THE INTERPRETATION OF THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES BY GREECE AND TÜRKIYE

Introduction

This study was submitted as a doctoral thesis to the Section of International Studies of the School of Law of the Demokriteion University of Thrace and was accepted by a Seven-Member Examination Committee at a meeting held on 18.03.2022. At that time, approximately 82.4 million people have been forced from their homes around the world while in 2015 this number reached 70.8, 1 in every 95 people on earth has fled their home as a result of conflict or persecution. In a context of rampant - and global - xenophobia, internal and international displacement remains an important issue. The Mediterranean has become the world’s most deadly crossing point for asylum seekers. In 2015, there were 856,732 recorded arrivals in Greece as well as an estimated total of more than 6,600 missing persons or deaths in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes in 2015 and the first half of 2016. In 2021, the recorded sea arrivals in the Eastern Mediterranean are 58,364 and land arrivals are 4,341 (in total 62,705) with 1,401 people went missing (2020).

The book focuses on the ways in which the Greek and Turkish government as well as the EU struggled to address the crisis during that period, outlining the challenges of implementing sustainable solutions and efficient policies given the obstacles at national and European level. This “refugee or migration crisis” definition does not explain the true nature of the crisis as the term implies migrants and asylum seekers are bearers of the problem rather than victims, they thus form scapegoats of much larger actors and interests. In particular, it focuses on the island of Lesvos, the main entry point of refugees from Türkiye to Greece, and the island’s reception capacity. The findings highlight the need for a more effective common asylum system in the EU that includes adequate support and assistance to frontline states and makes suggestions for preventing

future crises in situations of large-scale arrivals from third countries to the EU border countries.

Relations between Greece and Türkiye have long been contentious, despite sharing a common history and situation as a border country in the Mediterranean region. Moreover, both have been asked to find solutions to the refugee crisis since 2015. My book focuses on the extent to which each state takes responsibility and fulfills their obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, commonly called the Refugee Convention. The thesis examines the refugee protection mechanisms in the two countries and how protection norms were implemented by both Greece and Türkiye in terms of effectiveness and efficiency for refugees, reception, relocation. Additionally, the role of EU and UN mechanisms and how they influenced Greek-Türkiye relations at a bilateral level are further examined.

My main argument is that the EU policies, deliberately implemented, in Greece and Türkiye (including containment, externalization, dehumanization (process of offshoring or extra territorialisation) and shifting responsibility for refugees to a “safe” third country led to violations of refugee rights with the implementation of the infamous EU-Türkiye deal/statement, criminalisation and massive deportations based on the logic of exchanging money for refugee containment resulting to state responsibility and accountability.

The usual problem with off shoring is that applicants are subjected to a much-restricted process in terms of due process and protection. Those fleeing armed conflict and other human rights violations will not simply stop coming just because politicians try to outdo themselves with empty rhetoric while failing to full international obligations they would prefer to impose on other, less well-off states.

Humanitarian issues thereby became part of accession negotiations for Türkiye and developed into a highly politicized issue that the author criticizes. The author further argues that the political decision of the EU-Türkiye deal signature does not fulfil European and international legal standards of refugee rights. Finally, a strong and sincere cooperation between Greece and Türkiye, based on human rights and refugee protection norms, would benefit both the region and refugees. The author concludes that both Greece and Türkiye accepted the restrictive policy instruments and policies for various reasons each. Displacement and policy responses to this phenomenon is not about nationality of refugees and politicization of the refugee issue but how states and the international community are handling issues of displacement, migration and mobility.

The aim of this book is to assess how Greece and Türkiye have responded to this influx, and identify lessons for addressing large scale refugee movements at a European and

global level. Based on book and fieldwork in Greece, mainly in Athens, Lesvos and Türkiye,

this thesis focuses on the critical period 2015 until nowadays with main emphasis to the critical period of October 2015-May 2016, which saw high flows of asylum seekers into Greece and predates the EU-Türkiye deal signed in March 2016 until nowadays (the book is updated until April 2023).

The innovation of the book is that the author attempts to examine Greek-Türkiye relations under the prism of the Refugee Convention after the Syrian influx, through a comparative study based on field work via interviews with refugees, refugee communities, local communities, policy makers and activists from field visits in Greece and Türkiye (during the period 2015).

According to the UNHCR, 1,032,408 refugees and migrants crossed the Eastern Mediterranean in 2015 and 373,652 had arrived (2016) as of 31 December 2016. The majority of arrivals, 74% of arrivals came from the world’s top 10 refugee-producing countries. As of November 2017, the official number of persons of concern (UNHCR term: asylum seekers and eligible for relocation) in Greece was 62,000, spread across the mainland and islands; over half of which were women and children. In 2016, 3,771 people died or went missing attempting to reach Greece. Following the decision to construct the Evros River fence on the Greek-Turkish border in 2011 and its completion at the end of 2012, the ‘mixed flows’ of people shifted from the north mainland to the Eastern Aegean islands.

