A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EXIT STRATEGIES FROM TEMPORARY PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TÜRKİYE

Abstract

The protection of approximately 4.3 million Ukrainians in the European Union (EU) and 2.3 million Syrians in Türkiye constitutes the two most significant applications of temporary protection today. Both regimes have reached a critical juncture where the focus is shifting from admission and reception to the formulation of exit strategies. While the EU has extended temporary protection until March 2027, Türkiye’s regime is entering its fifteenth year following the regime change in Syria in late 2024. This article compares the emerging exit strategies from temporary protection in these two jurisdictions. It argues that while both regimes rely heavily on executive discretion for the termination of the regime and look-and-see mechanisms to facilitate voluntary returns, they diverge significantly on long-term solutions: the EU is adopting a dual-track approach offering both integration and voluntary return as potential options, whereas Türkiye, so far, remains focused on voluntary return but has not developed a comprehensive exit strategy.

Keywords

• Temporary protection
• exit strategies
• termination of temporary protection
• durable solutions
• look-and-see visits
• voluntary return

Ethical Statement

Etik izin gerektiren bir çalışma değildir.

Avrupa Birliği Hukuku ve Türk Hukukunda Geçici Korumadan Çıkış Stratejilerine İlişkin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz

Abstract

Ocak 2026 itibarıyla Avrupa Birliği’ndeki yaklaşık 4.3 milyon Ukrayna vatandaşının ve Türkiye’de ise 2.3 milyon Suriye vatandaşının geçici koruma statüsü ile korunması, günümüzde geçici korumanın en önemli iki uygulamasını teşkil etmektedir. Her iki örnekte de geçici korumanın sona erdirilmesine ilişkin politikaların geliştirilmesi önem arz etmektedir. AB geçici koruma rejimini Mart 2027’ye kadar uzatırken, Türkiye’nin geçici koruma rejimi, 2024 sonlarında Suriye’deki rejim değişikliğinin ardından on beşinci yılına girmektedir. Bu makale, AB ve Türkiye’de hem hukuki metinlerde hem de politika belgelerinde yer bulan ‘geçici korumadan çıkış stratejilerini’ karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. İnceleme konusu her iki rejim de statünün sona erdirilmesinde idarenin takdir yetkisini tanımakta ve gönüllü geri dönüş süreçlerinde ‘bak ve gör’ ziyaretlerini önemli bir araç olarak kullanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, kalıcı çözümler noktasında iki sistem arasında belirgin bir ayrım gözlemlenmektedir: AB, entegrasyon ve gönüllü geri dönüşü benimseyen çift yönlü bir geçiş çerçevesi öngörürken; Türkiye, şu ana kadar gönüllü geri dönüşü teşvik etmiş ancak kapsamlı bir geçici korumadan çıkış stratejisi açıklamamıştır.

Keywords

• Geçici koruma
• geçici korumadan çıkış stratejileri
• geçici korumanın sona ermesi
• kalıcı çözümler
• bak ve gör ziyaretleri
• gönüllü geri dönüş

Ethical Statement

Etik izin gerektiren bir çalışma değildir.

Vorübergehender Schutz in der EU und der Türkei: Eine vergleichende Analyse von Ausstiegsstrategien

Abstract

Der Schutz von etwa 4,3 Millionen Ukrainern in der Europäischen Union (EU) und 2.3 Millionen Syrern in der Türkei stellt heute die beiden bedeutendsten Anwendungen des vorübergehenden Schutzes dar. Beide Regime haben einen kritischen Punkt erreicht, an dem sich der Fokus von der Aufnahme und Unterbringung hin zur Formulierung von Ausstiegsstrategien verschiebt. Während die EU den vorübergehenden Schutz bis März 2027 verlängert hat, tritt das türkische Regime nach dem Regimewechsel in Syrien Ende 2024 in sein fünfzehntes Jahr ein. Dieser Artikel vergleicht die entstehenden Ausstiegsstrategien aus dem vorübergehenden Schutz in diesen beiden Jurisdiktionen. Er legt dar, dass beide Regime bei der Beendigung des Status stark auf exekutives Ermessen sowie auf „Look-and-See“-Mechanismen zur Erleichterung der freiwilligen Rückkehr setzen, sich jedoch bei langfristigen Lösungen erheblich unterscheiden: Die EU verfolgt einen zweigleisigen Ansatz, der sowohl Integration als auch freiwillige Rückkehr als potenzielle Optionen anbietet, während die Türkei sich bislang weiterhin auf die freiwillige Rückkehr konzentriert, jedoch noch keine umfassende Ausstiegsstrategie entwickelt hat.

