The legal notion of nationality in the Turkish Republic: from Ottoman legacy to modern aberrations

ABSTRACT

Shortly after its emergence, the Turkish Republic adopted legislation inspired by European legal systems and traditions, including a law on nationality. The implementation of this law was affected by the staunchly nationalistic early republican policies which were not immune from the influence of the concept of ‘race’, as well as by the Ottoman legal conceptions on nationality based on religion, both of which guided the application of the new laws by the judiciary and the administration. This article proposes a critical legal approach to the issue of Turkish nationality, based on historical reflections. After a survey on the laws on nationality since the foundation of the Republic, it addresses the major confusions in connection with the concept of nationality in the light of textbooks from the relevant period, in order to observe, in conclusion, inherent and insolvable inconsistencies within the law, and a tenacious survival of Ottoman conceptions within the current law on nationality, especially with regard to religious minorities, which are assimilated to dhimmis in the legal subconscious and often equated to foreigners in practice.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his gratitude to Olivier Bouquet, Berk Demirkol, Özlem Öktem, Pelin Mantı, Özen Ülgen Adadağ, Burak Çelik, Mehmet Uzun and Emmanuel Szurek.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. O. Bouquet, ‘Non-Muslim Citizens as Foreigners Within. How Ecnebi Became Yabancı from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.53 (2017), pp.486–99.

2. The 1924 Constitution is, in fact, the second Constitution adopted by the Ankara Government, which coexisted with the Istanbul Government from 1920 until the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy in 1922. After the promulgation of the Constitution by the Turkish National Assembly on 20 January 1921 in Ankara, two constitutions were simultaneously in force. See E. Öktem, ‘Turkey: Successor or Continuing State of the Ottoman Empire?’ Leiden Journal of International Law Vol.24 (2011), p.579.

3. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, (Proceedings of the Turkish Grand Assembly), Devre II, c. 8/1, pp.908–11.

4. Both terms mean ‘nationality’ but ‘milliyet’ has an ethnic connotation whereas ‘tabiiyet’ has a merely legal meaning and originates from ‘tebaa’, which means ‘subject’ (of a State, a sovereign).

5. ‘Ressortissants’ in the authentic text in French. See Traité de Lausanne cf. Trattati e accordi per l'Oriente meditarraneo, a cura di Amedeo Giannini (Roma: Edizioni di politica, 1923), p.160.

6. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre II, c. 8/1, pp.909–10.

7. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre II, c. 8/1, pp.909–10

8. Similarly, the Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the 1924 Constitution, Celal Nuri Bey, refers to ethnic Turks of Greece as ‘vatandaş’, of Muslim faith and Hanefite denomination. See: TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi, Devre II, c. 8/1, p.910.

9. Suphi Nuri (İleri) Yasaların Çatışması (Istanbul: Bozkurt Matbaası, 1934), p.84.

10. F. Üstel, ‘Makbul Vatandaş’ın Peşinde- II. Meşrutiyetten Bugüne Türkiye'de Vatandaş Eğitimi (Istanbul: İletişim, 2004), p.165.

11. Abdülbaki, Yurd Bilgisi (Istanbul: Maarif ve Şark Kitaphaneleri, 1927–1928), pp.5–6; cited by Üstel, ‘Makbul Vatandaş’ın Peşinde, p.214.

12. The report of the Constitutional Commission which prepared the Draft Constitution of 1961 states that Article 52 (later Article 54) reiterates the provision of Article 88 of the 1924 Constitution, although the wordings are different. See Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa tasarısı ve Anayasa- Komisyonu raporu (5/7) 9 March 1961, Temsilciler Meclisi S. SAYISI: 35, p.26

13. The report of the Constitutional Commission which prepared the Draft Constitution of 1982 specifies with regard to Article 66 (Article 75 of the Draft) that the title of Article 54 of the 1961 Constitution (Citizenship) was changed in the new constitution to ‘Turkish Citizenship’ in order to ‘emphasize the importance of citizenship for acquiring Turkishness’. See Türkiye Cumhuriyet Anayasa Tasarısı ve Anayasa Komisyonu Raporu (1/463) 30.7.1982, Danışma Meclisi (S. Sayısı: 166’ya 1inci Ek), p.37.

14. E. Nomer, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, 21st ed. (Istanbul: Filiz Kitabevi, 2015), pp.3, 19; see also B. B. Erdem, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, 4th ed. (Istanbul: Beta, 2014), p.39.

