Adult protection in Turkish and Swiss civil law

Purpose This paper aims to examine the legal frameworks for adult protection in Turkish and Swiss civil law, highlighting their differences in approach. While both legal systems aim to safeguard vulnerable adults, Turkish law adheres to state-controlled guardianship, whereas Swiss law prioritizes self-determination through voluntary protection measures. The study explores the effectiveness of these frameworks and their alignment with contemporary needs. Design/methodology/approach A comparative legal analysis is conducted, evaluating the substantive provisions of Turkish and Swiss law on adult protection. The study focuses on the comparison of legal systems, the analysis of voluntary protection measures and the evolving need for reform in adult protection law. Relevant legislative texts, case law and international legal instruments are examined. Findings The findings reveal that Swiss law offers a more flexible, autonomy-based model, allowing individuals to plan for their future incapacity through private mandate or advance directive. In contrast, Turkish law remains restrictive, relying on numerus clausus guardianship measures that limit autonomy. The study underscores the need for Turkey to modernize its legal framework by integrating voluntary protec-tion mechanisms and enhancing self-determination in adult protection law. In light of these comparative insights, the paper concludes with policy recommendations aimed at promoting a gradual shift from state-centered guardianship to a rights-based model aligned with international human rights standards. Originality/value This study provides a unique comparative perspective on adult protection in two civil law countries, Turkish and Swiss law, addressing a critical gap in legal literature. It contributes to ongoing discussions on guardianship reform, and the harmonization of adult protection laws in line with international human rights standards. Moreover, the contrast between the two civil law systems – each representing distinct approaches to adult protection – provides valuable insights for comparative scholars, particularly those interested in evaluating the adaptability of legal models across civil and common law jurisdictions.