BRIAN TAMANAHA: HUKUK TEORİLERİNİN “KAYIP KOLU” IŞIĞINDA HUKUK KAVRAMINI YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK

Abstract

Tarih boyunca birçok teorisyenin, cevaplanmasına yönelik sayısız girişimleri bulunan ‘hukuk nedir?’ sorusu karşısında verilen yanıtlarda üç baskın yaklaşımın rol oynadığından bahsedilebilmektedir. Birbirinden farklı bu bakış açılarının tümünün, günümüzden iki bin yıldan fazla bir süre önce kaleme alınan Minos diyaloğunda ortaya koyulduğunu görmek ise son derece heyecan verici niteliktedir. Bu doğrultuda Minos diyaloğuyla paralel olarak -zaman içerisinde farklı isimler alsalar da- literatürde hukuk teorilerinin üç temel kola ayrıldığı görülmekte, ancak günümüze yaklaşıldığında bu teorilerden birinin adeta sürgüne gönderilmiş olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. İşte bu durum karşısında hukukun doğasına ilişkin teorik tartışmalarda önemli bir perspektifin eksik kaldığına dikkat çeken Brian Tamanaha, bir yandan ortadan kaybolan üçüncü teoriyi ait olduğu yere koymaya çalışmakta, diğer yandan özellikle geri kalan iki akım çerçevesinde ileri sürülen biçimsel ve işlevsel hukuk tanımlamalarının başarısız bir görünüm sergilemekte olduklarını vurgulamaktadır. Peki, Tamanaha’ya göre bu savların ardında bulunan gerekçeler nelerdir ve dahası farklı bir hukuk tanımı mümkün müdür?

Keywords

• Brian Tamanaha
• Hukuk Kavramı
• Hukuk Teorileri
• Gerçekçi Hukuk Teorisi
• Toplumsal Hukuk Teorisi

References

1. Berman, Harold, The Nature and Functions of Law, Brooklyn, Foundation Press, 1958.
2. Berman, Harold, “The Historical Foundation of Law,” Emory Law Journal, C:54, 2005, ss.13-24.
3. Bix, Brian, Jurisprudence: Theory and Context, Durham, Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
4. Bix, Brian, “A New Historical Jurisprudence?” Washington University Law Review, C:95, 2018, ss.1035-1047.
5. Cairns, Huntington, “What Is Law?” Washington and Lee Law Review, C:27, S:2, 2018, ss.193-222.
6. Chirayath L., / Sage, Caroline / Woolcock, Michael, “Customary Law and Policy Reform: Engaging with the Plurality of Justice Systems,” Washington, DC, World Bank, 2005.
7. Chroust, Anton Hermann, “Anonymous Treatise on Law: The Pseudo-Platonic Dialogue Minos,” Notre Dame Law Review, C:23, 1947, ss.47-53.
8. Cobb, William, “Plato’s Minos,” Ancient Philosophy, C:8 S:2, 1988, ss.187-207.

9. Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.
10. Fuller, Lon, The Morality of Law, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1964.
11. Gardner, John, Law as a Leap of Faith: Essays on Law in General, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012.
12. Green, Leslie, “The Forces of Law: Duty, Coercion and Power,” Ratio Juris, C:29, S:2, 2016, ss.164-181.
13. Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
14. Hayek, Friedrich, Law, Legislation and Liberty: Rules and Order, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.
15. Himma, Kenneth E., The Nature of Law: Philosophical Issues in Conceptual Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, Brooklyn, Foundation Press, 2011.
16. Isser, Debbie, Customary Justice and the Rule of Law in War-Torn Societies, Washington, DC, U.S. Institute for Peace Press, 2011.
17. Lamb, W.R.M., Plato: Charmides, Alcibiades 1 & 2, Hipparchus, The Lovers, Theages, Minos, Epinomis, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1927.
18. Lee, Kevin P., “Realism and Jurisprudence: A Contemporary Assessment,” Golden Gate University Law Review, C:49, S:2, 2019, ss.77-89.
19. Lewis, Bradley, “Plato's Minos: the Political and Philosophical Context of the Problem of Natural Right,” The Review of Metaphysics, C:60, S:1, 2006, ss.17-53.
20. Lips, Julius E., “Government,” General Antropology, (ed.) Franz Boas, New York, D.C. Heath and Company, 1938, ss. 487-534.
21. Lutz, Mark J., “The Minos and the Socratic Examination of Law,” American Journal of Political Science, C:54, S:4, 2010, ss.988-1002.
22. Nietzsche, Friedrich, Ahlakın Soykütüğü Üstüne, çev: Ahmet İnam, Say Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013.
23. Marmor, Andrei, “The Nature of Law,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/
24. McCusker, Claire, “Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism: Plato’s Minos and the Nature of Law,” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, C:22, S:1, 2010, ss.83-104.
25. Moore, Sally Falk, Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul 1978.
26. Oakeshott, Michael, The Concept of a Philosophical Jurisprudence: Essays and Reviews 1926-1951, (ed.) Luke O’Sullivan, Imprint Academic, 2007.
27. Pangle, Thomas L., The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Socratic Dialogues, London, Cornell University Press, 1987.
28. Plato, Laws (Book 1-6), (ed.) R.G. Bury, C:1, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1961.
29. Platon, Minos, (çev.) Hamdi Varoğlu, İstanbul, Sosyal Yayınları, 2001.
30. Platon, Minos-Epinomis, (çev.) Furkan Akderin, İstanbul, Say Yayınları, 2020.
31. Pound, Roscoe, “The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence: I. Schools of Jurists and Methods of Jurisprudence,” Harvard Law Review, C:24, S:8, 1911, ss.591-619.
32. Raz, Joseph, “Can There Be Theory of Law?” The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, (ed.) Martin P. Golding, William A. Edmundson, Oxford, Blackwell, 2005.
33. Raz, Joseph, The Authority of Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.
34. Rowe, Christopher, “Cleitophon and Minos,” Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, (ed.) Christopher Rowe, Malcolm Schofield, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ss.303-309.
35. Salmond, John, Jurisprudence, London, Sweet and Maxwell Press, 1924.
36. Shapiro, Scott J., Legality, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2011.
37. Solum, Larry, “Legal Theory Lexicon: The Nature of Law,” Legal Theory Blog, https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2020/06/legal-theory-lexicon-the-nature-of-law.html
38. Stein, Peter, “The Tasks of Historical Jurisprudence,” The Legal Mind: Essays for Tony Honore, (ed.) Neil MacCormick, Peter Birks, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986.
39. Strauss, Leo, Liberalism Ancient and Modern, University of Chicago Press, London, 1995.
40. Tamanaha, Brian, “A Non-Essentialist Version of Legal Pluralism,” Journal of Law and Society, C.27, S.2, 2000, ss.296-321.
41. Tamanaha, Brian, A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001.
42. Tamanaha, Brian, “Understanding Legal Realism,” Texas Law Review, C:87, S.4, 2008, ss.731-785.
43. Tamanaha, Brian, “An Analytical Map of Social Scientific Approaches to the Concept of Law,” Legal Theory and the Social Sciences, C: II, (ed.) Maksymilian Del Mar, Michael Giudice, New York, Routledge, 2010, ss.501-535.
44. Tamanaha, Brian, “What is ‘General Jurisprudence’? A Critique of Universalistic Claims by Philosophical Concepts of Law,” Washington University School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No:12-03-02-2012.
45. Tamanaha, Brian, “The Third Pillar of Jurisprudence: Social Legal Theory,” William and Mary Law Review, C:56, 2015, ss.2235-2277.
46. Tamanaha, Brian, “Insights about the Nature of Law From History,” Kobe Memorial Lecture, Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 2017.
47. Tamanaha, Brian, A Realistic Theory of Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
48. Tamanaha, Brian, “Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present”, Law & Social Inquiry, C:45, S:2, 2020.
49. Tamanaha, Brian, A Realistic Theory of Law, This is Not a Pipe Podcast, https://www.tinapp.org/episodes/realistictheoryoflaw (19.12.2020).
50. Taylor, A. E., Plato: The Man and His Work, New York, Humanities Press, 1952.