15. Judgment of 10.7.1992, Official Gazette of 25 October 1992, no.21386.

16. To be understood as civic rights.

17. Judgment of 16.6.1994, Official Gazette of 30 June 1994, no.21976.

18. Judgment of 26.9.1965, Official Gazette of 25 July 1967, no.12656.

19. Judgment of 11, 12, 13, 14 -25 February 1975; Official Gazette of 3 December 1975; no.15431

20. Judgment of 16.6.1994, Official Gazette of 30 June 1994, no.21976.

21. Judgment of 14.2.1997, Official Gazette of 26 June 1998, no.23384.

22. For the 16 previous amendments, see E. Öktem ‘Réformes constitutionnelles et démocratisation’ in Vingt ans de changements en Turquie (1992–2012) (Paris, L'Harmattan, 2013), p.27.

23. I. Grigoriadis ‘Türk or Türkiyeli? The Reform of Turkey's Minority Legislation and the Rediscovery of Ottomanism’ Middle Eastern Studies Vol.43, No.3 (May 2007), pp.424, 430.

24. See Grigoriadis, Türk or Türkiyeli?, p.430 and ff.

25. I. Ortaylı, ‘Türkiye'nin Adı’ in Tarihin Işığında (Istanbul: Profil, 2009), p.207.

26. Compare, for instance, with the constitutions of states with different political structures: French Constitution, Article 3 in fine and Article 24 in fine; German Constitution, Preamble and Articles 8, 9, 11, 12, 20 and 33; Spanish Constitution, Preamble and Articles 1, 2, 3, 11, 16, etc.

27. Having gathered spontaneously, the commission of non-Muslim lawyers inevitably suffered problems of representation vis-à-vis non-Muslim communities. The commission included two Muslim lawyers, one of them being the author of this article.

28. Official Gazette of 4 June 1928, no.904.

29. Official Gazette of 22 February 1964, no.11638.

30. Official Gazette of 12 June 2009, no.27252.

31. Parliamentary Document 1/458; General Directorate of Laws and Decisions; B.02.0.KKG.0.10/101-1195/1824 (see https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/sirasayi/donem23/yil01/ss90.pdf), p.2.

32. Erdem, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, p.36.

33. Parliamentary Document 1/458, p.3.

34. Nomer, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, p.79.

35. Nomer, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, pp.85, 87.

36. Article 72 of the Regulation on the Application of the Law on Nationality, Official Gazette of 6 April 2010, no.27544.

37. See the International Court of Justice judgment Nottebohm Case (second phase), Judgment of 6 April 1955: I.C. J. Reports 1955, p.23: ‘According to the practice of States, to arbitral and judicial decisions and to the opinions of writers, nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be said to constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the individual upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as the result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the State conferring nationality than with that of any other State.’

38. For the evolution and degeneration of the concept of ‘laïcité’, imported from France, see E. Öktem, ‘Les périples strasbourgeoises de la laïcité turque’ Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2010/2 (Journées d’études sur les laïcités turque et française, Université de Montpellier, Faculté de droit, 2 March 2010), pp.131–3.

39. Republican Party of the People, which was the founding political institution of the Republic under the one-party regime which lasted until 1946. There had been unsuccessful attempts at a multi-party system until that time.

40. Özbudun, ‘Milli Mücadele ve Cumhuriyetin Resmi Belgelerinde Yurttaşlık Sorunu’, in N. Bilgin (ed.), Cumhuriyet, Demokrasi ve Kimlik (Istanbul: Bağlam, 1997), p.67.

41. Muslihiddin Adil, Malumat-ı Vataniye (Istanbul: Orhaniye Matbaası, 1924/1340), pp.3–4; and Cumhuriyet Çocuklarına Malumat-ı Vataniye (Istanbul: Orhaniye Matbaası, 1926), cited by Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, pp.161, 166.

42. Mitat Sadullah, Yurt Bilgisi, 1927–1928, p.10; cited by Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, p.168.

43. TC Marif Vekilliği, Yurtbilgisi Dersleri, IV. Sınıf (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1939), p.13; cited by Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, p.169.

44. A. Afetinan, Medeni Bilgiler ve M.Kemal Atatürk'in El Yazıları, 2nd ed. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1988), p.22.

45. Op. cit. p.24.

46. According to the French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan (1823–1892), see E. Renan, Qu'est-ce qu'une Nation? et autres essais politiques, textes choisis et présentés par Joël Roman (Paris: Presses Pocket, 1992), p.54.

47. B. Ersanlı Behar, İktidar ve Tarih. Türkiye'de ‘Resmi Tarih’ Tezinin Oluşumu (1929–1937) (Istanbul: Afa, 1996), p.127.

48. Üstel, ‘Makbul Vatandaş’ın Peşinde, p.216.

49. The word ‘ırk’ appears in the lyrics of the national anthem written in 1921 during the Independence War by the poet Mehmed Akif Ersoy. The poet himself was of Albanian origin, and certainly not racist in any sense, given his pan-Islamist tendencies. In that period, it seems that ‘ırk’ was practically synonymous with nation and/or ethnicity.

