<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>2247</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2010</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>XXX, 431 S.</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookeditorship</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2009-12-10</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">International Law for International Relations</title>
    <identifier type="isbn">9780199558421</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>International law</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>International relations</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2248</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2006</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>X, 208</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookeditorship</type>
    <publisherName>Routledge</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>London</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Legalisation of Human Rights</title>
    <subTitle language="eng">Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Human Rights and Human Rights Law</subTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-0415361231</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Saladin Meckled-García</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Human rights</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2249</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>21</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>57</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>38</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Big Promises, Small Gains: Domestic Effects of Human Rights Treaty Ratification in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Quarterly</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1353/hrq.2016.0017</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1085-794X</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Nazila Ghanea</author>
    <author>Benjamin Jones</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2250</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>901</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>922</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <volume>13</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Comparing the support of the EU and the US to international human rights law qua international human rights law: Worlds too far apart?</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Journal of Constitutional Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/icon/mov058</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1474-2659</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2251</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2014</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>301</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>325</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>14</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford Academic</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Foxes Guarding the Foxes? The Peer Review of Human Rights Judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1744-1021</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu007</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Anne Koch</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>state peer review</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>monitoring compliance with judgments</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Convention on Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2253</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2013</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>955</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>984</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>35</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>The Johns Hopkins University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The social legitimacy of Human Rights Courts: a grounded interpretivist analysis of the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Quarterly</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1353/hrq.2013.0057</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1085-794X</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Anne Koch</author>
    <author>Nicola Bruch</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>legitimacy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>elite opinion</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>interpretivism</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2255</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2010</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>311</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>337</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>35</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">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</title>
    <abstract language="deu">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Law and Social Inquiry</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1747-4469</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2010.01187.x</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Human rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Court of Human Rights</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Terrorism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Law reform</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Litigation</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Government reform</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Social law</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>European Council</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Torture</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2256</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>805</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>822</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>20</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">On Interpretivism and International Law</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Journal of International Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1464-3596</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/ejil/chp038</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-22561</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/2256/On Interpretivism and International Law.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2257</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2008</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>299</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>306</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>3</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Purposes of the European Human Rights System: One or Many?</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1361-1526</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2246</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>224</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>book</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2015-10-08</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Authority of International Law</title>
    <abstract language="eng">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.</abstract>
    <subTitle language="eng">Obedience, Respect and Rebuttal</subTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685097.001.0001</identifier>
