Özlem Gürakar Skribeland’s new article ‘The Turkish Council of State’s Engagement with International Refugee Law in Cases Involving ‘Non-European’ Refugees,’ has just been published in the International Journal of Refugee Law.
Geographical limitation
Why is Türkiye unique when it comes to the Refugee Convention?
– Türkiye has signed the Refugee Convention subject to a geographical limitation. This means that the Convention does not apply to refugees from non-European countries living in Türkiye. It's important to note that Türkiye hosts over three million Syrian refugees and over 200,000 refugees and asylum-seekers from other non-European countries. However, these groups do not receive the benefits of the Refugee Convention, Gürakar Skribeland explains.
What made you interested in this topic?
– I set out to look into how Türkiye's high courts use international law to protect the refugees in the country. Türkiye has several high courts, including the Constitutional Court. During my research, I got fascinated by the case law of the Council of State because of how much that court engaged with the Refugee Convention; it stood out. I realized it deserved special attention and its own research focus, she says.
Draws legitimacy to support restrictive interpretations
What are your main research findings?
– I have found that the Turkish Council of State engages with the Refugee Convention in cases involving non-European refugees even though that convention is not legally applicable because of the geographical limitation. However, this engagement is inconsistent. Studying this case law, I divided the engagement into three main categories. The first category is substantive engagement, where the court uses provisions from the Refugee Convention and applies them to non-European refugees, effectively extending the benefits of the Convention to them.
The second category involves judgments where the court draws legitimacy from the Refugee Convention provisions, often supporting restrictive interpretations by the Turkish administration. Lastly, there's a category I call non-substantive engagement, where the court mentions these provisions as part of the applicable law, though they don't affect the outcome of the case in any way; they are simply mentioned in passing. However, it's still significant that the court acknowledges these provisions in the legal context, Gürakar Skribeland emphasises.
Lack of transparency
What was the biggest challenge when conducting the research?
– The main challenge during the research process was the lack of access and transparency regarding court judgments. This is a major issue when it comes to Turkish law. This has two implications. One is that when judgments don't get routinely published, this results in inconsistent practices within the country. Different courts can decide in different ways. It also limits what we as researchers can do, Gürakar Skribeland says.
The full article is available on the website of the International Journal of Refugee Law.