Putting this into the global context, in 2015 the UNHCR reported 65.3 million people—one in every 113 people worldwide—were displaced by conflict and persecution, with a record 1.2 million first-time asylum seekers globally (predominantly Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis). In 2015, this includes 21.3 million refugees (16.1 million under the UNHCR mandate and 5.2 million Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA), 40.8 million internally displaced and 3.2 million asylum seekers.

In Europe, the number of people displaced is the highest number registered since 2008. The unprecedented flows and arrivals in the Eastern Aegean islands since September 2015 have highlighted structural shortcomings in the national asylum system. Large-scale arrivals led to the mobilization of state institutions and resources. According to data provided by the Asylum Service in Greece, the success rate for Syrian asylum seekers was 98.3%, with an average 291 asylum cases per month and 8,624 pending cases for Syrians in 2016 alone. In the period 2016-2021, 26,677 Syrians applied for international protection in Greece (2016), 16,398 in 2017, 13,385 in 2018, 10,856 in 2019 and 1,738 in 2020 (25,3% in total applications) with a 99,3% success rate for international protection.

In total, during the period of our preliminary findings for this book the recognition rate of first instance cases was 25.7% (2016). The Greek Asylum Service had received 14,523 asylum applications from Syrians, out of a total of 25,364, by the end of August 2016. Other countries of origin included Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Albania, Iran, Bangladesh, the Palestinian territories, Georgia and Morocco. There was an increase in asylum claims compared to 2015, where 3,495 of 13,197 claims were from Syrians. On 31 January 2017, the case backlog reached 31,122.

The Mediterranean has become the world’s most deadly crossing point for third country nationals. In 2015, there were 856,732 recorded arrivals in Greece as well as an

estimated total of more than 6,600 missing persons or deaths in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes in 2015 and the first half of 2016.

Based on book and fieldwork in Greece, mainly in Athens and Lesvos as well as Istanbul, Türkiye this thesis focuses on the critical period October 2015-May 2016, which saw high flows of asylum seekers into Greece and predates the EU-Türkiye deal signed in March 2016. The book focuses on the ways in which the Greek, Turkish governments and the EU struggled to address the crisis during that period, outlining the challenges of implementing sustainable solutions and efficient policies given the obstacles at the national and European levels. In particular, it focuses on the island of Lesvos, the main entry point of refugees from Türkiye to Greece, and the island’s reception capacity. The findings highlight the need for a more effective common asylum system in the EU that includes adequate support and assistance to front-line states and makes suggestions for preventing future crises in situations of large-scale arrivals.

The ongoing conflict in Syria has led to one of the biggest movements of people worldwide. The book aims to demonstrate and provide a critical analysis of how two neighbouring countries, Greece and Türkiye, have been affected by the so-called recent Syrian refugee crisis since 2015 onwards in terms of their asylum systems, responses to the crisis and pressure they received from a practical, political and policy point of view. This book will consider geopolitical choices and factors, migration management, refugee protection, human rights, and policy challenges. In addition, it will consider whether the decision makers and policy makers of the two countries managed to find an adequate and efficient response to the crisis in the long term and the principles these policy choices were based on. This will be the starting point to assess whether the two countries managed to reinforce their relations or the crisis contributed to a deterioration of bilateral relations. Both countries received pressure from the EU and international community in order to develop strategies and responses to the refugee and migration issue, new expertise developed (from policy institutes, NGOs and civil society actors), other similarities include violations and limited interpretation of the Refugee Convention despite the geographical limitation that Türkiye has adopted.

Despite the largely shared regional, international and supranational obligations regarding refugee protection, the overarching pattern in the field of refugee protection is characterized by a restrictive approach. Although some countries were relatively more welcoming at the beginning of the Syrian displacement in 2011, such as Türkiye (open-door policy) and Lebanon, restricted access to national/federal territories, additional physical measures such as security walls and other actions such as push-backs have become common, hindering the asylum procedure, particularly after 2015. Many countries have introduced additional procedural measures to prevent and restrain access to international protection as well as to speed up asylum assessments, such as accelerated procedures, fast-track-procedures, border procedures. Increased rejections and long waiting periods have become policies in themselves. Almost all countries tended to downgrade the rights

of applicants and beneficiaries of protection. In general, almost all newly introduced amendments or regulations impose new restrictions or limitations to existing standards of rights.

However, at the same time, some countries developed policies and practices to respond to the humanitarian crisis and welcomed refugees only from certain nationalities on the grounds of humanitarian or national reasons, through residence permits and family reunification procedure. The majority of EU countries including Greece adopted regulations and procedures which result in the fragmentation of the examination of claims through the categorization of asylum seekers. This also resulted in stratified legal statuses with different procedures and specified rights, adding up to the traceable nationality-based discrimination against certain asylum seekers (e.g. Afghans), creating ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ migrants/refugees.

