@incollection{CalıTurkut, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Turkut, Emre}, title = {Turkey: Pandemic Governance and Executive Aggrandisement}, series = {Routledge Handbook of Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic}, booktitle = {Routledge Handbook of Law and the COVID-19 Pandemic}, publisher = {Routledge}, isbn = {9781032078854}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic not only ravaged human bodies but also had profound and possibly enduring effects on the health of political and legal systems, economies and societies. Almost overnight, governments imposed the severest restrictions in modern times on rights and freedoms, elections, parliaments and courts. Legal and political institutions struggled to adapt, creating a catalyst for democratic decline and catastrophic increases in poverty and inequality. This handbook analyses the global pandemic response through five themes: governance and democracy; human rights; the rule of law; science, public trust and decision making; and states of emergency and exception. Containing 12 thematic commentaries and 25 chapters on countries of diverse size, wealth and experience of COVID-19, it represents the combined effort of more than 50 contributors, including leading scholars and rising voices in the fields of constitutional, international, public health, human rights and comparative law, as well as political science, and science and technology studies. Taking stock after the onset of global emergency, this book provides essential analysis for politicians, policy-makers, jurists, civil society organisations, academics, students and practitioners at both national and international level on the best, and most concerning, practices adopted in response to COVID-19 - and key insights into how states and multilateral institutions should reform, adapt and prepare for future emergencies.}, language = {en} } @article{Turkut, author = {Turkut, Emre}, title = {The Venice Commission and Rule of Law Backsliding in Turkey, Poland and Hungary}, series = {European Convention on Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {2}, journal = {European Convention on Human Rights Law Review}, doi = {10.1163/26663236-bja10028}, pages = {209 -- 240}, abstract = {How did the Council of Europe cope with its member states that engaged in rule of law backsliding? This article analyses the responses of the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's expert body on constitutional matters, to Turkey, Hungary, and Poland as their governments eliminated key checks and balances on their power, curtailed judicial independence, and undermined political pluralism and civil society. It finds that the Venice Commission managed to address a set of particularly vital issues that get to the heart to rule of law backsliding in these countries. Despite the breadth of the Venice Commission's forthright involvement, these case studies display the limitations on the part of other Council of Europe bodies in forming a coordinated approach and response to rule of law backsliding.}, language = {en} } @article{Turkut, author = {Turkut, Emre}, title = {On the Collateral Impact of Turkey's Authoritarian Turn: Re-securitization of the Kurdish Issue and the Kurds' Struggle for Minority Recognition and Self-Determination}, series = {The Commentaries}, volume = {1}, journal = {The Commentaries}, number = {Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021)}, doi = {10.33182/tc.v1i1.2001}, pages = {97 -- 104}, abstract = {Since the collapse of the peace process in 2015, the Turkish Government has sought to turn every move towards Kurdish rights into an existential threat - a process led to the re-securitization of the Kurdish question. Ever since the descent of Turkey into an authoritarian polity has begun in the aftermath of the June 2015 elections, the Kurdish minority has suffered a brutal crackdown marked by high of political imprisonment and greater restrictions on freedom of assembly and association and on electoral aspects of self-determination. This commentary will take a closer look at the dire consequences of the collateral impact of Turkey's authoritarian turn on the Kurdish political movement from the perspectives of minority rights and self-determination.}, language = {en} } @incollection{TurkutPhillips, author = {Turkut, Emre and Phillips, Thomas}, title = {Non-discrimination, minority rights and self-determination : Turkey's post-coup state of emergency and the position of Turkey's Kurds}, series = {Human rights in Turkey : assaults on human dignity}, booktitle = {Human rights in Turkey : assaults on human dignity}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Cham}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-57476-5_5}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {109 -- 129}, abstract = {States of emergency are often declared due to underlying problems of minority group accommodation, and the extraordinary limitation of rights arising from them tends to have a particularly striking effect on such groups. This was true, for instance, with the emergency measures adopted by the British authorities in the context of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. The same appears true in respect of the Turkish state of emergency in the aftermath of the failed military coup of 15 July 2016 vis-{\`a}-vis the position of Turkey's Kurds. In spite of the fact that the declaration of the state of emergency constituted a response to an attempted coup which was, allegedly, orchestrated by the G{\"u}len Movement, it is clear that the resulting derogating measures have also targeted 'other individuals and organizations', mainly those allegedly connected to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), and thus extended to Turkey's Kurdish periphery. This chapter seeks to map the impact of the Turkish post-coup derogation measures on Turkey's Kurds and to test them against the non-discrimination principle, minority rights, and the right of self-determination.}, language = {en} } @article{Turkut, author = {Turkut, Emre}, title = {Emergency Powers, Constitutional (Self-)Restraint and Judicial Politics: the Turkish Constitutional Court During the COVID-19 Pandemic}, series = {Jus Cogens}, volume = {4}, journal = {Jus Cogens}, issn = {2524-3977}, doi = {10.1007/s42439-022-00064-7}, pages = {263 -- 284}, abstract = {This paper investigates the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC)'s treatment of legal challenges brought against Turkey's legal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on a detailed examination of the TCC's institutional features, political origins and jurisprudential trajectory, and taking three politically salient judgments of the TCC concerning Turkey's executive-dominated pandemic control as the point of departure, the paper argues that the TCC chose to exercise judicial restraint both in protecting fundamental rights and reviewing pandemic policies of the executive. It also argues that the TCC's judicial restraint during the pandemic was simply the re-manifestation of its 'play-it-safe' strategy — a judicial stance the TCC willingly adopted in the aftermath of the 2016 attempted coup despite possessing strong constitutional powers of judicial review, and its established attitude of assertive scrutiny in the past. From a more theoretical perspective, the analysis also explores how the passive role to which the TCC is consigned in an increasingly authoritarian regime since the 2016 failed coup relates to the global phenomenon of judicialization of authoritarian politics.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Turkut, author = {Turkut, Emre}, title = {The Turkish Post-Coup Emergency and European Responses: Shortcomings in the European System Revisited}, series = {European Yearbook on Human Rights 2022}, booktitle = {European Yearbook on Human Rights 2022}, editor = {Czech, Philip and Heschl, Lisa and Lukas, Karin and Nowak, Manfred and Oberleitner, Gerd}, publisher = {Intersentia}, isbn = {9781839703447}, doi = {10.1017/9781839703447.016}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {445 -- 482}, abstract = {This contribution takes Turkey's use of the derogation mechanism in the aftermath of the failed military coup of 15 July 2016 as a springboard to critically address the operation and the fallacies of the contemporary European derogation regime. The assessment will reveal whether the European system of human rights protection has succeeded in adopting an adequate and viable approach that can counterbalance the increased leeway accorded to derogating states, and formulate safeguards to mitigate human rights abuses. The contribution concludes by providing a road map proposal for adequate oversight marked by rigorous scrutiny of derogation claims that can be described as a 'consultation and cooperation process'. This process would place the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in a more active and operationally focused position to influence state decisions, to counterbalance the increased leeway accorded to derogating states, and to formulate safeguards to mitigate human rights abuses.}, language = {en} } @incollection{KoeybaşıTurkut, author = {K{\"o}yba{\c{s}}{\i}, Serkan and Turkut, Emre}, title = {Turkey}, series = {The I·CONnect-Clough Center 2019 Global Review of Constitutional Law}, booktitle = {The I·CONnect-Clough Center 2019 Global Review of Constitutional Law}, editor = {Albert, Richard and Landau, David and Faraguna, Pietro and Drugda, Simon}, publisher = {Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy}, isbn = {978-0-692-15916-3}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {358 -- 362}, language = {en} }