50. The Word ‘ırk’ may be found in some legal documents such as the Regulation on the Application of the Law on Nationality of 1964. See Official Gazette of 1 July 1964, no.11742.

51. Official Gazette of 22 February 1964, no.11638.

52. Law No. 5543 of 19 September 2006 (İskân Kanunu), Official Gazette of 26 September 2006, no.26301. The previous law on settlement (1934) too had referred to Turkish race in the context of the admission of immigrants and refugees. See R. Aybay, Yabancılar Hukuku (Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007), p.96.

53. Nomer, Türk Vatandaşlık Hukuku, p.93.

54. Türk Soylu Yabancıların Türkiye'de Meslek Ve Sanatlarını Serbestçe Yapabilmelerine, Kamu, Özel Kuruluş Veya İşyerlerinde Çalıştırılabilmelerine İlişkin Kanun, Law No. 2527, Official Gazette of 29 September 1981, no.17473.

55. Aybay, Yabancılar Hukuku, p.97.

56. Afganistan'dan Pakistan'a Sığınan Türk Soylu Göçmenlerin Türkiye'ye Kabulü ve İskânına Dair Kanun, Official Gazette of 19 March 1982, no.17638

57. Ahıska Türklerinin Türkiye'ye Kabulü ve İskânına Dair Kanun, Official Gazette of 11 July 1992, no.21281) (Ethnic Turks originating from the city of Akhaltsikhe – Ahıska in Turkish – in Georgia.)

58. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti ve Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti Arasında İki Ülke Vatandaşlarına İlave Kolaylıklar Tanınmasına İlişkin Anlaşma, Ratification Decree: Official Gazette of 6 January 2000, no.23928.

59. 2^nd Civil Chamber, Judgment of 23 November 1990, E. 1990/5729, K. 1990/11522.

60. 12^th Chamber, judgment of 24 March 1998, E. 1997/1411, K. 1998/895.

61. Afetinan, Medeni Bilgiler ve M.Kemal Atatürk'in El Yazıları, p.21.

62. See Bora, Cumhuriyetin İlk Döneminde Milli Kimlik, p.58.

63. See Caymaz, Türkiye'de Vatandaşlık, p. 49; Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, p.289.

64. Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, p.290–3.

65. Judgment of 16 June 1994, Official Gazette No. 21976 of 30 June 1994, p.103.

66. Üstel, “Makbul Vatandaş”ın Peşinde, p.293–4.

67. See E. Öktem and M. Uzun, ‘Religion and secular state in the Republic of Turkey’, in J. Martinez-Torron and W.C. Durham, (eds), Religion and Secular State: National Reports (Madrid: Universitad Complutense, 2015), pp.744–5.

68. See A. Mandelstam, ‘La protection des minorités’ Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international, t. 1, 1923, p.418; Réchid Ahmed, ‘Les droits minoritaires en Turquie dans le passé et le présent’ Revue générale de droit international public, t. XLII, 1935, p.299.

69. S. Akgönül, ‘Les Grecs d'Istanbul’ Mésogeios – Méditerranée Vol.6 (1999), p.66.

70. S. Akgönül, ‘Reciprocity and Minority Religious Institutions in Greece and in Turkey’, in S. Akgönül (ed.), Reciprocity. Greek and Turkish Minorities. Law, Religion and Politics (Istanbul: Bilgi University Press, 2008), p.154.

71. A. Yumul, ‘Azınlık mı, vatandaş mı?’, in A. Kaya and T. Tarhanlı (eds), Türkiye'de Çoğunluk ve Azınlık Politikaları: AB Sürecinde Yurttaşlık Tartışmaları (Istanbul: TESEV, 2005), p.100. Yumul observes that the 1942 Wealth Tax recalls the jizya which was imposed on the dhimmis under the Ottoman rule, which originated from Islamic law. See op. cit. p.88.

72. E. Copeaux, ‘“La nation turque est musulmane”: Histoire, islam et nationalisme’, in G. Groc (dir.), Formes nouvelles de l'islam en Turquie. Les Annales de l'autre islam, n 6 (Paris: Inalco-Erism, 1999), p.327.

73. Y. Courbage and P. Fargues, Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'Islam arabe et turc, (Paris: Petite Bibliothèque Payot, 1997), p.228.

74. L. Mallet, ‘Les juifs de Turquie entre les minorités et la construction identitaire turc’ Cahiers d’études sur la Méditarranée orientale et le monde turco-iranien. No.28, Juin–Décembre, 1999, p.60.

75. Özbudun, Milli Mücadele ve Cumhuriyetin Resmi Belgelerinde Yurttaşlık Sorunu, p.67.