In the book, the author argues that Greece and Türkiye, two border countries faced pressure and dealt with the effects of the Syrian crisis, with their similarities and differences in terms of their political system, history, identity, geopolitical position, culture, political and social configurations, as well as practices and policies that have been imposed by third parties and violate the fundamental rights of asylum seekers and refugees (as happened with the austerity driven imposed policies in Greece). Within the context of supranational obligations regarding refugee reception and rights, there have been some similarities in the response to the Syrian crisis. At the beginning of the crisis, Greece and Türkiye welcomed Syrian refugees for various reasons however with the continuation of their displacement they both developed new restrictive policies and limitations to existing standards of rights.

In addition, the author affirms that the lack of proper European refugee policies has translated into dangerous journeys with main characteristics abrupt border closures, inadequate reception conditions, limitations to the right to asylum and widespread confusion amongst European states.

This argument will be supported by a deep and timely analysis of recent jurisprudence relating to human rights violations in Greece and Türkiye affirmed by domestic and international courts, as well as an analysis of the EU-Türkiye deal and its impact to the standards of refugee rights in both countries. The author argues that this deal resulted in the violation of important international and European laws and norms. Greece and Türkiye, to a certain extent, were forced to implement the deal by the EU as a means to control refugee flows to Europe. The deal was used as a bargaining tool and, at the same time, made Türkiye adopt a kind of ‘superior’ position in the diplomatic arena.

Through the analysis of the recent literature, we will demonstrate the impact of this externalization project of European borders and the ‘migration diplomacy’ used by the EU toward border countries (Greece) and neighbouring countries (e.g., Türkiye) and what impact this project had over the empowerment of refugees and refugee protection.

Within the same tone, Ankara “exploited the refugee issue to leverage its diplomatic position towards Europe”.

From the very beginning of the institutional establishment of Türkiye in 1923 and the consolidation of the borders between the two countries, a common legal framework for minority protection was created. Greece became a member state of the EU in 1981 (then the European Economic Community), while Türkiye has been in a negotiation process to join the EU since 2004. Both are member states of the Council of Europe and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Strasbourg. Lastly, neither is bound by the Framework Convention on National Minorities or the Charter on Minority Languages. The Treaty of Lausanne has thus remained the only international instrument regulating the position of minorities through religious criterion in both countries. Strong political and national feelings shaped law and policies that moulded both countries’ ability to accept new international and European human and minority rights obligations.

Both Greece and Türkiye were used as scapegoats in order to control responsibility (Greece, as an EU Member, and Türkiye, negotiating its accession to the EU and bound by the EU acquis under authoritarian rule). Greece, in the midst of another financial and austerity driven crisis, and Türkiye, which was experiencing a political and economic crisis under the Erdoğan regime that was becoming ever more authoritarian, were politically utilized to prevent additional refugees from entering European territory. Thus, a large number of refugees have ended up in Türkiye, a majority of which are urban refugees. This political manoeuvre had a detrimental impact on the position of people on the move and their rights as enshrined in 1951 Geneva Convention, the ECHR and other EU legislation on asylum and human rights issues.

In the end, the author, based on critical analysis of the existing literature and findings from the field, concludes that a long-term solution relating to the refugee protection in Greece and Türkiye would incorporate a more sustainable, fair and humane bilateral model of refugee protection which would be an alternative means to protect people on the move in the future from the beginning of the crisis and simultaneously promote Greek-Turkish relations regarding refugee issues.

Part of the book will be devoted to a comparative study of asylum systems, implementation of the main legal and policy instruments for the protection of refugee rights and beneficiaries of international protection, considering the geographical limitation maintained by Türkiye, as well as an analysis of international protection

mechanisms used in these two border countries with a common history and previous experience in refugee movements.

The limitations of the EU-Türkiye deal and impact on both countries are also examined. Additionally, the book considers and analyses whether violations of the 1951 Geneva Convention occurred throughout the period of the crisis. This will be done through the analysis of existing national and European court jurisprudence; policy recommendations and conclusions will be drawn towards this direction. In the end, the book aims to suggest policy recommendations for both border countries, specifically how the two systems can be strengthened and whether stronger bilateral cooperation could be a model for the future in order to tackle and potentially prevent future crises.

The author believes that in line with many prominent scholars and academics who support the idea of a rapprochement process between Greece and Türkiye, there is currently stagnation in Greek-Turkish relations, despite several mutual efforts during the critical period to meet and come together to discuss issues of mutual interest and avoid further escalation of conflict; amongst these mutual interests was the refugee issue. As Professor D. Triantafyllou (2016) noted, ‘If the refugee issue was a case in previous years, we might have not been able to tackle that. This is a vital issue through which the Greek-Turkish bilateral relations could improve. We are not there yet but if this was an issue some years ago, we probably would not have been able to provide solutions. There is still no solution but there is a specific rapprochement framework which could be a useful and effective guide towards the provision of sustainable solutions for the future’.