    <note>ISBN 9780199685097</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>international law</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>legal authority</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>monism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>dualism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>constitutionalism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>pluralism</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>rebuttable duties</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>minimalist deference</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>reflective doctrine</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2258</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2007</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>275</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>297</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>7</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Kosovo Revisited: Humanitarian Intervention on the Fault Lines of International Law</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The asserted doctrine of unilateral humanitarian intervention has given rise to considerable debate in international law. This article revisits the use of force in Kosovo to critically appraise this debate. The arguments for and against the doctrine are schematically compared and contrasted. Their differences are methodological, but underlying factors are relevant. These may include a conflict of values (notably, sovereignty versus human rights), but certainly involve deep disciplinary problems evidenced by confusing international legal terminology and, especially, the contradictions inherent in identifying and changing rules of general/customary international law. Three factors are considered as potentially helpful in bridging these fault lines: state practice (unavoidably), the stability of the international system and accountability. The latter two, at least, sit uncomfortably with unilateralism.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">1744-1021</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/hrlr/ngm003</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <author>Nigel S. Rodley</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2259</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2007</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>251</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>270</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>29</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Balancing Human Rights? Methodological Problems with Weights, Scales and Proportions</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article takes issue with the argument that human rights are not absolute and should be balanced in relation to competing communal aims. The balancing of qualified human rights is a key practice of the European Court of Human Rights and a great deal depends on a clear analysis of the ramifications of balancing for our understanding of human rights aims. The author does not seek to propose an alternative to balancing, but aims to show that it is not necessarily coherent with human rights principles or the kinds of functions international human rights institutions are thought to perform.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights Quarterly</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1353/hrq.2007.0002</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1085-794X</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>ECHR</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>balancing</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>proportionality</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2260</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2004</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>111</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>128</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>15</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Bargaining Transnationalism: The European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Finnish Yearbook of International Law</parentTitle>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2261</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>391</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>415</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Pretoria University Law Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Pretoria</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Enforcement</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Commentary</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9781920538507</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <editor>Malcolm Langfort</editor>
    <editor>Bruce Porter</editor>
    <editor>Rebecca Brown</editor>
    <editor>Julieta Rossi</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2262</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>144</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>161</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Routledge</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Basingstoke</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">From Flexible to Variable Standards of Judicial Review: The Responsible Domestic Courts Doctrine at the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking relations between the ECHR, EU and national legal orders</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.4324/9781315651125</identifier>
    <note>ISBN 9781138121249</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <editor>Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir</editor>
    <editor>Antoine Buyse</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2263</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2015</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>81</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>104</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Council of Europe Publishing</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Strasbourg</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-21</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Does the remedy jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights do enough for media freedom?</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Journalism at Risk : Threats, Perspectives and Challenges</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-92-871-8120-6</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <editor>Onur Andreotti</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2264</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2013</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>141</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>164</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2017-04-21</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The legitimacy of international interpretive authorities for human rights treaties: an indirect-instrumentalist defence</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes: Legal, Political and Philosophical Perspectives</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-1-107-03460-0</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/CBO9781139540827.006</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Amanda Slater</submitter>
    <editor>Andreas Føllesdal</editor>
    <editor>Johan Karlsson Schaffer</editor>
    <editor>Geir Ulfstein</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2743</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1978</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>2006</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>7</issue>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-01-31</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Judicial Self Government and the Sui Generis Case of the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">German Law Journal</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-27434</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Stewart Cunningham</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hsog/files/2743/Başak,Çalı and Stewart Cunningham 2018_GLJ_Vol_19_No_7.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2744</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1672</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>1706</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>7</issue>
