A Legal Analysis from Historical Memory to Residence, Citizenship, and the Principle of Non-Refoulement
Introduction: More Than Just a Geographical Region
When a person is forced to leave the land of their birth, it means far more than simply leaving a country behind. Sometimes, what remains behind is a family; sometimes, a language that one is no longer permitted to speak; and sometimes, a homeland one fears never seeing again. In this respect, the story of Uyghur Turks who have left East Turkestan and settled in Türkiye is not merely a story of migration. It is the story of a community striving to preserve its identity, establish a secure life, and obtain legal protection.
Due to its historical, cultural, and linguistic ties, Türkiye has long been an important country of refuge and settlement for Uyghur Turks. However, reaching a country does not always mean obtaining legal security. Indeed, some Uyghur Turks living in Türkiye face serious legal challenges, including the rejection or cancellation of residence permits, unresolved citizenship applications, restriction codes, administrative detention orders, and the possibility of deportation.
Underlying these challenges is not merely the implementation of immigration legislation, but also the delicate legal balance between the exercise of state sovereignty and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Therefore, understanding the East Turkestan issue requires examining not only the circumstances prevailing in China, but also the legal status under which people who have left the region live in Türkiye, the rights they are able to exercise, and the judicial procedures they must pursue to protect those rights.
I. Historical and Legal Background of East Turkestan
East Turkestan is a historical region located in the eastern part of Central Asia and constitutes one of the important centres of Turkic history, Islamic civilisation, and Silk Road culture. Today, the region lies within the borders of the People’s Republic of China and is officially administered as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
Uyghur Turks are a Turkic people with their own distinctive language, literature, traditions, and cultural institutions. Cities such as Kashgar, Hotan, Turpan, Aksu, and Yarkand have, for centuries, been important centres in the development of Turkic-Islamic culture. The cultural heritage represented by Mahmud al-Kashgari’s Dīwān Lughāt al-Turk and Yusuf Khass Hajib’s Kutadgu Bilig demonstrates the significance of this region in the history of Turkic thought and civilisation.
Throughout history, East Turkestan has been governed by various states and political administrations. In 1884, the Qing Dynasty, which ruled China at the time, incorporated the region as a province under the name Xinjiang.
Two significant developments occurred in the political history of the region during the twentieth century. The First East Turkestan Republic was proclaimed on 12 November 1933, with Kashgar as its centre, while the Second East Turkestan Republic was proclaimed on 12 November 1944, with Ghulja as its centre. Neither political entity was able to maintain its existence amid the regional and international balance of power prevailing at the time.
A new period began in 1949 when the People’s Republic of China established control over the region, followed by the establishment of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in 1955.
However, the existence of formal administrative autonomy does not eliminate the question of the extent to which such autonomy is effectively implemented in political, cultural, and social life. Indeed, language policies, freedom of religion and conscience, the protection of cultural identity, and political representation in the region have been subjects of international debate for many years.
From a legal perspective, an important distinction must be made. The historical identity of a geographical region and its current political status under international law are not identical concepts. Nevertheless, the fact that a territory falls under the sovereignty of a state does not mean that the fundamental rights of its inhabitants may be restricted without limitation.
II. The East Turkestan Issue in International Human Rights Law
Human rights concerns in East Turkestan have received increasing attention from the international community, particularly since 2017.
Serious allegations of human rights violations have emerged concerning the mass detention of Uyghur Turks and other Muslim communities, restrictions on religious and cultural activities, family separation, forced labour, and population-related policies.
The People’s Republic of China maintains that these measures have been implemented for the purposes of combating terrorism and extremism, providing vocational education, ensuring public security, and promoting economic development. However, assessments conducted by international human rights mechanisms have raised serious questions concerning the legal nature of these practices.
The assessment report published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 31 August 2022 is particularly significant in this regard. The report indicated that arbitrary and discriminatory detention practices and severe restrictions on fundamental rights affecting Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim communities in Xinjiang may constitute international crimes, particularly crimes against humanity.
Although this finding does not amount to a final criminal conviction rendered by a court, it represents an extremely serious assessment concerning the fundamental values protected under international law.
The prohibition of torture, freedom of religion and conscience, the prohibition of discrimination, the right to liberty and security of person, and the protection of cultural identity are at the heart of this issue.
One of the fundamental principles of international law is that states must fulfil their human rights obligations even within territories under their sovereignty. State sovereignty does not confer unlimited authority.
