Perspectives on International Law in Turkey -myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about thePerspectives on International Law in Turkey for Rights. Answer: 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 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 womens 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 Erdo?an 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 Kurdistans Workers Party is defined as a terrorist 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 offic ials. 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, its 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 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 Chambers 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 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 partys 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 principle threatened the democracy of the state thus the dec ision 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 shouldnt 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 constitutions law on pluralism. The partys 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 partys 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 partys name could not prove without any doubts the party was a threat to the nations 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). 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 governments 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 persons life, freedom from torture, and religion. As aforementioned, the Turkish government is currently violating these rights. This shows the governments 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 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. 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 https://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. 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 https://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.