FROM NORMATIVE POWER EUROPE TO STRATEGIC EXTERNALIZATION: MIGRATION AND THE STATEMENT OF 18 MARCH IN TÜRKİYE-EU RELATIONS

Öz

The European Union (EU) positions itself as a normative actor based on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. However, EU migration governance in the shadow of the refugee crisis after 2015 has increasingly relied on “securitization” and “externalization” strategies in a way that calls into question the normative European discourse. This study explores the shift in the EU’s normative power under crisis conditions by critically examining its migration cooperation with Türkiye, including the “1:1 resettlement scheme”, Türkiye’s designation as a “safe third country,” and financial aid. The study shows that these instruments, although legitimized by humanitarian discourses, raise questions about burden-sharing, legal coherence and the EU's normative credibility, and concludes that the externalization strategy to limit irregular migration deepens the contradiction between the EU's proclaimed values and its actual practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Union
• Türkiye
• Externalisation
• Normative Power
• The Statement of 18 March

NORMATİF AVRUPA GÜCÜNDEN STRATEJİK DIŞSALLAŞTIRMAYA: TÜRKİYE-AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ İLİŞKİLERİNDE GÖÇ VE 18 MART MUTABAKATI

Öz

Avrupa Birliği (AB) kendisini demokrasi, insan hakları, hukukun üstünlüğü gibi değerlere dayalı normatif bir aktör olarak konumlandırmaktadır. Ancak 2015 sığınmacı kriziyle şekillenen AB göç politikalarının, giderek artan ölçüde 'güvenlikleştirme' ve 'dışsallaştırma' stratejilerine dayanması, Birliğin normatif Avrupa söylemini tartışmaya açmıştır. Bu çalışma, AB’nin normatif güç anlayışının kriz koşullarında nasıl dönüşüme uğradığını Türkiye örneği üzerinden incelemektedir. Çalışmada AB–Türkiye göç iş birliğinin temel unsurları olan “1’e 1” yeniden yerleştirme formülü, Türkiye’nin “güvenli üçüncü ülke” olarak tanımlanması ve mali yardımlar, eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, insani söylemlerle meşrulaştırılmış olsalar da bu araçların yük paylaşımı, hukuki tutarlılık ve AB’nin normatif itibarı açısından soru işaretleri barındırdığını göstermekte ve düzensiz göçü sınırlandırmaya yönelik dışsallaştırma stratejisinin, AB’nin değerleri ile uygulamaları arasındaki çelişkiyi derinleştirdiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa Birliği
• Türkiye
• Dışsallaştırma
• Normatif Güç
• 18 Mart Mutabakatı

Kaynakça

1. Alpan, B. Z. (2022). “Readmission or desecuritization? The recent migration crisis and bordering narratives and practices in Turkey”, Fences, Refugee Boats, and the New Borderlands, 67-83. https://inex.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/p_inex/Fences_Refugee_Boats_FULL_PDF__2_.pdf
2. Arıner, H. O., Kader, Y. (2022). “On the Removal of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries and the Scope of the EU–Turkey Readmission Agreement”, International Journal of Refugee Law, 34(3-4), 416-439.
3. Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu. (2023). 2023 Türkiye Raporu: Komisyon İç Çalışma Dokümanı (SWD(2023) 696 final), 8 Kasım 2023. (T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Avrupa Birliği Başkanlığı tarafından yapılan gayriresmî çeviri). Erişim tarihi: 27.04.2025.
4. Avrupa Komisyonu. (2016, 15 Haziran). AB-Türkiye Mutabakatının Uygulanmasında Kaydedilen İlerlemeye İlişkin İkinci Rapor (COM(2016) 349 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0349 (Erişim tarihi: 23.04.2025)
5. Aydın, E. (2018). Avrupa Birliği Mevzuatında Güvenli Üçüncü Ülke Kavramı ve Türkiye-AB Geri Kabul Anlaşmasına Yansımaları, Milletlerarası Hukuk Ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 38(1), 11-40.
6. Bal, Sinem (2023). “Reappraising the EU-Turkey Refugee Statement within the Human Rights and Neoliberalism Nexus”, Journal of European Integration, 45(7), 1035–1053.
7. Biondi, P. (2016). “Human security and external burden-sharing: the European approach to refugee protection between past and present”, The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(2), 208-222.
8. Buzan, B. G., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. H. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner.