1. Background / Book context

Policy negotiations on border management between the EU and Türkiye opened when Türkiye was officially declared an EU candidate country in 1999. The Accession Partnership Document of 2001, prepared by the European Commission, set out the principles of the EU acquis regarding visa regulations, the asylum system, anti-trafficking policies and the enhancement of administrative and technological capacities of border management. Accordingly, Türkiye introduced visa requirements in 2002 for six Gulf countries and added an additional 13 countries in 2003 to the list of those subject to the visa requirements. In the same vein, Türkiye renewed the citizenship law and the law on work permits, as well as signing the Palermo Protocol and amending the Penal Code

in order to fulfil the provisions regarding anti-trafficking and transnational organized crime.

The National Action Plan for Asylum and Migration (NAP) in 2005 and the National Harmonization Program of 2008 have accelerated migration and border control mechanisms through the intensification of repatriation and deportation centres, the addition of sophisticated equipment (e.g., projectors, binoculars, thermal cameras, barbed wires and watch towers), the enhancement of inspection and information facilities and biometric technologies, and the training of border guards and liaison officers. Chapter 24 of the EU acquis covers the administrative and technological capacity for data management, information exchange, training of the police force and implementation of detention and reception centres. All of these political, legal and institutional transformations, in which migration diplomacy has become the major subject of relations, have been referred as the ‘Europeanization’ of Turkish migration and border management and extensively elaborated on within the literature.

From 2009 onwards, the foreign policy approach of enhancing collaboration and economic, political and social relations with neighbouring countries, instituted by then-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, has become one of the pivotal drivers influencing the ‘Europeanization’ process. This foreign policy approach redirected its focus toward the Middle East and Africa, positioning itself as an influential, ‘humanitarian’ ‘regional order’ and started to contradict EU migration and border policies with respect to the adoption of a liberal visa policy towards neighbouring countries. This was followed by the lifting

of visa requirements for citizens of various third countries that had been categorized within the negative list of the EU.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring and the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Türkiye announced an ‘open door policy’ for Syrians fleeing from the war and adopted the Law on Foreigners and International Protection in 2014, providing the legal basis for the ‘temporary protection regime’ for Syrians. This went hand in hand with the moralist discourse in foreign policy, representing Türkiye as a ‘moral actor’ in the region, as opposed to the crimes of the Syrian government against its people. The adoption of a ‘morally superior’ self-image in foreign policy coincides with the Gezi Park protests, the rise of authoritarian rule and a considerable increase in human rights violations in domestic politics, which have complicated relations with Europe.

The extemporary character of border practices was intensified due to the political context of Türkiye, especially over the last few years. In the third month following the 2016 EU-Türkiye Statement, a coup attempt on 15 July led to a ‘state of emergency’ that lasted until 18 July 2018. To date, more than 125,000 people have been made redundant or suspended from the military, civil service, or judiciary, about 36,000 people have been jailed, 140 media outlets and 29 publishing houses have been shut down, more than 2,500 journalists and media workers have become unemployed, and 148 journalists have been detained.

Since July 2016, there have been a total of 5,583 academics and university administrative personnel who have been dismissed. In this period, Erdoğan repeatedly reiterated his intention to reinstate the death penalty. The ambivalent and even contradictory nature of the ‘EU-Türkiye deal’ (as an ENP-like accession partnership) allows Türkiye to counteract the EU, utilizing its self-oriented geopolitical strategies, covering its authoritarian rule with the power of migration diplomacy, blaming the EU for its non-humanitarian practices and thereby transforming the very identity of the European ‘externalization’ project.

Therefore, it is understood that in the last two decades, Türkiye has changed from a migrant-sending to a migrant-receiving and transit country. Since the 1980s, Türkiye has received a steady influx of non-third national from various places, including Asia, Eastern European countries and the Middle East. Located at the heart of a troubled region, Türkiye

has received thousands of asylum seekers fleeing from several major wars, including the Islamic revolution in Iran, the 1991 Gulf War, conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and, most recently, refugees from countries such as Somalia and Sudan. Türkiye is situated at an important transit point on the migratory routes to Europe from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Within the context of the recent Syrian refugee crisis, Türkiye played a critical role as a crucial migratory route and was an indispensable partner to the EU. Türkiye is one of the few countries that still maintains the geographical limitation to the 1951 Geneva Convention, which means that it grants asylum only to people seeking protection who are of European origins (Türkiye considers Council of Europe member states as ‘European countries of origin’).

Thus, international protection, which is an individual procedure, is not applicable to groups such as Syrians. Asylum-seekers have the right to apply for one of the three statuses regulated under international protection: ‘refugee’ status, which is limited to asylum-seekers who are of European origins; ‘conditional refugee’ status, which applies to non-Europeans and is open to almost all asylum-seekers in Türkiye; and ‘subsidiary protection’, which applies to asylum-seekers outside these two categories who would face the death penalty, maltreatment or life-threatening situations in the event of repatriation. As a result, asylum-seekers benefiting from both temporary protection and

conditional refugee statuses face an uncertain future because Türkiye does not grant any non-European person ‘refugee’ status owing to the geographical restriction it preferred when becoming a party to the 1951 Convention.

