@misc{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {International Law for International Relations}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780199558421}, pages = {XXX, 431 S.}, language = {en} } @misc{CalıMeckledGarcia, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Meckled-Garc{\´i}a, Saladin}, title = {The Legalisation of Human Rights}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-0415361231}, pages = {X, 208}, language = {en} } @article{CalıGhaneaJones, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Ghanea, Nazila and Jones, Benjamin}, title = {Big Promises, Small Gains: Domestic Effects of Human Rights Treaty Ratification in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council}, series = {Human Rights Quarterly}, volume = {38}, journal = {Human Rights Quarterly}, number = {1}, issn = {1085-794X}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2016.0017}, pages = {21 -- 57}, abstract = {In recent years, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been in-creasingly willing to ratify United Nations human rights instruments. This article examines the underlying rationales for these ratifications and the limited range and drivers of subsequent domestic reforms post ratification. Drawing on both a quantitative analysis of engagement with the UN treaty bodies and Charter-based mechanisms in over 120 UN reports and qualitative interviews with over sixty-five government officials, members of civil society, National Human Rights Institutions, lawyers, and judges from all six states, this article argues that in the GCC states, UN human rights treaty ratification results from a desire to increase standing in the international community. Treaty ratification has limited effects driven by international socialization and cautious leadership preferences.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {Comparing the support of the EU and the US to international human rights law qua international human rights law: Worlds too far apart?}, series = {International Journal of Constitutional Law}, volume = {13}, journal = {International Journal of Constitutional Law}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, issn = {1474-2659}, doi = {10.1093/icon/mov058}, pages = {901 -- 922}, abstract = {Support for international human rights law (IHRL) is one area where most international lawyers would have a hunch that the European Union fares better than the United States overall. In this article I focus on Pollack's dependent variable, "support" for international law, and its four dimensions: leadership, commitment, compliance, and internalization and investigate this hunch. I find that the conventional contrast between the US and the EU with regard to their support for IHRL is valid, with respect to political support for IHRL, but less so for judicial support. I argue that the marked differences between the EU and the US in the field of political support for IHRL are best explained by the thickness of the institutional human rights regime with respect to EU member states In the case of judicial support, the CJEU shares with the US Supreme Court the reflex of protecting its own constitutional autonomy, despite the comparatively better legal resources at its disposal to support IHRL.}, language = {en} } @article{CalıKoch, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Koch, Anne}, title = {Foxes Guarding the Foxes? The Peer Review of Human Rights Judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe}, series = {Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {14}, journal = {Human Rights Law Review}, number = {2}, publisher = {Oxford Academic}, issn = {1744-1021}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu007}, pages = {301 -- 325}, abstract = {This article investigates the reliability of the peer review of human rights judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It argues that, even if composed of politically motivated actors, the Committee is not to be dismissed too cursorily as a deficient and unreliable system of compliance monitoring. Evidence shows that formal and informal institutional constraints, in particular the presence of a strong Secretariat, constrain the propensity to bargain amongst Council of Europe diplomats acting as peers when monitoring the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Our finding runs contrary to the proposition that Europe constitutes a special case of cultural convergence around respect for international human rights law. The article further argues that hybrid models of compliance monitoring which combine political as well as judicial and technocratic elements may be more effective in facilitating human rights compliance than direct international court orders or expert recommendations.}, language = {en} } @article{CalıKochBruch, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Koch, Anne and Bruch, Nicola}, title = {The social legitimacy of Human Rights Courts: a grounded interpretivist analysis of the European Court of Human Rights}, series = {Human Rights Quarterly}, volume = {35}, journal = {Human Rights Quarterly}, number = {3}, publisher = {The Johns Hopkins University Press}, issn = {1085-794X}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2013.0057}, pages = {955 -- 984}, abstract = {This article offers an empirically grounded interpretivist theory of the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights based on domestic judicial and political elite accounts of the legitimacy of the Court in Turkey, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. The central argument of the article is that the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is based on a constant comparison between the values and goals of domestic institutions and the values and goals of the European Court of Human Rights. More specifically, the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is grounded in the logic of a fair compromise: What actors think they lose by according legitimacy to the European Court of Human Rights must be balanced by what they perceive to gain in return. Three factors organise how actors in different domestic settings struck a fair compromise in their domestic contexts: a) perception of domestic human rights conditions, b) commitment to cosmopolitan ideals of human rights and international law and c) commitment to domestic institutions.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {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}, series = {Law and Social Inquiry}, volume = {35}, journal = {Law and Social Inquiry}, number = {2}, issn = {1747-4469}, doi = {10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01187.x}, pages = {311 -- 337}, 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.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {On Interpretivism and International Law}, series = {European Journal of International Law}, volume = {20}, journal = {European Journal of International Law}, number = {3}, issn = {1464-3596}, doi = {10.1093/ejil/chp038}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-22561}, pages = {805 -- 822}, abstract = {This article argues for the relevance of interpretivism within theoretical and normative debates about international law. To do this, the article carries out two tasks. First, it draws out the central features of interpretivism that make it a theoretically distinct contribution to understanding the nature and theory of law. Secondly, it identifies four important objections, two external and two internal, to the relevance of interpretivism to international law. External objections stem from positivism and anti-essentialism about international law. Internal objections, on the other hand, stem from the view that international law does not suit the application of interpretivism. I show that it is possible to counter all four and conclude by pointing to the nature of future work that needs to be undertaken to develop a substantive interpretivist account of international law.}, language = {en} } @article{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {The Purposes of the European Human Rights System: One or Many?}, series = {European Human Rights Law Review}, volume = {3}, journal = {European Human Rights Law Review}, issn = {1361-1526}, pages = {299 -- 306}, language = {en} } @book{Calı, author = {{\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak}, title = {The Authority of International Law}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685097.001.0001}, pages = {224}, abstract = {This book tackles an old, but ever relevant question: does international law enjoy legal authority over domestic orders? If so, what is the form and extent of the authority of international law? The book answers the first question in the positive. International law enjoys authority over domestic political and judicial organs. Such authority, however, has sui generis characteristics. It may not be conclusive authority. It may also not demand blind obedience. What international law demands at the very least is minimalist deference. The book answers the second question by holding that each and every international law does not make identical claims to authority. What form and extent of authority international law enjoys depends on whether a particular international law imposes a strong, a weak, or a rebuttable duty. The duty of a domestic judge and politician is to reflectively ask and engage with what kind of a duty she is engaged in when bringing the international law's authority back home. The book has a decidedly practice-based and doctrinal approach to the questions it sets for itself. It demonstrates that realists, rationalists, and more recently democratic theorists have long attacked international lawyers. It is time to respond by offering a defence of the authority of international law and how it functions.}, language = {en} }