Limits of Supranational Justice

Abstract

With its contextualized analysis of the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) engagement in Turkey's Kurdish conflict since the early 1990s, Limits of Supranational Justice makes a much-needed contribution to scholarships on supranational courts and legal mobilization. Based on a socio-legal account of the efforts of Kurdish lawyers in mobilizing the ECtHR on behalf of abducted, executed, tortured and displaced civilians under emergency rule, and a doctrinal legal analysis of the ECtHR's jurisprudence in these cases, this book powerfully demonstrates the Strasbourg court's failure to end gross violations in the Kurdish region. It brings together legal, political, sociological and historical narratives, and highlights the factors enabling the perpetuation of state violence and political repression against the Kurds. The effectiveness of supranational courts can best be assessed in hard cases such as Turkey, and this book demonstrates the need for a reappraisal of current academic and jurisprudential approaches to authoritarian regimes.

What makes an international institution work for labor activists? Shaping international law through strategic litigation

“…Lawyers' role is perhaps even more important in international litigation as domestic actors may be ill-informed about the availability of legal remedies at the international level. Scholars of international legal mobilization have shown that activist-lawyers, often working at transnationally connected and wealthy NGOs, lead litigation campaigns and help build an international court's case law in a new issue area (Anagnostou, 2014;Cichowski, 2007Cichowski, , 2016Haddad, 2018;Hodson, 2014;Kurban, 2020;Pavone, 2022;Sundstrom, 2014;Van der Vet, 2018).…”

“…Especially during periods of judicial activism, activists can help shape the kinds of precedents international institutions set by bringing in new rights claims before them. The persuasive arguments, facts, and evidence about on-the-ground violations summoned by legal experts provide a much-needed supply of data to judges building case law in a new issue area (Anagnostou, 2014;Cichowski, 2007Cichowski, , 2016Haddad, 2018;Hodson, 2014;Kurban, 2020;Pavone, 2022;Sundstrom, 2014;Van der Vet, 2018). This iterative process suggests that judicial responsiveness and legal mobilization are mutually constitutive of each other.…”

“…However, as with most international human rights courts, compliance with the ECtHR rulings varies by member states. Either due to lack of political will or state capacity, repeat offenders often fail to undertake measures that would prevent the same type of cases from being brought before the court (Anagnostou, 2013;Kurban, 2020). Even liberal democracies tend to evade compliance with court's rulings on politically divisive matters or issues that require major structural reforms (von Staden, 2018).…”

Kurdistan on the Sèvres Centenary: How a Distinct People Became the World’s Largest Stateless Nation

“…The new policy had the effect of erasing Kurdish identity. Turkish nationalism or “Turkification” metastasized in the provinces to convert Kurds to “good Turks” (McDowall 2003, 194–202) by the establishment of the People’s Houses (Kurban 2020, 89). Following that, the geographical term “Kurdistan” was expunged from the books (Van Bruinessen 1992, 282), a process which has continued to the present.…”

Activists in international courts: Backlash, funding, and strategy in international legal mobilization

“…By examining how rights advocates navigate this space, we wish to go beyond successful cases, or what Helen Duffy (2018) has called the "champagne moment" in strategic litigation, which focuses on judgments alone and presumes a linear pathway from litigant to judgment to successful policy reform. Studies of international litigation have shown that rights advocates are active far before and after these judgments: they select strategic cases to forward to international courts, persuade judges of the soundness of the claims (sometimes after numerous unsuccessful attempts), engage in follow-up advocacy for the domestic implementation of final judgments, and often proliferate their best practices by training other activists (Duffy, 2018;Haddad, 2018;Kahraman, 2018;Kurban, 2020;Sundstrom, 2012;van der Vet, 2012). Our collection of articles in this symposium explores the following themes:…”