Constitution and Sustainable Development

Abstract

In the legal framework, sustainable development as a concept was firstly used and elaborated upon in international law. The concept has generally been treated as a matter of soft law by international instruments. However there is also non-negligible number of hard law documents that regulate specific elements of sustainable development. The concept had begun to find its place in the constitutions by the late 1980’s. In fact, the issues that the concept of sustainable development refers to were already regulated by national constitutions. However, the concept of sustainable development brought up a meaning different to that which was regulated by the constitution before. Sustainable development changes the way people relate to other people, society and the state. This shift can be observed by analysing the rights, duties and obligations that the concept imposes. This shift caused a transformative effect on constitutionalism’s old model of relationships based entirely on the state-individual dichotomy. This dichotomy functions when the primordial aim of constitutionalism is considered as the limitation of government authority for the protection of constitutional rights of the individuals. However the function of constitutionalism is no longer limited to this unequal relationship. The concept reconstructs and diversifies the functions of constitutionalism by perpetuating the conception of “common survival in the planet”. This conception requires more responsible citizens and much more responsible enterprises. The state is no longer the sole debtor of the constitution. Sustainable development imposes a privatization of constitutional relations. Despite the absence of the concept in the wording of the Turkish Constitution of 1982, Constitution refers systematically to the three pillars of sustainable development. The Constitution envisaged development plans as to the effective realisation and integration of the three pillars of sustainability.

Keywords

• Constitution
• Sustainable Development
• Soft Law
• Environment
• Social Justice
• Economic Development
• Intergenerational Justice
• Intra-Generational Justice
• Solidarity

Anayasa ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma

Abstract

Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hukuk alanında kavramsal olarak ilk defa uluslararası hukukta kullanılmış ve onun tarafından hazırlanmıştır. Bu kavram uluslararası belgelerde genellikle bir soft law meselesi olarak ele alınmıştır. Bununla birlikte sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın özel unsurlarını düzenleyen azımsanmayacak sayıda hard law belgesi de bulunmaktadır. Kavram 1980’li yılların sonundan itibaren anayasalarda yerini bulmaya başlamıştır. Aslında sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın referans yaptığı konular, anayasa içinde yer alan hususlardır. Ancak 80’lerin sonundan itibaren başlayan bu dönüşümün anayasacılık açısından farklı bir anlamı vardır. Sürdürülebilir kalkınma insanın, diğer insanlarla, toplumla ve devletle kurduğu ilişki biçimini değiştirmektedir. Bu değişim, kavramın gerektirdiği haklar, ödevler ve yükümlülükler incelenerek gözlemlenebilir. Bu değişim anayasacılığın devlet-birey ikiliği üzerine temellenmiş olan eski ilişki modelinde dönüştürücü bir etki yaratmıştır. Anayasacılığın asli amacı bireylerin anayasal haklarının korunması için devlet iktidarının sınırlandırılması olarak düşünüldüğünde, bu ikilik sorunsuz biçimde işlemektedir. Ancak anayasacılığın işlevi artık bu eşit olmayan ilişkiyle sınırlı değildir. Kavram beraberinde “hep birlikte gezegen üstünde hayatta kalma” anlayışını getirerek, anayasacılığın işlevlerini yeniden inşa etmekte ve çeşitlendirmektedir. Bu kavram daha sorumlu vatandaşları daha sorumlu şirketleri beraberinde getirmektedir. Devlet artık anayasanın tek muhatabı değildir. Sürdürülebilir kalkınma kavramı anayasal ilişkilerin de özelleşmesine neden olmaktadır. 1982 Anayasasının metninde sürdürülebilir kalkınma kavramı kullanılmamış olsa da, Anayasa bu kavramın üç ayağına sistematik olarak referans yapmaktadır. Anayasa kalkınma planlarını sürdürülebilirliğin üç ayağının etkili bir biçimde gerçekleştirilmesi ve entegrasyonu için öngörmüştür.

Keywords

• Anayasa
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma
• Soft Law
• Çevre
• Sosyal Adalet
• Ekonomik Kalkınma
• Kuşaklar Arası Adalet
• Kuşak İçi Adalet
• Dayanışma

References

1. Agius E and Busuttil S, Future Generations and International Law, (Routledge 2009).
2. Barral V, ‘Sustainable Development in International Law: Nature and Operation of an Evolutive Legal Norm’ (2012) 23(2) The European Journal of International Law 377-400.
3. Baxter RR, ‘International Law in ‘Her Infinite Variety’’ (1980) 29(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 549-566.
4. Besson S, ‘Theorizing the Sources of International Law’ in Besson S and Tasioulas J (eds) The Philosophy of International Law (Oxford University Press 2010) 163-185.
5. Birnie P, Boyle A and Redgwell C, International Law & the Environment (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009).
6. Blank Y and Rosen-Zvi I, ‘The Persistence of the Public/Private Divide in Environmental Regulation’ (2014) 15(1) Theoretical Inquiries in Law 199-228.
7. Bobbio N, ‘Structure et fonction dans la théorie du droit de Kelsen’, Essais de théorie du droit (Bruylant LGDJ 1998) 207-225.
8. Bobbio N, Droite et gauche (Le Seuil 1998).

