Tag Archive | "war"

Photo Credit: Daily Sabah

Time to Rethink the Continuing State of Emergency in Turkey

Photo Credit: Daily Sabah

Photo Credit: Daily Sabah

After a failed military coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016, the Turkish government decided to declare a state of emergency to take required measures in the fight against the putschists, and return to normalcy as soon as possible. Considering the extension of the state of emergency to six months, and all measures taken in this period, this post brings up the controversial question of the legality of the continuing state of emergency and continuing accusations across the country.

 

Background and the Growing Process

On July 15, 2016, a group in Turkey’s armed forces attempted a military coup to seize control of the government. On July 21, 2016, after the coup failed, Turkish government declared a state of emergency for a period of ninety days pursuant to Article 120 of the Turkish Constitution of 1982, which provides:

“In the event of serious indications of widespread acts of violence aimed at the destruction of the free democratic order established by the Constitution or of fundamental rights and freedoms, or serious deterioration of public order because of acts of violence, the Council of Ministers, meeting under the chairpersonship of the President of the Republic, after consultation with the National Security Council, may declare a state of emergency in one or more regions or throughout the country for a period not exceeding six months”.

Following the failed coup, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clarified that, “the state of emergency had been declared in Turkey … for a duration of [three] months with an aim to totally and swiftly eliminate the FETÖ/PDY (Gulenist Terrorist Organization/Parallel State Structure) terrorist organization, which attempted a coup, and all of its elements”. On October 19, 2016, Turkey’s parliament ratified a planned extension of the state of emergency for three additional months to crack down on everyone suspected to be followers of the putschists. On January 19 2017, the state of emergency was extended second time, and most recently extended a third time scheduled to end on July 19, 2017. According to Article 121 of the Constitution 1982:

“The [Grand National] Assembly [of Turkey] may alter the duration of the state of emergency, may extend the period for a maximum of four months each time at the request of the Council of Ministers, or may lift the state of emergency”.

With an emphasis on the necessity of a determinative and quick reaction to any acts of violence aimed at threatening or abolishing democracy in states, the contentious counter-measures taken by Turkish authorities after the failed coup require a discussion in the context of human rights considerations.

 

Assessing under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

After the failed military coup, the government started to arrest, imprison, and fire anyone connected with the putschists. However, detentions and firing of thousands of journalists and academics as a massive political purge under the state of emergency gave a different dimension to the government’s unbounded counter-measures.

Nonetheless, it’s incontrovertible that all enforcements of slander laws to members of opposing groups and critics, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, using media and other state resources in favor of the government, and censoring the internet websites, are employed as policies against putschists to return normalcy to the country cannot be conceded as justifications for fighting against putschists contrary to the international human rights considerations.

Relevantly, on September 23, 2003, Turkey ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as an attempt to ensure the protection of civil and political rights. With regard to the state of emergency, the ICCPR reads in Article 4(1):

“In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin”.

Clearly, a state of emergency is an extraordinary situation in which human rights and freedoms could be suspended temporarily. During the state of emergency, governments have the right to detain and hold suspects without charge. Nonetheless, there are some other fundamental rights and freedoms stated in Article 4(2) of the ICCPR which could not be suspended under any conditions including the right to freedom of thought, freedom from arbitrarily being deprived of liberties, and freedom from torture and inhuman treatment or punishment. From this point of view, holding a large population of the Turkish society, including pro-Kurdish and main opposition Republican People’s Party members of parliament, academics, journalists, and ordinary citizens just because of opposing and criticizing the government’s policies –especially, its quest for constitutional amendments that will be voted on in the referendum on April 2017 on switching to a presidential system– and also infringing media freedom in the country could be considered as violation of Article 4(2) of the ICCPR and that could not be justified under any condition even if done as counter-coup measures. Furthermore, using the failed coup attempt as a cover-up to eliminate and a crackdown on any government opponents and critics regardless of the scope and objective of the coup leaders is a violation of freedom of expression and thought which cannot be derogated under any distressed situations such as the state of emergency. During the continuing state of emergency in Turkey, dismissing about 7,316 academics by the first half of January 2017 from their professions who criticized the government’s national policies or signed peace declaration criticizing curfews declared in Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish Southeastern districts in 2015 cannot be justified under any circumstances. In this sense, the mentioned counter-measures taken by the Turkish government against the society is clearly refusing the rule of law and fundamental rules of the ICCPR on a large scale.

