Journals / Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4

Türkiye’s Withdrawal from The Istanbul Convention: An Evaluation from A Queer Perspective

Türkiye’nin İstanbul Sözleşmesinden Çekilmesi: Queer Perspektiften Bir Değerlendirme

Rojbin Meço(DİCLE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0005-1466-1939
Pages
780–801
Publication Date
2026-10-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the official website of the Presidential Directorate of Communications, the withdrawal was justified on the grounds that the Convention had been “manipulated by a group attempting to normalize homosexuality.” This article compares the Istanbul Convention with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and analyzes, from a queer theoretical perspective, the provisions in both treaties that either explicitly include or hold the potential to include LGBTİQ+ individuals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The İstanbul Convention, formally known as the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, is an international human rights treaty drafted by the Council of Europe.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Convention was signed in 2011 by forty-five countries and the European Union.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the official website of the Presidential Directorate of Communications, the withdrawal was justified on the grounds that the Convention had been “manipulated by a group attempting to normalize homosexuality.” This article compares the Istanbul Convention with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and analyzes, from a queer theoretical perspective, the provisions in both treaties that either explicitly include or hold the potential to include LGBTİQ+ individuals.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:: İstanbul Sözleşmesi · CEDAW · Toplumsal Cinsiyet

Abstract

The İstanbul Convention, formally known as the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, is an international human rights treaty drafted by the Council of Europe. The Convention was signed in 2011 by forty-five countries and the European Union. However, in 2021, Turkey announced its unilateral withdrawal from the Convention. On the official website of the Presidential Directorate of Communications, the withdrawal was justified on the grounds that the Convention had been “manipulated by a group attempting to normalize homosexuality.” This article compares the Istanbul Convention with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and analyzes, from a queer theoretical perspective, the provisions in both treaties that either explicitly include or hold the potential to include LGBTİQ+ individuals.

Özet

İstanbul sözleşmesi ya da tam adıyla “Kadınlara Yönelik Şiddet ve Aile İçi Şiddetin Önlenmesi ve Bunlarla Mücadeleye İlişkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi”, Avrupa Konseyi tarafından hazırlanmış bir sözleşmedir. Sözleşme 2011 yılında kırk beş ülke ve Avrupa Birliği tarafından imzalanmıştır. Ancak 2021 yılında Türkiye, bu sözleşmeden tek taraflı olarak geri çekildiğini belirtmiştir. İletişim Bakanlığı’nın resmî sitesinde geri çekilme nedeni “sözleşmenin eşcinselliği normalleştirmeye çalışan bir kesim tarafından manipüle edilmesi” olduğu söylenmiştir. Bu makalede İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nin CEDAW ile karşılaştırması yapılacak ve her iki sözleşmenin LGBTİQ+ bireyler için içerdiği ya da içerme potansiyeli taşıdığı maddeler queer perspektiften ele alınacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Meço, R. (2026). Türkiye’s Withdrawal from The Istanbul Convention: An Evaluation from A Queer Perspective. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 780–801. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1928645

