Researcher: Çalı, Başak
Loading...
Name Variants
Çalı, Başak
Email Address
Birth Date
18 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 18
Publication Metadata only The case for the right to meaningful access to the internet as a human right in international law(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2020) Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Küresel Kamu Hukuku Çalışmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AN/APublication Metadata only Towards a common institutional trajectory? Individual complaints before UN treaty bodies during their 'Booming' years(Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2020) Galand, Alexandre Skander; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Küresel Kamu Hukuku Çalışmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AThe expanding number of UN treaty bodies with competence to rule on individual complaints as well as the increasing amount of complaints lodged before these bodies trigger the question whether they are capable of acting as a unified institution when dealing with individual complaints or whether they remain as a fragmented institutional site. In this article, we comparatively analyse the case law of all treaty bodies between 2013 and 2016 with the aim of assessing whether UN treaty bodies are moving towards a common institutional trajectory. We find that despite textual differences, the treaty bodies' case law displays both early signs of a common institutional trajectory and risks of institutional fragmentation. The most significant common institutional trends are access friendliness; self-referential citations, a preference for implicit harmonisation; and case by case activism with respect to individual remedies. Yet, we also identify lack of systematic and explicit cross treaty-fertilization and diverging approaches to specifying general remedies as risks that may undermine the formation of a common institutional trajectory. We argue that the early signs of informal collective institutionalisation may be capable of fostering a common institutional identity in the years to come, if risks of fragmentation are acknowledge and mitigated.Publication Metadata only Explaining variation in the intrusiveness of regional human rights remedies in domestic orders(Oxford Univ Press, 2018) N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Koç University Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Koç Üniversitesi Küresel Kamu Hukuku Araştırmaları (KÜREMER); Law School; N/ARegional human rights systems vary with respect to the intrusiveness of human rights remedies into the domestic orders of states from a spectrum of more intrusive remedies in the Americas to less intrusive remedies in Europe. This article identifies three potential explanations as to why the intrusiveness of human rights remedies varies across the three regional systems: (i) the legal design explanation, (ii) the case-history explanation, and (iii) the legal culture explanation. The article argues that of these competing explanations, the legal culture explanation fares better than the other contenders in accounting for variation in the intrusiveness of remedies over time. The other two explanations, however, are also of use. The legal design explanation accounts for why the courts in the Americas and Africa are more amenable to intrusive remedies. The case-history explanation is able to explain sudden bursts of intrusive remedies in all three regions.Publication Metadata only Comparing the support of the EU and the US for international human rights law qua international human rights law: worlds too far apart?(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2015) N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Law School; N/ASupport for international human rights law (IHRL) is one area where most international lawyers would have a hunch that the European Union fares better than the United States overall. in this article I focus on Pollack's dependent variable, "support" for international law, and its four dimensions: leadership, commitment, compliance, and internalization and investigate this hunch. I find that the conventional contrast between the US and the EU with regard to their support for IHRL is valid, with respect to political support for IHRL, but less so for judicial support. I argue that the marked differences between the EU and the US in the field of political support for IHRL are best explained by the thickness of the institutional human rights regime with respect to EU member states in the case of judicial support, the CJEU shares with the US Supreme Court the reflex of protecting its own constitutional autonomy, despite the comparatively better legal resources at its disposal to support IHRL.Publication Metadata only Comparative regional human rights regimes: defining a research agenda(Oxford Univ Press, 2018) Madsen, Mikael Rask; Viljoen, Frans; N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Küresel Kamu Hukuku Çalışmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AThis article introduces the Comparative Regional Human Rights Regimes Symposium which marks a first attempt at a regime-level comparative analysis of the three main regional human rights courts and commissions. It does so with the aim of laying out why regime level comparative analysis matters and why access, interpretation and remedies offer core markers of a comparative research agenda. The article identifies three distinct contributions that regional comparison makes to comparative international human rights law. First, it allows us to go beyond the binary form that is prevalent in comparative human rights law scholarship that most often juxtaposes (selected elements of) the European and Inter-American human rights regimes, and less frequently the African-Inter-American, or African-European human rights regimes. Second, a comparative research agenda goes beyond existing scholarship on regional comparison that has been largely descriptive in character. Taking a holistic approach to regional human rights regimes, comparisons can be made over time and dynamics of divergences and convergences can be identified and explained. Third, a comparative research agenda allows us to locate regional human rights regimes as part of a more general global evolution of law and institutions. That is, through comparison, we are better placed to evaluate how regional human rights courts and commissions are inscribed in a broader development of regional and international law since the aftermath of World War II.Publication Metadata only All you need is time? Discrepancies between the European Court of Human Rights case law and liberal normative theory on long-term migrants(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2017) Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Koç University Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Koç Üniversitesi Küresel Kamu Hukuku Araştırmaları (KÜREMER); Law School; 196519This article, departing from Gila Stopler's 'Rights in Immigration: The Veil as a Test Case', published in the Israeli Law Review in 2010, reviews how the time spent by a long-term migrant, irrespective of legal status, normatively figures in liberal theories of migration and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article detects that in