9. Boyle A and Chinkin C, The Making of International Law (Foundations of Public International Law) (Oxford University Press 2007).
10. Brown Weiss E, In Fairness to Future Generations (Transnational Publishers Inc., 1989).
11. Brus M, ‘Soft Law in Public International Law: A Pragmatic or a Principled Choice? Comparing the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement’ in Pauline Westerman et al. (eds) Legal Validity and Soft Law (Springer International Publishing AG 2018) 243-266.
12. Caney S, ‘Justice and Future Generations’ (2018) 21 Annual Review of Political Science 475-493, < https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/polisci > Erişim Tarihi 12 Haziran 2020.
13. Dobson A, Citizenship and the Environment (Oxford University Press 2004).
14. Fitzmaurice M, Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2009).
15. Friedrich J, International Environmental ‘soft law’ (Springer 2013).
16. Gaffiot F, Dictionnaire Latin – Français – ‘Gaffiot 2016’ Version Komarov (Ed Gérard Gréco 2016) Erişim Tarihi 4 Mayıs 2020.
17. Güneş A, ‘Aarhus Sözleşmesi ve Çevresel Bilgiye Erişim Hakkı’ (2012-2013) 17-18(26-27-28-29) Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 25-40, Erişim Tarihi 5 Eylül 2020.
18. Halévi R, ‘La déconstitution de l’Ancien Régime
 - Le pouvoir constituant comme acte révolutionnaire’ (2009) 3 Jus Politicum < http://juspoliticum.com/article/La-deconstitution-de-l-Ancien-Regime-Le-pouvoir-constituant-comme-acte-revolutionnaire-141.html > Erişim Tarihi 10 Nisan 2020.
19. Hayek F, Droit législation et liberté - Vol. 2 Le mirage de la justice sociale (Raoul Audouin tr, 2eme edn, PUF 1986).
20. Hiskes R, The Human Right to a Green Future – Environmental Rights and Intergenerational Justice (Cambridge University Press 2009).
21. Holder J and Lee M, Environmental Protection - Law and Policy (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2007).
22. Jacquemain M, ‘La justice sociale’, Erişim Tarihi 7 Temmuz 2020.
23. Jobart J-C, ‘La notion de Constitution chez Aristote’ (2006) 65 Revue française de droit constitutionnel 97-143. 

