Turkey’s withdrawal from Istanbul Convention: international human rights regime vis-à-vis authoritarian survival

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article traces the raison d’être for Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. It draws upon two bodies of literature: international human rights regimes (IHRR) and authoritarian survival strategies. The Turkish government faced an electoral defeat in local elections 2019, which represented a serious challenge to the ruling party. To compensate for its loss of power and to consolidate its voter base, the government took some steps for its political survival. This article argues that the dynamics of the withdrawal from the Convention lay primarily behind the authoritarian survival strategies of centralization, legitimation, and repression, and secondarily behind the issue area of the Convention as an international human rights regime.KEYWORDS: Istanbul ConventionauthoritarianismTurkish politicsregime theorypolitical survival Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Disclaimer statementFunded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or [name of the granting authority]. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.Notes1 “Statement regarding Türkiye’s withdrawal.”2 UN General Assembly, “Report,” 7 para. 43.3 İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nin Feshine Dair Danıştay Kararı.4 Sahin, “Combatting Violence,” and Kütük-Kuriş, “The Rise and Fall.”5 Eslen-Ziya, “Establishing Networked Misogyny.”6 Bodur Ün and Arıkan, “Europeanization and De-Europeanization,” and Temiz and Güneş, “Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamelerinin Hukuki Niteliği.”7 In the literature on democratic regimes, transitional, diminishing forms of liberal democracies are labelled by various names such as “competitive authoritarian regimes,” “illiberal democracies,” or “tutelary democracies.” See Wigell, “Mapping ‘Hybrid Regimes’.”8 Krasner, Sovereignty, and Mearsheimer, “The False Promise.”9 Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 87.10 Bayulgen, Arbatli, and Canbolat, “Elite Survival Strategies.”11 Krasner, Structural Causes, 186.12 Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence, 19.13 Moravcsik, “The Origins,” 217.14 Moravcsik, Explaining the Emergence.15 Donnelly, “International Human Rights,” 616.16 Ibid., 601–2.17 Moravcsik, “The Origins,” 220.18 Moravcsik, Explaining the Emergence; Moravcsik, “The Origins”; Moravcsik, “Explaining International Human Rights Regimes”; Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously”; Slaughter, A Liberal Theory; and Slaughter, “Liberal International Relations Theory.”19 Ibid.20 Moravcsik, “The Origins,” 221.21 Aybet, “Turkey and the EU,” 531.22 Esen and Gumuscu, “Rising Competitive Authoritarianism,” 584–5, and Grigoriadis, “On the Europeanization,” 136–7.23 Grigoriadis, “On the Europeanization,” 135.24 Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasasının Bazı Maddelerinde Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun.25 European Commission, “Turkey 2010 Progress Report,” 25–30.26 Moravcsik, “The Origins,” 220.27 Bush and Zetterberg, “Gender Equality,” 258 and 262; Grzebalska, “Poland”; and Krizsán and Roggeband, “Reconfiguring.”28 Grzebalska and Pető, “The Gendered Modus Operandi,” 165.29 Ibid., 166.30 Bush and Zetterberg, “Gender Equality,” 260.31 Kaplan, “Feminizm ve Eşcinsellik.”32 Kara, “İstanbul Sözleşmesi.”33 Fábián, “Three Central Triggers,” 296, 303.34 Grzebalska and Pető, “The Gendered Modus Operandi,” 167.35 Grzebalska, “Poland,” 87.36 Ahmadi, “Turkey PM Erdogan.”37 O’Neil et al., “Legal.”38 ‘Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Aile.”39 Felix, “Hungary,” 73.40 Krizsán and Roggeband, “Reconfiguring,” 616.41 Şeker and Sönmezocak, “İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nden Çekilmek,” 2.42 Felix, “Hungary,” 70.43 Naím, “What Is a GONGO?,” 95.44 Kleinschmit and Edwards, “Examining the Ethics,” 531.45 Felix, “Hungary,” 77, and Fábián, “Three Central Triggers,” 297.46 “Kadem Ne İçin Kuruldu?.”47 Bora, Cereyanlar, 810–1.48 KADEM, “Küresel LGBT Dayatmasına Hayır.”49 Kaos GL Derneği, “AKP Broşüründe.”50 SES: Eşitlik, Adalet, Kadın Platformu, ‘Yeni Aile ve Sosyal Hizmetler.”51 Dijital Dünya Çalıştayı Açılış.52 “Statement regarding Türkiye’s withdrawal.”53 Fábián, “Three Central Triggers,” 300.54 Hadenius and Teorell, “Pathway.”55 Haggard and Kaufman, The Political Economy.56 Bayulgen, Arbatli, and Canbolat, “Elite Survival Strategies.”57 Göztepe, “How to Lose a War,” 426.58 Lijphart, Thinking about Democracy, 14.59 6771 numaralı.60 Constitution of the Turkish Republic, Article 104.61 Slater and Fenner, “State Power,” 16.62 Müller, “Freiheit,” 23–34.63 Ibid., 50.64 KONDA, “Seçmen Kümeleri.”65 Yetkin, “Ayasofya.”66 Bayulgen, Arbatli, and Canbolat, “Elite Survival Strategies,” 336.67 Human Rights Watch, “Turkey: Kurdish Mayors' Removal.”68 “Statement regarding Türkiye’s withdrawal.”69 EU members: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia; non-members: Armenia, Ukraine, UK.70 KONDA, “İstanbul Sözleşmesi,” September 2020.71 Constitution of the Turkish Republic, Art.104.72 6771 numaralı.73 Temiz and Güneş, “Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamelerinin Hukuki Niteliği,” 960–1.74 Constitution of the Turkish Republic, Art.104.75 Şeker and Sönmezocak, “İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nden Çekilmek,” 3–4.76 Statute of the Council of Europe Preamble.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by European Commission [Jean Monnet Module Award EUHR 101047432].Notes on contributorsTuğba BayarDr. Tuğba Bayar is an instructor at the International Relations Department of Bilkent University. She holds a BA in Political Science and Public Administration from Bilkent University. She received her MSc degree in Middle East Studies program at the Middle East Technical University, Turkey, and completed her PhD degree at Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg, Germany. She received research grants from TÜBİTAK and the European Commission. Currently he is the coordinator of a Jean Monnet Module project entitled ‘International and European Protection of Human Rights.