    <volume>19</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-01-31</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Judicial Self-Government as Experimental Constitutional Politics: The Case of Turkey</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article traces the evolution of judicial self-government practices (JSG) in Turkey and argues that the frequent changes in JSG are part of a broader trajectory of experimental constitutional politics. The Council for Judges and Prosecutors has experienced sharp turns since its establishment in 1961, respectively in 1971, 1982, 2010, 2014 and 2017.During this period, Turkey experienced different forms of judicial councils ranging from co-option, hierarchical and executive controlled judicial council models to a more pluralistic model. The Justice Academy of Turkey has also not been immune from this experimentalism. The article discusses the endogenous relationship between these often short-lived experiments of JSG and their impacts on the independence, accountability, and legitimacy of the judiciary and public confidence in the judiciary. The article then turns to the repercussions of JSG on separation of powers and democratic principle. It focuses on the implications of the ambiguous position of the Council in the state structure for the separation of powers, and the revived debate on democratic legitimacy of JSG after the 2017 constitutional amendments.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">German Law Journal</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/S2071832200023208</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Betül Durmuş</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2640</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>214</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>234</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>16</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-10</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Explaining Variation in the Intrusiveness of Regional Human Rights Remedies in Domestic Orders</title>
    <abstract language="deu">Regional human rights systems vary with respect to the intrusiveness of human rights remedies into the domestic orders of states from a spectrum of more intrusive remedies in the Americas to less intrusive remedies in Europe. This article identifies three potential explanations as to why the intrusiveness of human rights remedies varies across the three regional systems: (i) the legal design explanation, (ii) the case-history explanation, and (iii) the legal culture explanation. The article argues that of these competing explanations, the legal culture explanation fares better than the other contenders in accounting for variation in the intrusiveness of remedies over time. The other two explanations, however, are also of use. The legal design explanation accounts for why the courts in the Americas and Africa are more amenable to intrusive remedies. The case-history explanation is able to explain sudden bursts of intrusive remedies in all three regions.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Journal of Constitutional Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/icon/moy009</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2641</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>128</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>135</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>16</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-10</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Comparative Regional Human Rights Regimes: Defining a Research Agenda</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article introduces the Comparative Regional Human Rights Regimes Symposium which marks a first attempt at a regime-level comparative analysis of the three main regional human rights courts and commissions. It does so with the aim of laying out why regime level comparative analysis matters and why access, interpretation and remedies offer core markers of a comparative research agenda. The article identifies three distinct contributions that regional comparison makes to comparative international human rights law. First, it allows us to go beyond the binary form that is prevalent in comparative human rights law scholarship that most often juxtaposes (selected elements of) the European and Inter-American human rights regimes, and less frequently the African-Inter-American, or African-European human rights regimes. Second, a comparative research agenda goes beyond existing scholarship on regional comparison that has been largely descriptive in character. Taking a holistic approach to regional human rights regimes, comparisons can be made over time and dynamics of divergences and convergences can be identified and explained. Third, a comparative research agenda allows us to locate regional human rights regimes as part of a more general global evolution of law and institutions. That is, through comparison, we are better placed to evaluate how regional human rights courts and commissions are inscribed in a broader development of regional and international law since the aftermath of World War II.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Journal of Constitutional Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/icon/moy008</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Mikael Rask Madsen</author>
    <author>Frans Viljoen</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2645</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>447</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>497</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>50</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-15</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">All You Need Is Time? Discrepancies between the European Court of Human Rights Case Law and Liberal Normative Theory on Long-Term Migrants</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article, departing from Gila Stopler's ‘Rights in Immigration: The Veil as a Test Case’, published in the Israeli Law Review in 2010, reviews how the time spent by a long-term migrant, irrespective of legal status, normatively figures in liberal theories of migration and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article detects that in contemporary liberal theories, assigning an independent normative value to time spent by the migrant in the receiving country is a key move in balancing the competing interests of migrants and of the migrant-receiving country, where the right of the country to regulate migration is taken as given: the longer a migrant is present in a country, the stronger her interests become in receiving citizenship status or treatment akin to citizens. The article then surveys the case law of the ECtHR relating to long-term migrants. It finds that time is often one of multiple normative considerations in the balancing exercise, in conjunction with whether a migrant has achieved social integration in the migrant-receiving country and whether the right of the receiving community to regulate migration for reasons of affording citizenship, national security or distributive justice is paramount. The article argues that the lack of an independent normative weight afforded to time in the case law of the ECtHR is not merely a tension between the translation of liberal normative theory to legal policy. It also shows a deeper tension in liberal theories of migration between national liberalism and cosmopolitan liberalism.