Jeremy Waldron ve Prosedürel Hukuk Devleti Anlayışı

Abstract

Hukuk devleti denildiğinde akla ilk gelen isim şüphesiz ki Lon Fuller’dir. Fuller ileri sürdüğü sekiz ilkesi ile hukuk sisteminin kendine özgü bir ahlakı olduğunu iddia ederek doğal hukuka sığınmadan hukuki pozitivizmin bir eleştirisini yapmıştır. Bu yaklaşım genellikle prosedürel doğal hukuk veya prosedürel hukuk devleti olarak isimlendirilmesine rağmen, Jeremy Waldron, Fuller’ın sekiz ilkesi incelendiğinde böyle bir değerlendirmenin yerinde olmayacağını belirtmiştir. Öncelikle, Fuller’ın ilkeleri yasa koyucunun yasama süresince göz önünde bulundurması gereken kriterlerden ziyade bir çıktı olarak hukuk normunun taşıması gereken formel niteliklerle ilgilidir, bu nedenle de bu ilkeleri prosedürel yerine formel olarak isimlendirmek daha yerinde olacaktır. Fuller’ın hukuk devleti anlayışı formel olarak nitelendirilince, Waldron’a kendi prosedürel hukuk devleti kavramını oluşturabilmek için bir alan da ortaya çıkmıştır. Fuller’ın sekiz ilkesi ile özdeşleşen formel-şekli ve doğal hukukçular tarafından savunulan içeriksel-maddi hukuk devleti anlayışlarının ötesine geçerek, Waldron prosedürel bir hukuk devleti anlayışı geliştirir. Bu çalışmada Waldron tarafından kavramlaştırılan bu hukuk devleti anlayışı gerek formel gerekse de maddi hukuk devleti ile olan ilişkisi içerisinde incelenecek ve diğerlerinden ayrılan yönleri ortaya konulacaktır. Ayrıca, Fuller’ın hukuk kurallarını anlayan ve kendi davranışlarına bu kuralları uygulayan, onur sahibi rasyonel özne tasarımı ile Waldron’un argüman ileri süren, hukukun ne olduğunun belirlenmesi sürecine katkıda bulunan aktif öznesi karşılaştırılacaktır. Son olarak, bu çalışmada hukuk devleti kavramı sadece akademik merakın ve teorik bir incelemenin nesnesi olmaktan ziyade; onun içinde bulunduğumuz, tecrübe ettiğimiz ve bir anlamda da öznesi olduğumuz hukuk devleti krizi ile bağlantısı görünür kılınmaya çalışılacaktır. Bunu yaparken ise, formel hukuk devleti anlayışının neden hukuk devletinin krizini görmemiz konusunda yetersiz kaldığı sorgulanacak ve prosedürel anlayışın ne ölçüde bu krizi tespit etmemize yardımcı olacağı incelenecektir.

Keywords

• Hukuk Devleti
• Prosedürel Hukuk Devleti
• Jeremy Waldron
• Lon Fuller
• Hukuk Devletinin Öznesi

Jeremy Waldron and His Procedural Understanding of the Rule of Law

Abstract

The ideal of rule of law (RoL) is generally associated with Lon Fuller. He affirms that a legal system has its own morality independent of objective morality if it lives up to his eight principles. Even though Fuller’s conception generally is related to procedural natural law or RoL, Jeremy Waldron asserts that when Fuller’s principles are seen in cold light it seems highly unlikely that one could appraise his conception as procedural. Many of those principles pertain to the formal criteria addressed to lawmaking authorities to assist in legislative activities. However, they place emphasis more on the form the law must take at the end of the legislative process than on the process itself. Based on that criticism, Waldron contends, developing a novel procedural conception of RoL, that it is better to consider Fuller’s principles as formal, than to call them procedural. In general, the discussion on the RoL revolves around the tension between formal and substantive understandings. Whereas legal positivists often defend the former, proponents of natural law support the latter. This study aspires to explain Waldron’s procedural conception of RoL, which goes beyond the dichotomy between formal and substantive conceptualizations. In doing so, it shows how procedural conception differs from others in analyzing its relationship with others and by emphasizing the differences between their distinctive understandings of legal subjects. In short, it will show how a rational and self-directed legal subject left its place to a subject capable of putting forward arguments, discussing and developing the meaning of law, say, before the courts. . It will discuss what law is before the courts. Finally, this study aspires to establish a connection between the shortcomings of the formal conception of RoL and its crisis that we are experiencing across the globe.

