Counterterrorism and Human Rights: a Comparative Analysis of United States and European Laws, and Suggestions for Turkish Law Reform
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History SJD Dissertations Academics 11-2018 Counterterrorism and Human Rights: A Comparative Analysis of United States and European Laws, and Suggestions for Turkish Law Reform Gulen Soyaslan Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/sjd Recommended Citation Soyaslan, Gulen, "Counterterrorism and Human Rights: A Comparative Analysis of United States and European Laws, and Suggestions for Turkish Law Reform" (2018). SJD Dissertations. 12. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/sjd/12 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Academics at FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in SJD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2018 Counterterrorism and Human Rights: A Comparative Analysis of United States and European Laws, and Suggestions for Turkish Law Reform S.J.D. DISSERTATION GULEN SOYASLAN SUPERVISOR: PROF. DANIEL J. CAPRA DISSERTATION COMMITTEE: PROF. DEBORAH W. DENNO JUDGE ETHAN GREENBERG PROF. DANIEL J. CAPRA FORDHAM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW NOVEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Daniel J. Capra ---a man of great professional integrity--- for his continuous support in developing my research, his genuine efforts to generate a distinctive piece of work, and for his eye-opening suggestions. He invested his precious time to this work, valued and respected my opinions, and answered my questions even in his most limited time. I am very grateful for working with him, and could not have wished for more. Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank the other committee members ---Prof. Deborah W. Denno and Judge Ethan Greenberg--- for their valuable suggestions in my proposal defense that helped me shape the dissertation. I am grateful for their time and invaluable comments for this thesis. I would also like to thank Assistant Dean Toni M. Jaeger-Fine and Prof. Thomas H. Lee for creating necessary conditions for productive doctoral studies and their support for S.J.D. candidates. Thanks also to Prof. Ethan J. Leib for very helpful philosophical discussions in the first year of the S.J.D. program. I am thankful for the emotional support of S.J.D. fellows. Their presence gave me strength and made my studies more fruitful. We shared unforgettable memories and established the grounds for life-long friendships. I would like to specially thank Zahra Takhshid, Shany Winder, Nemika Jha, Flavio Jaime de Moraes Jardim (and his wife Carla Jardim), Christine Buamah, Kwaku Agyeman- Budu, Steffanie E. Keim, Yusra Alshanqityi, and Daniel Gomez Mazo. 2 I would like to thank Nesime Can for accompanying me in the doctoral journey in the U.S. I am grateful for her true friendship and genuine care for me. I also thank Michelle Bagheri for her whole-hearted friendship that brightens up my day. Special thanks to the Turkish Interior Ministry for allowing me to interview security officials. This research couldn’t have been made possible without the collaboration of Turkish police and gendarmerie. They spared the time for my questions in their overly tight schedule. Many thanks to each and every one of my interviewees. Besides security officials, I would like to thank participating prosecutors and judges. Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my mom for teaching me the importance of determination and ambition in success, my dad for guiding me through my legal career and doctoral studies, and my brother for being there anytime to back me. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TERRORISM ...................................................................................................................... 11 A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 11 1. Terror and Terrorism ................................................................................................................. 11 2. The Definitions and Elements of Terrorism .............................................................................. 16 a) National .................................................................................................................................................16 (1) Specific terrorist purposes (Mens rea) .............................................................................................16 (2) Terrorist acts (Actus reus) ................................................................................................................20 (3) Organization .....................................................................................................................................25 b) International ..........................................................................................................................................26 B. TERRORISM IN TURKEY ....................................................................................................... 32 1. The History of Terrorism in Turkey .......................................................................................... 32 a) The Ethnic Separatist Terrorism Inherited from the Ottoman Empire .................................................32 (1) The Fall of the Ottoman Empire ......................................................................................................32 (2) Armenian and Kurdish Separatist Terrors since the Ottoman Era ...................................................38 b) Terrorism against the Democratic Constitutional Order of the Turkish Republic ................................45 (1) Islamist Terrorism against the Democratic Constitutional Order of Modern Turkey ......................45 (2) Marxist-Leftist Terrorism against the Liberal Structure of the State ...............................................48 2. Turkey’s Terrorism Compared to the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany ............................................................................................................................................. 48 C. THE COMPARISON OF TURKISH LAW WITH EUROPEAN AND UNITED STATES LAWS ..................................................................................................................................................... 56 1. The Roots of Turkish Law, Its Relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Binding Force of the European Court of Human Rights Decisions ...................................... 56 2. The General Comparison of European and American Legal Principles ................................... 61 D. INTERVIEWS AS SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 62 E. INITIAL AND CURRENT PROPOSALS ................................................................................ 64 II. TURKISH LAW REFORM PROPOSALS AND RELEVANT EUROPEAN AND UNITED STATES LAWS .......................................................................................................... 65 A. PREVENTIVE DETENTION ON GENERAL DANGEROUSNESS GROUNDS ............... 65 1. The Security and Liberty Relationship ...................................................................................... 66 2. Preventive Detention in Counterterrorism ................................................................................. 67 3. The Types of Preventive Detention ........................................................................................... 69 a) Immigration Detention ..........................................................................................................................69 (1) The United States .............................................................................................................................69 (2) The United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................70 (3) Germany ...........................................................................................................................................71 (4) Turkey ..............................................................................................................................................73 (5) The European Court of Human Rights ............................................................................................74 b) Pre-Trial Detention ...............................................................................................................................77 (1) The United States .............................................................................................................................77 (2) The United Kingdom .......................................................................................................................81 (3) France ...............................................................................................................................................82 (4) Germany ...........................................................................................................................................84 (5) Turkey ..............................................................................................................................................85 (6) The European Court of Human Rights ............................................................................................87