Bu makale, 19. yüzyılın ortalarından itibaren İşkodra’da kurumsal adalet mekanizmalarıyla Arnavut kanunlarının adaleti tesis mekanizmalarının -cibal usulünün- karşılaşma, temas ve etkileşim anlarına yakından bakmayı, böylelikle Tanzimat sonrası hukuki merkeziyetçilik ve hukuki çoğulluk tartışmalarına ceza hukuku ve adaleti merceğinden katkıda bulunmayı amaçlıyor. Makalede evvela İşkodra’da hakim istisnaî hukuk rejiminin zeminini oluşturan koşullar ve bu rejimin belkemiğini teşkil eden Cibal Komisyonu ve cibal usulü üzerinde duracak, ayrıca cibal usulüne istinaden uygulanan cezalardan hane ihrakını sosyo-hukuki bağlamına yerleştirmeye çalışacağım. Ardından yine İşkodra’da akdedilen umumi sulh sözleşmelerine odaklanarak sulh koşullarının müzakere edildiği süreçte icat edilen hibrit usulleri istisnaî yönetimin bir unsuru olarak inceleyeceğim. Nihayet bölgedeki hukuki çoğulluğun yol açtığı ihtilaflı durumlara ve yine buradan beslenen adalet taleplerine birkaç örnekle değindikten sonra, 1908 ertesi militer şiddet ve sıkıyönetim koşullarında Dukakin Kanunu/cibal usulünün kanunlaştırılmasına yönelik yarım kalmış teşebbüsten bahsederek makaleyi bitireceğim.
A primary concern for governors appointed to Shkodra from the 1850s onward was to tackle the prevailing custom of blood feuds and the issue of fugitive murderers arising from this practice. To eliminate feuds, which were historically legitimized by the Geg Albanians’ ancient customary laws, called the Kanun of Dukagjini or the law of the mountains (cibal), local authorities set up a multilayered and plural legal regime. In this context, mountain tribes affiliated with the Cibal Commission, which was created under local government supervision in Shkodra, and certain other districts, were officially permitted to operate outside the Ottoman judicial system and implement the law of the cibal, including such retributive measures as house-burning and property confiscation. In areas not officially governed by the law of the cibal, on the other hand, a more complex picture emerged, a picture shaped by recurrent collective settlements of feuds. In peaceful settlements, the scope of which was subject to negotiations between tribal elders (rüesa) and the governor and documented in written contracts, not only was reconciliation facilitated between the feuding parties, but hybrid criminal procedures were also invented, and their enforcement was shared between the Ottoman courts and the rüesa. This system eclectically juxtaposed the Ottoman laws and the cibal laws. Thus, those who could not be punished within the framework of the former would be punished according to the latter. This article aims to explore this exceptional legal regime in Shkodra in the second half of the 19th century, a period marked by centralization in Ottoman judicial and administrative structures and an increasing emphasis on the principle of legality.
Shkodra the law of the mountains (cibal) house-burning collective feud settlements legal pluralism
Primary Language | Turkish |
---|---|
Subjects | Historical Studies (Other) |
Journal Section | Research Articles |
Authors | |
Publication Date | December 31, 2024 |
Submission Date | November 21, 2024 |
Acceptance Date | December 29, 2024 |
Published in Issue | Year 2024 Issue: 5 |