The supreme court issue

TURKEY’S agenda is the supreme courts: The Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in domestic politics and the International Court of Justice in foreign policy.

President Erdogan’s search for reconciliation with the main opposition in domestic politics following his party’s defeat in the March 31 local elections seems to be based on the independence of the judiciary from political power, compliance with the judgments of the ECHR, which is considered above the Turkish judiciary under the Constitution, and the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, which is also the highest judicial authority in Turkey under the Constitution.

The fact that Osman Kavala and Selahattin Demirtas have still not been released despite ECHR rulings and that MP Can Atalay is still in prison despite a Constitutional Court ruling were the most critical topics on the agenda of main opposition leader Ozgür Ozel’s meeting with Erdogan.

CLOSURE OF TAKSIM TO MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS AND THE EMPTY SEAT

The timing of the meeting between Erdogan and Ozel was also closely related to Turkey’s Supreme Court issues.

The meeting occurred on May 2, just one day after the AK Party government closed the square again despite the Constitutional Court’s decision to open Taksim to May Day celebrations. CHP Leader Ozgür Ozel also traveled to Istanbul to attend the celebrations in Taksim but had to return halfway before reaching Taksim Square.

The fact that the debate over the first meeting between the ruling party and the opposition in Turkish politics in years focused only on the detail of the empty seat (which was left empty on Erdogan’s left hand during the meeting) was a relief for the ruling party. The independence of the judiciary, which the CHP wanted to open up for discussion, was lost in the noise of empty-seat rumors.

TURKEY’S APPLICATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE FOR GAZA

Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan added a new dimension to the current supreme court agenda in Turkey with a statement in which he announced that Turkey would officially intervene in the case filed by the Republic of South Africa, which has taken Israel’s inhumane military operations in Gaza to the International Criminal Court.

The continuation of trade with Israel for months after it began operations in Gaza was one of the main reasons for the AK Party’s defeat in the March 31 elections. The AK Party government decided to stop trade with Israel immediately after the polls.

As with most of the steps taken in foreign policy during the AK Party governments, the decision to become a party to the International Court has the possibility of going far ahead in the Israeli issue.

Namely:

► Turkey does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, becoming a party to the International Criminal Court’s case on the Gaza issue may leave Turkey vulnerable to future lawsuits with similar allegations in the same court. In this respect, in the current Syrian issue or The Events of 1915 (and the Turkish-Armenian Controversy), which should be left to historians to decide, Turkey may face the prospect of an international legal battle against unjust allegations.

► The second problem could be Turkey’s relations with countries in the region, where Arab countries tend to see the Palestinian issue as an Arab cause rather than an ummah issue. As with all Arab causes, the Arab countries themselves do not take any steps, and they have shown many times in recent history that they do not like external interventions in these matters. The involvement of a non-Arab country like Turkey in the case, as the first Muslim country to intervene, as Hakan Fidan put it in his statement, may raise eyebrows in Arab capitals.

We should remember that the decision will likely shadow Israeli-Turkish relations for many years after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu leaves office.

► Of course, the third problem lies in the criticism that Turkey’s involvement in a case at the International Court of Justice, to which it is not a party, could generate, even if Turkey does not comply with the rulings of an international court such as the ECHR, to which it is officially a party. The criticism of Turkey could even overshadow the Palestinian cause itself.

It should not be forgotten that South Africa is far from the Middle East, while Turkey has direct relations with the region. Such critical steps taken on behalf of domestic politics may even negatively affect the country’s position and foreign policy in decades to come.