Anayasa Değişikliklerinin Esas Bakımından Yargısal Denetiminin Koşulları: Kısa Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Anayasa değişikliklerinin esas bakımından yargısal denetimi, anayasa hukukunun en tartışmalı konularından biridir. Esas denetiminin iki koşulu vardır: İlk olarak, anayasa değişiklikleri için öngörülmüş açık veya örtülü sınırlar bulunmalıdır. İkinci olarak, yargı organı, anayasa değişikliklerini esas bakımından denetlemek için yetkilendirilmiş olmalıdır. Anayasa değişikliklerinin esas bakımından yargısal denetime tabi tutulduğu ülkelerde, yargısal denetim açık veya örtülü sınırlara dayandırılmaktadır. Anayasa değişikliklerinin esas bakımından yargısal denetiminin söz konusu olmadığı ülkelerde mahkemeler, anayasa değişikliklerini esas bakımından denetlemeye yetkili olmadıklarını kabul etmektedir. Bu makalede, mahkemelerin anayasa değişikliklerini esas bakımından denetleyebilmek için anayasa tarafından açıkça yetkilendirilmiş olmaları gerektiğine vurgu yapılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, anayasa ile açıkça yetkilendirilmediği halde anayasa değişikliklerini esas bakımından denetleyen mahkemeler eleştirilmiştir.

Keywords

• Anayasa Değişikliği
• Esas
• Usul
• Yargısal Denetim
• Açık Sınırlar
• Örtülü Sınırlar
• Yetki

The Conditions of Judicial Review of the Substance of Constitutional Amendments: A Brief Overview

Abstract

Judicial review of the substance of constitutional amendments is one of the most controversial topics of constitutional law. There are two conditions of substance review: First, there has to be either explicit or implicit limitations placed upon constitutional amendments. Second, the judiciary must be authorized to review the substance of constitutional amendments. In those countries the substance of constitutional amendments is subject to judicial review, judicial review is grounded on either explicit or implicit limitations. In those other countries the substance of constitutional amendments is not subject to judicial review, courts indicate that they do not have the authority to review the substance of constitutional amendments. In this article, the requirement for courts to be explicitly authorized by the constitution to review the substance of constitutional amendments is emphasized. In this regard, courts that review the substance of constitutional amendments without an explicit authorization by the constitution are criticized.

Keywords

• Constitutional Amendment
• Substance
• Form
• Judicial Review
• Explicit Limitations
• Implicit Limitations
• Authority

References

1. ABEBE, A. K. (2014). The Substantive Validity of Constitutional Amendments in South Africa. South African Law Journal, 131 (3), 656-694.
2. ALBERT, R. (2009). Nonconstitutional Amendments. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 22 (1), 5-48. ALBERT, R., ODER, B. E. (2018). The Forms of Unamendability, içinde: An Unamendable Constitution? Unamendability in Constitutional Democracies. (R. ALBERT, B. E. ODER, Düzenleyenler). Gewerbestrasse: Springer, 1-26.
3. ANAYURT, Ö. (2020). Anayasa Hukuku Genel Kısım (3. b.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
4. BARAK, A. (2011). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments. Israel Law Review, 44 (3), 321-342.
5. BERNAL, C. (2013). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in the Case Study of Colombia: An Analysis of the Justification and Meaning of the Constitutional Replacement Doctrine. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11 (2), 339-357.
6. BUSS, A. (2004). Dual Legal Systems and the Basic Structure Doctrine of Constitutions: The Case of India. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 19 (2), 23-50.
7. CAJAS-SARRIA, M. A. (2017). Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Colombia: A Political and Historical Perspective, 1955–2016. Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5 (3), 245-275.
8. DIXON, R., LANDAU, D. (2015). Transnational Constitutionalism and a Limited Doctrine of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13 (3), 606-638.

9. GARLICKI, L., GARLICKA, Z. A. (2012). Review of Constitutionality of Constitutional Amendments (An Imperfect Response to Imperfections?). Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi, 1 (1), 185-222.
10. GÖZLER, K. (2016). Kurucu İktidar (2. b.). Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi.
11. GÖZLER, K. (2008). Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: A Comparative Study. Bursa: Ekin Press (https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca.pdf, E.T: 26.10.2020).
12. HALMAI, G. (2012). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Constitutional Courts as Guardians of the Constitution?. Constellations, 19 (2), 182-203.
13. HALMAI, G. (2015). Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments and New Constitutions in Comparative Perspective. Wake Forest Law Review, 50 (4), 951-984.
14. HEIN, M. (2020). Do Constitutional Entrenchment Clauses Matter? Constitutional Review of Constitutional Amendments in Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 18 (1), 78-110.
15. INGHAM, J. F. (1928). Unconstitutional Amendments. Dickinson Law Review, 33 (3), 161-168.
16. JACOBSOHN, G. (2006). An Unconstitutional Constitution - A Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4 (3), 460-487.
17. KABOĞLU, İ. Ö. (2020). Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri (Genel Esaslar) (15. b.). İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık.
18. KUMAR, V. (2007). Basic Structure of the Constitution: Doctrine of Constitutionally Controlled Governance. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 49 (3), 365-398.
19. MARBURY, W. L. (1919-1920). Limitations upon the Amending Power. Harvard Law Review, 33 (2), 223-235.
20. MUKHERJEE, S. (2011). The Unconventional Dimensions of the Basic Structure Doctrine: An Insight. Nirma University Law Journal, 1 (1), 45-60.
21. MURPHY, W. F. (1995). Merlin’s Memory: The Past and Future Imperfect of the Once and Future Polity, içinde: Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment. (S. Levinson, Düzenleyen). New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 163-190.
22. O'CONNELL, R. (1999). Guardians of the Constitution: Unconstitutional Constitutional Norms. Journal of Civil Liberties, 4 (1), 48-75.
23. ÖZBUDUN, E. (2019). Türk Anayasa Hukuku (19. b.). Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
24. ÖZBUDUN, E. (2019). Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Turkey: The Question of Unamendability. European Journal of Law Reform, 21 (3), 278-290.
25. ROZNAI, Y. (2013). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments-The Migration and Success of Constitutional Idea. American Journal of Comparative Law, 61 (3), 657-720.
26. ROZNAI, Y. (2017). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. TEZİÇ, E. (2020). Anayasa Hukuku (24. b.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
28. TURHAN, M. (1976). Anayasaya Aykırı Anayasa Değişiklikleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 33 (1), 63-104.
29. TURHAN, M. (2010). Halk Egemenliği ve Anayasa Değişikliklerinin Yargısal Denetimi. Liberal Düşünce, 15 (57-58), 33-59.
30. TRIBE, L. H. (1983). A Constitution We Are Amending: In Defense of a Restrained Judicial Role, Harvard Law Review, 97 (2), 433-445.
31. VILE, J. R. (1985). Limitations on the Constitutional Amending Process. Constitutional Commentary, 2 (2), 373-388.
32. YAP, P. J. (2015). The Conundrum of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments. Global Constitutionalism, 4 (1), 114-136.
33. WRIGHT, R. (1991). Could a Constitutional Amendment Be Unconstitutional?. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 22 (4), 741-764.