contemporary liberal theories, assigning an independent normative value to time spent by the migrant in the receiving country is a key move in balancing the competing interests of migrants and of the migrant-receiving country, where the right of the country to regulate migration is taken as given: the longer a migrant is present in a country, the stronger her interests become in receiving citizenship status or treatment akin to citizens. The article then surveys the case law of the ECtHR relating to long-term migrants. It finds that time is often one of multiple normative considerations in the balancing exercise, in conjunction with whether a migrant has achieved social integration in the migrant-receiving country and whether the right of the receiving community to regulate migration for reasons of affording citizenship, national security or distributive justice is paramount. The article argues that the lack of an independent normative weight afforded to time in the case law of the ECtHR is not merely a tension between the translation of liberal normative theory to legal policy. It also shows a deeper tension in liberal theories of migration between national liberalism and cosmopolitan liberalism.Publication Metadata only Explaining compliance: lessons learnt from civil and political rights(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2017) Koch, Anne; N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Koç University Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Koç Üniversitesi Küresel Kamu Hukuku Araştırmaları (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AIntroduction The enforcement of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights judgments is often considered to present challenges that are different from those encountered in the realm of civil and political (CP) rights. Linking in with a growing literature on the judicial enforcement of ESC rights (Merali and Oosterveld, 2001; Dixon, 2007; Gauri and Brinks, 2008; Gloppen, 2009; Langford, 2008; Rodríguez-Garavito, 2011), this edited volume as a whole is based on the assumption that there is something particular about the implementation of ESC rights that is worth investigating. Notwithstanding the well-founded claims underlying this assumption, this chapter takes a step back and asks what lessons from the implementation of international CP rights judgments might be generalised and fruitfully applied to the broader field of international human rights implementation, including the realm of ESC rights. The chapter’s key contribution to the discussion of enforcement is achieved through a shift of focus: rather than concentrating on the type of judgment to be enforced and presuming that the content of the right in question will determine the success or failure of its enforcement, this chapter looks at the process of human rights judgment implementation as such – taking into consideration the costs of compliance and how these costs can be moderated by the institutional design of enforcement regimes. The analysis focuses on international adjudication but draws partly on comparative research, and its findings are relevant to the national level. It proposes an interactional framework for understanding human rights judgment implementation in which the speed and comprehensiveness of domestic human rights judgment enforcement is determined by the interaction between international human rights bodies and national decision makers, and argues that the process through which the terms of implementation are defined is of crucial importance. The chapter illustrates this argument through the analysis of the enforcement regime in place for the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, where a ‘deliberative enforcement model’ is used to mitigate the domestic costs of compliance with complex CP rights remedies. The overall analysis suggests that the realm of CP rights enforcement offers important lessons for identifying and overcoming challenges to the enforcement of ESC rights.Publication Metadata only On Einsteinian waves, international law and national hats: afterword to the foreword by Doreen Lustig and J. H. H. Weiler(Oxford Univ Press, 2019) N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Koç University Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Koç Üniversitesi Küresel Kamu Hukuku Araştırmaları (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AThis article offers a critical reading of Lustig and Weiler's Foreword article by focusing on the emphasis placed by the authors on the phenomenon of international judicial review and the hierarchical reception of international law by domestic judges as the core features of a second wave of judicial review, interacting with judicial review under domestic laws, characterized as the first wave of judicial review. It first asks whether we can abstract a general wave of international judicial review from the broad range of judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals and proposes that there may be much less international judicial review in the international system than proposed by the authors to make a wave. Second, it holds that where we have international judicial review, such review does not necessarily promote the idea of the hierarchy of international law over domestic law. There are different ways of being an internationalist and a hierarchical positing of international law has always been one option of many. In conclusion, I hold that these two critical inquiries into the second wave have repercussions on the reactionary framing of the third wave of judicial review. Reactionaries, and there are plenty, may be taking issue not only with international law as hierarchical law but also with the very idea of international law or even some basic tenets of public law.Publication Metadata only From flexible to variable standards of judicial review: the responsible domestic courts doctrine at the European court of human rights(Taylor and Francis, 2016) N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Law School; N/AN/APublication Metadata only Influence of the ICCPR in the Middle East(Oxford University Press (OUP), 2018) N/A; Çalı, Başak; Faculty Member; Koç University Center for Global Public Law (CGPL) / Koç Üniversitesi Küresel Kamu Hukuku Araştırmaları (KÜREMER); Law School; N/AThis chapter surveys the legal influence of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the domestic laws of States in the Middle East region. It analyses ratification, reservation, and reporting practices, the domestic legal status of the ICCPR, and State responses to the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations. The chapter argues that the ICCPR’s legal influence in the region is structurally hampered due to its lack of authoritative legal status and the dominance of defensive domestic legalism. A significant gap remains between the HRC’s vision of civil and political rights protection grounded in the entrenchment of liberal, democratic, and multicultural laws and the region’s authoritarian or majoritarian political structures that foreground security and treat non-majority identities as threats. The influence of the ICCPR on domestic laws in the Middle East remains a long-term battle, whereby small gains under limited legal opportunity structures remain the overarching norm.