Erdoğan’s presidential regime and strategic legalism: Turkish democracy in the twilight zone

References

• Akça, I., S. Algül, H. Dincer, E. Keleşoglu, and B.A. Özden. 2018. When the state of emergency becomes the norm: the impact of executive degrees on Turkish legislation. Istanbul: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
   Google Scholar
• Akdeniz, Y., and K. Altıparmak. 2018. Turkey: Freedom of expression in jeopardy. Violations of the rights of authors, publishers and academics under the State of Emergency. English PEN, March 28. https://www.englishpen.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Turkey_Freedom_of_Expression_in_Jeopardy_ENG.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Akkoyunlu, K., and K. Öktem. 2016. Existential insecurity and the making of a weak authoritarian regime in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16, no. 4: 505–27. doi:10.1080/14683857.2016.1253225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altıparmak, K., D. Demirkent, and M. Sevinç. 2018a. Atipik KHK’ler ve Daimi Hukuksuzluk: Artik Yasalari İdare mi İptal Edecek. Olağanüstü Hal ve Uygulamaları Bilgi Notu 1/2018, Ankara: IHOP.
   Google Scholar
• Amoore, L. 2013. The politics of possibility: risk and security beyond probability. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. 1962. The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Meridian.
   Google Scholar
• Bali, A. 2016. Shifting into reverse: Turkish constitutionalism under the AKP. Theory & Event 19, no. 1: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bargu, B. 2018. Year one: reflections on Turkey’s second founding and the politics of division. Critical Times: Interventions in Global Critical Theory 1, no. 1: 23–48. doi:10.1215/26410478-1.1.23.
   Google Scholar
• Bussolini, J. 2010. What is dispositive? Foucault Studies 10: 85–107. doi:10.22439/fs.v0i10.3120.
   Google Scholar
• Commission, Venice. 2017. Opinion on the Duties and Functioning of the Criminal Peace Judgeships, March 10–11. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDLAD.
   Google Scholar
• Corrales, J. 2015. The authoritarian resurgence: autocratic legalism in Venezuela. Journal of Democracy 26, no. 2: 37–51. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyzenhaus, D. 2006. The constitution of law, legality in a time of emergency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erdoğan, A. 2015. Suç Ceza Hakimliği. In Türkiye’de Hukuku Yeniden Düşünmek, ed. H. İnanıcı, 269–79. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, L.C. 2010. The banality of emergency: on the time and space of ‘political necessity’. In Sovereignty, emergency, legality, ed. A. Sarat, 136–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferejohn, J. 2002. Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law. Law and Contemporary Problems 65, no. 3: 41–68. doi:10.2307/1192402.
   Google Scholar
• Frankel, E. 1941. The dual state, a contribution to theory of dictatorship. Trans. E. A. Schils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg, T., and T. Moustafa. 2008. Rule by law: the politics of court in the authoritarian regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Göztepe, E. 2018. The permanency of the state of emergency in Turkey: The rise of a constituent power or only a new quality of the state? Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 28, no. 4: 521-534.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. 1992. Selections from the prison notebooks. Trans. and ed. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J.E. 2010. Eyes of the people, democracy in an age of spectatorship. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, A. 2018. Permanent states of emergency and the rule of law: constitutions in an age of crisis. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hoelzl, M., and G. Ward. 2014. Translators’ introduction. In Dictatorship, from the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to proletarian class struggle, Trans. Michael Hoelzl and Graham Ward, x–xxix. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hussain, N. 2007. Beyond norm and exception: Guantánamo. Critical Inquiry 33, no. 4: 734–53. doi:10.1086/521567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IHOP. 2018. Updated situation report- state of emergency in Turkey, 21 July 2016 – 20 March 2018. Ankara: İnsan Hakları Ortak Platformu. Human Rights Joint Platform.
   Google Scholar
• International Commission of Jurists. 2018. The Turkish Criminal Peace Judgeships and International Law. https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Turkey-Judgeship-Advocacy-Analysis-brief-2018-ENG.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Isiksel, T. 2013. Between text and context: Turkey’s tradition of authoritarian constitutionalism. I•CON 11, no. 3: 702–26.
