The study locates Susurluk Affair into the legal-political theory, around an axis passing through two standpoints that defines the state either as a legal or as a political institution. Two words, Susurluk Affair refer to an accumulation of incidents and relationships that point to extra-legal activities of the state that are revealed by a traffic accident in Turkey. Susurluk Affair and similar cases of extra-legal activities of the state are frequent in modern political life, although the modern state is founded on the presumption of legal use of public authority. Susurluk Affair is discussed with reference to Max Weber&amp / #8217 / s and J&uuml / rgen Habermas&amp / #8217 / s theories of the rule of law, and Hans Kelsen&amp / #8217 / s legal positivism, both of which provide perspectives that define the state as a legal institution, and from the viewpoints of doctrine of raison d&amp / #8217 / etat and Carl Schmitt&amp / #8217 / s theories of the political and sovereignty that conceptualize the state as a political institution. Susurluk Affair can be interpreted in accordance with Weber&amp / #8217 / s, Habermas&amp / #8217 / s and Kelsen&amp / #8217 / s theoretical standpoints either as a deficiency in legitimacy or violations by certain persons, however it can be interpreted as activities for maintaining the state in the framework of the doctrine of raison d&amp / #8217 / etat. On the other hand, the Schmittian approach acknowledges extra-legal activities of the state, but Susurluk Affair cannot be interpreted as a case of deciding the exception in the Schmittian sense.