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Israel Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/S0021223717000152</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2646</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>77</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>88</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>15</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-15</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">International Human Rights Law: One Purpose or Many? Reflections on Macklem’s The Sovereignty of Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="eng">International human rights law (IHRL) puzzles international lawyers and moral philosophers alike. On the one hand, IHRL does not rest on logic familiar to international lawyers, such as reciprocal obligations between states. It is a body of law created by states, but what it regulates is relationships between states and individuals.1 On the other hand, IHRL has strong affinities with moral philosophy. It claims to protect the fundamental interests of individuals in the form of claim rights against states. Yet, IHRL contains a much longer list of rights than most moral philosophers are willing to justify. It further contains doctrines that are alien to moral philosophical accounts of rights, such as derogable rights and jurisdiction-based responsibility for duty holders.&#13;
&#13;
That IHRL shares much in common both with international law and with moral philosophy yet, in some ways, remains distinct from both of them, has been subject to both philosophical and legal theoretical inquiry through the past decade.4 Significant questions have been raised concerning the normative justifiability of IHRL both from philosophical and legal perspectives. Should we interpret IHRL in the light of a moral philosophy of human rights? What explains the discrepancies between moral philosophical accounts of human rights and the practice of IHRL? What is IHRL for? Does the practice of IHRL allow us to make sense of the purpose of IHRL distinct from moral philosophical accounts of IHRL?&#13;
&#13;
The Sovereignty of Human Rights5 is an important contribution to these questions, and in particular, to the purposive analysis of IHRL as a legal project distinct from the moral enquiries into human rights qua human rights. What is more, it offers a purposive analysis of a much wider range of IHRL than commonly found in the existing literature. It proposes that a legal account of the purpose of IHRL must go beyond the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of individuals and include minority rights, rights of indigenous peoples, the right to self-determination, the right to development and freedom from poverty. The Sovereignty of Human Rights brings together the latter under an integrated account of the purpose of IHRL by way of assigning a unified purpose to IHRL as a whole: monitoring and seeking to alleviate not only the exercise, but also the distributive effects of the allocation of sovereignty in the international legal order.&#13;
&#13;
This article, part of the Symposium on Macklem’s The Sovereignty of Human Rights, has two aims. First, it seeks to reflect on the central argument of The Sovereignty of Human Rights that the legal purpose of IHRL is to monitor the exercise and distribution of sovereignty in the international legal order with a specific focus on the normative methodological underpinnings of this argument. Second, it turns to the implications of this central argument for understanding the purpose of legal minority rights as developed in Chapter 5, holding that minority rights foremost aim to monitor the distribution of the allocation of sovereignty in the international legal order.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/jrls/jlx010</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2648</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2016</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-15</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The disciplinary account of the authority of International Law: does it stand firm against its external critics?</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The form of authority that international law enjoys over states, and for what reasons, has long been an important topic of debate in international law and in the neighboring disciplines of constitutional law, legal and political philosophy and political science. Although the debate is old, it continues to be a heterogeneous one in which disciplinary approaches to the very definition of authority play a central role. Notwithstanding disagreements on the definition of authority from various disciplinary perspectives, there are two points of agreement in this debate.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Society of International Law, ESIL Reflections</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="url">http://esil-sedi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ESIL-Reflection-Basak-Cali-9-May-2016-14h30.pdf</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2649</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>39</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>53</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Elgar Publishing</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cheltenham</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-15</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Authority</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Concepts for International Law. Contributions to Disciplinary Thought</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978 1 78347 467 7</identifier>
    <identifier type="isbn">978 1 78347 468 4</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Jean d'Aspremont</editor>
    <editor>Sahib Singh</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2650</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>124</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>149</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-15</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Influence of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Middle East</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Human Rights Covenants at 50: their past, present, and future</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9780198825890</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <editor>Daniel Moeckli</editor>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <editor>Helen Keller</editor>
    <editor>Corina Heri</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2651</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>411</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>424</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Regional Protection</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Human Rights Law</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 978-0198767237</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <editor>Daniel Moeckli</editor>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <editor>Sangeeta Shah</editor>
    <editor>Sandesh Sivakumaran</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2663</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2007</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>111</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>133</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The limits of international justice at the European Court of Human Rights: between legal cosmopolitanism and a society of states</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Paths to international justice: social and legal perspectives</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 978-0521709200</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Marie-Bénédicte Dembour</editor>