Human rights concerns in East Turkestan also directly affect the legal situation of Uyghur Turks who have migrated to other countries. The risks that individuals may face if returned to their country of origin give rise to protection obligations on the part of the countries in which they seek refuge.
This is also the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes the legal challenges faced by Uyghur Turks living in Türkiye from other immigration cases.
III. Uyghur Turks in Türkiye: From Historical Affinity to the Search for Legal Status
Relations between Türkiye and Uyghur Turks did not begin with contemporary migration movements. Uyghur Turks who arrived in Türkiye, particularly from the 1950s onwards, gradually established settled communities.
Today, Uyghurs living in different cities across Türkiye, particularly Istanbul, participate in social life through education, commerce, cultural activities, and civil society initiatives.
In its report dated 12 November 2025, entitled Protected No More: Uyghurs in Türkiye, Human Rights Watch estimated the Uyghur population in Türkiye at approximately 50,000. This figure is based on estimates used in the research rather than an official population census.
Türkiye has historically provided certain facilitative arrangements for Uyghur Turks in its immigration practices. In particular, their ability to benefit from special arrangements concerning access to long-term residence permits represents an important example of Türkiye’s approach towards this community.
Nevertheless, not all Uyghurs living in Türkiye hold the same legal status. Some have acquired Turkish citizenship, while others reside under long-term residence permits, humanitarian residence permits, or international protection status. Certain individuals face uncertainty regarding their legal status because their residence or protection applications have been rejected or their existing permits have been cancelled.
In this context, the geographical limitation maintained by Türkiye under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is particularly important.
Under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, Türkiye may grant conditional refugee status or subsidiary protection to persons seeking asylum as a result of events occurring outside Europe, provided that the relevant legal conditions are satisfied. The international protection needs of Uyghur Turks may also be assessed within this legal framework.
Furthermore, humanitarian residence permits may be granted pursuant to Article 46 of Law No. 6458. However, a humanitarian residence permit does not produce the same legal consequences as international protection status.
Articles 42 and 43 of the Law are particularly relevant to long-term residence permits. Although the general requirement is eight years of uninterrupted residence, certain conditions may be waived for foreigners who meet the special requirements established under the applicable legislation. Nevertheless, Article 42(2) of the Law also provides specific restrictions concerning the transition from humanitarian residence permits and international protection status to long-term residence permits.
Accordingly, when assessing the legal status of Uyghur Turks, it is essential to examine separately the documentation held by each individual, the protection regime applicable to them, and the legal provisions upon which their applications are based.
IV. Major Legal Challenges Faced in Türkiye
1. Rejection of Residence Permits and Legal Uncertainty
Residence permits are among the principal legal issues encountered by Uyghur Turks living in Türkiye.
A residence permit should not be regarded merely as an administrative document authorising a foreign national to remain in Türkiye. Rather, it constitutes the foundation of a legal status that directly affects the individual’s daily life, family arrangements, professional activities, and long-term plans.
The rejection or cancellation of a residence permit may result in the loss of an individual’s lawful right to remain in Türkiye and, in the absence of another lawful basis for residence or protection, may cause the individual to fall into an irregular migration situation.
Such consequences may affect not only the individual concerned but also their spouse and children. Particularly where individuals have families living in Türkiye, children attending school, or have themselves resided in the country for many years, the loss of residence status raises additional considerations concerning the protection of family life.
Human Rights Watch’s 2025 research reported that some Uyghur Turks had their residence applications rejected on public security grounds or previously granted permits cancelled.
From a legal perspective, the central issue is not whether the administration possesses decision-making authority, but rather the grounds upon which that authority is exercised.
Administrative discretion is not absolute. The legality of administrative acts requires that they be subject to judicial review in terms of their grounds, subject matter, purpose, competence, and procedural form.
Consequently, the elimination of an individual’s legal status on the basis of an abstract security assessment, particularly where no concrete facts are established, raises serious concerns under the principle of the rule of law.
2. G-87 Restriction Codes and Public Security Grounds
Another significant issue encountered in the legal proceedings involving Uyghur Turks in Türkiye concerns administrative restriction codes.
In particular, the G-87 restriction code is an administrative record associated with general security assessments that may affect a foreign national’s immigration procedures.
Such records may influence an individual’s entry into the country, residence permit applications, and other immigration-related administrative procedures. However, the existence of a restriction code does not, in itself, constitute proof that the person has committed a criminal offence or has been convicted by a final court judgment.