References

1. Akbaş K, Hukukun büyübozumu: eleştirel hukuk çalışmaları hareketi. (Legal 2006)
2. Aktaş S, Prosedürel Doğal Hukuk: Lon L. Fuller’in Hukuk Kavramı (XII Levha 2011)
3. ----- ‘Hukuk Devleti İdealine Felsefi Bir Bakiş’ (2020) 1 YBHD 19
4. Akı Eİ, ‘Hukukun Iç Ahlâkı: Lon L. Fuller’in Görüşleri Çerçevesinde Bir İnceleme’ (2015) 64 AÜHFD 1, 1
5. Bentham J, Preface to the Fragment on Government, or a Comment on the Commentaries (printednfor E. Wilson and W. Pickering, Lincoln’s-Inn Fields, 1823) xii-xiii.
6. Bix B, ‘HLA Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory’ (1999) 52 SMUL Rev. 167
7. Chiti E ve Teixeira PG ‘The Constitutional Implications of the European Responses to the Financial and Public Debt Crisis’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 3
8. Dicey AV, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Macmillan 1889)

9. ----- ‘Hukuk Devleti: Doğası ve Genel Uygulamalar” iç Ali R Çoban, Adnan Küçük (eds.) Hukuk Devleti: Hukuki ve Siyasi Bir İdeal (Adres 2008) 25-38
10. ----- ‘Hart’s Postscript and the Character of Political Philosophy’ (2004) 24 Ox. JLS 1 1
11. ----- ‘A New Philosophy for International Law’ (2013) 41 Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, 2
12. Eylon Y ve Harel A ‘The right to judicial review’ (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 991
13. ----- ‘The forms and limits of adjudication’ (1978) 92 HLR 2 353
14. ----- ‘Human Interaction and Law’ (1969) 14 The American Journal of Jurisprudence 1, 1-36.
15. Gallie WB, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’ M. Black (Ed.) The Importance of Language (Cornell University Press 1969)
16. Hamara CT, ‘The concept of the rule of law’ iç Immer Flores, E Kenneth Himma (eds.) Law, Liberty, and the Rule of Law (Springer 2013)
17. Harel A Kahana T, ‘The easy core case for judicial review’ (2010) 2 Journal of Legal Analysis 1 227
18. ----- ve Shinar A, ‘Between judicial and legislative supremacy: A cautious defense of constrained judicial review’ (2012) 10 ICON 4 950
19. Krygier M, ‘The rule of law: legality, teleology, sociology. Sociology’ iç Gianluigi Palombella, Neil Walker (eds.) Relocating the Rule of Law (Hart 2009) 65.
20. ----- ‘What is the point of the Rule of Law” (2019) 67 Buffalo Law Review 743
21. Kumm M, ‘The idea of Socratic contestation and the right to justification: the point of rights-based proportionality review’ (2010) 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 2 142
22. Landau D, ‘Abusive constitutionalism’ (2013) 47 UCDL Rev 189
23. ----- Roznai Y ve Dixon R, “Term Limits and the Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment Doctrine: Lessons from Latin America” iç Alexander Baturo, Robert Elgie (eds.) The Politics of Presidential Term Limits (OUP 2019)
24. ----- Rhetoric and the rule of law: a theory of legal reasoning (OUP 2005)
25. Metin S, ‘Lon L. Fuller ve Prosedürel Doğal Hukuk Yaklaşımı’ iç S Metin E Uzun K Akbaş M B Aydın (eds.) Çağdaş Hukuk Düşüncesine Giriş (İTHAKİ 2015)
26. Moyn S, Not enough: Human rights in an unequal world. (Harvard 2018)