9. Council of the European Union. (2003). European Security Strategy: A Secure Europe in a Better World. (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
10. Dalkıran, M. (2004). “New Approaches to Conditionality in EU-Turkey Relations: Assessing the Role of Irregular Migration”, Oasis, 39, 123-143.
11. Del Sarto, R. A. (2016). “Normative empire Europe: The European Union, its borderlands, and the ‘Arab spring’” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(2), 215-232.
12. Diez, T. (2021). “The EU in a changing world order: In defence of normative power 2.0”, Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(1), 1–20.
13. EEAS. (2016, 24 Kasım). Critically assess and analyse the notion that the EU is a Normative Power. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/15687_en (Erişim tarihi: 18.07.2025)
14. EEAS. (2016, Haziran). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe – A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eugs_review_web_0.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
15. Eliaçık, Z. (2021, 26 Mart). AB ve Türkiye yenilenmiş bir mutabakatla mülteciler konusunda dünyaya örnek olmalı. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/analiz/ab-ve-turkiye-yenilenmis-bir-mutabakatla-multeciler-konusunda-dunyaya-ornek-olmali/2188991 (Erişim tarihi: 20.05.2025)
16. Erdoğan, Seven, (2022). “Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği göç iş birliği: Bir göç dışsallaştırma örneği olarak Türkiye’deki mülteciler için mali yardım aracı”, İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Göç ve Mültecilik Özel Sayısı, 358-370.
17. European Commission. (2016a). Second report on the progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement (COM(2016) 349 final).
18. European Commission. (2016b), Communication on establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration, COM(2016) 385 final, Strasbourg, 7.6.2016.
19. European Commission. (2017). Thirteenth report on relocation and resettlement. COM(2017) 330 final. (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
20. European Commission. (2024). Eighth Annual Report of the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye. COM(2024) 593 final. (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
21. European Commission. (t.y.). Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. Effective, firm and fair EU return and readmission policy. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/irregular-migration-and-return/effective-firm-and-fair-eu-return-and-readmission-policy_en (Erişim tarihi: 18.07.2025).
22. European Council. (2003). A secure Europe in a better world: European Security Strategy, Brussels. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/76255.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
23. European Parliament and the Council. (2013). Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. Official Journal of the European Union, L 180, 29.6.2013, 60–95. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0032 (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
24. European Union. (2000). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C 364/01. (Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2025)
25. Eurostat (2016b). Asylum statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics
26. Eurostat, (2016a) “Record number of over 1.2 million first time asylum seekers registered in 2015,” News Release 44/2016, 4 March 2016.
27. Geddes, A., & Hadj-Abdou, L. (2018). “Changing the path? EU migration governance after the ‘Arab spring’”, Mediterranean Politics, 23(1), 142–160.
28. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2007). The Refugee in International Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
29. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., McAdam, J. (2007). The Refugee in International Law, 3. Baskı, Oxford University Press .
30. Greek Council for Refugees. (2024). Safe third country – Greece. Asylum Information Database (AIDA). (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
31. Greenhill, K. M. (2010). Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press.
32. Hacıoğlu, F. Z. (2016). Geri Kabul Anlaşması, (Ed. Muharrem Balcı), Genç Hukukçular Hukuk Okumaları: Birikimler V, 1. Baskı, İstanbul: Hukuk Vakfı Yayınları, 409-417.
33. Hassib, B., Nounou, D. (2016).” Blocked by Diplomatic Barriers: Syrian Refugees and the EU-Turkey Migration Cooperation”, European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 7(1), 70-79.
34. Helme, K. (2018). “The implications of the EU-Turkey refugee agreement on the EU’s role as an international human rights actor”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 10(2), 68–73.
35. Hyde-Price, A. (2006). “‘Normative’ power Europe: a realist critique”, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:2, 217-234.
36. International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2018). IOM Thematic Paper: Readmission. https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/our_work/ODG/GCM/IOM-Thematic-Paper-Readmission.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
37. İçişleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı. (2025, 29 Nisan). İçişleri Bakanı Ali Yerlikaya: Türkiye, göç yönetiminde dünyaya model ülke. https://www.goc.gov.tr/icisleri-bakani-ali-yerlikaya-turkiye-goc-yonetiminde-dunyaya-model-ulk-merkezicerik (Erişim tarihi: 30.05.2025)
38. İneli-Ciğer, M., & Ulusoy, O. (2021). A short sighted and one side deal: Why the EU–Turkey Statement should never serve as a blueprint. In S. Carrera & A. Geddes (Eds.), The EU pact on migration and asylum in light of the United Nations global compact on refugees, European University Institute, 111–124. https://www.asileproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/EU-pact-migration-asylum-global-compact-refugees.pdf
39. Karaca, H. A. (2020). “Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği Geri Kabul Antlaşması ve 18 Mart 2016 Tarihli Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği Zirve Bildirisi Uyarınca Düzensiz Göçle Mücadele Ve Bazı Sorunlu Alanlar”, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 24 (4), 155-194.