The legal issue arises in determining which concrete information and documents form the basis of the restriction code and whether the individual concerned has access to an effective legal remedy against the administrative measure.
The rule of law principle guaranteed under Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution and the judicial review of administrative acts provided for under Article 125 constitute fundamental constitutional safeguards in this regard.
Public order and national security considerations may constitute legitimate administrative objectives. Nevertheless, the necessity and proportionality of the measure imposed in a particular case must also be capable of judicial scrutiny.
In particular, the existence of a criminal investigation concerning an individual and the determination that the individual actually poses a threat to public security are two distinct matters.
The existence of a criminal investigation should not automatically be regarded as establishing a security threat, irrespective of subsequent developments such as an acquittal or a decision not to prosecute.
Human Rights Watch’s 2025 research reported that some Uyghurs experienced difficulties obtaining information about the reasons for restriction codes imposed on them and that such codes had serious consequences for their residence and citizenship procedures.
For this reason, concrete justification, proportionality, and effective judicial review of restriction codes are not merely matters of administrative law; they are also matters concerning the protection of fundamental rights.
3. Difficulties in Acquiring Turkish Citizenship
One of the major expectations of Uyghur Turks who have lived in Türkiye for many years is the acquisition of Turkish citizenship.
However, Turkish citizenship is not acquired automatically merely on the basis of ethnic or cultural affinity.
Articles 11 and 12 of Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901 regulate the acquisition of citizenship through general and exceptional procedures. Assessments concerning national security and public order are significant in these processes.
Although the administration enjoys broad discretion in citizenship matters, this discretion cannot be regarded as entirely independent of the general principles of law.
In particular, where an individual has lived in Türkiye for many years, established a family, and developed their economic and social life in the country, the rejection of a citizenship application on abstract grounds raises questions concerning the scope of judicial review.
It cannot be maintained that every foreign national who applies for citizenship must necessarily be accepted. Nevertheless, administrative decisions affecting an applicant’s legal position must be free from arbitrariness, consistent with the legal order, and capable of meaningful review.
For Uyghur Turks, this issue extends beyond whether an individual citizenship application is accepted or rejected. Prolonged uncertainty may also make it difficult for individuals and their families to establish a permanent life in Türkiye.
4. Passports, Identity Documents, and Family Life
Another challenge that Uyghur Turks may encounter concerns obtaining passports and official identity documents.
Some Uyghurs who are citizens of the People’s Republic of China may experience difficulties renewing their passports or obtaining the official documentation they require. In particular, an individual who claims to have fled persecution in their country of origin may face additional security concerns if compelled to re-establish contact with the authorities of that same state.
The United Nations report of 2022 also drew attention to problems experienced by Uyghurs living abroad, including expired passports, difficulties renewing official documents, and fears of being returned to their country of origin.
The absence of official documents may create difficulties in various administrative procedures in Türkiye, ranging from residence applications to marriage and birth registrations. The legal mechanisms available to overcome these difficulties vary depending on the individual’s nationality, existing documentation, and the type of application concerned.
The best interests of the child and the protection of family unity are among the fundamental principles that must be taken into consideration in such procedures.
5. Removal Centres and Administrative Detention
One of the most serious legal situations that Uyghur Turks in Türkiye may encounter is administrative detention in removal centres.
Administrative detention does not constitute a criminal conviction. Nevertheless, because it results in an actual deprivation of liberty, it is subject to substantial legal safeguards under Article 19 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 57 of Law No. 6458 regulates the conditions and procedures for administrative detention for the purpose of deportation. Under paragraph 6 of the same article, an application may be submitted to a criminal judgeship of peace to challenge an administrative detention order.
When assessing the lawfulness of administrative detention, the mere existence of a detention order is insufficient. It is also necessary to examine whether the statutory conditions have been satisfied, whether continued detention remains necessary, and whether less restrictive obligations would be adequate.
Where the deportation of an individual is legally or practically impossible, particular consideration must be given to identifying the concrete purpose that could justify continued administrative detention.
Human Rights Watch’s 2025 report contains accounts alleging that some Uyghur Turks were held in removal centres for prolonged periods, subjected to ill-treatment, and pressured to sign voluntary return documents. These allegations must be examined individually and, where necessary, investigated independently.