 

Accusations Through the Broad Definition of Terrorism

According to the European Court of Human Rights, more than 5,000 cases were filed by Turkish nationals against Turkey relating to the post-coup purge. In the wake of the failed military coup in Turkey, the government launched a purge against alleged supporters of the coup leader Fethullah Gulen, including military officers, academics, and journalists.

As stated by Jonathan Cooper in his manual prepared for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), “[A]n overly broad definition of terrorism can be used [only] to shut down non-violent dissent and undermine democratic society”. There is a similar tendency in Turkey. The counter-measures taken by Turkish authorities in the fight against putschists coup leaders, connected alleged suspects through a broad definition of terrorism.

The overly-broad definition of terrorism, and measures taken to fight against it, are very dangerous because it will impact a large layer of the society, especially ethnic and religious minority groups, peaceful critics, and opponents, by sabotaging their fundamental human rights and liberties, including the right to freedom of expression. Although the Turkish President has said that the main objective of the state of emergency is the total elimination of the “Gulenist Terrorist Organization” and its elements that attempted a military coup. thousands of Turkish scholars were arrested during the state of emergency on a charge related to supporting the terrorist organization, including statements that do not clearly provoke or incite any act of violence. Relevantly, interpretation and application of laws by sabotaging non-derogable fundamental human rights including freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and freedom from being arbitrarily deprived of liberties are all the steps taken to broaden the scope of terrorism.

To be clear, Turkish authorities do not consciously separate terrorist actions from general criticism, or political and ethnic dissents in the country. Therefore all measures were taken under the state of emergency, and within the limits of the international obligations have prepared the grounds to suppress the right to freedom of thought and expression in violation of the rule of law. In simple words, in order to prevent legitimate exercise of the fundamental and non-suspendable human rights, Turkish authorities criminalize not only the acts that are properly accepted as terrorist actions in nature, but also any lawful statements, criticism, demonstrations, meetings, and any other attitudes that do not fall within the scope of terrorism under any circumstances.

It is very clear that Turkish authorities, by defining “criticizing the government’s policies” and “clarification of the opposing views” as terrorist actions have moved away from the main objective of the continuing state of emergency in Turkey. By contrast, all of these attitudes of Turkish authorities towards a large number of the society, mainly academics and journalists, are the significant steps in the direction of restricting democracy and freedom of expression and thought.

 

Saeed Bagheri is a faculty member at Akdeniz University in Turkey with a Ph. D in Public law and a Master’s of Human Rights Law.

Posted in 4Guest & Faculty Articles, DJILP Online, Featured Articles, Saeed BagheriComments (0)

NEWS April 17: Over 100 Syrian Refugees Dead After Suicide Attack, ECJ Rules on Banning Headscarves, and North Korea Warns of Thermonuclear War

It’s Monday, April 17, 2017, and this is some of what’s happening in International law and policy:

Posted in 3Daily News Digest, DJILP OnlineComments (0)

NEWS April 10: Syrian Allies Say US Crossed Red Lines, ISIS Responsible for Egyptian Church Explosions, and 17 People Killed After Suicide Car Bombing in Somalia

It’s Monday, April 10, 2017, and this is some of what’s happening in International law and policy:

 

Posted in 3Daily News Digest, DJILP OnlineComments (0)

Photo Credit: Vibe.com

War and Displacement – A Nigerian Story

Photo Credit: Vibe.com

Photo Credit: Vibe.com

In 1903, the Sokoto caliphate in Northern Nigeria, Niger, and southern Cameroon fell, placing the preceding areas under British control. After the British took control, some of the Muslims in these areas expressed their resistance to Western influences. In 2002, Mohammed Yusuf formed Boko Haram, which in loose translation means western education is a sin. The United States has designated Boko Haram, whose primary goal is to create an Islamic state, as a terrorist organization. Since its conception in 2002, the organization is responsible for thousands of deaths.

In 2009, Nigeria’s security force killed Mohammed Yusuf, and Nigeria thought it had seen the end of the organization. However, the organization reorganized under Abubakar Shekau. Under Shekau’s leadership, the organization has led indiscriminate, targeted attacks against school children, police, religious leaders, politicians, and civilians. These tragic crimes led Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan to declare a state of emergency almost three years ago in May, in the three states where Boko Haram is the strongest—Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa.

Unfortunately, Boko Haram continues to gain traction. In April 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped over 200 Chibok school girls and released a video stating that the girls would serve as their personal slaves or be sold off. UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has been working with President Goodluck Jonathan, to find the children and stop the Boko Haram. Ki-Moon stated that “the targeting of children and schools is against international law and cannot be justified under any circumstances”; therefore, the Nigerian Government has been urged to “take all necessary measures to ensure [the children’s] safe return and to hold the perpetrators accountable.”