Keywords

• Vorübergehender Schutz
• Ausstiegsstrategien
• Beendigung des vorübergehenden Schutzes
• Dauerhafte Lösungen

Ethical Statement

Etik izin gerektiren bir çalışma değildir.

Analyse comparative des stratégies de sortie de la protection temporaire dans l’Union européenne et en Turquie

Abstract

La protection d'environ 4,3 millions d'Ukrainiens dans l'Union européenne (UE) et de 2,3 millions de Syriens en Turquie constitue aujourd'hui les deux applications les plus significatives de la protection temporaire. Ces deux régimes ont atteint un point critique où l'attention se déplace de l'admission et de l'accueil vers la formulation de stratégies de sortie. Alors que l'UE a prolongé la protection temporaire jusqu'en mars 2027, le régime turc entre dans sa quinzième année à la suite du changement de régime en Syrie fin 2024. Cet article compare les stratégies de sortie émergentes de la protection temporaire dans ces deux juridictions. Il soutient que, bien que les deux régimes s'appuient largement sur le pouvoir discrétionnaire de l'exécutif pour la cessation du régime et sur des mécanismes de « visites de reconnaissance » (look-and-see) pour faciliter les retours volontaires, ils divergent considérablement sur les solutions à long terme : l'UE adopte une approche à double voie offrant à la fois l'intégration et le retour volontaire comme options potentielles, tandis que la Turquie, jusqu'à présent, reste concentrée sur le retour volontaire mais n'a pas encore élaboré de stratégie de sortie globale.

Keywords

• Protection temporaire
• stratégies de sortie
• cessation de la protection temporaire
• solutions durables
• visites de reconnaissance (look-and-see)
• retour volontaire.

Ethical Statement

Etik izin gerektiren bir çalışma değildir.

References

1. Akram S and Rempel T, ‘Temporary Protection as an Instrument for Implementing the Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees’ (2004) 22(1) BU Int’l LJ 1
2. Baban F, Ilcan S and Rygiel K, The Precarious Lives of Syrians: Migration, Citizenship, and Temporary Protection in Turkey (McGill-Queen”s University Press 2021)
3. Bidinger S, ‘Syrian Refugees and the Right to Work: Developing Temporary Protection in Turkey’ (2015) 33 BU Int’l LJ 223
4. Carrera S and others, ‘The EU Grants Temporary Protection for People Fleeing War in Ukraine’ (2022) 9 CEPS Policy Insights 1
5. Coles GJL, ‘Temporary Refuge and the Large-Scale Influx of Refugees’ (1978) 8 Australian Yearbook of International Law 189
6. Doğa E, ‘Türkiye’de Bulunan Suriyelilere Uygulanan Geçici Koruma Statüsü 2001/55 Sayılı Avrupa Konseyi Yönergesi ile Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği Arasındaki Benzerlik ve Farklılıklar’ (2016) 124 Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 9
7. Durieux J, ‘Temporary Protection: Hovering at the Edges of Refugee Law’ (2014) 45 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 221
8. Edwards A, ‘Temporary Protection, Derogation and the 1951 Refugee Convention’ (2012) 13(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 595