Identity and the preservation of national unity have had a strong impact on the practices of nation-states. Since the declaration of the Turkish Republic on 29 October 1923, the asylum policies of Türkiye have showed very clear tendencies in this respect. Until recently, the only law on immigration and asylum in Türkiye was the Law on Settlement (Law 2510), which was adopted in 1934. During the early years of the Republic, this law served as a tool for the construction of a new and homogenous Turkish national identity, as it only allowed immigrants or refugees of Turkish descent/ethnicity and culture to settle and integrate in Türkiye. According to Article 3 of this law, a ‘refugee’ was a person who had arrived to seek asylum as a result of compulsion and who had the intention of staying in Türkiye temporarily. Those of ‘Turkish descent and culture’, on the other hand, could decide to settle permanently. After signing and ratifying the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, Türkiye was forced to revise this narrow definition of a ‘refugee’. Nevertheless, by retaining the geographical limitation, Turkish authorities were able to maintain a selective criterion, only allowing refugees of European origin to seek asylum and settle in Türkiye.

Until 1994, Türkiye did not have its own national regulation on asylum. Prior to the 1980s, most refugee movements to Türkiye were rather small, and the refugees came mainly from European countries. The UNHCR branch office in Ankara, which was established in 1960, had a good working relationship with the Turkish authorities. The UNHCR conducted the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures for both European and non-European refugees, making sure that refugees were either promptly resettled in Western countries or repatriated to their countries of origin once conditions had improved there. Therefore, the presence of refugees and questions over their social and economic integration were not of particular concern for Turkish authorities.

In the 1980s, however, Türkiye saw its first massive flow of non-Europeans, hence non-Convention, refugees: Iranian refugees fleeing the Khomeini regime. Initially, the Iranians did not pose a problem either, as most entered the country legally with tourist visas and found their own way on to third countries. Very few of them approached the UNHCR to seek asylum. Then in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Türkiye saw a sudden and dramatic growth in number of refugees and migrants arriving from both European and non-European countries. Iraqi refugees started entering Türkiye en masse during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War of 1990-1991. In 1989, Türkiye also received about 310,000 Bulgarian Turks who were fleeing the Zhivkhov regime’s assimilation campaigns.

In 1992, an estimated 20,000-25,000 Bosnians arrived, followed in 1999 by approximately 20,000 Albanians from Kosovo who sought refuge in Türkiye. Although smaller in number, refugees also started to arrive from countries such as Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka. However, most of these refugees entered the country illegally and without any identity documents. After arrival, they would generally head directly to UNHCR to make their applications. While waiting for their applications to be finalized, they would settle in major cities without registering with the police. Therefore, it became increasingly common for UNHCR recognized refugees to turn up at airports in Istanbul or Ankara, ready to depart to their resettlement countries, without ever having had any legal presence in Türkiye.

Economic problems confronted by post-Soviet states after the 90s, coupled with Türkiye’s liberal visa regime towards these countries, led to a significant rise in irregular migrant labour to Türkiye. In 1994, the Ministry of the Interior (MOI), which is responsible for all dealings with foreigners in Türkiye, rapidly prepared Türkiye’s first national regulation pertaining to asylum seekers and refugees, entitled ‘Regulations on the Procedures and the Principles Related to Mass Influx and the Foreigners Arriving in Türkiye or Requesting Residence Permits with the Intention of Seeking Asylum from a Third Country’. The 1994 Regulation was intended to bring status determination under the control of the Turkish authorities and to introduce strict procedures for asylum applicants; as Kirişçi (1996) notes, it represented ‘an effort on the part of the Turkish authorities to replace the previous practice, which they have come to consider as too liberal and life threatening to Turkish security, with one that they believe will enhance their control over asylum in Türkiye’.

In that sense, the 1994 Regulation may be seen as the first marker of the ‘migration securitization’ approach in Türkiye which involved deportations and detention policy approach for which Türkiye was condemned by various court rulings by both the Turkish administrative courts and the European Court of Human Rights in favour of asylum seekers prompted the Turkish authorities to be more cautious about deportations. Therefore, by the late 1990s, the ‘good working relationship’ between the UNHCR and MOI had returned, with the UNHCR taking the lead in making RSD decisions and the MOI generally following suit.

Within the Turkish context, Turkish scholars have been able to produce significant book following the influx of Syrians into Turkish territory since 2011. More specifically, book, reports and policy papers have been produced in a number of sectors regarding the Syrian presence, including: social inclusion, the EU-Türkiye deal and temporary protection, the concept of hospitality in Türkiye, challenges for Türkiye, educational assessment, access

to the labour market, access to health services, hate speech and stereotypes, mental health, and the impact of Syrians on regional economies.