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, T. 2005. Semi-authoritarian incorporation and autocratic militarism in Turkey. Development and Change 36, no. 4: 641–65. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00428.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaygusuz, Ö. 2018. Authoritarian neoliberalism and regime security in Turkey: moving to an ‘exceptional state’ under AKP. South European Society and Politics 23, no. 2: 281–302. doi:10.1080/13608746.2018.1480332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landau, D. 2013. Abusive constitutionalism. U.C. Davis L. Rev 47: 189–260.
   Google Scholar
• Levitsky, S. and L.A. Way. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism, hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linz, J.J. 1990. The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy 1, no. 1: 51–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowi, T.J. 1985. The personal president, power invested, promise unfulfilled. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maguire, P. 2001. Law and war: an American story. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moustafa, T. 2014. Law and courts in authoritarian regimes. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10: 281–99. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, J.M. 2016. What is populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donell, G.A. 1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy 5, no. 1: 55–69. doi:10.1353/jod.1994.0010.
   Google Scholar
• Öztürk, E., and İ. Gözaydin. 2017. Turkey’s constitutional amendments: A critical perspective. Research and Policy on Turkey 2: 210–24. doi:10.1080/23760818.2017.1350355.
   Google Scholar
• Öniş, Z. 2019. Turkey under the challenge of state capitalism: The political economy of the late AKP era. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 19, no. 2: 201–25. doi:10.1080/14683857.2019.1594856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parslow, J. 2016. Theories of exceptional executive powers in Turkey, 1933–1945. New Perspectives on Turkey 55: 29–54. doi:10.1017/npt.2016.20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parslow, J. 2018. Rupture and repair: Military courts and the Turkish court of jurisdictional conflict. Research and Policy on Turkey 3, no. 1: 1–17. doi:10.1080/23760818.2018.1445231.
   Google Scholar
• Rossiter, C. 2002. Constitutional dictatorship: crisis government in the modern democracies. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schedler, A. 2013. The politics of uncertainty, sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheppele, K.L. 2018. Autocratic legalism. The University of Chicago Law Review 85, no. 2: 545–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuerman, W.E. 1996. Introduction. In The rule of law under siege, selected essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer, ed. W.E. Scheuerman, 1–25. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, C. 2001. State, movement, people, triadic structure of the political unity. Trans. Simona Draghici. Corvallis: Plutarch Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, C. 2004. Legality and legitimacy. Trans. Jeffrey Seitzer. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, C. 2014. Dictatorship, from the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to proletarian class struggle. Trans. Michael Hoelzl and Graham Ward. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shen-Bayh, F. 2018. Strategies of repression: judicial and extrajudicial methods of autocratic survival. World Politics 70, no. 3: 321–57. doi:10.1017/S0043887118000047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shogan, C. 2003. Rhetorical moralism in the plebiscitary presidency: new speech forms and their ideological entailments. Studies in American Political Development 17: 149–67. doi:10.1017/S0898588X03000105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer, M. 2016. Understanding Turkey’s democratic breakdown: Old vs. new and indigenous vs. global authoritarianism. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 16, no. 4: 481–503. doi:10.1080/14683857.2016.1246548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taş, H. 2015. Turkey – From tutelary to delegative democracy. Third World Quarterly 36, no. 4: 776–91. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1024450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuğal, C. 2016. In Turkey, the regime slides from soft to hard totalitarianism. Open Democracy, February 17. https://www.opendemocracy.net/cihan-tugal/turkey-hard-totalitarianism-Erdoğan-authoritarian.
   Google Scholar
• Üskül, Z. 2003. Olağanüstü Hal Üzerine Yazılar. Istanbul: Büke Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Virilio, P. 2012. The administration of fear. Trans. Ames Hoges. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e) Intervention Series.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, E. 2016. The concept of the parapolitical. In The dual state, parapolitics, Carl Schmitt and the national security complex, ed. E. Wilson, 1–28. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yazıcı, S., 2016. Yeni Bir Anayasa Hazırlığı ve Türkiye Seçkincilikten Toplum Sözlesmesine. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
   Google Scholar