BibTex RIS Cite

INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması)

Year 2015, Issue: 6, 79 - 95, 15.01.2016

Abstract

Parliaments have a supremacy in the making Law in the most of
the states regardless it has the common law system or civil law system.
Parliament as an elected power that adopts, replaces, or repeal laws
whereas courts implement and interpret the enacted laws and makes laws
where a relevant law or precedent is absent to solve a problem in a specific
case. The more for the parliament is clarifying, modifying or replacing the
common law precedents and jurisprudence. The judges’ main task is to
interpret the statutes utilizing the rules of interpretation.
This essay aims to give brief explanation on the rules of interpretation
in the United Kingdom as a foremost common law example. These rules
are examined under the mainly four titles: the literal rule, the golden rule,
the mischief rule and the purposive approach. Apart from this issue the
article mentions the tasks of the courts beyond the interpretation.

References

  • ADAMS J N, and BROWNSWORD R, Understanding Law, 3th edn, Sweet&Maxwell, 2003.
  • BELL J and ENGLE G, Cross Statutory Interpretation, 2th edn, Butterworths Publishing, London, 1987.
  • DWORKIN R M, ‘The Model of Rules’, (1967), Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 3609, 14-46.
  • ELLIOTT C, English Legal System: Essential Cases and Materials, Pearson Publishing, Harlow, 2009.
  • FOWLER R L, ‘The Future of the Common Law’, (1913), 13 Colum LR , 595–611.
  • HART H L A, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1994.
  • GARDNER J, ‘Some Types of Law’ in Common Law Theory, Douglas E Edlin (ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, 51-80.
  • WOOLF L, ‘Droit Public - English Style’ (1995) PL 57.
  • MALLESON K, The Legal Systems, Lexis Nexis, London, 2003.
  • MARTIN J, Key Cases in the English Legal System, Hodder Education Press, London, 2011.
  • SALES P, ‘Judges and Legislature: Values into Law’ (2012) CLJ 71(2), 287–
  • SLAPPER G and KELLY D, The English Legal System, 13th edn, (Routledge Press, London, 2013).
  • TWINING W and MIERS D, How to Do Things with Rules, 5th edn, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  • ZANDER M, The Law-Making Process, 6th edn, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). CASES
  • Adler v George [1964] 1 All ER 628.
  • Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC
  • Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] 1 All ER 49.
  • Barker v Corus Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572.
  • British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609.
  • Brutus v Cozens [1972] 2 All ER 1297.
  • CR v United Kingdom, 48/1994/495/577 ECH.
  • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32.
  • Fisher v Bell [1960] 1 QB 394.
  • Heydon’s Case [1584] 76 ER 637.
  • Maunsell v Olins [1975] 1 All ER 16.
  • McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. R v R [1992] 1 AC 599.
  • R v S of S for Health ex parte Quintavalle, [2003] 2 WLR 692.
  • R v Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273.
  • R v Allen [1872] LR 1 CCR 367.
  • R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689.
  • Re A (Children) [2001] 2 WLR 480.
  • River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1876-77) LR 2 App Case 743.
  • Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v Asher [1950] 2 All ER 1236.
  • Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830.
  • Sussex Peerage Case [1884] 8 ER 1034.
  • Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] 1 AC 816.

(İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması)

Year 2015, Issue: 6, 79 - 95, 15.01.2016

Abstract

Anglo-Sakson hukuk sistemi veya kıta Avrupası hukuk sistemine sahip olup olmadığına bakılmaksızın ülkelerin çoğunda kanun yapımında parlamentolar önceliğe sahiptirler. Parlamento seçilmiş bir organ olarak kanun çıkartır veya kanunu değiştirir ya da iptal ederken mahkemeler ise çıkarılan kanunları uygular ve yorumlar veya önündeki somut bir davayı çözmesini sağlayacak kanun veya içtihat yok ise kendisi kanun koyucu gibi kanun yapar. Parlamento için daha da ötesi, teamül hukukunun içtihatlarını açıklamak, dönüştürmek ve değiştirmektir. Hakimin esas görevi yorum tekniklerine başvurarak kanunları yorumlamaktır.Bu makale Anglo-Saxon hukuk sisteminin önde gelen uygulayıcısı olan İngiltere’deki kanun yorumlama kuralları hakkında kısa bir açıklama yapmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu kurallar başlıca dört başlık altında ele alınmıştır: lafzi kural, altın kural, problemli kural ve amaçsal yaklaşımdır. Bunun dışında, çalışmada mahkemelerin yorum yapma dışındaki görevlerinden de bahsedilmektedir

