<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <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>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>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>3541</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>13</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>24</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Eleven International Publishing</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace>Den Haag</publisherPlace>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-06-08</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">International Legal Human Rights and Moral Human Rights: Friends or Foes?</title>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Human Rights in the 21st Century</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="isbn">978-94-6236-993-1</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>3468</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>355</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>384</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>21</issue>
    <volume/>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2020-05-13</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies</title>
    <abstract language="eng">This Article comparatively analyses how the prohibition of refoulement is interpreted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (UNTBs) in their individual decision-making, where we suggest they act as “soft courts.” It asks whether UNTBs break ranks with or follow the interpretations of non-refoulement of the European Court of Human Rights. This investigation is warranted because non-refoulement is the    single most salient issue that has attracted individual views from UNTBs since 1990. Moreover, our European&#13;
focus is warranted as nearly half of the cases concern states that are also parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on a multi-dimensional analysis of non-refoulement across an&#13;
original dataset of over 500 UNTB non-refoulement cases, decided between 1990–2020, as well as pertinent UNTB General Comments, the Article finds that whilst UNTBs, at times, do adopt a more&#13;
progressive position than their “harder” regional counterpart, there are also instances where they closely follow the interpretations of the European Court of Human Rights and, on occasion, adopt a more&#13;
restrictive position. This analysis complicates the view that soft courts are likely to be more progressive interpreters than hard courts. It further shows that variations in the interpretation of non-refoulement in a crowded field of international interpreters present risks for evasion of accountability, whereby domestic authorities in Europe may favor the more convenient interpretation, particularly in environments hostile to non-refoulement.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">German Law Journal</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">doi:10.1017/glj.2020.28</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2071-8322</identifier>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <author>Cathryn Costello</author>
    <author>Stewart Cunningham</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3789</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2020</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>bookpart</type>
    <publisherName>Oxford University Press</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-03-19</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Human Rights Organizations in Turkey</title>
    <abstract language="deu">This chapter analyzes the origins and the development of human rights organizations in Turkey since 1945. It first offers an overview of the limited number of elite organizations established between 1946 and 1974 and the initial skepticism toward human rights activism in the country in the 1960s and 1970s among grass-roots political movements. It then discusses the importance of two major events, the military coup in 1980 and the start of the armed conflict between the Turkish security forces and the PKK in 1984, for the development of human rights–based activism in the 1980s. The chapter then turns to the 1990s, characterized by the proliferation of human rights organizations and diversification of focus areas, ranging from LGBT rights to the rights of women to manifest their religion by wearing headscarves. It links these dynamics to the global rise of human rights activism in the 1990s and the subsequent appropriation of the human rights lexicon by a wide range of domestic social movements. The chapter moves forward with a discussion of the further proliferation of human rights organizations well into the 2000s as Turkey’s EU membership process boosted democratization and pluralism. The chapter ends with an assessment of the impact of the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi’s authoritarian turn on the transformative power and horizons of human rights organizations in the 2010s.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Oxford Handbook of Turkish Politics</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190064891.013.36</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <submitter>Nadja Starke</submitter>
    <editor>Güneş Murat Tezcür</editor>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for Fundamental Rights</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
</export-example>