27. Nye H, ‘Waldron, Jeremy: Rule of Law’ (2017) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy Palombella G, ‘The rule of law and its core’ iç Gianluigi Palombella, Neil Walker (eds.) Relocating the Rule of Law (Hart 2009)
28. ----- ‘The Abuse of the Rule of Law’ (2020) 12 HJRL 2, 387-397.
29. ----- ‘Access to Justice: Dynamic, Foundational, and Generative’ (2021) 34 Ratio Juris 2, 121-138
30. Raz J, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (OUP 1979)
31. ----- ‘The Law’s Own Virtue’ (2018) 39 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1, 1
32. Rodriguez-Blanco V, ‘Legal Authority and the paradox of intention in action’ iç George Pavlakos ve Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (eds), Reasons and Intentions In Law and Practical Agency, (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
33. Scheppele KL, ‘Autocratic legalism’ (2018) 85 CLR 2, 545-584
34. ----- ‘The rule of law and the frankenstate: why governance checklists do not work’ (2013) 26 Governance 4 559
35. Shapiro M ve Sweet AS, On law, politics, and judicialization. (OUP 2002)
36. Shapiro S, Authority iç J Coleman K Himma S Shapio (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law (OUP 2004)
37. Trebilcock MJ ve Daniels RJ, Rule of Law and Development, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008)
38. Tushnet M, Taking the Constitution away from the Courts (Princeton 2000)
39. Uygur G, ‘Adalet ve hukuk devleti’ (2004) 53 AUHFD 3 33
40. ----- ‘Law and Injustice in Times of Crisis’ iç Joshua Kassner, Colin Starger (eds.) The Value and Purpose of Law – Essays in Honor of M.N.S. Sellers (Franz Steiner 2019).
41. Uzun E, ‘Hukuk Yorumdur’ (2014) 72 İÜHFM 1, 99-104.
42. Varol OO, ‘Stealth authoritarianism’ (2014) 100 Iowa L. Rev 673
43. Van der Burg W, The Dynamics of Law and Morality: A Pluralist Account of Legal Interactionism, (Ashgate Publishing, 2014)
44. Waldron J, The Rule of Law as a Theater of Debate’ iç Justin Burley (ed.) Dworkin and His Critics:
45. ----- ‘The core of the case against judicial review’ (2005) 115 YaleLJ 1346
46. ----- ‘Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)?’ iç Richard Bellamy (ed.) The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers (Routledge 2005)
47. ----- ‘Torture and positive law: jurisprudence for the white house’ (2005) 105 Columbia Law Rev 6 1726
48. ----- ‘Legal Pluralism and the Contrast between Hart‘s Jurisprudence and Fuller‘s’ iç Peter Cane (ed.) The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century (Hart 2010)
49. ----- ‘Thoughtfulness and the Rule of Law’ (2011) 18 British Academy Review 1 9
50. ----- ‘The rule of law and the importance of procedure’ (2011) 50 NOMOS. 3
51. ----- ‘How law protects dignity’ (2012) 71 The Cambridge Law Journal 1, 206
52. ----- ‘Separation of powers in thought and practice’ (2013) 54 BCL Rev 43
53. ----- ‘The Rule of Law’ (Summer 2020 Edition) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
54. Zabcı F, ‘Kriz, Kritik: Koronavirüsle İmtihanımız’ Birgün (İstanbul, 22 Mart 2020) < https://www. birgun.net/haber/kriz-kritik-koronavirusle-imtihanimiz-292697 > Erişim Tarihi 17 Mayıs 2021