However, I argue that the refugee issue has yet to be examined within the prism of Greece-Türkiye relations but only within the EU-Türkiye context, with Greece only important as a member state and whatever limitations this may have. The justification for such exclusion could be that Greece is an EU member state and, thus, Greek national policies are a mere result of the wider EU policy. However, I argue that this is a half-truth at best; policies implemented regarding borders and refugee protection could lead to a breach of national sovereignty, and this issue is discussed in this thesis.

In this book, we argue that solving the issue on a bilateral basis between Greece and Türkiye, with support from supranational institutions is welcoming however a human bilateral model could probably have had a better impact for refugee rights in the future and could potentially contribute to a more sustainable and humanized model for solving the refugee crisis, with more favourable policies bringing Greece and Türkiye closer. This could probably have avoided all this delay in decision making and policy as well as serious human rights violations, drownings in the Mediterranean region and people seeking a solution in the middle of an unprecedented crisis at European standards. This book aims to suggest policy recommendations which could promote bilateral relations and cooperation between the two countries.

2. Book problem/Gap in the literature

In the context of Greece-Türkiye relations and rapprochement process, the author identified a gap in the literature when it comes to refugees and cooperation in modern times in the border countries of Greece and Türkiye and the possibility of bilateral cooperation between the two, especially after the so-called European refugee crisis. In addition, while it is true that there have been a lot of materials and publications regarding critical issues and Syrians both in Greece and Türkiye in several thematic areas, the author has identified a gap in Greek and Turkish literature: a significant lack of recent literature regarding the bilateral aspects of Syrian refugee movement, refugee law and international protection. This gap is based on findings from the field, practical experience, and social observation. The author attempts to fill this gap by approaching the comparative aspect from a legal and policy point of view (refugee protection and standards) and attempts to address these issues in English, a common language understood by both Greek and Turkish scholars. This could engage both Greek and Turkish scholars in potential cooperation activities and mutual understanding of the issues at stake.

The author argues that shedding light on the limitations in refugee protection, public discourse, and actors who have shaped the response, suggesting policy recommendations to strengthen asylum systems, could be beneficial for both countries and shed light on

the limitations, problems and challenges that Greece and Türkiye, both experiencing recent financial and political crises, faced and promote mutual dialogue, understanding and initiatives in the domain of migration and refugee law in the future.

As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, previous studies regarding Greece-Türkiye relations and refugee related issues have been conducted. However, the majority of book usually covers the period shortly after the Lausanne treaty (1923), during which population exchanges and the establishment of the two neighbouring states occurred upon disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Similar to the situation during the Syrian refugee crisis, minorities became victims of bilateral issues between the two countries. Unfavourable policies were adopted at that time regarding Muslim Turks and Greek Orthodox Rums.

For Greece, there are lots of previous studies and book on refugees and history, refugees and rights, and refugee trends and perspectives. Book multiplied after 2015, partially because the Syrian crisis was a topic of interest, but also due to the fact that funding was made available to several institutions, NGOs and think tanks to elaborate material to respond to the increasingly pressing matters described above. The majority of sources, apart from the period of population exchange, refer to the illegal migration waves to Greece after the 1980s (and focus more on illegal migration and the so-called economic migrants, social cohesion and national identity). Therefore, the author considers that there is a gap in the theory and literature when it comes to examining the Greek and Turkish case per se, and refugee protection standards specifically, following the period after the Syrian refugee crisis (2015 until now). While there has been considerable and significant work produced shortly after the crisis began, focusing on different sectors, this book will concentrate more on the case study of Greece and Türkiye when it comes to refugee protection during the last couple of years.

For Türkiye, there have been numerous studies on different topics. These topics cover the history of migration, implementation of the EU-Türkiye statement, externalization of European borders and security, and ‘EU-ization’ of the Turkish migration and border regime, as well as Türkiye’s accession negotiations that emphasize the historical, political, legal and international aspects of the topic. These studies are limited, however, when it comes to mobility, refugee protection and bilateral relations with Greece covering the period specifically after the bilateral readmission agreement and analysed mainly under a sociological/anthropological context.

3. Book Questions

This book raises and attempts to respond to certain questions, such as:

• Which factors shaped the response of the Greek state in tackling the influx of Syrians from Türkiye to Greece?

• Which factors shaped the response of the Turkish state in tackling the influx of Syrians in Türkiye?

• Is the geographical limitation to the 1951 Geneva Convention a limitation to refugee protection during the Syrian crisis?

• What were the phases of the asylum policy development in Greece and Türkiye? How did the systems evolve until the peak of the crisis?

• Has the current Syrian refugee crisis contributed to a real change in asylum policy in the two states?

• What are the commonalities in the responses from Greece and Türkiye after the Syrian crisis? How have geopolitical factors shaped these responses?

