We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Taking up from where Chapter 5 left off, this chapter shows the ECtHR’s response to Kurdish legal mobilisation against state violence in the emergency region. On the basis of a process-oriented analysis, it traces the evolution of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on gross and systematic human rights violations in the Kurdish region and Turkey’s execution thereof. It shows how the ECtHR’s engagement in the Kurdish conflict has evolved with its acquisition of expertise on Turkey’s legal system and yet varied in response to emerging political and legal developments in Turkey and Europe. The chapter provides a detailed doctrinal analysis of each of the three phases in the ECtHR's oversight of gross violations in the Kurdish region, demonstrating that the Court's jurisprudence has been inconsistent and incoherent under the façade of judicial meticulousness and unduly deferential to the Turkish government's counterterrorism argument. It concludes that the ECtHR, even during the peak of its engagement in the Kurdish cases, refrained from making full use of its jurisprudential powers to hold Turkey accountable.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.