Accounting for variation in political party closures: the EU's framing in DTP and BATASUNA decisions

Official URL: http://192.168.1.20/record=b1505259 (Table of Contents)

This dissertation aims to provide an insight on the type of influence the European Union has on political party prohibition decisions in the receiving countries, by focusing on recent cases from a member state and a candidate country. For this purpose, justifications used in decisions to the ban DTP, the Kurdish nationalist political party in Turkey and Batasuna, the Basque nationalist political party in Spain are analyzed at legal and political levels. Selection of cases enables to develop a comparative approach to internal and external dimensions of the transformative impact of the Union's human rights policies. Adopting a Communicative Action Perspective, arguments are analyzed in accordance with three criteria: utility, values and rights. It is argued that both Spanish and Turkish judges refer to EU norms, principles and practices when justifying their decisions. This indicates a right-based influence for the EU on receiving countries at the legal level. The continuous references to the previous EU practices reveal that when making a decision, actors in the receiving countries consider not only the official statements but the practices of the EU. Thus, the effectiveness of the EU's human rights policies depends on consistency in its practices. Right-based arguments are used also by Turkish politicians whereas Spanish politicians rely on costs and benefits of Batasuna ban. Hence, in the discussions on DTP's prohibition, in a candidate country, Turkey, the EU emerges as a right-based legitimation mechanism both at political and legal levels. However, in a member state, Spain, the EU is absent as a reference point in the political argumentation on Batasuna's prohibition.