@article{Kurban, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {Confronting Equality: The need for constitutional protection of minorities on Turkey's path to the European Union}, series = {Columbia Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {35}, journal = {Columbia Human Rights Law Review}, number = {1}, publisher = {Columbia Law School}, address = {New York}, issn = {0090-7944}, pages = {151 -- 223}, abstract = {The article analyzes the historical development of Turkey's minority policy, its constitutional scheme, and the substance and implementation of reforms as they relate to the protection of minorities. Focusing on the reforms adopted in 2002 with the explicit purpose of granting linguistic rights to the Kurdish minority and expanding the property rights of non-Muslim minorities, the article argues that the constitutional and legislative reforms and their implementation are far from guaranteeing the constitutional protection of minorities required by the EU and committed to by the Turkish Government. Instead, it claims, they constitute much belated —if still welcome— steps toward granting some fundamental rights to members of some minority groups that leave much more to be done to achieve respect and protection for all minorities.}, language = {en} } @article{Kurban, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {Unravelling a Trade-Off: Reconciling Minority Rights and Full Citizenship in Turkey}, series = {European Yearbook of Minority Issues}, volume = {4}, journal = {European Yearbook of Minority Issues}, number = {1}, publisher = {Brill}, address = {Leiden/Boston}, issn = {2211-6117}, doi = {10.1163/22116117-90000016}, pages = {341 -- 371}, abstract = {With Turkey's recognition as an official candidate for accession to the EU, the rhetoric of minority rights has become a part of the national discourse. Various ethnic and religious groups started to raise their voice in demanding not only individual rights, but also the constitutional recognition of their distinct identities through the effective granting of minority rights. At the same time, they vehemently opposed being 'branded' as minorities. What may seem to be a counter-intuitive reaction at first glance is explicable and indeed expected in light of the unique historical context of Turkey, where official minority status has been exclusively granted to non-Muslim citizens who are by and large perceived by both state and society as lesser citizens whose loyalty to the nation is untrustworthy. Aware of this social reality, and not having been immune to the widespread social prejudices against non-Muslim minorities, the unrecognized minorities rejected minority status arguing instead that they were among the 'founding peoples.The paradoxical situation in which various minorities demand cultural recognition and what are essentially minority rights while at the same time vehemently rejecting the 'minority tag' begs for the question: how should Turkey's minority question be resolved without consolidating the existing social pillarizations within society? To address that question, this article advocates the development of a new constitutional citizenship model universally encompassing all minorities rather than the creation of new minority regimes granting special protection to specific groups.}, language = {en} } @article{Kurban, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {Shattered Hopes: When the European Court of Human Rights Shuts its Doors to the Kurdish Displaced}, series = {Perspectives on Europe}, volume = {44}, journal = {Perspectives on Europe}, number = {1}, editor = {Klumbyte, Neringa}, publisher = {Council for European Studies}, address = {Barcelona/New York}, issn = {0046-2802}, pages = {24 -- 30}, abstract = {Perhaps no other ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has so deeply disappointed the Kurdish human rights victims and rejoiced the Turkish government at the same time, as did an inadmissibility decision issued in January 2006. In İ{\c{c}}yer v. Turkey, the Court rejected as "manifestly ill-founded" the complaint by a Kurdish peasant who in 1994 had forcibly been evicted by security forces from his village. What made this decision particularly devastating for the displaced and joyous for the government was the fact that the ECtHR rejected the application of not only Mr. İ{\c{c}}yer, but also of 1,500 others whose petitions had been pending before the Court.This article traces the evolution of the ECtHR's jurisprudence on Kurdish displacement cases and argues that the Council of Europe's enlargement as well as Turkey's EU accession process has had an adverse effect on the victims' quest for justice in Strasbourg.}, language = {en} } @article{Kurban, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {Forsaking Individual Justice: The Implications of the ECtHR's Pilot Judgment Procedure for Victims of Gross and Systematic Violations}, series = {Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {16}, journal = {Human Rights Law Review}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Journals}, issn = {1461-7781}, pages = {731 -- 769}, abstract = {The Council of Europe's enlargement rendered reforming the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) inevitable. The post-1998 reforms aimed at transforming the ECtHR into a quasi- constitutional court and enhancing its efficiency. This article is concerned with one such reform, 'the pilot judgment mechanism', and contests the desirability of its application to gross and systematic violations. The article discusses why, contrary to opposing claims, the ECtHR's judgment in Doğan and Others v Turkey concerning the forced eviction of Kurdish civilians by the Turkish military is a pilot judgment. It then shows why this matters, based on the Court's İ{\c{c}}yer decision which found a compensation law the Turkish government adopted in response to Doğan and Others to be an effective domestic remedy and rejected 800-1,500 pending cases. Based on empirical research on the implementation of this law, the article argues that in applying the pilot judgment to the Kurdish cases, the ECtHR reduced the notion of 'effective remedy' to compensation, overlooking the victims' demands for truth and justice, and enabled Turkey to continue to commit gross violations with impunity. It concludes that while pilot-judgments might be effective in handling repetitive cases arising from systemic legal problems in post-communist contexts, they should not be applied to conflict or post-conflict cases where the underlying problems are deeply-rooted ethno-political disputes.}, language = {en} } @article{Kurban2016, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {In dealing with Turkey's Erdogan, the EU betrays its core values}, series = {Hertie School Research Blog}, journal = {Hertie School Research Blog}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-20535}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Turkey's president Erdogan allows Kurdish villages to be razed and ousts opposition members of Parliament, while the EU turns a blind eye, compromising its core values.}, language = {en} } @article{Kurban, author = {Kurban, Dilek}, title = {The EU has a choice - suspend Turkey's accession process}, series = {Hertie School Research Blog}, journal = {Hertie School Research Blog}, abstract = {As post-coup purges erode democracy, the EU must take a stand, Dilek Kurban says in an interview.}, language = {en} }