EXPLORING THE NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN THE ECTHR JURISPRUDENCE: SYRIANS UNDER TEMPORARY PROTECTION IN TÜRKIYE AS A CASE STUDY

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 269 - 306, 30.06.2024

Oğuzhan Öztürk Atahan Demirkol

https://doi.org/10.32957/hacettepehdf.1406406

Öz

This research explores the applications of the non-refoulment principle under the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence. We have analyzed the trending and complex debate to argue whether it is legally possible for Türkiye to initiate repatriation processes for Syrians under Temporary Protection (SuTPs). Indeed, the World’s leading refugee hosting country, Türkiye, has implemented several ways to ensure a safe and secure return of SuTPs. Concomitantly, the increasing numbers of SuTPs who vacate Syria during holidays accelerated the narratives for their permanent return. Although the jus cogens norm of non-refoulment cannot be breached, it is still a concern by host countries to determine when it is legal to repatriate refugees after extensive hosting periods. In this research, we explore that there are nuances to the implementation of the non-refoulment principle in the ECtHR jurisprudence. International cooperation and convincing the international community are essential elements for triggering the repatriation programs. Hence, Türkiye should cooperate with other countries to establish a safe zone and to acknowledge the international community for the safety of returnees to eliminate the accusations of breaching the non-refoulment principle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

refugees, International law, international refugee law, ECtHR, ECHR

Geri-Göndermeme İlkesinin AİHM İçtihadında İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) içtihadı kapsamında "geri göndermeme" ilkesinin uygulama alanlarını keşfetmektedir. Türkiye'nin Geçici Koruma altında Suriyeliler için geri gönderme süreçlerini başlatması hukuki olarak mümkün müdür sorusuna cevap bulmak için akademik tartışmaları analiz ettik. Dünya'da en çok mülteciye ev sahipliği yapan ülke olan Türkiye, Geçici Koruma Statüsü altındaki Suriyelilerin güvenli ve sağlıklı bir şekilde geri dönüşünü sağlamak için birkaç yol aramıştır. Bu süreçte, tatil dönemlerinde Suriye'yi ziyaret eden GKS'lıların sayısındaki artış, kalıcı dönüşleri için tartışmaları hızlandırdı. Jus cogens norm olan geri göndermeme ilkesinin ihlal edilemez niteliğinde olsa da ev sahibi ülkeler için uzun süren birlikte yaşama dönemlerinden sonra mültecilerin ne zaman yasal olarak geri gönderilebileceğini belirlemek ülkeler için elzem olmuştur. Bu araştırmada, AİHM içtihadında geri göndermeme ilkesinin uygulanmasının ne gibi nüansları olduğu keşfedilmiştir. Uluslararası işbirliği ve uluslararası toplumu ikna etmek için geri gönderme programlarını başlatmak için esas unsurlardır. Bu nedenle Türkiye, güvenli bir bölge kurmak ve uluslararası topluluğa geri dönenlerin güvenliği konusunda suçlamaları ortadan kaldırmak için diğer ülkelerle işbirliği gerekliliği tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