In voluntary return procedures, the genuine consent of the individual is essential. A declaration obtained under pressure cannot lawfully be regarded as valid consent capable of extinguishing international protection obligations.
V. Deportation Decisions and the Principle of Non-Refoulement: The Fundamental Limit of Legal Protection
One of the most significant legal issues affecting Uyghur Turks in Türkiye is the possibility of deportation.
Article 4 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection establishes the principle of non-refoulement. Accordingly, no person may be returned to a place where they would be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
This principle is known in international law as non-refoulement, meaning the prohibition of return to a place where the individual faces the specified risks.
Article 55 of the Law also provides that deportation decisions may not be issued in certain circumstances involving specified risks.
It must be emphasised that the protection afforded by the principle of non-refoulement applies irrespective of whether the individual holds a valid residence permit.
In other words, an individual’s failure to fulfil the administrative requirements governing lawful residence in Türkiye does not make it legally permissible to return that person to a country where their life or fundamental rights would be exposed to serious danger.
This principle must be considered not only in cases involving direct removal to China but also where there is a risk of subsequent removal to China through a third country.
Indeed, transferring an individual first to a third country and subsequently to their country of origin, where they face a serious risk of ill-treatment, may give rise to legal responsibility under the prohibition of chain refoulement, also referred to as indirect refoulement.
Türkiye’s official position on this matter should also be noted. In its response dated 14 November 2024 to a written parliamentary question submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, the Ministry of Interior stated that individuals from East Turkestan were not being returned to the People’s Republic of China, either directly or through third countries.
Conversely, Human Rights Watch’s 2025 report included accounts of alleged direct or indirect returns in previous years. These differing accounts highlight the importance of independently examining individual cases.
The legal time limits for challenging deportation decisions are also of critical importance. Pursuant to Article 53 of Law No. 6458, an action may be brought before the administrative court within seven days of notification of the deportation decision. Under the Law, without prejudice to the foreign national’s consent, deportation may not be carried out during the period allowed for filing an action or, where an action has been filed, until the judicial proceedings have been concluded.
However, the mere existence of a statutory remedy is insufficient. The individual must also be able to understand the reasons for the decision, obtain legal assistance, and have the risks they may face upon deportation effectively examined by a court.
VI. Legal Protection of Uyghur Turks in the Case Law of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights
One of the most significant developments concerning the legal status of Uyghur Turks in Türkiye has been the individual application judgments of the Turkish Constitutional Court.
The Turkish Constitutional Court’s judgment in Abulıkemu Helılı, Application No. 2021/7144, dated 13 May 2025, is directly relevant in this regard. The judgment was published in the Official Gazette on 19 January 2026.
The case concerned a deportation decision issued against a Chinese citizen of Uyghur origin on grounds associated with a G-87 restriction code and a visa violation. The applicant argued that, if returned to China, they would face ill-treatment on account of their ethnic and religious identity.
The Constitutional Court found that the administrative court had failed to adequately assess international reports concerning the current human rights situation in China and the applicant’s individual circumstances.
The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment. It ordered a retrial and directed that the applicant should not be deported until the judicial proceedings had been concluded.
The particular significance of this judgment lies in its clear recognition of the responsibilities of administrative and judicial authorities when assessing human rights conditions in the country of origin.
Another important judgment is the Turkish Constitutional Court’s Plenary Judgment in Abdulkadir Yapuquan, Application No. 2016/35009, dated 2 May 2019.
In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s unlawful administrative detention had violated the right to liberty and security of person guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The judgment is significant because it demonstrates that the administrative detention of foreign nationals is also subject to constitutional safeguards.
From the perspective of international judicial case law, the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 4 February 2025 in A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta (Application No. 2559/23) is also noteworthy.
Examining the possible removal of two Chinese nationals of Uyghur origin to China, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised the need for an up-to-date and rigorous assessment of the risks before any deportation measure could be implemented. The Court held that enforcing removal without such an assessment would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
When considered together, these judgments lead to a clear legal conclusion: when deportation proceedings are initiated against a foreign national, administrative records alone are insufficient. The concrete and current risks in the country to which the individual would be returned must also be effectively assessed.
In particular, the ethnic and religious risks potentially faced by Uyghur Turks constitute indispensable elements of such an assessment.
VII. What Approach Should Be Adopted to Resolve These Legal Challenges?
Resolving the legal challenges faced by Uyghur Turks living in Türkiye does not depend solely on the enactment of new legislation. It is equally important to ensure that existing legal safeguards operate effectively in administrative and judicial practice.