9. Ekşi N, ‘Suriyelilere Toplu Olarak Türk Vatandaşlığı Verilebilir mi?’ (2015) 89(2) İstanbul Barosu Dergisi 196
10. Ergin AD and Kader Y, ‘Uluslararası Koruma ve Geçici Koruma Rejiminde Geçicilik Unsuru: “Geçici” Olan Nedir?’ (2024) 42(2) İnsan Hakları Yıllığı 79
11. Eurostat, ‘Temporary protection for 4.33 million in November 2025’ (12 January 2026) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260112-1 accessed 20 January 2026
12. Fitzpatrick J, ‘The End of Protection: Legal Standards for Cessation of Refugee Status and Withdrawal of Temporary Protection’ (1998) 13 Geo Immigr LJ 343
13. Frelick B, ‘What’s Wrong with Temporary Protected Status and How to Fix It: Exploring a Complementary Protection Regime’ (2020) 8(1) JMHS 42
14. Goodwin-Gill GS, McAdam J and Dunlop E, The Refugee in International Law (4th edn, OUP 2021)
15. Gökalp Aras NE and Yüksel U, ‘Between Choice and Constraint: Go-and-see Visits and Syrian Return from Türkiye’ (WP10 Policy Report, GAPs 2025) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17668808
16. Gökalp Aras NE, Yüksel U and Ünay H, ‘Return Migration Infrastructure in Turkey from Europe to Europe’ (WP3 Country Dossier v1, GAPs 2025) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15850973
17. Gülerce R, ‘Temporary Protection Status Practices in the Context of Human Rights in Türkiye and European Union’ (2024) 3(1) TAM Akademi Dergisi 1
18. Hathaway JC and Neve RA, ‘Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection’ (1997) 10 Harvard Human Rights Journal 115
19. Hathaway JC, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (2nd edn, CUP 2021)
20. Ilcan S, Rygiel K and Baban F, ‘The Ambiguous Architecture of Precarity: Temporary Protection, Everyday Living and Migrant Journeys of Syrian Refugees’ (2018) 4(1–2) International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 51
21. Ineli-Ciger M and Skordas A, ‘Temporary Protection’ (2019) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
22. Ineli-Ciger M, ‘A Temporary Protection Regime in Line with International Law: Utopia or Real Possibility?’ (2016) 18(3-4) Int’l Community L Rev 278
23. Ineli-Ciger M, ‘Has the Temporary Protection Directive Become Obsolete?: An Examination of the Directive and its Lack of Implementation in View of the Recent Asylum Crisis in the Mediterranean’ in Seeking Asylum in the European Union (Brill 2015)
24. Ineli-Ciger M, Temporary Protection in Law and Practice (vol 10, Brill 2018)
25. Kalach G and Rimmer C, ‘Voluntary Return: An Overview of Policies and Practices’ (Council of Europe, July 2025)
26. Karadağ Avcı Y, ‘Uluslararası Hukuk Perspektifinden Türkiye’de Geçici Koruma Altındaki Suriyelilerin Geri Dönüşü: Karşılaştırmalı Deneyimler Işığında Bir Değerlendirme’ [An International Law Perspective on the Return of Syrians under Temporary Protection in Türkiye: An Assessment Based on Comparative Experiences (2026) 19(1) Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 72
27. Kortukova T and others, ‘Peculiarities of the Legal Regulation of Temporary Protection in the European Union in the Context of the Aggressive War of the Russian Federation against Ukraine’ (2023) 36(2) Int J Semiot Law 667
28. Lauterpacht E and Bethlehem D, ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement: Opinion’ in Erika Feller, Volker Türk and Frances Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (CUP 2003)
29. Łysienia M, ‘Following the EU Response to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine? The Implementation of the Temporary Protection Directive in Poland’ (2023) 12(1) CEEMR 183
30. Mantu SM, Zwaan KM and Strik T (eds), The Temporary Protection Directive: Central Themes, Problem Issues and Implementation in Selected Member States (Ipskamp Printing 2023)
31. Mathew P, ‘Constructive Refoulement’ in Juss ed. Research Handbook on International Refugee Law (Edward Elgar 2019)
32. Övünç Öztürk N, ‘Temporary Protection Practice in Türkiye and in the EU: A Flexible, Pragmatic Solution or a Janus-faced Image for the Access to International Protection?’ (2022) 60 International Migration 5
33. Özel S, ‘Türkiye’deki Suriyelilerin Hukuki Statüsü’ (2020) 17(2) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 722
34. Peers S, ‘Temporary Means Temporary?’ (EU Law Analysis, 4 June 2025) http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2025/06/temporary-means-temporary-commission.html accessed 30 January 2026
35. Presidency of Migration Management, ‘Statistics- Temporary Protection’ (22 January 2026) https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638 accessed 20 January 2026
36. Skordas A, ‘Temporary Protection Directive 2001/55/EC’ in Daniel Thym (ed), EU Immigration and Asylum Law: Commentary (2nd edn, CH Beck/Hart/Nomos 2022) 1177
37. Şengül İ, ‘Rethinking Temporary Protection in Turkey: Legality, Uncertainty and Homemaking in the City of Gaziantep’ (PhD thesis, University of Warwick 2019)
38. Şengül İ, ‘Unpacking Temporary Protection of Refugees: Failure of Durable Solutions and Uncertainties’ (2022) 13(1) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 16
39. Tarman ZD, ‘Syrians under Temporary Protection and Their Acquisition of Turkish Citizenship’ (2023) 73 Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 97
40. Thorburn J, ‘Transcending Boundaries: Temporary Protection and Burden-Sharing in Europe’ (1995) 7 International Journal of Refugee Law 459
41. Trauner F and Valodskaite G, ‘The EU’s Temporary Protection Regime for Ukrainians: Understanding the Legal and Political Background and Its Implications’ (2022) 23(4) CESifo Forum 22
42. UNHCR, ‘Summary Conclusions on Temporary Protection: Roundtable on Temporary Protection, 19–20 July 2012’ (20 July 2012)
43. Yıldız A and Uzgören E, ‘Limits to Temporary Protection: Non-camp Syrian Refugees in İzmir, Turkey’ (2016) 16(2) Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 195
44. Yılmaz Eren E, ‘Is Temporary Protection Eternal? The Future of Temporary Protection Status of Syrians in Turkey’ (2019) 9(2) Border Crossing 125