Human Rights Violations in Turkey

This assignment delves into the issue of human rights violations within Turkey. It draws upon a variety of sources, including Amnesty International reports, European Court of Human Rights case law (such as Refah Partisi v. Turkey), and Human Rights Watch publications. The analysis explores the Turkish legal framework in relation to international human rights standards, highlighting specific concerns and violations documented by these organizations.

Running Head: PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 1
PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY
Name
Institutional affiliation
Date

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 2
Perspectives on International Law in Turkey
Introduction
The International Human Rights law was established in 1948 under the Declaration of
rights of human beings. These rights are used to express the right and freedoms of all human
beings irrespective of their race, origin or background. This was an agreement made to uphold
the nature of human beings and has been used to create treaties, bills, conventions and
constitutional provisions (Human rights, 2006). The International Human Rights consist of the
two Covenants on Civil, Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Bill of
Human Beings’ Rights (Michael, 2014). The International Law protects human rights through
International Treaties. For instance, when a country joins a treaty that is bound by the
international human rights law, it must protect individual human rights, and avoid from
interfering with those rights (United Nations, n.d.).
Turkey is a country that is accused of human rights violations on multiple occasions
especially due to the series of coups experienced. Human rights conventions have been ratified in
various states but there are still many violations that are reported especially in non-western
countries. In Turkey, the government had made efforts to protect and respect individual human
rights. However, recently after the attempted coup in 2016, the violation of human rights has
been on the rise. This essay argues about the universalism and relativity of human beings’ rights.
Turkey
In the past, Turkey was under the Ottoman Empire which underwent secession after the
first world war. As a result, in 1923, a new Turkey was established. The international human
rights conventions were established after the second world war. Traditionally, Turkey was a
country that violated human rights especially those of detainees. This is mainly due to the coups

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 3
that have affected it between 1960 and 1980. In 2002, the new government under the Justice and
Development Party uphold the international law and it started by abolishing the state of
emergency that had been there for twenty-five years (Human Rights and the Transformation
Process in Turkey, 2013).
This government made changes that were targeted towards improving the human rights
laws in Turkey. In 2010, the constitution was amended and it included more rights and the
restructuring of the judicial system. In 2013, it established a legal framework that allowed more
freedom of speech based on the penal code of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
(Buckley, 2001). In addition, the prisons were inspected by the human rights inquiry committee
which shared the findings with non- governmental organizations. Similarly, there have been
efforts made to protect women’s right regarding violence and abuse. Indeed, Turkey was the first
country to sign the document on the convention in Istanbul concerning violence against women.
additionally, there was more awareness on human rights with the issue being added to the
primary school curriculum, high school electives, and professional training programs. Lastly,
people with different religious beliefs were allowed to practice their religions and have different
schools based on these beliefs (Human Rights and the Transformation Process in Turkey, 2013).
In July 2016, there was a failed coup aimed against President Erdoğan and the Justice and
Development Party in Turkey. The coup left more than 200 people dead and approximately 2000
injured. The events that led to the coup were clashes between the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and
the government that left civil servant such as mayors jobless or detained. The government also
blocked non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nation
from documenting human rights violations in the southeast region of the country (Amnesty
International, 2017). It is worth noting that the Kurdistan’s Workers Party is defined as a terrorist

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 4
group by the United States, the European Union and the Turkish government (Miles, 2017). In
addition, the parliament had approved a law that gave the president executive powers.
After the failed coup, the government announced a state of emergency which was later
extended in October. Over the following months, there have been cases of human rights abuses
of the detainees and civil servants. The country deviated from the two human rights conventions
aforementioned but it is prohibited from deviating from the core rights that protect the rights of
detainees (Human Rights Watch, 2017). The Turkish government has succeeded in denying the
freedom of expression in the country by attacking journalists through prosecution, jailing and
closing down of media outlets. Moreover, it has taken over media companies through appointing
government trustees such as the Zaman Newspaper. Major government critics were also arrested
and twitter accounts suspended at the request of the government. Civil servants such as teachers,
and judges were suspended without investigation and non-governmental organizations shut
down. In addition, trustees were appointed to replace elected officials.
Perspectives of human rights in Turkey and the West
Human beings’ rights are universal which means they are the same irrespective of the
country where they are practiced. Universalism is the view that rights are similar in every
country. Rights are either right or wrong depending on their nature not on their cultural setting.
However, these rights can be applied differently depending on the cultural settings (Ellis, Emon,
& Glahn, 2012). In addition, this means that though a right depends on the culture of the people,
it’s the nature of the right that determines its application. This view of human rights has been
opposed because it is seen as a way for the Western states to dominate other states. This is
mainly because human rights were developed by western states and seem to favor their interests.
In a broader concept, this way of thinking is referred to as liberalism. Liberalists believe that