    <editor>Tobias Kelly</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2664</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2007</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>217</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>232</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>University of Pennsylvania Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Philadelphia</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-22</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Human Rights discourse and domestic Human Rights NGOs</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Turkish domestic human rights organizations (HROs) have played a major role in developing a human rights discourse by using human rights as an interpretive framework to criticize, resist, and reform domestic political, social, and economic arrangements. This chapter contends that since 1986, domestic Turkish HROs have been major actors in the development of a domestically grown human rights perspective in Turkish politics. They have introduced framing issues as human rights issues and paved the way in fostering a culture of minimum guarantees and protections that any individual ought to enjoy within the Turkish political community.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights in Turkey</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9780812240009</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat</editor>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Political Science</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2665</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2005</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>161</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>176</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Palgrave-Macmillan</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-22</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Global Governance and Domestic Politics: Fragmented Visions</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Criticising Global Governance</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 978-1-4039-6948-4</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Markus Lederer</editor>
    <editor>Philipp S. Muller</editor>
    <author>Ayça Ergun</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2666</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>50 pages</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>May 2017</volume>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName>Universal Rights Group (URG)</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Versoix, Switzerland</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-22</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The March of Universality? Religion-based Reservations to the core UN Treaties and what they tell us about human rights and universality in the 21st century</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The United Nations human rights treaties fulfil a central function in the global human rights promotion and protection system. By voluntarily acceding to those treaties, States bind themselves into a comprehensive framework of human rights obligations. Then, working in dialogue and cooperation with the Treaty Bodies set up to monitor and promote compliance with the treaties, States take steps over time to bring national laws, processes and practices into line with universal norms. However, when acceding to international human rights treaties,States often enter 'reservations' that limit, either generally or partially, the scope of application of the treaty in domestic law. So, for example, a State may make a general reservation to only accept obligations under a treaty insofar as those obligations are compatible with the tenets of a given religion; or may make a partial reservation to limit the application of a certain article&#13;
of a convention. These reservations have a significant negative impact on the on-the-ground enjoyment of human rights. If a State does not consider itself fully bound by a treaty to which it is Party, or does not consider itself bound by a certain article(s) of that treaty,then it is unlikely to take the necessary steps, at domestic level,to fully respect, protect or promote the right(s) in question. Between 2014-2016, the Universal Rights Group (URG) led a major international project to map all reservations to the core human rights conventions, and to better understand the extent and nature of these key checks on the universality of human rights. As part of the project, the URG was particularly interested in identifying and analysing reservations that are - or appear to be - motivated by doubts, on the part of the reserving State,as to the compatibility of the treaty in question with certain religious or belief systems. URG's analysis found that questions over compatibility of treaties or treaty provisions with religious belief, doctrine or dogma,are by far the most frequent reason, justification or basis for States' decisions to enter reservations to the UN human rights treaties. Indeed, religion-based or religion-influenced reservations account for over 40% of all reservations to the core international human rights treaties.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Policy Report</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="url">https://www.universal-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Policy_report_march_universality_LR_spread.pdf</identifier>
    <note>ISBN 9782970096153</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Mariana Montaya</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2652</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>291</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>304</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Edward Elgar Publishing</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cheltanham, UK; Northampton, USA</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">International Judicial Review</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Handbook on Global Constitutionalism</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN: 978-1783477258</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <editor>Anthony Lang Jr.</editor>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <editor>Antje Wiener</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2654</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2017</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>43</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>74</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge, New York</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Explaining compliance: lessons learnt from civil and political rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Social rights judgments and the politics of compliance</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9781107160217</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Malcolm Langford</editor>
    <author>Anne Koch</author>
    <editor>César Rodríguez-Garavito</editor>
    <editor>Julieta Rossi</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2655</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2014</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>67</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>78</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>5</volume>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Hart Publishing</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">A new doctrine on the block? The European Court of Human Rights and the responsible courts doctrine</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Law and... Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="old">9781509908134</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>August Reinisch</editor>
