This article is part of the blog series “Who, What, and How Much Does Temporary Protection Protect?”. The series builds on presentations from a workshop of the same name, held on December 9, 2023, in Izmir. Organized in a hybrid format, the workshop was a collaboration between NCCR On the Move, the Institute of Sociology at the University of Neuchâtel, and the Izmir Bar Association.

In the opening article of the series, academic and GAR member Neva Övünç Öztürk explores Turkey’s Temporary Protection Regulation (TPR), the challenges it faces, and the broader implications of Turkey’s experience for the global refugee regime.

Temporary Protection in Turkey: Promises, Pitfalls, and Lessons for the Future 

Neva Övünç ÖZTÜRK

Temporary protection, promoted as a pragmatic tool for international refugee law in mass-influx situations, is intended as a practical response to sudden mass migrations. It promises immediate safety and relief while offering States flexibility during crises. However, as Turkey’s experience demonstrates, the effectiveness of temporary protection is contingent upon robust legal frameworks and international responsibility-sharing in the absence of binding international instruments. This blog article explores Turkey’s Temporary Protection Regulation (TPR), its challenges, and the broader implications for the global refugee regime.

Understanding Temporary Protection

Temporary protection is promoted as an interim and pragmatic solution, addressing large-scale forced migrations until voluntary repatriation or access to individual international protection statuses becomes feasible again. This approach balances State sovereignty with international legal obligations, including the prohibition of refoulement and the right to seek asylum. However, its reliance on temporary frameworks and State flexibility means that it requires adequate safeguards and global cooperation to ensure effectiveness and fairness.

Turkey’s Temporary Protection Regulation

Since 2014, Turkey has been hosting millions of Syrian asylum seekers under the TPR, which is based on a single article (Art. 91) of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection. While ambitious in scope, this protection regime under the TPR reveals critical weaknesses:

1. Lack of Pathways to Individual International Protection Statuses and the Risk of Protracted Situations
   Under the TPR (Art. 16), asylum seekers cannot apply for individual international protection statuses while under temporary protection. This creates an indefinite state of limbo, as the Regulation lacks an upper time limit for the duration of temporary protection, denying these individuals access to long-term residence or local integration pathways.

Moreover, the lack of access to individual international protection statuses leaves only voluntary return as a durable solution. However, the fact that voluntary returns are likely to take place before the situation in Syria is fully stabilized requires a much more rigorous assessment of these returns. Indeed, the absence of clearly defined objective criteria for the termination of the temporary protection regime in the TPR reinforces this necessity, as it may lead to premature returns. 

2. Human Rights and Legal Protections
   TPR grants broad discretionary powers to administrative bodies, resulting in following risks:

• Restrictions on fundamental rights may occur often without clear legal justification and quality of law (e.g., TPR, Arts. 8, 35).
• While the prohibition of refoulement is enshrined in the TPR, limited safeguards against deportation mean that asylum seekers may be sent to countries with which they have no connection.

These practices risk deviating from international standards and weaken the protection promised by temporary mechanisms.

3. Responsibility-Sharing: The Missing Pillar

The success of temporary protection hinges on fair and functional responsibility-sharing. While the European Union (EU) has provided financial support to Turkey, resettlement commitments remain minimal. This imbalance places disproportionate pressure on Turkey, contributing to policy measures that prioritize containment over integration and/or legal security. The lack of physical responsibility-sharing—resettlement—undermines the effectiveness of Turkey’s approach and exacerbates challenges on the ground.

Comparing Turkey and the EU

The EU’s Temporary Protection Directive, activated for Ukrainian refugees, offers valuable contrasts:

• It contains minimum standards on refugee rights across Member States and ensures a certain, albeit relative, consistency with the 1951 Refugee Convention.
• Responsibility-sharing tools and mechanisms are embedded in the EU’s supranational legal framework, fostering possible cooperation among member states.

Turkey, as a non-EU country, lacks these advantages, leaving its responsibility-sharing efforts subject to ad hoc political agreements rather than binding legal commitments. For instance, the 2016 EU-Turkey deal provided financial assistance but fell short of equitable resettlement, reflecting the EU’s broader policy of externalizing migration management.

Lessons from Turkey’s Experience

Turkey’s case underscores critical lessons for the global refugee regime regarding the implementation of temporary protection:

1. Responsibility-Sharing is a Need and Should not be a Bargaining Chip
   Effective temporary protection in line with international refugee law and human rights law, which respects the balance between freedom and security, is only possible if the responsibility for protection is shared fairly and effectively. Financial assistance alone is insufficient; resettlement programs and cooperative governance are essential to reduce the burden on frontline states like Turkey and manage mass influx migration in a rights-based manner.
2. Legal Frameworks Must Enable Durability
   Temporary protection should remain genuinely interim, facilitating transitions to durable solutions either through legally secure voluntary repatriation mechanisms or through access to individual protection statuses. Hence, legal systems must integrate pathways to residence, citizenship, or resettlement to prevent indefinite dependency.
3. Human Rights Cannot Be Sacrificed for Administrative Flexibility
   Broad discretionary powers undermine the predictability and fairness of temporary protection. Policies restricting fundamental rights, such as freedom of residence and movement or the right to liberty and security, must align with constitutional and international standards.

Looking Ahead

Turkey’s challenges illustrate the risks of relying on temporary protection without adequate binding international guarantees or international co-operation. The recent judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Akkad v. Turkey can be seen as a concrete reflection of these risks. 
Turkey’s experience is a striking reminder that the promotion of temporary protection as a solution, without at least a binding sharing of responsibility, risks turning protection into a mere restriction. In an environment where temporary protection lacks a binding international legal framework, the failure to share responsibility for international protection places a heavy burden on the protecting state, which can undermine access to an effective, fair and durable solution. For temporary protection to be effective, the international community needs to move away from a financial bargaining approach to the responsibility to protect and towards permanent and binding solutions. Thus, promoting temporary protection due to its flexible nature may, in the absence of specific safeguards, lead to a protection vulnerability rather than a protection solution.

References: 

UNHCR, Guidelines on Temporary Protection and Stay Arrangements, https://www.unhcr.org/media/guidelines-temporary-protection-or-stay-arrangements. 

Temporary Protection Regulation of Turkey, https://www.goc.gov.tr/kurumlar/goc.gov.tr/Gecici-Koruma-Yonetmeligi-Ingilizce.pdf 

EU-Turkey Statement (Deal) of 18 March 2016, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/ 

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (Temporary Protection Directive of the EU), OJ L 212, 07.08.2001, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/55/oj 

Akkad v. Turkey, App. No. 1557/19 (ECtHR, 21 July 2022), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-217815%22]} 

Neva Ö. Öztürk is an assistant professor at Ankara University, Faculty of Law. Her research interests include migration and refugee law. She is also a senior researcher at Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul (SRII) and a member of Migration Research Association (GAR).  

* The ideas and opinions expressed in GAR Blog publications are those of the authors; they do not reflect those of the Association for Migration Research.

** The image created by ChatGPT