner, Wendy, and Walters, William. 2004. Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Macklem, Patrick. 2005. Rybna 9: Praha 1: Restitution and Memory in International Human Rights Law. European Journal of International Law 16 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2007. From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Human Rights Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Intersection of International and National Law and Politics. Law & Social Inquiry 32 (1): 137–59.Google Scholar
Mamdani, Mahmood. 1996. Reconciliation without Justice. South African Review of Books 46:3–6.Google Scholar
Ni Aolain, Fiona. 2002. Truth Telling: Accountability and the Right to Life in Northern Ireland. European Human Rights Law Review 5:572–90.Google Scholar
Ni Aolain, Fiona, and Campbell, Colm. 2005. The Paradox of Transition in Conflicted Democracies. Human Rights Quarterly 27:172–213.Google Scholar
Orientlicher, Diane. 1991. Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime. Yale Law Journal 100 (8): 1537–2615.Google Scholar
Orientlicher, Diane. 2007. “Settling Accounts” Revisited: Reconciling Global Norms with Local Agency. International Journal of Transitional Justice 1:10–22.Google Scholar
Özerdem, Alpaslan, and Jacoby, Tim. 2007. Conflict Induced Internal Displacement. In Human Rights in Turkey, ed. Kabasakal Arat, Zehra F., 159–69. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Panizza, Francesco. 1995. Human Rights in the Process of Transition and Consolidation of Democracy in Latin America. Political Studies 43:68–188.Google Scholar
Rotberg, Robert, and Thompson, Dennis. 2000. Truth v. Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Santos, Cecilia McDowell. 2007. Transnational Legal Activism and the State: Reflections on Cases against Brazil in the Inter‐American Commission on Human Rights. Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 7:29–59.Google Scholar
Schirmer, Jennifer. 1999. The Guatemalan Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Skyes, Gresham, and Matza, David. 1957. Techniques of Neutralization. American Sociological Review 22:664–70.Google Scholar
Teitel, Ruti. G. 2002. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsitselikis, Konstantinos. 2008. Minority Mobilisation in Greece and Litigation in Strasbourg. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 15:27–28.Google Scholar
Turkmen, Fusun. 2007. Turkey's Participation in Global and Regional Human Rights Regimes In Human Rights in Turkey, ed. Kabasakal Arat, Zehra F., 249–61. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Turkish Social Studies Foundation. 2005. Türkiye'de Ülke İçinde Yerinden Edilme Sorunu: Tespitler Ve Çözüm Önerileri [Report on the Problem of Internal Displacement in Turkey]. http://www.tesev.org.tr/UD_OBJS/PDF/DEMP/TESEV_UYE_Grubu_Raporu.pdf (accessed October 26, 2009).Google Scholar
Wilson, Richard. 2001. The Politics of Truth and Reconciliation in South America: Legitimizing the Post‐Apartheid State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Richard. 2007. Is the Legalisation of Human Rights Really the Problem? Genocide in the Guatemalan Clarification Commission. In The Legalization of Human Rights: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Human Rights and Human Rights Law, ed. Meckled‐Garcia, Saladin and Çalı, Basak, 81–98. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Acar v. Turkey (26307/95), judgment of April 8, 2004.Google Scholar
Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey (23954/94), judgment of May 31, 2001.Google Scholar
Akdıvar and Others v. Turkey (21893/93), judgment of September 16, 1996.Google Scholar
Aksoy v. Turkey (21987/93), judgment of December 18, 1996.Google Scholar
Bilgin v. Turkey (25659/94), judgment of July 17, 2001.Google Scholar
Çakıcı v. Turkey (23657/94), judgment of July 8, 1999.Google Scholar
Canan v. Turkey (39436/98), judgment of June 26, 2007.Google Scholar
Çiçek v. Turkey (25704/94), judgment of February 27, 2001.Google Scholar
Doğan v. Turkey (8803–8811/02, 8813/02, 8815–8819/02), judgment of June 29, 2004.Google Scholar
Dulaş v. Turkey (25801/94), judgment of January 30, 2001.Google Scholar
Ertak v. Turkey (20764/92), judgment of May 9, 2000.Google Scholar
Güleç v. Turkey (21593/93), judgment of July 27, 1998.Google Scholar
Içyer v. Turkey (18888/02), inadmissibility decision of February 9, 2006.Google Scholar
İpek v. Turkey (25760/94), judgment of February 17, 2004.Google Scholar
Kaya v. Turkey (22729/93), judgment of February 2, 1998.Google Scholar
Kurt v. Turkey (24276/94), judgment of May 25, 1998.Google Scholar
Menteş and Others v. Turkey (00023186/94), judgment of November 28, 1997.Google Scholar
Orhan v. Turkey (25656/94), judgment of June 18, 2002.Google Scholar
Özkan and Others v. Turkey (21689/93), judgment of April 6, 2004.Google Scholar
Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (23184/94), judgment of April 24, 1998.Google Scholar
Tanış and Others v. Turkey (65899/01), judgment of April 10, 2001.Google Scholar
Tanrıkulu v. Turkey (23763/94), judgment of July 8, 1999.Google Scholar
Timurtaş v. Turkey (23531/94), judgment of June 13, 2000.Google Scholar
Üçak v. Turkey (75527/01), judgment of April 27, 2007.Google Scholar
Yöyler v. Turkey (26973/95), judgment of July 23, 2003.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), entry into force on September 3, 1953. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG (accessed November 7, 2009).Google Scholar
Law No. 4778 regarding Amendments to Various Laws, entry into force on January 11, 2003. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k4778.html (text in Turkish, accessed March 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Law No. 5233 on Compensation of Losses Resulting from Terrorism and from Measures Taken against Terrorism, entry into force on July 7, 2004. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k5233.html (text in Turkish, accessed November 7, 2009).Google Scholar