Among the tens of thousands of people that have been killed, injured, or kidnapped, there are hundreds of thousands of people that have been displaced due to the violence in their countries. According to the National Emergency Management Agency-Nigeria (“NEMA”), 250,000 people have been internally displaced, and over 61,000 people have fled to neighboring countries. By the end of 2012, there were 17.7 million internally displaced persons in the world, and only 1.5 million returned to their place of origin. Most internally displaced persons never return home. In the first half of 2013, over 5.9 million people are refugees within or outside of the borders of their countries. The United States resettles less than 80,000 people each year. Could the United States be doing more? Could every country do more to save people and lower the hurdles of resettlement?

It has now been over 670 days since over 200 Chibok school girls were kidnapped. In September 2015, news emerged that negotiations were underway and there was a dim light shining to the girls’ release. However, Boko Haram has still not returned the girls to their families. Unfortunately, this story has fallen silent in the public eye. The United Nations set aside October 11 to be International Day of the Girl Child, but is this new international day of recognition enough to save future girls, or any individuals for that matter, from being used to send a message?

This article only covers one current war, in one part of the world, affecting millions of people all around the world. Leila Zerrougui, Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, stated “[e]very child, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, language, nationality or religion, has the right to education and to live without fear of violence.” Children should not be used as pawns or soldiers in wars and millions of people should not have to lose their home. To learn more about how to be involved and continue to raise awareness on this issue, follow #BringBackOurGirls.

 

Cheyenne Moore is a 3L at the University of Denver and a Staff Editor on the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in Cheyenne Moore, DJILP Online, DJILP Staff, Featured ArticlesComments (1)

University students punch the air as they march through Kim Il Sung Square in downtown Pyongyang, North Korea (BBC)

Critical Analysis: What’s up with North Korea?

University students punch the air as they march through Kim Il Sung Square in downtown Pyongyang, North Korea (BBC)

University students punch the air as they march through Kim Il Sung Square in downtown Pyongyang, North Korea (BBC)

Since being sanctioned by the UN in March for carrying out a third nuclear test, Pyongyang has threatened nuclear strikes on the US, formally declared war on the South, and pledged to reopen a nuclear reactor in blatant defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.

On Friday, North Korea warned it would not be able to guarantee the safety of foreign embassy staff if war broke out. But not a single country seems to be taking this threat seriously. Foreign embassies in the capital of Pyongyang appear to be staying put so far despite a warning. Russia is considering the request seriously. However, the British have brushed it off, considering the threat “part of a campaign of continued rhetoric” and asserting that North Korea is insinuating that it is making the request because the US poses a threat to North Korea.

Is war on the horizon?

General Walter Sharp, who until last year was the commander of US forces in Korea, explained the escalation problem to NPR.  The “counterprovocation” plan, that the US intends to invoke if the North Koreans launch even a limited artillery attack on South Korea, authorizes the South Koreans to fire back immediately. As defensive plan, at the root it is an “if you are fired at, fire back.” But this could easily mean war. U.S. officials say the counterprovocation plan and the U.S. flexing its muscles send three strong messages: the South Koreans see that the U.S. military is standing behind them; the North Koreans find out what they’d face were they to start something; and China sees how high the stakes are and why it may need to rein North Korea in.

Furthermore, the Pentagon decided to delay an intercontinental ballistic missile test that was scheduled for next week at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, for fear that it would only intensify the tensions between the US and North Korea. North Korea has become angered by the military exercises that the US and South Korea are doing. These exercises demonstrate potential power the two allies have to strike back: B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters, and ballistic missile defense-capable warships.  But while the US is taking the threats seriously, leaders continue to say that there are no obvious signs that North Korea is planning for a large-scale attack.

Does North Korea have any support internationally?

Even China, North Korea’s longtime ally, is speaking critically of North Korea’s recent activities. “No one should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping at an economic forum in Hainan province. Avoiding mentioning North Korea by name, Xi said, “[w]hile pursuing its own interests, a country should accommodate the legitimate interests of others.”

Chinese officials who value stability above all else will probably not abandon North Korea altogether during these tensions. But seeing an opportunity amid Chinese frustrations, the Obama administration is attempting to push Beijing to take a much stronger stance against the renegade country than it has in the past. China is tightening its stance; it wants dialogue to ease tensions, not war.

Mimi Faller is a 2L at DU Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in DJILP Online, DJILP Staff, Featured Articles, Mimi FallerComments (0)


University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Resources