24. Kaboğlu İ, Çevre Hakkı (3. Bası, İmge 1996).
25. Kammerhofer J, ‘Sources in Legal-Positivist Theories: Pure Theory’s Structural Analysis of the Law’ in Besson S and d’Aspremont J (eds) The Oxford Handbook of The Sources of International Law (Oxford University Press 2017) 343-362.
26. Kelsen H, General Theory of Law and State (Andres Wedberg tr, Harvard University Press 1949).
27. Kelsen H, General Theory of Norms (Michael Hartney tr, Clarendon Press 1991).
28. Kiss A, ‘Les origines du droit à l'environnement : le droit international’, (2003) (numéro special: La charte constitutionnelle en débat) Revue juridique de l'environnement 13-14.
29. Konuk Sommer B, ‘Türk Hukukunda Çevre Hakkının Bireysel Başvuru Yoluyla Korunması’, (2019) 4(2) YBHD 169-188, Erişim Tarihi 8 Haziran 2020.
30. Kotzé, LJ and Du Plessis A, ‘Some Brief Observations on Fifteen Years of Environmental Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa’ (2011) 3(1) Journal of Court Innovation 157-176.
31. Neuray J-F and Pallemaerts M, ‘L’environnement et le développement durable dans la Constitution belge’ (2008) (double numéro special: L'environnement, objet d’un droit fondamental) Revue Aménagement-Environnement 131-166.
32. Niermeyer JF, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus – Lexique Latin Médiéval – Français/Anglais (E J Brill 1976).
33. Ost F, ‘Après nous le déluge ? Réflexions sur la responsabilité écologique à l’égard des générations futures’ in Ackermans H (ed) Variations sur l’éthique - Hommage à Jacques Dabin (Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis 1994) 389-411 < https://books.openedition.org/pusl/17811> Erişim Tarihi 4 Haziran 2020.
34. Ost F, ‘Le juste milieu - Pour une approche dialectique du rapport homme-nature’ in Images et usages de la nature en droit, Gérard P, Ost F and Kerchove MV (eds) (Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis 1993) 13-73, < https://books.openedition.org/pusl/23445 > Erişim Tarihi 4 Temmuz 2020.
35. Ost F, ‘Le milieu, un objet hybride qui déjoue la distinction public-privé’, < https://www.u-picardie.fr/curapp-revues/root/36/francois_ost.pdf_4a082acb12c9b/francois_ost.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 5 Mayıs 2020.
36. Özbudun E, Türk Anayasa Hukuku (17. Bası, Yetkin 2017).
37. Pallemaerts M, ‘International Law and Sustainable Development: Any Progress in Johannesburg?’, (2003) 12 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 1-11.
38. Pasquino P, ‘Constitution et pouvoir constituant : le double corps du peuple’ in Quiviger PY, Denis V and Salem J (eds) Figures de Sieyès (Edition de la Sorbonne 2008) 13-23, Erişim Tarihi 3 Nisan 2020.
39. Peces-Barba Martinez G, Théorie générale des droits fondamentaux, (Ilié Antonio Pelé tr, LGDJ 2004).
40. Pellet A, ‘Les raisons du développement du soft law en droit international: choix ou nécessité?’ in Deumier P and Sorel JM (eds) Regards croisés sur la soft law en droit interne, européen et international (LGDJ 2018) 172-192.
41. Pimentel C-M, ‘Du contrat social à la norme suprême : l’invention du pouvoir constituant’ (2009) 3 Jus Politicum 1-17 < http://juspoliticum.com/article/Du-contrat-social-a-la-norme-supreme-l-invention-du-pouvoir-constituant-145.html > Erişim Tarihi 10 Nisan 2020).
42. Prieur M, ‘L’environnement’ in Troper M and Chagnollaud D (eds) Traité international du droit constitutionnel (Tome 3, Dalloz 2012) 603-633.
43. Rajamani L, ‘From Stockholm to Johannesburg: The Anatomy of Dissonance in the International Environmental Dialogue’, (2003) 12(1) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 23-32.
44. Rawls J, A Theory of Justice (rev edn, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 1999).
45. Redgwell C, Intergenerational Trusts and Environmental Protection (Manchester University Press 1999).
46. Sabsay DA, ‘Constitution and Environment in Relation to Sustainable Development’, (2004) 21(1) Pace Environmental Law Journal 155-177.
47. Sachs W, ‘Environment’ in Sachs (ed) The Development Dictionary a Guide to Knowledge as Power (2nd edn, Zed Books 2010).
48. Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A and MacKenzie R, Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2012).
49. Sarıbeyoğlu M, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma (Beta 2015).
50. Schmitt C, La notion de politique: théorie du partisan (Marie-Louis Steinhauser tr, Flammarion 1992).
51. Semiz Y, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Çevre Hakkı Perspektifi’, (2014) 4(2) Hacettepe HFD 9–46, Erişim Tarihi 8 Haziran 2020.
52. Şahin Ceylan Ş, ‘Gelecek Nesillerin Haklarına Gewirth Formülü: Bireyden Topluma Doğru’, (2014) 72(1) İÜHFM 293-310, < https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/97876 > Erişim Tarihi 5 Mayıs 2020.
53. Şahin Ceylan Ş, ‘Nesiller Arası Adalete Faydacı Yaklaşım’, (2012) 61(2) AÜHFD 749-771, < https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/624035 > Erişim Tarihi 5 Mayıs 2020.
54. Tanör B, İki Anayasa 1961-1982 (4. Bası, XII Levha 2012).
55. Tanör B, Anayasa Hukukunda Sosyal Haklar (May 1978).
56. Thirlway H, The Sources of International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
57. Thornhill C, ‘Contemporary constitutionalism and the dialectic of constituent power’ (2012) 1(3) Global Constitutionalism 369-404.
58. Tremmel JC (ed), Handbook of Intergenerational Justice (Edward Elgar Publishing 2006).
59. Tunç H ve Göven Y ‘Çevre Hakkı ve 1982 Anayasası’, (1997) 1(1) Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 103-127.
60. Vaughan L, ‘Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments’ in Boyle A and Freestone D (eds) International Law and Sustainable Development - Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford University Press 1999) 19-37.
61. Munoz-Dardé V, La Justice sociale – le libéralisme égalitaire de John Rawls (Armand Colin 2005).
62. Virally M, ‘Le rôle des ‘principes’ dans le développement du droit international’, Le Droit international en devenir (Graduate Institute Publications 1990) 195-212, < https://books.openedition.org/iheid/4393 > Erişim Tarihi 4 Haziran 2020.
63. Weil P, ‘Vers une normativité relative en droit international’, (1982) 86 Revue générale de droit international public 5-47.