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 5
human beings have basic rights that should be protected and respected (Marianne & Tim, 2008).
This is widely practiced by the Western states since 1945 before the human rights international
law was established.
On the other hand, in relativism, human rights are not dependent on culture but are as a
result of those cultures. This means that there are no universal human rights and it is wrong for
international institutions to impose such laws on sovereign states ("Human Rights", 2014).
Additionally, some states accept that there are universal human rights but they reject the
perspective of the Western states regarding human rights. According to these states, human
rights development should be based on the religious beliefs and cultural values of various
communities in the world (Ellis, Emon, & Glahn, 2012). In a broader concept, this viewpoint is
regarded as realism. According to realist, human rights are just a propaganda that should only be
pursued if it is in the best interest of the country otherwise they should not be considered
(Marianne & Tim, 2008). In fact, these states regard human rights as a tool used by powerful
states such as the United States to exercise their power and benefit. For example, when the
United States wants to overthrow a regime it may use the international law on human rights for
this purpose (Jones, 2013).
The Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey case were judged by the Grand Chamber of the
ECHR in 2003. The case involved Refah Partisi a political party that was formed in 1983 (Case
of Refah Partisi and Others V. Turkey, 2003). In 1995, the party was the most popular due to the
majority of seats it obtained in the general election and had formed a coalition government. Prior
to the Grand Chamber’s decision, the party had been dissolved by the Turkish constitutional
court. The party was dissolved based on the following allegations that showed the party did not
support secularism as required by the Turkish constitution. First, the party leaders advocated for

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 6
the abolishment of secularism in public. Second, they openly supported the wearing of
headscarves by women in public institutions which was against secularism.
Third, some of the members openly supported the implementation of the Islamic law
through bloodshed. Four, the members appealed to Islamic leaders to offer their support to the
party and some hosted these leaders in meetings ("Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey · Article
19", 2003). Meanwhile, the party did not take any disciplinary measures on any of these
members showing that their views reflected the views of the party. The party brought the case
before the court due to the abuse of their freedom of expression and association. However, the
principal state counsel that had filed the case for its dissolution argued that the party supported
had expressed its opinion regarding plurality where the legal systems are different for various
groups based on their religious beliefs such as sharia law. Therefore, these meant that the party’s
objectives were not in alignment with those of the state and the constitution did allow such a
party to be dissolved.
The Grand Chamber ruled that the party should be dissolved. This is because sharia laws
were incompatible with the democratic laws. Refah had argued that it supported pluralism
because it gave courts’ jurisdiction on cases that dealt with religious beliefs. The court agreed
that political parties are a form of freedom of association in a democratic society. This means
that the dissolution of the party was indeed a violation of the freedom of association. However,
the European Convention mainly upheld the laws of a democratic society and not laws based on
religious beliefs ("Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey · Article 19", 2003). The court also
recognized that pluralism is a form of democracy. This supports the freedom of expression of
political parties. For this case, there was a violation of the freedom of expression of Refah.
Secularism was considered one of the principles that the state is governed by. A violation of this

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 7
principle threatened the democracy of the state thus the decision to dissolve the party was
upheld.
This case revealed the different views on human rights. For members of Refah, freedom
of expression involved the expression of their religious beliefs and their relation to the law.
According to them, the international law should be in agreement with the sharia law. Meanwhile,
the international community feels that the sharia law is a threat to the universal human rights.
This means that for one law to exist the other must be abolished. This restrictive nature of the
international laws enforces the belief that these laws do not consider the cultural and religious
beliefs of a community hence relativism (Ellis, Emon, & Glahn, 2012). Nevertheless, in a world
where Islam is the fastest growing religion shouldn’t it be wiser to find common ground between
international law and Islamic law?
Another similar case had been brought before the same court in 1998 namely, United
Communists Party and others v. Turkey ("Case of the united communist party of Turkey and
others v. Turkey", 2007). The party had been formed in 1990. In the same year, the Principal of
state wanted it dissolved based on the allegation that it threatened the unity of the citizens.
Another reason is that the word communist had been used in naming the party. Lastly, it was
seen as a replacement of the Kurdish Workers’ Party which had been dissolved. In its program,
the party had stated that it would fight for the rights of the Kurdish through the political arena but
not through violence as is advocated by the international community. The party advocated for the
unity of Kurds and Turks to restore peace. Despite this, the party was dissolved in 1991("Case
Law of The European Court of Human Rights Related to Public International Law", 2016).
In the trial, the government argued that the name communist undermined the constitution.
According to the name, the party would advocate a communism which was against the

