This study explores the development of evaluation criteria for addressing cultural defence claims, with a particular focus on judicial decision-making in Türkiye. Rather than proposing a finalised test, the article aims to contribute to a structured analytical framework that may assist legal practitioners, especially judges, in identifying and assessing the key issues raised by cultural arguments in adjudication. To this end, the study critically examines existing approaches to cultural defence developed in judicial practice and legal scholarship, highlighting both their analytical contributions and their limitations. Building on this literature, the article advances an intersectional perspective as a guiding analytical lens for evaluating cultural claims. Drawing on a systematic review of Turkish court decisions involving cultural arguments, the study proposes a preliminary set of seven evaluative questions intended to support judicial reasoning rather than serve as a rigid doctrinal test. By foregrounding context, power relations, and intra-group differences, this approach seeks to encourage a more nuanced and context-sensitive engagement with cultural claims, while contributing to legal predictability and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly gender equality, within the judiciary.

See https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/27706869.2026.2644097