Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Top-down:

  • from Part II - Kurdish Lawyers, the Turkish State and the ECtHR
  • Dilek Kurban
  • Book:
    Limits of Supranational Justice
    Published online:
    30 October 2020
    Print publication:
    12 November 2020, pp 230-297

  • Summary

    Taking up from where Chapter 5 left off, this chapter shows the ECtHR’s response to Kurdish legal mobilisation against state violence in the emergency region. On the basis of a process-oriented analysis, it traces the evolution of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on gross and systematic human rights violations in the Kurdish region and Turkey’s execution thereof. It shows how the ECtHR’s engagement in the Kurdish conflict has evolved with its acquisition of expertise on Turkey’s legal system and yet varied in response to emerging political and legal developments in Turkey and Europe. The chapter provides a detailed doctrinal analysis of each of the three phases in the ECtHR's oversight of gross violations in the Kurdish region, demonstrating that the Court's jurisprudence has been inconsistent and incoherent under the façade of judicial meticulousness and unduly deferential to the Turkish government's counterterrorism argument. It concludes that the ECtHR, even during the peak of its engagement in the Kurdish cases, refrained from making full use of its jurisprudential powers to hold Turkey accountable.