    <editor>Mary E. Footer</editor>
    <editor>Christina Binder</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2656</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2014</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>141</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>164</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge, New York</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The Legitimacy of International interpretive authorities for Human Rights treaties: An indirect-instrumentalist defence</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-1-107-03460-0</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/CBO9781139540827.006</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Andreas Føllesdal</editor>
    <editor>Johan Karlsson Schaffer</editor>
    <editor>Geir Ulfstein</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2657</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2012</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>525</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>550</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Specialized Rules for Treaty Interpretation: Human Rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Oxford Guide to Treaties</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN: 9780199601813</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Duncan B. Hollis</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2658</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2010</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>228</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>244</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Routledge</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>New York</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">From Bangladesh to responsibility to protect: the legality and implementation criteria for humanitarian intervention</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Delivery of Human Rights</parentTitle>
    <subTitle language="deu">Essays in Honour of Professor Sir Nigel Rodley</subTitle>
    <note>ISBN: &#13;
9780415813426&#13;
9780415579926&#13;
9780203844359</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Geoff Gilbert</editor>
    <editor>Francoise Hampson</editor>
    <editor>Clara Sandoval</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2659</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>464</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookeditorship</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Theories of International Relations in International Law</title>
    <abstract language="deu">The breadth of international law and institutions in contemporary global politics means it is no longer possible to make sense of international politics without understanding international law. International Law for International Relations provides students with comprehensive coverage that maps out the different ways to approach the study of international law. It explains the institutions and main sources of international law-making and identifies the key topics of international law. This is the ideal text for students of international relations who have not previously studied law and post-graduate students of any background tackling international law for the first time. The complexities of international law are presented in an accessible, animated way allowing students to appreciate the significance of international law in international relations.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Law for International Relations</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9780199558421</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2660</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>281</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>305</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">International Human Rights Law</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Law for International Relations</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN 9780199558421</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Başak Çalı</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2661</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>deu</language>
    <pageFirst>234</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>257</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="deu">International Humanitarian Law</title>
    <parentTitle language="deu">International Law for International Relations</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN: 978-0199558421</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Başak Çalı</editor>
    <author>Elizabeth Griffin</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2662</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2009</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>213</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>233</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2018-10-17</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Use of force in international law</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International law for international relations</parentTitle>
    <note>ISBN: 978-0199558421</note>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <editor>Başak Çalı</editor>
    <author>Nigel Rodley</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2745</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>24</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>30</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>17</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-01-31</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">On Einsteinian waves, international law and national hats: Afterword to the Foreword by Doreen Lustig and J. H. H. Weiler’</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Journal of Constitutional Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz022</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Başak Çalı</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2751</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>62</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>86</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-02-04</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The International Court of Justice as an Integrator, Developer and Globaliser of International Human Rights Law</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights in Other International Courts</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/9781108584623.003</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <editor>Martin Scheinin</editor>
    <author>Lorna McGregor</author>
    <author>Zeynep Elibol</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2759</id>
    <completedYear>2020</completedYear>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>276</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>284</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Cambridge University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Cambridge</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-02-05</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The case for the right to meaningful access to internet as a Human Right in International Law</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Cambridge Handbook on New Human Rights</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">9781108676106</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>2939</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>361</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>365</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <volume>17</volume>
