Extended Summary

Throughout the history of the Republic of Turkey, there have been various dismissals and eliminations, which have violated the labour rights and scientific autonomy of scientists. In this study, after briefly discussing the academic dismissals/eliminations at Turkish universities throughout the history of the Republic, the dismissals in 2016 and afterwards, known as “Peace Academics”, will be discussed in the light of the Turkish Constitutional Court and other judgments. The study is based on a social policy perspective, particularly in the context of the right to work, non-discrimination and the principle of equality.

The 1933 and 1948 eliminations, the 147s (1960), the 1402s (1983), and the dismissals/eliminations of academics in 2016 are the most well-known examples of academic dismissals and eliminations in Turkey. With these large-scale academic eliminations, many scientists were dismissed. The dismissals of academics who signed a declaration titled “We will not be a party to this crime” is the largest academic purge in the history of Turkey. The Constitutional Court ruled that the declaration was not an offence as it was within the scope of freedom of expression, and various high criminal courts acquitted all the academics who signed the declaration and were prosecuted. Although the 2016 dismissals have been finalised in terms of constitutional and criminal law, the violations of rights (right to work, right to wages, right to social security, right to scientific activity) caused by these dismissals continue. The dismissed academics have not reinstated to their jobs despite judgments.

The study will be based on the important concepts of social policy, namely the right to work, non-discrimination and the principle of equality. Violation of the right to work will be discussed within the framework of both social policy doctrine and national and international legal regulations and practices. In the study, academic dismissals will be evaluated in terms of national and universal legal rules and relevant judgments, especially the Constitutional Court. Despite the constitutional binding nature of the Constitutional Court judgments, the ongoing violations of rights will be analysed.

Although the Constitutional Court considered the declaration, which was used as a justification for the dismissals, within the scope of freedom of expression and several high criminal courts acquitted the signatory academics, the rights violations caused by the 2016 dismissals have not been eliminated. Other rights violations related to the dismissals continue. The rights violations caused by these dismissals will continue to be discussed for a long time in terms of labour rights and will be among the important problems of social policy / labour law and social security practice and literature.

As of the publication date of this article, seven years have passed since the academics were dismissed. The fact that the legal processes have not been finalised in these seven years is a violation of rights in itself. This whole process has once again shown that the international conventions to which Turkey is a party, the Constitution, the Unification of Jurisprudence Decision of the Council of State, and the Constitutional Court’s judgment are still not enough to provide guarantees for those who hold different views from the government in Turkey. Although all these legal documents acknowledge that everyone has the right to work in a job that suits their abilities, the Constitution recognises the right to work and the right to social security as a fundamental right, and the Unification of Jurisprudence Decision of the Council of State has accepted that academics cannot be discriminated against because of their different opinions, the fact that seven years of victimisation has been created is not a phenomenon that can be explained in terms of law and social policy.

Another important fact that should not be overlooked is that the denial of their rights to academics is a victimisation for them, while it is an opportunity for the government to extend its sphere of action to the limits drawn by the rule of law. Any political power that gains this opportunity, as stated in the Constitutional Court’s judgement, will be able to demand that public authorities be rendered unquestionable and, moreover, will be able to force the society to do so. The elimination of pluralism in society, the limitation of opposing views, and the exception of the administration’s adherence to the law are not only the problems of the dismissed academics, but also of everyone who favours a democratic system and the rule of law.

The study will be written with a documentary and exploratory approach based on the comparative historical method, evaluating archival records and documents, judicial decisions, and the theoretical framework on the subject.