Transnationalization of Human Rights Norms and Its Impact on Internally Displaced Kurds

Abstract

This paper addresses the less researched topic of internal displacement as a human rights issue and analyzes the extent that the transnationalization of human rights issues and the pressures from regional organizations affected the rights of ethnic minorities, particularly internally displaced ethnic groups. In order to shed light on how much state sovereignty on sensitive internal matters can be challenged by regional organizations, the paper examines Turkey's efforts to join the European Community (through membership in the Council of Europe and the European Union) in light of its policies toward its internally displaced Kurdish population. Although the analysis focuses on internal displacement as an issue within this field, it also studies general human rights problems, such as minority rights, cultural rights, and representation of minorities, within the context of Turkey's Kurdish Question.

Peaceful Returns: Reversing Ethnic Cleansing after the Bosnian War

“…Better‐educated forced migrants should be able to use their human capital to integrate into an urban economy. In addition, the ethno‐political make‐up of the neighbourhoods of pre‐conflict residence, particularly majority/minority patterns, could influence the extent to which they opt to return or integrate into a new post‐war environment (Toal and Dahlman, ; Celik, ; Belloni, ; Sert, ). Conversely, forced migrants who had to leave behind major property (such as land, flats, or houses) might be less willing to integrate into a new place of residence and more likely to return and reclaim their property.…”

“… For exceptions, see studies on forced migrants in Bosnia (Dahlman & Ó Tuathail ; Sert, ), the South Caucasus (Toal & Grono, ), Kazakhstan (Kuşçu, ), Colombia (Ibánez & Moya, ), Turkey (Celik, ) and Northern Uganda (Joireman et al. ) …”

Home is Where the Heart Is? Forced Migration and Voluntary Return in Turkey's Kurdish Regions

“…Victims of displacement could be temporarily accommodated in designated refugee camps and face unbearable restrictions, or they could be integrated within a new environment in mixed neighbourhoods in major metropolitan centres; such alternative options might well influence the intentions to return home (Black 2001;Ó Tuathail 2010;Bas°er and Ç elik 2014). In addition, the ethnopolitical make-up of the neighbourhoods of pre-conflict residence, particularly majority/minority patterns, could influence the extent to which victims of displacement opt to return or integrate into a new post-war environment (Celik 2005a;Toal and Dahlman 2005;Belloni 2006;Sert 2008).…”

Turkey's Position on IDP Properties: Lessons (Not) Learned

“…Scholars of forced migration in Turkey differ in their views on the reasons for internal displacement of the Kurds. While scholars like Jongerden () and Ayata () claimed that the Turkish state had a systematic plan to displace Kurds and used the armed conflict in 1980s and 1990s as an opportunity to realize this aim, others like Kirişci () and Çelik () argue that it was the villagers’ security concerns and the pressures of the Kurdish insurgents and the state to take sides in the conflict that caused their displacement (Çelik, , emphasis added). In any case, around a million Kurds were internally displaced in Turkey (HÜNEE, ), and almost three thousand villages were emptied in the Southeast of the country in order to prevent them from being used as logistic support by either party to the conflict.…”