• Why did Greece and Türkiye adopt a ‘hospitality’ argument towards hosting Syrians and how did this contribute to nationalistic discourse in the respective countries? Did the discourse have the same characteristics?

• How did the EU policy play a role in bringing these border countries together or created political tension?

• In what way(s) did Greece and Türkiye fall short of their international obligation to provide adequate international protection in line with European and international standards?

• How did the Syrian influx shape the policies and legal and policy framework on refugees? Have there been any positive legal developments emerging from these realities?

• How did the policies adopted by Greece and Türkiye shape their relations with supranational organizations?

• Would bilateral cooperation be a more sustainable model to tackle these crises, without intervention from third parties (UN, EU, International non-governmental actors (INGOs)?

• In what ways does the current situation of asylum seekers/beneficiaries of temporary protection in Greece and Türkiye respectively lead to legal limbo and how does this constitute a violation of international law?

• Has state responsibility occurred in this particular case?

• How do bilateral agreements or deals such as the EU-Türkiye deal promote the rapprochement process?

• Who were the main actors dealing with the crisis in both countries? What was the role of INGOs in promoting political intervention through the ‘humanitarianism’ argument? Are there any similarities between the Greek and Turkish examples?

• In what ways has the securitization discourse played out in policies implemented by Greece and Türkiye from the beginning of the crisis until now?

• How has the refugee issue been politicized in both countries and in what ways were they discursively used as a threat to security and national unity?

• Would the refugee issue be tackled in a more human-rights based way within the context of bilateral cooperation?

• Is there real cooperation taking place in Greek-Turkish relations? If so, in what domain(s)?

• Could we argue that a rapprochement process between Greece and Türkiye would have improved the refugees’ situation after the Syrian refugee crisis?

• Has Greece been able to establish an asylum system in line with international standards after condemnation from European courts for inhumane conditions in the reception centres?

• Does the EU policy raise any criminal responsibility for the actors involved in the management of the crisis?

4. Book Aims and Objectives

The purpose of the book is to contribute from an academic, legal and policy point of view to theory on Greece and Türkiye and present a critical analysis of how Greece and Türkiye responded to the Syrian refugee crisis and the mechanisms used to tackle the refugee flows entering their territory. It is the author’s opinion that comparative book about Greece and Türkiye based on findings from the ground is lacking in the existing literature. The purpose of the book is to contribute to the theory about Greece and Türkiye and to present a critical analysis of the way in which Greece and Türkiye responded to the Syrian refugee crisis and the mechanisms used to deal with the refugee flows that enter their territory. The study aims to elaborate on similarities and differences btween the two asylum systems, institutional framework analysis, procedural guarantees (reception, relocation, detention, returns). In Türkiye, most studies on Syria are from an anthropological, sociological point of view. While there is extensive literature and book on issues such as Greece-Türkiye relations, migration, refugees and exchange, there is a gap in relations between the two countries within the modern legal framework for refugees, as both countries have succeeded. The purpose of the book is to have legal as well as policy-oriented components (analysis of a contemporary case of international cooperation on refugee policy).

The critical analysis of asylum procedures, their compatibility (or not) with international human rights standards and assessment of the impact of refugee flows on state structures in Greece and Türkiye through bibliographic review, analysis of existing literature and sources in combination with data from field book through interviews / qualitative analysis. This book will further indicate whether these neighbouring countries violated international law under pressure from unprecedented flows, which resulted in further escalation of violence at the borders and adoption of nationalist discourses.

Traditionally, most book on forced migration has approached the topic from an anthropological or sociological perspective. Such book, for good reason, has focused on and revolved around the experiences and perspectives of those at the heart of the problem of forced displacement; namely displaced people across the globe. While the value of examining and disseminating these perspectives cannot be overstated, this thesis seeks to complement such book by exploring the same topic from an international law perspective; focusing instead on the international politics of refugee protection. Until fairly recently, many of those working within forced migration studies have been highly critical of any book dealing with forced migration that fails to include the perspectives of displaced people. For instance, at the 10th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration, Landau (2007) found that often “authors focusing on international politics and processes were criticized for not including the voice or experiences of refugees”.

However, Landau (2007) himself subsequently recognized the immense importance of international politics for the ability of forcibly displaced people to access protection and durable solutions to their predicament, and consequently, the need to study such international political processes.

This dissertation seeks to complement such a book by exploring the same issue from the perspective of international law focusing instead on international refugee protection policy. It also seeks to contribute to the understanding of these political processes by examining a contemporary case of international co-operation on refugee policy. It came immediately after my involvement as a member appointed by the UNHCR in the Appelas Authority, secondary committees Law 3907/2011 in the Asylum Service (2014-2015), experience from practice in the field of refugee law. Through our book our goal is to include the voices of refugees.