40. Lavenex, S. (2006). “Shifting up and out: The foreign policy of European immigration control”, West European Politics, 29(2), 329-350.
41. Lehner, R. (2019). “The EU‐Turkey‐’deal’: Legal challenges and pitfalls”, International Migration, 57(2), 176-185.
42. Manners, I. (2002). “Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms?”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235–258.
43. Manners, I. (2006). “European Union ‘Normative Power’ and the Security Challenge”, European Security, 15(4), 405-421.
44. Manners, I. (2008). “The normative ethics of the European Union”, International Affairs, 84 (1), 45-60.
45. Manners, I. (2024). “Arrival of Normative Power in Planetary Politics”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(3), 825-844.
46. Marancı, D. (2021). “Türkiye-Avrupa Birliği ve 16 Aralık 2013 Tarihli Vize Serbestisi Diyaloğu Mutabakat Metni ve Geri Kabul Anlaşması”, Uluslararası Kriz Ve Siyaset Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 288-329.
47. Misafir, S. (2022). “Readmission Agreements in Europe and the European Union-Turkey Readmission Agreement: From Past to Present”, Law & Justice Review, 13 (23), 55–78.
48. Moreno‐Lax, V. (2018). “The EU humanitarian border and the securitization of human rights: The ‘rescue‐through‐interdiction/rescue‐without‐protection’paradigm”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 119-140.
49. Moreno-Lax, V., Lemberg-Pedersen, M. (2019). “Border-induced displacement: The ethical and legal implications of distance-creation through externalization” Questions of International Law, 56, 5–33.
50. Müller, P. (2019). “Normative power Europe and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the EU’s peacebuilding narrative meets local narratives”, European Security, 28(3), 251-267.
51. Niemann, A., Zaun, N. (2023). “Introduction: EU external migration policy and EU migration governance: Introduction”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(12), 2965–2985.
52. Peers, S., Roman, E. (2016, 5 şubat). The EU, Turkey and the Refugee Crisis: What could possibly go wrong? EU Law Analysis. https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-eu-turkey-and-refugee-crisis-what.html (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025).
53. Ruffa, C. (2011). “Realist-normative power Europe? Explaining EU policies toward Lebanon from an IR perspective”, Comparative European Politics, 9(4), 562-580.
54. Santos Vara, J., & Pascual Matellán, L. (2021). The externalisation of EU migration policies: The implications arising from the transfer of responsibilities to third countries. In W. Th. Douma, C. Eckes, P. Van Elsuwege, E. Kassoti, A. Ott & R. A. Wessel (Eds.), The evolving nature of EU external relations law, T.M.C. Asser Press, 315–331.
55. Schoenhuber, M. P. (2018). “The European Union’s Refugee Deal with Turkey: A Risky Alliance Contrary to European Laws and Values”, Houston Journal of International Law, 40(2), 633-670.
56. Sil, R., Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). “Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions”, Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411-431.
57. Sjursen, H. (2006). “The EU as a ‘normative’ power: how can this be?”, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 235-251.
58. Spijkerboer, T. (2018). “The Global Mobility Infrastructure: Reconceptualising the Externalisation of Migration Control”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 20(4), 452-473.
59. Staeger, U. (2016). “Africa–EU relations and normative power Europe: A decolonial pan‐African critique”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(4), 981-998.
60. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı Avrupa Birliği Başkanlığı. (2016). AB-Türkiye Ortak Bildirisi, 18 Mart 2016, https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ab_iliskileri/18_mart_2016_turkiye_ab_zirvesi_bildirisi_.pdf
61. T.C. Resmî Gazete. (2014). Avrupa Birliği ile Türkiye Cumhuriyeti arasında izinsiz ikamet eden kişilerin geri kabulüne ilişkin anlaşma 16 Aralık 2013, Sayı: 28988.
62. Treaty on European Union (TEU). (2012). Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Union, 2012/C 326/01. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2012_326_R_0001_01 (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
63. Tsourapas, G. (2020). “Theorizing state-diaspora relations in the Middle East: Authoritarian emigration states in comparative perspective”, Mediterranean Politics, 25(2), 135-159.
64. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. (2013). Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu (Kanun No. 6458), 4 Nisan 2013. Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 28615. (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
65. ULUSOY, O. (2025). “Financing Externalisation: The Role That EU Funds Play in Shaping the Turkish Asylum and Migration Policies”, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 23 (1), 91–103.
66. UNHCR. (2011). The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/media/1951-refugee-convention-and-1967-protocol-relating-status-refugees (Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2025)
67. UNHCR. (2015, 30 Aralık). Over one million sea arrivals reach Europe in 2015. https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/over-one-million-sea-arrivals-reach-europe-2015 (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
68. UNHCR. (2022). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2022 (Erişim tarihi: 26.03.2025)
69. Üstün, Ç. (2019). The impact of migration policies on the EU’s image as a value-driven normative actor. EuroMeSCo Papers, Sayı 46, Aralık 2019, IEMed. https://www.iemed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EuroMeSCo46_The-Impact-of-Migration-Policies-on-the-EUs-Image-as-a-Value-Driven-Normative-Actor.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 26.05.2025)
70. Welfens, N. (2024). “The EU’s normative justifications of refugee resettlement”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 37 (2), 552–569.