    <type>review</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2019-05-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect, edited by Mälksoo and Benedek, focuses on a pressing issue in the field of human rights law: the impact of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in decaying democratic contexts and authoritarian settings and the reception of the Convention and its standards by domestic judges in such environments. The book is timely due to two recent developments that set Russia aside from the other forty-six member states of the Council of Europe. First, there is a significant political standoff between the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe, evidenced in the suspension of voting rights for Russian national parliamentarians sitting in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea.1 Since then Russia has stopped paying its contribution to the ordinary budget, bringing the Council of Europe into serious financial difficulty. Second, in December 2015, an amendment to the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation granted the Russian Constitutional Court the power to declare opinions from international human rights bodies “impossible to execute.”2 In this way, Russia has become the first Council of Europe member state to have a domestic constitutional process designed to resist the implementation of individual judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.&#13;
The book is comprised of twelve chapters and an introduction. Part I one of the book examines the relationship between Russia and the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe over time. Part II addresses the legislative and judicial reception of the Convention standards in Russia. Part III has three case studies exploring Russia’s response to judgments concerning gross human rights violation cases in Chechnya, right-to-property cases, and cases concerning the rights of LGBTI individuals. The final part of the book focusses on identifying the range of factors that explain the impact and reception of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia, although every chapter in the book also does this, offering its own account of and explanation for impact and reception.&#13;
Overall, the book argues that the effects of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia have been selective and limited, but that the impact and reception have variations not only across issue areas but also across time.&#13;
Roter, exploring the periodization of the variation of the Strasbourg Effect in Russia, identifies three key phases (Chapter 1). The first period between the accession of Russia to the European Convention on Human Rights until the mid-2000s is identified as comparatively good times where both domestic and international actors had meaningful hopes that the influence of the Strasbourg Court would bring about domestic reforms in Russia. The period from the mid-2000s until the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 is characterized as a period in which there was a massive influx of cases against Russia and slow compliance but continuing participation in the Council of Europe machinery, like any other state. From 2014 onward a new period began, which is characterized as one of open resistance to Strasbourg in Russia, albeit with a degree of à la carte compliance, in particular with respect to the payment of compensation to victims of human rights violations, which have continued in this period. According to this periodization, Strasbourg’s Russia problem really started in 2014, a time when Russia could no longer be understood as just another country with a large number of pending cases and a compliance problem.&#13;
The issue-specific investigations of the Strasbourg Effect further support the claim that the reception and impact of the European Court of Human Rights vary across groups of cases. While the Chechen cases (Leach, Chapter 8), which identify gross human rights violations by security forces, have been some of the hardest cases in terms of lack of implementation of the judgments, the Russian judiciary and legislature have been more responsive, using Strasbourg decisions finding a violation of the right to property (Starzhenetskiy, Chapter 9) to reform parts of the property regime of the Russian Federation. With respect to the protection of LGBT rights (Bartenev, Chapter 10), the book underlines that these cases did not face open resistance from apex courts early on, but that that the LGBT cases in the current post-2014 context do have the potential to deepen the open resistance of Russian authorities to the European Court of Human Rights</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">International Journal of Constitutional Law</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/icon/moz014</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Andrea Derichs-Carlin</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3145</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>24</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-01-22</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Towards a common institutional trajectory? Individual complaints before UN treaty bodies during their Booming years</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The expanding number of UN treaty bodies with competence to rule on individual complaints as well as the increasing amount of complaints lodged before these bodies trigger the question whether they are capable of acting as a unified institution when dealing with individual complaints or whether they remain as a fragmented institutional site. In this article, we comparatively analyse the case law of all treaty bodies between 2013 and 2016 with the aim of assessing whether UN treaty bodies are moving towards a common institutional trajectory. We find that despite textual differences, the treaty bodies’ case law displays both early signs of a common institutional trajectory and risks of institutional fragmentation. The most significant common institutional trends are access friendliness; self-referential citations, a preference for implicit harmonisation; and case by case activism with respect to individual remedies. Yet, we also identify lack of systematic and explicit cross treaty-fertilization and diverging approaches to specifying general remedies as risks that may undermine the formation of a common institutional trajectory. We argue that the early signs of informal collective institutionalisation may be capable of fostering a common institutional identity in the years to come, if risks of fragmentation are acknowledge and mitigated.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The International Journal of Human Rights</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1080/13642987.2019.1709447</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1744-053X</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten (öffentlich), Volltext (zugriffsbeschränkt)</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <author>Alexandre Skander Galand</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3146</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>137</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>147</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-01-23</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Political Limits of International Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="eng">What are the limits of human rights, and what do these limits mean? This volume engages critically and constructively with this question to provide a distinct contribution to the contemporary discussion on human rights. Fassbender and Traisbach, along with a group of leading experts in the field, examine the issue from multiple disciplinary perspectives, analysing the limits of our current discourse of human rights. It does so in an original way, and without attempting to deconstruct, or deny, human rights.&#13;