The added value of this book and comparison is that scholars working on Greece-Türkiye and EU-Türkiye relations will have greater insight into the policies adopted by Greece and Türkiye in the context of asylum and international protection after the Syrian influx, considering that both countries have traditionally been countries of emigration and transit. The added value of the book, apart from the analysis of the literature, is the inclusion of findings from the ground that makes it more valuable. Recent geopolitical changes have forced both countries to develop their asylum systems and international protection mechanisms, as they were forced to comply with international norms and obligations under international treaties. We will examine how this developed with the Syrian refugee movements.

The analysis will be based on data and an examination of existing literature on the topics covered. The objective of the book is to address some of the issues that have arisen as a result of Türkiye and Greece undergoing a ‘migration transition’ following the EU-Türkiye deal and the wider implications of implementing the Geneva Convention, EU legislation and potential state violations of human rights and refugee rights in the context of EU externalization policies.

5. Significance of the Book

This study will contribute in the sector through the analysis of the existing literature (emphasis was given to Greek and Turkish academics, writers and bookers). The added value of this book is that scholars, theorists and those working in the field of Greek-Turkish and EU-Türkiye relations will obtain a greater picture of the policies adopted by Greece and Türkiye in the field of asylum, options related to refugee flows and international protection after the Civil War in Syria given that both countries have traditionally been transit countries. Moreover, the added value of the book, in addition to the analysis of the literature, is the inclusion of findings from the field that make it more valuable.

6. Fields of future research

- Prospects for Greek-Turkish cooperation, promotion of dialogue and future refugee flows (Afghans, Ukrainians), institutional framework, compliance of states.

- The future of the Euro-Turkish agreement, the rule of law and the rights of refugees in the context of nationalist voices, closed borders, leadership component.

- Prevention policies, externalization, overcrowding and violations of refugee rights. Activist trials and criminalization of asylum and protection.

- Conclusions from the field book and asylum policy making, returns, deportations, safe Third country.

- State liability and breaches of refugee rights, criminal liability and breaches by bodies such as Frontex.

- The role of NGOs and refugee management in Greece.

- Detention and the right to freedom of movement.

- Asylum policies in Greece and Türkiye, court practices and the ECHR.

7. Theory-Methodology

This thesis will elaborate, analyse and monitor the main challenges that Greece and Türkiye faced in order to find solutions to the crisis within a legal and policy framework. This will be done through a constructive analysis of the theoretical framework and policy and legal framework of the two countries. These cases will be examined in comparison to identify the official responses ways, what challenges existed and how the two countries managed to identify and fill these gaps. Since the Syrian refugee crisis, there has been an extensive book on some of the thematic areas this book aims to cover. However, this book aims to highlight the commonalities or lack thereof in the state responses of both countries and assess the impact of these policies in empowering beneficiaries of international protection. This case study could be used as a reference for future interdisciplinary book.

My book is based on desk review, quantitative and qualitative analysis of documents collected from organizations and solidarity networks, reports in the local press, interviews with local civil agents, and participant-observer book. Empirical data was gathered during the period 2015-2018 (shortly after Lesvos started receiving a high number of people on the move) and several visits after (2017-2018) as well as in Istanbul for three years (2017-2019). During the fieldwork in Greece and Türkiye, I conducted interviews with policy makers, spokespersons from national authorities, civil society spokespersons, academics, bookers, local community representatives and refugees themselves. The timeframe for these interviews was throughout the period October 2015-May 2016 and several complementary visits in 2017-2018 in Lesvos and Athens.

Regarding Türkiye, the fieldwork was conducted throughout the period November 2017-November 2019 in Istanbul, Türkiye with facilititation from Mirekoç Foundation, Koç University. The questions were open-ended type which gave the author freedom however if left margins of subjectivity, both in the drafting and in the phases of their elaboration and interpretation of the book results. Most of the interviewees, especially in Türkiye, wanted to remain anonymous to protect their identity.

In addition, data for this study were used from a previous book on refugee protection norms and policy conducted by the author under the Stavros Niarchos fellowship in Chatham House, London with main theme ‘The response of Greece to refugee crisis in Eastern Mediterrenean (2015-2016) later published with the support of Mirekoç, Koç University, Istanbul (2018). Moreover, data was compiled from interviews of the author of this study captured in the field documentary ‘Stories from Greece: digital documentaries’ in collaboration with Chatham House in October 2018 (see Appendices).

Overall, data was compiled after fieldwork as well as professional work and involvement in different projects conducted in different places in Greece, Türkiye, Belgium and the UK. This present study is a result of work done over the last five years and aims to fill in a gap in theory in the domain of international refugee law, cooperation between Greece and Türkiye, asylum and migration as well as the profiles and human rights of refugee populations in both countries. The question raised is how the 1951 Refugee Convention, the basic tool for refugee protection and refugee rights, was interpreted by the two countries and how the courts of the respective countries have interpreted the Convention. Greece and Türkiye were chosen in order to compare their responses to the influx of Syrian refugees.