ACCEPTABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN DEMOCRACY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (İnsan Hakları Bağlamında Demokraside Yargı Denetiminin Kabul Edilebilirliği)

Year 2015, Issue: 5, 589 - 604, 02.10.2015

Dr. Serkan Kızılyel

Abstract

Human rights globally become an inarguable virtue and it requires the conviction that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity. According to the current dominant paradigm, the protection of human rights is one of the most important obligations of the state. In both national and international level, courts are primarily equipped to protect human rights in any circumstances. On the other hand, democracy representing by the elected parliaments traditionally means decisions by the majority. These two important merits, democracy or parliaments and human rights or courts, interact with each other. Usually the relationship between them is based on the fact that they support each other. However, over the years it is observed that there can be conflicts between them. In this case, the absolute power of majority and the rights of individuals or minorities in democracy may come into collision with each other. At this point the controversial question whether there is a rational and practical reason to give decision-making power to unelected judges rather than to democratic majority or not come to light. This essay focuses on the acceptability of judicial review in democracy and the sufficiency of democratic perspective of human rights

Keywords

-

İnsan Hakları Bağlamında Demokraside Yargı Denetiminin Kabul Edilebilirliği

Abstract

Evrensel düzeyde insan hakları tartışmasız bir değer haline gelmiş ve tüm insanların onuruyla özgür ve eşit doğdukları kabulünü zorunlu hale getirmiştir. Günümüz egemen paradigmasına göre insan haklarının korunması devletin en temel görevlerinden biridir. Hem ulusal hem de uluslararası düzeyde mahkemeler, öncelikle insan haklarının her koşulda korunması için yetkilendirilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, seçilmiş parlamentolar tarafından temsil edilen demokrasi en eski anlamıyla çoğunluk tarafından alınan kararlar anlamına gelmektedir. Demokrasi ya da parlamentolar ile insan hakları ya da mahkemeler şeklindeki iki değer arasındaki bir etkileşim bulunmaktadır. Genelde bunlar arasındaki ilişki, bunların birbirilerini desteklemesi şeklindedir. Bununla birlikte, uzun yıllardır yapılan gözleme göre bunlar arasında bir çatışma olması da mümkündür. Bu halde, demokraside çoğunluğun mutlak gücü ile bireylerin ya da azınlığın hakları arasında bir çatışma hali yaşanabilir. Bu noktada, seçilmemiş olan hâkimlere karar verme yetkisi verilmesinin mantıksal ya da pratik bir nedeninin bulunup bulunmadığına ilişkin tartışmalı soru gündeme gelmektedir. Bu makale, demokrasilerde yargısal denetimin kabul edilebilirliği ve insan haklarında demokratik perspektif üzerinde durmaktadır

Keywords

İnsan Hakları, Demokrasi, Yargısal Denetim, Parlamento, Mahkeme, Jeremy Waldron.

References

• Dworkin R, Freedom’s Law (1th edn, OUP 1996).
• Dworkin R, Taking Rights Seriously (Revised edn, Duckworth 1978).
• Hart HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OUP 1994).
• Hiebert JL, Limiting Rights: The Dilemma of Judicial Review (McGill- Queen’s University Press 1996).
• Holmes S, Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy (University of Chicago Press 1995).
• Kelsen K, Pure Theory of Law (Max Knight tr, first published 1934, University of California Press 1978).
• McCluskey L, Law, Justice and Democracy (1th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 1987).
• Zander M, A Bill of Rights (4thedn, Sweet&Maxwell 1997).
• Goldsworthy J, ‘The Philosophical Foundation of Parliamentary Sovereignity’ in Tom Campbell and Jeffrey Goldsworthy (eds), Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Ashgate 2000).
• Williams G, ‘Judicial Activism and Judicial Review in the High Court of Australia’ in Tom Campbell and Jeffrey Goldsworthy (eds), Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Ashgate 2000).
• Alan J, ‘Bills of Rights and Judicial Power-A Liberal’s Quandary’ (1996) 16 OJLS.
• Alexander L, ‘Is Judicial Review Democratic? A Comment on Harel’ (2003) 22 Law and Philosophy.
• Cerar M, ‘The Relationship between Law and Politics’ (2009) 15 Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law.
• Christiano T, ‘Waldron on Law and Disagreement’ (2000) 19 Law and Philosophy.
• Debeljak J, ‘Right Protection without Judicial Supremacy: A Review of the Canadian and British Models of Bills of Rights’ (2002) 26 MULR.
• Fabre C, ‘A Philosophical Argument for a Bill of Rights’ (2000) 30 British Journal of Political Science.
• Grimm D, ‘Constitutional Adjudication and Democracy’ (1999) 33 Israil Law Review.
• Harel A, ‘Right-Based Judicial Review: A Democratic Justification’ (2003) 22 Law and Philosophy.
• Hunt M, ‘The Impact of the Human Rights Act on the Legislature: A Diminution of Democracy or a New Voice for Parliament’ (2010) 6 EHRLR.
• Kairys D, ‘Law and Politics’ (1983-1984) 52 George Washington Law REview.
• Kavanagh A, ‘Participation and Judicial Review: A Reply to Jeremy Waldron’ (2003) 22 Law and Philosophy.
• Kennedy D, ‘Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenalogy’ (1986) 36 Journal of Legal Education.
• Pierce RJ, ‘Is Standing Law or Politics?’ (1998-1999) 77 NCLR.
• Teraya K, ‘For the Rights of “Nobodies”: The Globalising Tension Between Human Rights and Democracy’ (2007) 38 VUWLR.
• Tiller EH and Cross FB, ‘What is Legal Doctrine’ (2006) 100 NWULR.
• Waldron J, ‘A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights’ (1993) 13 OJLS.
• Waldron J, ‘The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review’ (2005-2006) 115 YLJ.
• Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).