Journals / Ankara Bar Review / 2013 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Comparative Analysis Of The UK And Turkey In Terms Of The Question: Can The UK's Human Rights Law Be A Model For Turkey To Overcome Its Violations Of Article 3 And Article 10 Of The European Convention On Human Rights?

Pages
111–175
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Consequently, the research concentrates on whether the United Kingdom s law can be a guide for Turkey to cope with its human rights law deficiencies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This dissertation presents the human rights problem in Turkey and it aims to suggest a new way forward which has not proposed previously.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although Turkey has made several legal reforms related to its prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and freedom of expression violations, such violations have continued to pose a problem.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Consequently, the research concentrates on whether the United Kingdom s law can be a guide for Turkey to cope with its human rights law deficiencies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This dissertation presents the human rights problem in Turkey and it aims to suggest a new way forward which has not proposed previously. Although Turkey has made several legal reforms related to its prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and freedom of expression violations, such violations have continued to pose a problem. Consequent to a comparison of the human rights policies of the United Kingdom and Turkey, this paper suggests that the incorporation the European Convention on Human Rights into Turkish domestic law could be beneficial for the country. The United Kingdom s law is a convincing example of the advantages of incorporating the Convention. The comparison of the legal frameworks, case law and the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights provide an evidence to underpin this thesis. Consequently, the research concentrates on whether the United Kingdom s law can be a guide for Turkey to cope with its human rights law deficiencies.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNLÜ, D. (2022). Comparative Analysis Of The UK And Turkey In Terms Of The Question: Can The UK's Human Rights Law Be A Model For Turkey To Overcome Its Violations Of Article 3 And Article 10 Of The European Convention On Human Rights?. Ankara Bar Review, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 111–175. https://ajindex.com/articles/441069

References (3)

  1. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68 (HL
  2. A. v. United Kingdom [1998] Appl. No: 25599/94 _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. asp?item=3&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=%22THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM%22%20%7C%203%20%7C%20A.&sessionid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 21 September 2011 3. Ahmed and others v. The United Kingdom [1998] Appl. No:22954/93 _____http://cmiskp.echr. coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=ahmed&sessionid=6 2680957&skin=hudoc-en > accessed 28 September 2011 4. Austria v. Italy (1961) Application No. 788/60, 4 YEARBOOK 116 5. Aydin v. Turkey [judgment of 25 September 1997] 25 EHRR 251, at p. 1103-9 _____http:// cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=aydin%20 %7C%20v.%20%7C%20turkey&sessionid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 12 August 2011 6. Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania (ECHR (Judgment) 4 November 2008, Case No. 72596/01
  3. Barthold v. Germany [1985] 7 ECHR 383 (8734/79) _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Barthold%20%7C%20v%20%7C%20 Germany&sessionid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 23 September 2011 8. Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [1999] ECHR 23536/94 and 24408/94 _____http://cmiskp. echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=baskaya&sessio nid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 24 September 2011 9. Bowman v United Kingdom [1998] 26 EHRR 1 (141/1996/760/961) _____http://cmiskp.echr. coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=10%20%7C%20bow man&sessionid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 29 September 2011 10. British Steel Corporation v. Granada Television Ltd. Case [1981] 1 All ER 417 at 455LEGISLATIONS AND TREATIES 11. Camelot Group Ltd. v. Centaur Communications Ltd., [1998] 1 All ER 251 CA 12. Case of Ürper and others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 55036/07, 55564/07, 1228/08, 1478/08, 4086/08, 6302/08 and 7200/08) _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal= hbkm&action=html&highlight=%DCrper%20%7C%20others%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20 Turkey&sessionid=62680957&skin=hudoc-en> accessed 05 October 2011 13. Ceylan v Turkey [1999] ECHR 23556/94 _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. asp?item=1&portalLEGISLATIONS AND TREATIES=hbkm&action=html&highlight=ceylan&sessionid=70066607&skin=hud oc-en> accessed 26 September 2011 14. Chahal v United Kingdom [1997] 23 EHRR 413, Appl. No: 22414/93 _____http://cmiskp. echr.coe.int/