First, administrative measures such as the rejection or cancellation of residence permits and the application of restriction codes must be supported by concrete reasoning and be subject to effective judicial review.
Individuals must be guaranteed the ability to learn what administrative measures have been taken against them and to exercise available legal remedies effectively. The need to protect confidential security information should not be used to render judicial review entirely ineffective.
In international protection applications, the individual’s personal circumstances and the current human rights situation in the country of origin must be assessed together. Risk assessments conducted by administrative authorities should be based on reliable country-of-origin information and concrete facts rather than general assumptions.
For individuals held in removal centres, the necessity of administrative detention should be reviewed regularly, and the feasibility of applying alternative obligations provided for under the law should be assessed.
Access to lawyers, interpreter assistance, legal aid, and judicial remedies must be practically available, particularly to individuals facing the risk of deportation.
Where difficulties arise in obtaining passports and identity documents, alternative methods of documentation permitted under the legal framework should be considered, without compelling individuals to approach state authorities from whom they may reasonably fear harm.
The best interests of children, family unity, continuity of education, and the protection of long-established residence are also important considerations that should be taken into account in administrative decision-making.
All these proposals rest upon one fundamental principle: Legal protection must not remain merely a possibility recognised in legislation; it must be accessible and effective when it is needed.
Conclusion: Living in Safety and Security in Türkiye
The East Turkestan issue is a matter of identity and human rights with deep historical roots. The legal challenges faced by Uyghur Turks living in Türkiye represent the concrete manifestations of this issue within the country.
On one side stand ethnic and cultural affinity, historical solidarity, and a sense of social belonging. On the other stand residence permits, restriction codes, citizenship applications, removal centres, and deportation decisions.
Türkiye has legitimate powers to protect its borders, regulate migration, and ensure public security. However, the exercise of these powers must be assessed in conjunction with the obligations arising under the Turkish Constitution and international human rights law.
State sovereignty and the fundamental rights of individuals need not be opposing concepts. On the contrary, one of the principal responsibilities of a state governed by the rule of law is to establish a lawful and proportionate balance between these two areas.
Improving the legal position of Uyghur Turks in Türkiye does not mean granting them an unconditional status free from administrative scrutiny. Rather, the essential requirement is that each individual’s legal situation be assessed on concrete grounds, that administrative measures remain subject to judicial review, and that the principle of non-refoulement be fully respected.
A person’s nationality, ethnic origin, or language does not deprive them of the fundamental rights inherent in human dignity.
For a Uyghur Turk who has arrived in Türkiye, legal security means much more than simply avoiding deportation. It means being able to plan for the future, live together with family members, ensure the continuation of children’s education, understand one’s legal status, and effectively seek justice when confronted with an administrative decision.
Ensuring that the journey from East Turkestan to Türkiye becomes genuinely safe requires more than historical and cultural solidarity. It requires legal safeguards to be translated into effective protection in practice.
Ultimately, the strength of a state governed by the rule of law is measured not only by the guarantees it provides to its own citizens, but also by the extent to which it protects the rights of those within its jurisdiction who are in need of protection.
References and Legal Authorities
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 31 August 2022.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf - Human Rights Watch, Protected No More: Uyghurs in Türkiye, 12 November 2025.
https://www.hrw.org/tr/report/2025/11/12/392411 - Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Türkiye), particularly Articles 4, 42, 43, 46, 53, 55, 57, 62, and 63.
https://mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/mevzuat/103119 - Turkish Citizenship Law No. 5901, Articles 11 and 12.
- Turkish Constitutional Court, Abulıkemu Helılı, Application No. 2021/7144, 13 May 2025; Official Gazette: 19 January 2026, No. 33142.
- Turkish Constitutional Court, Plenary Judgment, Abdulkadir Yapuquan, Application No. 2016/35009, 2 May 2019.
- European Court of Human Rights, A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta, Application No. 2559/23, 4 February 2025.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-241572 - Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Interior, Presidency of Migration Management, response dated 14 November 2024 to Written Parliamentary Question No. 7/15717 submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye.
- Tursun, Nabijan, Sources Concerning the East Turkestan Republics Established in 1933 and 1944 and the Value of These Sources, International Journal of Uyghur Studies, 2020, Issue 16.
No Responses