AİHM, AİHS, Uluslararası Hukuk, Uluslararası Göç Hukuku

Kaynakça

• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Primary Sources
• Akkad v. Turkey, App no: 1557/19 (ECtHR, 21.06.2022)
• F. G. v. Sweden App no. 43611/11 (ECtHR, 23.03.2016)
• Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy App no. 27765/09 (ECtHR, 23.03.2012)
• J. K. and Others v. Sweden App no. 59166/12 (ECtHR, 23.08.2016)
• Khlaifia and Others v. Italy App no. 16483/ 12 (ECtHR, 15.12.2016)
• Law on Foreigners and International Protection (No: 6458, Accepted on 04.04.2013),
• M. D. and Others v. Russia App nos. 71321/17 and 9 others (ECtHR,14.09.2021)
• M. S. S. v. Belgium and Greece App no. 30696/09 (ECtHR, 21.01.2011)
• Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey Apps nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99 (ECtHR, 04.02.2005)
• Paposhvili v. Belgium App no. 41738/10 (ECtHR, 13.12.2016)
• Saadi v. Italy App no. 37201/06 (ECtHR, 28.02.2008)
• Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands App no. 1948/04 (ECtHR, 11.01.2007)
• Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom Apps nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07 (ECtHR, 28.06.2011)
• Temporary Protection Regulation (No: 6203, Accepted on 13.10.2014).
• Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom App nos. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87 (ECtHR, 30.10.1991)
• Y.T. Application App No: 2016/22418 (Turkish Constitutional Court, 01.11.2016)
• Syrian Nationality Law (Syrian Arab Republic), Legislative Decree 276, 24 November 1969.
• Secondary Sources
• ‘UN Praises ‘Potential’ of Syria Prisoner Amnesty’ Voice of America, 22.05.2022, https://www.voanews.com/a/un-praises-potential-of-syria-prisoner-amnesty/6584336.html (last visit 15.03.2024).
• Adar S, ‘Repatriation to Turkey’s “Safe Zone” in Northeast Syria: Ankara’s Goals and European Concerns’ (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs 2020) SWP Comments 1/2020 <https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwswpcom/12020.htm>.
• Allain J, ‘The jus cogens nature of non-refoulement' (2001) 13(4) International Journal of Refugee Law 533. Altıok B and Tosun S, ’Understanding foreign policy strategies during migration movements: a comparative study of Iraqi and Syrian mass refugee inflows to Turkey’ (2020) 21(5) Turkish Studies, 684.
• Azhari T, ‘Around 40,000 Syrians Return from Turkey after Quake’ Reuters (28.02.2023) <https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/around-40000-syrians-return-turkey-after-quake-2023-02-28/>.
• Dastyari A and Hirsch A, ‘The Ring of Steel: Extraterritorial Migration Controls in Indonesia and Libya and the Complicity of Australia and Italy’ (2019) 19(3) Human Rights Law Review 435.
• Dinçer OB, Vittoria Federici, Elizabeth Ferris, Sema Karaca, Kemal Kirişci, and Elif Özmenek Çarmıklı, ‘Turkey and Syrian Refugees: The Limits of Hospitality’ International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) 2013.
• Erdoğan M, ‘“Securitization from Society” and “Social Acceptance”: Political Party-Based Approaches in Turkey to Syrian Refugees’ (2020) 17 Uluslararası İlişkiler 68.
• Erdoğan M, Syrian Barometer 2020: A Framework for Achieving Social Cohesion with Syrians in Turkey (Eğiten Book Publishing 2022).
• EUAA, Syria: Situation of returnees from abroad, June 2021.
• European Asylum Support Office, Syria: Military Service (Country of Origin Information Report) April 2021.
• European Union Agency for Asylum (former EOSA), Country Guidance: Syria, February 2023.
• Gil-Bazo MT, ‘Refugee protection under international human rights law: From non-refoulement to residence and citizenship’ (2015) 34(1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 11.
• Greenman K, ‘A Castle Built on Sand? Article 3 ECHR and the Source of Risk in Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Law’ (2015) 27(2) International Journal of Refugee Law 264.
• Hathaway JC, ‘The Meaning of Repatriation’ (1997) 9(4) International Journal of Refugee Law 551.
• Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, A/HRC/51/45, 17.08.2022. Human Rights Watch, ‘Syrian Refugees in Denmark at Risk of Forced Return’ <https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/13/syrian-refugees-denmark-risk-forced-return> accessed 13 April 2023.
• Hyde L, ‘The principle of non-refoulement in international law’ (2016) 1 Rescriptum 29.
• İçduygu A and Nimer M, ‘The Politics of Return: Exploring the Future of Syrian Refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey’ (2020) 41(3) Third World Quarterly 415.
• Ihlamur-Öner SG, ‘The Global Politics of Refugee Protection and Return: The Case of the Syrian Refugees’ in Eva Kassoti & Narin Idriz (eds) The Informalization of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum. (1st edn, T.M.C. Asser Press 2022) 291-315.
• Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Syria: Compulsory military service, including age of recruitment, length of service; occasions where proof of military service status is required; whether the government can recall individuals who have already completed their compulsory military service; penalties for evasion (2008-July 2014), 13.08.2014, SYR104921.E.
• İneli Ciğer M, ‘Protecting Syrians in Turkey: A legal analysis’ (2017) 29(4) International Journal of Refugee Law 555.
• İneli-Ciğer M, Temporary Protection in Law and Practice (1st edn, Brill- Nijhoff 2017).
• Kale B, ‘The Limits of an International Burden-Sharing Approach: The Syrian Refugee Protection Crisis and Its Consequences on Turkey’s Refugee Policy’ (2017) 22(4) PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs 55.
• Kırdım ŞE and Demirkol A, ‘Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukukunun Bir Kaynağı Olarak Uluslararası Örf ve Âdet Hukuku’ (2021) 25 Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 379.
• Mashi F, Hamdi Icon S and Salman M, ‘‘Operation Olive Branch’ in Syria’s Afrin District: towards a new interpretation of the right of self-defence?’ (2022) 9(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 324.
• Molnár T, ‘The principle of non-refoulement under international law: Its inception and evolution in a nutshell’ (2016) 1(1) Corvinus Journal of International Affairs 51.
• Moran CF, ‘Strengthening the principle of non-refoulement’ (2021) 25(6) The International Journal of Human Rights 1032.
• Özdan S, Human Rights Recognised as Jus Cogens (1st edn, Palgrave MacMillan 2022) 47.
• Riyanto S, ‘The Refoulement Principle and Its Relevence in the International Law System.’ (2009) 7 Indonesian Journal of International Law 695.
• Şahin Mencütek Z, ‘Governing Practices and Strategic Narratives for Syrian Refugee Returns’ (2021) 34(3) Journal of Refugee Studies 2804.
• Şahin Mencütek Z, ‘The Geopolitics of Returns: Geopolitical Reasoning and Space-Making in Turkey’s Repatriation Regime’ (2023) 28(3) Geopolitics 1079.
• Şahin Mencütek Z, ‘The Institutionalization of “Voluntary” Returns in Turkey’ (2022) 5(1) Migration and Society 43.
• Sputnik International, ‘German Interior Minister Threatens to Deport Refugees Who Spend Holidays in Embattled Homeland’ (Sputnik International) <https://sputnikglobe.com/20190818/german-minister-deport-refugees-holidays-1076580080.html>.
• Stein BN, ‘Refugee Repatriation, Return, and Refoulement During Conflict’ (USAID Conference Promoting Democracy, Human Rights, and Reintegration in Post-conflict Societies, 1997) <https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnacd092.pdf> 29 April 2024.
• Syria Direct, ‘As losses mount in Idlib, Damascus sends conscripts from “reconciled” areas to the front’ 04.03.2020.
• The Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration, Syria - Military Service (Report based on a fact-finding mission to Istanbul and Beirut (17-25 February 2020)), May 2022.
• The Day After, Syrian Refugees in Turkey: Perceptions on Return to Syria (Survey Report), April 2020. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Country of Origin Information Report Syria, May 2022.
• The Turkish MFA, ‘Article by H.E. Mr. Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu published in Foreign Policy titled “The Meaning of Operation Olive Branch” (Press Release) (5 April 2018) <https://www.mfa.gov.tr/article-by-h_e_-mr_-mevlut-cavusoglu_-the-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-turkey-the-_meaning_-of-operation-olive-branch.en.mfa> (last visited 18.03.2024)
• Thielemann E, ‘Why Refugee Burden-Sharing Initiatives Fail: Public Goods, Free-Riding and Symbolic Solidarity in the EU’ (2017) 56(1) Journal of Common Market Studies 63.
• Tsourapas G and Şahin Mencütek Z, ‘When Do States Repatriate Refugees? Evidence from the Middle East’ (2022) 8(1) Journal of Global Security Studies 1.
• UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, A/HRC/34/64, 02.02.2017.
• Valenta M, Jakobsen J, Župarić-Iljić D, Halilovich H, ‘Syrian Refugee Migration, Transitions in Migrant Statuses and Future Scenarios of Syrian Mobility’ (2020) 39(2) Refugee Survey Quarterly 153.
• Vogelaar F, ’Principles Corroborated by Practice? The Use of Country of Origin Information by the European Court of Human Rights in the Assessment of a Real Risk of a Violation of the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment’ (2016) 18(3) European Journal of Migration and Law 302.
• World Food Programme Syria, Country brief, August 2021.
• Yavçan B, ‘Turkish Experience with Refugees Returns to Syria’ Discussion Paper (2019) <https://gcris.etu.edu.tr/handle/20.500.11851/2965> 13 April 2023.
• Yılmaz Eren E, ‘Is Temporary Protection Eternal? The Future of Temporary Protection Status of Syrians in Turkey’ (2019) 9(2) Border Crossing 125.