References

  • ADAMS J N, and BROWNSWORD R, Understanding Law, 3th edn, Sweet&Maxwell, 2003.
  • BELL J and ENGLE G, Cross Statutory Interpretation, 2th edn, Butterworths Publishing, London, 1987.
  • DWORKIN R M, ‘The Model of Rules’, (1967), Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 3609, 14-46.
  • ELLIOTT C, English Legal System: Essential Cases and Materials, Pearson Publishing, Harlow, 2009.
  • FOWLER R L, ‘The Future of the Common Law’, (1913), 13 Colum LR , 595–611.
  • HART H L A, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1994.
  • GARDNER J, ‘Some Types of Law’ in Common Law Theory, Douglas E Edlin (ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, 51-80.
  • WOOLF L, ‘Droit Public - English Style’ (1995) PL 57.
  • MALLESON K, The Legal Systems, Lexis Nexis, London, 2003.
  • MARTIN J, Key Cases in the English Legal System, Hodder Education Press, London, 2011.
  • SALES P, ‘Judges and Legislature: Values into Law’ (2012) CLJ 71(2), 287–
  • SLAPPER G and KELLY D, The English Legal System, 13th edn, (Routledge Press, London, 2013).
  • TWINING W and MIERS D, How to Do Things with Rules, 5th edn, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  • ZANDER M, The Law-Making Process, 6th edn, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). CASES
  • Adler v George [1964] 1 All ER 628.
  • Alcock and others v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC
  • Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] 1 All ER 49.
  • Barker v Corus Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572.
  • British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609.
  • Brutus v Cozens [1972] 2 All ER 1297.
  • CR v United Kingdom, 48/1994/495/577 ECH.
  • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32.
  • Fisher v Bell [1960] 1 QB 394.
  • Heydon’s Case [1584] 76 ER 637.
  • Maunsell v Olins [1975] 1 All ER 16.
  • McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. R v R [1992] 1 AC 599.
  • R v S of S for Health ex parte Quintavalle, [2003] 2 WLR 692.
  • R v Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273.
  • R v Allen [1872] LR 1 CCR 367.
  • R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689.
  • Re A (Children) [2001] 2 WLR 480.
  • River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1876-77) LR 2 App Case 743.
  • Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v Asher [1950] 2 All ER 1236.
  • Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830.
  • Sussex Peerage Case [1884] 8 ER 1034.
  • Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] 1 AC 816.
There are 36 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Özgür Beyazıt This is me

Publication Date January 15, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2015 Issue: 6

Cite

APA Beyazıt, Ö. (2016). INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi(6), 79-95.
AMA Beyazıt Ö. INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi. January 2016;(6):79-95.
Chicago Beyazıt, Özgür. “INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum Ve Kanun Yapması)”. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, no. 6 (January 2016): 79-95.
EndNote Beyazıt Ö (January 1, 2016) INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi 6 79–95.
IEEE Ö. Beyazıt, “INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması)”, Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, no. 6, pp. 79–95, January 2016.
ISNAD Beyazıt, Özgür. “INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum Ve Kanun Yapması)”. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi 6 (January 2016), 79-95.
JAMA Beyazıt Ö. INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi. 2016;:79–95.
MLA Beyazıt, Özgür. “INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum Ve Kanun Yapması)”. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi, no. 6, 2016, pp. 79-95.
Vancouver Beyazıt Ö. INTERPRETATION AND LAWMAKING BY THE COURTS IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW SYSTEM (İngiliz Teamül Hukuku Sisteminde Mahkemelerin Yorum ve Kanun Yapması). Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi. 2016(6):79-95.