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Avrupa Konseyi (2011). “Kadınlara Yönelik Şiddet ve Ev İçi Şiddetin Önlenmesi ve Bunlarla Mücadeleye İlişkin Avrupa Konseyi Sözleşmesi (İstanbul Sözleşmesi) Türkçe Metni”, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi İnsan Hakları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, İnsan Hakları Hukuku Bilgi Bankası https://insanhaklarimerkezi.bilgi.edu.tr/tr/content/158-kadnlara-yonelik-siddet-ve-ev-ici-siddetin-onlenmesi-ve-bunlarla-mucadeleye-iliskin-avrupa-konseyi-sozlesmesi-istanbul-sozlesmesi/ (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  2. Avrupa Konseyi (2011a). Açıklayıcı Rapor, https://rm.coe.int/ic-and-explanatory-report/16808d24c6 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026)
  3. Avrupa Konseyi (2021). “Key facts about the Istanbul Convention”, https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/key-facts
  4. Avrupa Konseyi (2023). “Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention): Questions and Answers”, https://rm.coe.int/istanbul-convention-questions-and-answers/16808f0b80 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  5. Avrupa Konseyi Anlaşma Ofisi İmza ve Onay Tablosu (2026). https://www.coe.int/en/web/Conventions/full-list/?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=210 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  6. Bakshi, S. (2025). “Universalism and Queer Entanglements”, Miranda, C. 32. 1-14.
  7. Bolat, D. (2016). “Zorunlu Heteroseksüellik Ve Türkiye Muhalefet Alanı Üzerine Bir Tartışma”, Ankara Üniversitesi Sbf Dergisi, C.71, S.4, 2016, 1091-1117.
  8. Butler, J. (2019). Cinsiyet Belası Feminizm ve Kimliğin Altüst Edilmesi, Başak Ertür (Çev.) Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.
  9. Butler, J. (2020). Savaş Tertipleri, Şeyda Öztürk (Çev.), Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
  10. Butler, J. (2021). Çöz(Ül)En Cinsiyet, Barış Engin Aksoy (Çev.), Monokl Yayınları, İstanbul.
  11. CAHVIO (2009). İstanbul Sözleşmesi Müzakere Raporları 3, https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680593859 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  12. CEDAW (1981). “Kadınlara Karşı Her Türlü̈ Ayrımcılığın Önlenmesi̇ Sözleşmesi̇” https://www.aile.gov.tr/media/35256/kadinlara-karsi-her-turlu-ayrimciligin-onlenmesi-sozlesmesi-ve-ihtiyari-protokolu.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  13. CEDAW (1992). 19 Numaralı Tavsiye Kararına https://magdur.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/23102020164219cedaw_komitesinin_19_sayili_genel_tavsiye_karari.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  14. CEDAW (2010). 28 Numaralı Genel Tavsiye Kararı https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cedaw/2010/en/77255 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  15. CEDAW (2017a). 35. Tavsiye Kararı: https://docs.un.org/en/CEDAW/C/GC/35 (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  16. CEDAW (2017b). On-Dp vs. Rusya Kararı, CEDAW/C/75/D/119/2017 https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/2709/en-US.
  17. CEDAW (2015). Anna Belousova v Kazakhstan Kararı, CEDAW/C/61/D/45/2012, 25 August 2015, https://www.worldcourts.com/cedaw/eng/decisions/2015.07.13_Belousova_v_Kazakhstan.pdf (Erişim Tarihi 27.10.2026).
  18. Dreyfus T. (2014). “The ‘Half-Invention’ Of Gender Identity In International Human Rights Law: From Cedaw To The Yogyakarta Principles”, Australian Feminist Law Journal, Cilt 37, Sayı 1, 33-50.
  19. Duncan, S. (1995). Law's Sexual Discipline: Visibility, Violence, And Consent, Journal Of Law And Society, Cilt 22, Sayı 3, 326-352.
  20. Foucault M. (2007), Cinselliğin Tarihi, Hülya Uğur Tanrıöver (Çev.), Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul.
  21. Kırıchenko, K. A. (2023). “Queer Intersectional Perspective on Lgbti Human Rights Discourses by United Nations Treaty Bodies”, Australian Feminist Law Journal, Cilt 49 S.1 Ss. 55-70, Https://Www.Tandfonline.Com/Doi/Pdf/10.1080/13200968.2023.2203974.
  22. Mazel, O. (2022). “Queer Jurisprudence: Reparative Practice In International Law,” Symposium On Queering International Law, Cambridge University Press, Https://Www.Cambridge.Org/Core/Journals/American-Journal-Of-İnternational-Law/Article/Queer-Jurisprudence-Reparative-Practice-İn-İnternational-Law/Dc662af815f55d43a7a62c5d4eb10ea5.
  23. Morgan, W. (2001). “Queering International Human Right Law”, Stychin C., D. Herman (Ed), Sexuality In The legal Arena (içinde) Athlone Press 208–225.
  24. Otto, D. (2015). “Queering Gender [Identity] In International Law”, Nordic Journal Of Human Rights, Vol. 33, No. 4, 299-318.
  25. Pollis, A., Schwab, P. (1979). “Human Rights: A Western Construct With Limited Applicability” Human Rights: Cultural And Ideological Perspectives (İçinde S. 1-19), New York: Praeger.
  26. Rahman, M. (2014). “Queer Rights and The Triangulation of Western Exceptionalism”, Journal Of Human Rights, C.13, S.3, 274-289.
  27. Rıggs D. W., Walker G. A. (2006). “Queer(Y)Ing Rights: Psychology, Liberal İndividualism And Colonization”, Australian Psychologist, C.41, S.2, 2006 95-103.
  28. Simm, G. (2020). Queering CEDAW? Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) In International Human Rights Law, Griffith Law Rewiew, C.29, S.3 (374-400).
  29. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İletişim Başkanlığı (2021). 21.02.2021 tarihli açıklama https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/haberler/detay/turkiyenin-istanbul-sozlesmesinden-cekilmesine-iliskin-aciklama#:~:text=Türkiye%2C%2020%20Mart%202021%20tarihinde,bulunarak%20sözleşmeyi%20feshetmesine%20izin%20vermektedir. (Erişim Tarihi 26.02.2025).
  30. Tschalaer, M. (2021). “The Istanbul Convention And Queer Women Seeking Asylum”, University Of Bristol, 2021, Https://Www.Gwi-Boell.De/Sites/Default/Files/2021-06/Policybristol_Briefing65_Tschalaer_Queer-Women-Asylum_En.Pdf.
  31. Ugleva, A.V. (2022). “Broken Facets Of Ethıcal Unıversalısm. Commentary On The Book Unıversalıty In Moralıty”, Kantian Journal, C. 41, S. 2, 2022, 122-147
  32. Zanghellını, A. (2009). “Queer, Antinormativity, Counter-Normativity and Abjection”, Griffith Law Review, C.18 S.1, 1-16, 2009.
  33. CEDAW (2017b). On-Dp vs. Rusya Kararı, CEDAW/C/75/D/119/2017 https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/2709/en-US.
  34. Kırıchenko, K. A. (2023). “Queer Intersectional Perspective on Lgbti Human Rights Discourses by United Nations Treaty Bodies”, Australian Feminist Law Journal, Cilt 49 S.1 Ss. 55-70, Https://Www.Tandfonline.Com/Doi/Pdf/10.1080/13200968.2023.2203974.
  35. Mazel, O. (2022). “Queer Jurisprudence: Reparative Practice In International Law,” Symposium On Queering International Law, Cambridge University Press, Https://Www.Cambridge.Org/Core/Journals/American-Journal-Of-İnternational-Law/Article/Queer-Jurisprudence-Reparative-Practice-İn-İnternational-Law/Dc662af815f55d43a7a62c5d4eb10ea5.
  36. Tschalaer, M. (2021). “The Istanbul Convention And Queer Women Seeking Asylum”, University Of Bristol, 2021, Https://Www.Gwi-Boell.De/Sites/Default/Files/2021-06/Policybristol_Briefing65_Tschalaer_Queer-Women-Asylum_En.Pdf.