&#13;
Each contribution is supplemented by an engaging comment which furthers this important discussion. This combination of perspectives paves the way for further thought for scholars, practitioners, students, and the wider public. Ultimately, this volume provides an exceptionally rich spectrum of viewpoints and arguments across disciplines to offer fresh insights into human rights and its limitations.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Limits of Human Rights</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">9780198824763</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <editor>Bardo Fassbender</editor>
    <editor>Knut Traisbach</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3148</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2018</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>237</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>276</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>2</issue>
    <volume>35</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-01-23</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Coping with Crisis: Whither the Variable Geometry in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This article offers a new take on the diagnosis of the crisis of the&#13;
European human rights system by focusing on the diversification of the&#13;
attitudes towards the European Court of Human Rights by national&#13;
compliance audiences, namely domestic executives, parliaments, and&#13;
judiciaries. This diagnosis holds that national compliance audiences of&#13;
the European Court of Human Rights can no longer be characterized as&#13;
lending overall support to the human rights acquis of Europe, that centers&#13;
around the European Court of Human Rights as the ultimate authoritative&#13;
interpreter of the Convention. Instead, alongside states that continue to&#13;
lend overall support to the Court’s authority over the interpretation of the&#13;
Convention, two new attitudes have developed towards the Convention&#13;
across the Council of Europe. First, there are now national compliance&#13;
audiences that demand co-sharing of the interpretation task with the&#13;
European Court of Human Rights. Second, there are national compliance&#13;
audiences that flaunt well-established Convention standards, not merely&#13;
by error, or lack of knowledge of adequate application, but with suspect&#13;
grounds of intentionality and lack of respect for the overall Convention&#13;
acquis. Following this diagnosis, I argue that instead of holding on to a&#13;
business as usual attitude, the Court has also developed coping strategies&#13;
in order to handle this fragmentation by investing in a human rights&#13;
jurisprudence of a variable geometry, recognizing differentiation in the&#13;
individual circumstances of states as a basis for human rights review.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Wisconsin International Law Journal</parentTitle>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3150</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2019</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>21</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>26</pageLast>
    <pageNumber>5</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>workingpaper</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-01-23</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">The European Court of Human Rights and Accountability for Neoliberal State Conduct: Never the Twain Shall Meet?</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Responses to the recent (and ongoing) debt and austerity crises in Europe reveal multiple techniques through which the rule and role of law operate in these times of neoliberal capitalism. From international law, to human rights law, to European Union law, and constitutional law the deployment and orientation of law in the past few years point up ways in which law co-constitutes neoliberal values and structures, legitimating and hardening those values and foreclosing alternatives. Framing market interests, capital accumulation and profit as the common interest, advancing conditions for competition, favouring the private over the public and over the commons, and situating social justice as derivative of those goals are just some of the neoliberal values that have been reflected through the instrumentalism of law. The contributors to this collective working paper offer short ‘think pieces’ exploring the legal trajectory of neoliberalism in particular fields of law. Some of them take a general perspective on the evolving role of law, whereas others focus on select but representative examples. The authors may not all concur in their assessment of the role of law, but they all engage with the role of law in the recent evolution of European politics and society.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="deu">Legal Trajectories of Neoliberalism: Critical Inquiries on Law in Europe (EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2019/43)</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="url">https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/63447/RSCAS%202019_43.pdf?sequence=8&amp;isAllowed=y</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1028-3625</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <editor>Margot E. Salomon</editor>
    <editor>Bruno de Witte</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3230</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>525</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>550</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Oxford</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-01-31</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: Human Rights</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">The Oxford Guide To Treaties</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">9780199601813</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <editor>Duncan B. Hollis</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4077</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-08-31</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">How Loud Do the Alarm Bells Toll? Execution of ‘Article 18 Judgments’ of the European Court of Human Rights</title>
    <abstract language="deu">This article investigates whether Article 18 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, indicating that the state authorities pursued ulterior and illegitimate motives when violating the Convention, receive the seriousness and the urgency that they call for at the execution phase. By way of an analysis of the responses of the Committee of Ministers and states on the receiving end of Article 18 judgments between 2004 and June 2021, this article finds that the collective responsiveness of the Committee of Ministers to Article 18 judgments has increased over time, especially with respect to individual measures required to implement Article 18 judgments. So far, the responsiveness of individual states to their Article 18 judgments does, however, vary significantly, ranging from taking concrete steps to implement the judgments to outright resistance and no response, posing a significant risk to the Convention system’s ability to respond to the decay of rule of law.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">European Convention on Human Rights Law Review</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1163/26663236-bja10024</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2666-3228</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <collection role="AY" number=""/>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
</export-example>