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 8
constitution’s law on pluralism. The party’s agenda to free the Kurdish people also undermined
the constitution and unity of the people. According to the constitution, the Turkish citizenship
did not recognize such identities. The Kurdish were allowed to identify themselves by that title
but they were not allowed to form minority groups. The applicants complained that dissolving
the party was a violation of their freedom to assemble and associate.
The court ruled that political parties are an essential part of a democratic state. The court
emphasized that political parties were included in the article regarding the association. In
addition, it stated that the government was allowed to act in any way when it felt that a party
threatened the state but it had to do within the guidelines of the convention. It ruled that based on
the party’s agenda, there was no evidence that showed the party intended to use violence to
violate the rights of other people or push its agenda. There was no evidence to show that the
party was not supporting democracy. In fact, the party had outlined in its constitutions that one of
its methods to resolve conflict was to use dialogue which is democratic. Additionally, the party’s
name could not prove without any doubts the party was a threat to the nation’s security ("United
Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey", 2008).
The chairman and the vice chairman had also asked to be compensated for the damages
incurred in legal fees due to the dissolution. They also claimed their rights to associate and
express themselves had been violated. This is because once the party was dissolved they were
also banned from holding public offices such as members of parliament. The court ruled that
dissolving the party had interfered with the rights of its chairman and vice chairman regarding
their association. As a result, the government was supposed to compensate them the total sum of
the legal fees incurred ("United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey", 2008).

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY 9
Based on this case, it is evident that the Turkish government is violated the laws in the
convention when dissolving this party. It is universal that in a democratic society political parties
are a must and they represent different political views of the citizens. Despite this, the
government was against the idea of a political party that expressed the views of the Kurdish
people. This reveals the government’s relativism in dealing with the political rights of its
citizens. Evidently, when the situation presented itself the government chose to defy the
international law and impose its own rules.
Conclusion
The constitution of the country allows the derogation of the laws in the state of
emergency but it must not be against the international laws. Additionally, it states some laws that
are not supposed to be suspended. For example, everyone has a right to their own life, and they
have a right to remain innocent until they are proven guilty in a court through a fair trial ("The
Turkish State of Emergency Under Turkish Constitutional Law and International Human Rights
Law ", 2017). Similarly, the international law provides suspensions depending on the extremity
of the situation. There are also no suspensions in cases such as regarding a person’s life, freedom
from torture, and religion. As aforementioned, the Turkish government is currently violating
these rights. This shows the government’s relativism regarding these laws.
Based on the first legal judgment, the universal perspective is widely accepted by the
international community especially the western states. In this case, the court ruled that there was
an incompatibility in the Islamic and international law which threatened the democracy of the
country. Generally, in Turkey, the law concerning these rights is adhered to only when it suits
the national interest thus relativism. In conclusion, both should be considered in the

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY
10
implementation of human beings’ rights especially in Turkey where they seem to be enforced
only if they are in the best interest of the nation.

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY
11
References
Amnesty International. (2017). Turkey 2016/2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017.
Buckley, M. (2001). The European Convention on Human Rights and The Right to Life in
Turkey. Human Rights Law Review, 36-60.
The case of the united communist party of Turkey and others v. Turkey. (2007). The
International Journal of Human Rights, 2(2), 78-79.
Ellis, D., Emon, J., & Glahn, G. (2012). Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law.
Oxford University Press.
Human Rights and the Transformation Process in Turkey. (2013). Retrieved from http://wp-
content/uploads/SAM_Papers.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2017). Turkey. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 10 October 2017, from
https://world-report/2017/country-chapters/turkey
Human rights. (2006) (p. 10). New York.
Human Rights. (2014). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://entries/rights-human/
Jones, R. (2013). Islam and English Law. Cambridge University Press.
Marianne, H., & Tim, D. (2008). Human rights in international relations. Retrieved from
HTTP:/ //politics/research/readingroom/Dunne-Goodhart-chap04.pdf
Michael, H. (2014). International Human Rights. Abingdon: Routledge.
Miles, T. (2017). U.N. documents human rights violations in southeast Turkey. Retrieved 10
October 2017.

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN TURKEY
12
Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey · Article 19. (2003). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from
https://resources.php/resource/2627/en/refah-partisi-and-others-v.-turkey
The Case Laws of The European Court of Human Rights Related to Public International Law.
(2016). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://rm.coe.int/pil-2017-case-law-rev-en-
case-law-echr/
The case of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others V. Turkey. (2003). Retrieved from
http://wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-Refah-Partisi-v.-Turkey.pdf
The Turkish State of Emergency Under Turkish Constitutional Law and International Human
Rights Law (2017). America Society of International Law. Retrieved 15 October 2017,
from https:// insights/volume/21/issue/1/turkish-state-emergency-under-Turkish-
constitutional-law-and
United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey. (2008). Retrieved 15 October 2017, from
https://resources.php/resource/3122/en/echr:-united-communist-party-of-turkey-v.-turkey
United Nations. The Foundation of International Human Rights Law. Retrieved 10 October
2017.