Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- ECHR (1)
- Political Science (1)
- balancing (1)
- proportionality (1)
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.
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.
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.