76. See, for instance, A. Çelikel / G. Öztekin Gelgel, Yabancılar Hukuku, 20th ed. (Istanbul: Beta, 2014), pp.27–30.

77. R. Bali, Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Türkiye Yahudileri- Bir Türkleştirme Serüveni (1923--1945) (Istanbul: İletişim, 2000), p.228 and ff.

78. D. Bayır, Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law (London: Ashgate, 2013), p.123.

79. See F. Türkmen and E. Öktem ‘Foreign Policy as a Determinant in the Fate of Turkey's Non-Muslim Minorities: A Dialectical Analysis’ Turkish Studies Vol.14 (2013), p.6.

80. Düstur, 3. Tertip, Cilt 13, pp.649–50.

81. Suphi Nuri (İleri) Yasaların Çatışması (Istanbul: Bozkurt Matbaası, 1934), p.91.

82. Bali, Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Türkiye Yahudileri, p.208 and ff.

83. Official Gazette of 6 March 2003, no.25040

84. Aybay, Yabancılar Hukuku, pp.174–75.

85. See Aybay, Yabancılar Hukuku, pp.175–76.

86. See N. Ekşi, Yabancılar Hukukuna İlişkin Temel Konular (Istanbul: Beta, 2007), pp.93–104.

87. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, pp.297–8; A. Aktar, Ayhan. ‘ ‘Tax Me to the End of My Life’: Anatomy of an Anti-minority Tax Legislation (1942–3)’, in B. C. Fortna, S. Katsikas, D. Kamouzis and P. Konortas (eds), State-Nationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey: Orthodox and Muslims, 1830--1945 (London: Routledge, 2013), pp.188–220.

88. See S.J. Shaw, Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey's Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933-1945 (New York: New York University Press; London, MacMillan Press, 1993).

89. Judgment of 6 July 1971, quoted by F. Çetin, Yerli Yabancılar, in Ulusal, Uluslarüstü ve Uluslararası Hukukta Azınlık Hakları, (Istanbul: İstanbul Bar Association Publications, 2002), p.76. A similar judgement dated in 1975 and related to the Greek Hospital of Balıklı ruled that ‘foreigners are prohibited from acquiring property in Turkey’. The claimant appealed to the Court of Cassation, which acknowledged that consideration of a foundation created by Turkish nationals as a foreign institution was erroneous. Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation confirmed the judgement! See B. Oran, Presentation at the conference: Cemaat Vakıfları; Bugünkü Sorunları ve Çözüm Önerileri (Istanbul: Istanbul Bar Association Publications, 2002), pp.24–5.

90. See Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı v. Turkey, 34478/97, 9 January 2007, §50–60.

91. Türkmen and Öktem, Foreign Policy as a Determinant in the Fate of Turkey's Non-Muslim Minorities, p.9.

92. For this problem, see E. Öktem, ‘Statut juridique des fondations des communautés non-musulmanes en Turquie - la nouvelle loi sur les fondations’ Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica, XVI (Agosto 2008), pp.477–99.

93. Judgment of 27 December 2002, Official Gazette of 11 December 2003, no.25313.

94. Presidential Document No. B.01.0.KBB.01-18/A-10-2006-830 29 November 2006.

95. Judgment of 17 June 2010, Official Gazette of 11 January 2011 no.27812.

96. See Öktem, Statut juridique des fondations des communautés non-musulmanes en Turquie, pp.486–91.

97. Official Gazette of 28 December 1988, no.20033.

98. Yerli Yabancılar.

99. F. Çetin, ‘Yerli Yabancılar’ in Ulusal, Ulusalüstü ve Uluslararası Hukukta Azınlık Hakları (Istanbul: Istanbul Bar Association Publications , 2002), p.70.

100. Judgment of 13 June 2007, E. 2005/10694, K. 2007/5603.

101. For a critical analysis of the judgment see E. Öktem, ‘La question de l’œcuménicité du Patriarcat Orthodoxe d'Istanbul. Reflexions sur un arrêt de la Cour de cassation turque’ Rivista italiana di politica internazionale (2010), pp.407–29.

102. O. Bouquet, ‘Non-Muslim Citizens as Foreigners Within. How Ecnebi Became Yabancı from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.53 (2017), pp.486–99.

103. H. Pena-Ruiz, Qu'est-ce que la laïcité? (Paris: Gallimard, 2003), p.242.

104. See E. Öktem, ‘La spécificité de la laïcité turque’ Islamochristiana, 29/2003, p.93 and ff.

105. In fact, racism as an act of thought does not attract penal sanction in Turkish law. The scarcity of the case law of the Court of Cassation with regard to art. 216 of the current Criminal Code (2004) and to art. 312 of the previous (abrogated) Criminal Code which deals with the same subject shows the reluctance of the judiciary to use such provisions in cases of hatred and animosity against minorities. See Bayır, Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law, pp.235, 238–9, 241–2, 249.