Suchergebnisse

The paper is devoted to analyze European Union and Turkey debates on human rights. Here the debates are perceived as the scene where both sides put their arguments, positions, values, express intensions. This helps to find out the main reason, why discussion on human rights between European Union and Turkey isn't as fluent as it could be. Debates are analyzed in so called "language games" perspective, which means, that all argumentation here is equated to the move making in the game theory. Going along game theory lines, here we make a presumption, that states as international actors are rational, but their identity and interests are not static. Taking into account ideas of Alexander Wendt, identity and interests are presupposed to be a product of mutual states interaction. Interaction in the paper by itself is supposed to be a game, where the biggest stress is put on rules – knowing the rules of the game, it's possible to understand state intentions and identity elements. In the paper main theme of human rights is parted into two sections that deal with freedom of speech and religious minorities rights. It is supposed that the first topic is debated between European Union and Turkey's Kemalist establishment, and the second – between Union and proislamic movements in Turkey. Such move is made because of the ambivalent Turkish identity. After the First World War established Turkish state, soon it turned into a radical modernization and westernization. This led to the partitioned state identity. Kemalist establishment stresses threat of radical Islamism and Kurdish separatism, and Islamists demand the same rights for Muslims as for all other religious minorities. For this reason Kemalist identity is based on four main principles: nationalism, secularism, state hegemony and modernization. Meanwhile, Islamists stress muslimhood as the core of their identity. In the first debate European Union criticizes Turkey because of sanctions for citizens while they are expressing non-violent opinion on such topics as Armenian genocide, Kurdish question and the legacy of Atatürk. Turkey (Kemalist establishment) gives it's own arguments referring to the aforementioned threats to the state, but these arguments are not taken into account by European Union. For this reason Kemalists assume, that European Union seeks to rebuild Kemalist identity of Turkey. The second debate deals with religious minorities' situation in Turkey. On the one hand, Europe always stresses problems, which face non-Muslim and non-Sunni religious minorities. One the other – Turkey's Islamists, while agreeing with such statements, seek to show problems of Sunni Muslim majority. This part of debate reveals how Muslim identity is excluded out of European human rights concept.

The paper is devoted to analyze European Union and Turkey debates on human rights. Here the debates are perceived as the scene where both sides put their arguments, positions, values, express intensions. This helps to find out the main reason, why discussion on human rights between European Union and Turkey isn't as fluent as it could be. Debates are analyzed in so called "language games" perspective, which means, that all argumentation here is equated to the move making in the game theory. Going along game theory lines, here we make a presumption, that states as international actors are rational, but their identity and interests are not static. Taking into account ideas of Alexander Wendt, identity and interests are presupposed to be a product of mutual states interaction. Interaction in the paper by itself is supposed to be a game, where the biggest stress is put on rules – knowing the rules of the game, it's possible to understand state intentions and identity elements. In the paper main theme of human rights is parted into two sections that deal with freedom of speech and religious minorities rights. It is supposed that the first topic is debated between European Union and Turkey's Kemalist establishment, and the second – between Union and proislamic movements in Turkey. Such move is made because of the ambivalent Turkish identity. After the First World War established Turkish state, soon it turned into a radical modernization and westernization. This led to the partitioned state identity. Kemalist establishment stresses threat of radical Islamism and Kurdish separatism, and Islamists demand the same rights for Muslims as for all other religious minorities. For this reason Kemalist identity is based on four main principles: nationalism, secularism, state hegemony and modernization. Meanwhile, Islamists stress muslimhood as the core of their identity. In the first debate European Union criticizes Turkey because of sanctions for citizens while they are expressing non-violent opinion on such topics as Armenian genocide, Kurdish question and the legacy of Atatürk. Turkey (Kemalist establishment) gives it's own arguments referring to the aforementioned threats to the state, but these arguments are not taken into account by European Union. For this reason Kemalists assume, that European Union seeks to rebuild Kemalist identity of Turkey. The second debate deals with religious minorities' situation in Turkey. On the one hand, Europe always stresses problems, which face non-Muslim and non-Sunni religious minorities. One the other – Turkey's Islamists, while agreeing with such statements, seek to show problems of Sunni Muslim majority. This part of debate reveals how Muslim identity is excluded out of European human rights concept.