BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Geçerlilik, etkililik ve cebrîlik arasindaki ilişki

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 66 Sayı: 4, 677 - 730, 01.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001905

Öz

Geçerlilik, etkililik ve cebrîlik kavramlarının hepsi hukuk teorisinde merkezî bir role sahiptir. Bütün büyük teorisyenler bir şekilde bu kavramlara değinmiştir. Ancak, bu kavramların anlamı ve bunların karşılıklı ilişkisi hâlâ sorunludur. Bu sorunlardan bazıları kavramlara ilişkin benimsenen tanımlardan, diğer bir kısmı ise hukuk felsefecilerinin belirsiz üsluplarından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bu makale bu üç kavramı bağdaştırma ve bunların hukuk teorisindeki merkezî konumunu yeniden keşfetme çabası olarak görülebilir. Bu bağlamda, makale her biri farklı bir pozitivizm anlayışına sahip olan üç önemli pozitivistin çalışmalarını incelemektedir: Austin, Kelsen ve Hart. Makale, etkililik bütün bir hukuk sisteminin geçerliliğinin ön koşulu olarak görüldüğü için, bu iki kavramın iç içe geçmiş olduğu sonucuna ulaşmaktadır. Öte yandan, birel bir normun etkililiğinin onun geçerliliği üzerinde bir etkisinin olmaması gerekir. Cebrîliğin aracı olarak yaptırımların bu iki kavramla bağı benimsenen yaptırım tanımına bağlıdır. Yaptırıma ilişkin iki anlayış bulunmaktadır: Normatif ve olgusal anlayışlar. Normatif anlayış veya tanım benimsendiğinde, yaptırım ve cevrîliğin etkililik ve geçerlilik, özellikle de geçerlilik kavramıyla pek az ilgisi bulunmaktadır. Eğer yaptırım olgusal bir "kötülük" olarak algılanırsa, bir hukuk sisteminin etkililiği ve geçerliliği üzerindeki etkisi artmaktadır

Kaynakça

  • Austin, John (1875), Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. Robert Campbell, New York, Henry Holt and Company.
  • Austin, John (2001), The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Barber, N. W. (2000), "Sovereignty Re-examined: The Courts, Parliament and Statutes", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 131-154.
  • Bernstroff, Jochen von and Dunlap, Thomas (2011), The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen, Cambrdige, Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, E. C. (1883), Practical Jurisprudence: A Comment on Austin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Coleman, Jules L. (1982), "Negative and Positive Positivism", The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 139-164.
  • Delacroix, Sylvie (2006), Legal Norms and Normativity: An Essay in Genealogy, Oxford, Hart.
  • Fuller, Lon L. (1958), "Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 630-672.
  • Gözler, Kemal (2012), "Aslî Kurucu İktidar - Tali Kurucu İktidar Ayrımı: TBMM Yeni Bir Anayasa Yapabilir Mi?", in Demokratik Anayasa: Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Ece Göztepe and Aykut Çelebi, İstanbul, Metis, pp. 45-61.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1998b), Hukukun Genel Teorisine Giriş: Hukuk Normlarının Geçerliliği ve Yorumu Sorunu, Ankara, US-A.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1998a), Kurucu İktidar, Bursa, Ekin.
  • Gözler, Kemal (2013), "Yorum İlkeleri", Anayasa Hukukunda Yorum ve Norm Somutlaştırması, ed. Ozan Ergül, Ankara, Public Lawyers Platform and Turkish Bar Association, pp. 15-119.
  • Green, Leslie (2012), "Introduction", The Concept of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Grelette, Matthew (2010), "Legal Positivism and the Separation of Existence and Validity", Ratio Juris, Vol. 23, pp. 22-40.
  • Gustafsson, Hakan (2007), Fiction of Law, No Foundations, No. 4, pp. 83-103.
  • Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol (2016), Normlar Hiyerarşisi: Türk, Alman ve İngiliz Hukuk Sistemlerinde Kural İşlemlerin ve Mahkeme Kararlarının Hiyerarşik Gücü, İstanbul, On İki Levha.
  • Haase, Marco (2004), Grundnorm-Gemeinwille-Geist, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.Hart, H.L.A. (1983), "Kelsen's Doctrine of the Unity of Law", Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 309-342.
  • Hart, H. L. A. (2012), The Concept of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Hauser, Raimund (1968), Norm, Recht und Staat, Vienna, Springer.
  • Heckmann, Dirk (1997), Geltungskraft und Geltungsverlust von Rechtsnormen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
  • Hobbes, Thomas (1998), Leviathan¸ ed. J. C. A. Gaskin, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Kelsen, Hans (1949), General Theory of Law and State, ed. Anders Wedberg, 3rd Edition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Kelsen, Hans (2008), Pure Theory of Law, trns. Max Knight, 5th Edition, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd..
  • MacCormick, Neil and Raz, Joseph (1972), "Voluntary Obligations and Normative Powers", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 46, pp. 59-102.
  • Marmor, Andrei (2011), Philosophy of Law, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
  • Mullock, Philip (1975), "Power Conferring Rules & The Rule of Recognition", Pittsburg Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 23-33.
  • Munzer, Stephen (1972), Legal Validity, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Nino, Carlos Santiago (1978), "Some Confusions Around Kelsen's Concept of Validity", Archiv Für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 357-377.
  • Raz, Joseph (1974), "Kelsen's Theory of the Basic Norm", The American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 19, Issue: 1, pp. 94-111.
  • Raz, Joseph (1972), "Legal Principles and the Limits of Law", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 823-854.
  • Raz, Joseph (1977), "Legal Validity", Archiv Für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 339-353.
  • Raz, Joseph (1980), The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Raz, Joseph (1971), "The Identity of Legal Systems", California Law Review, Vol. 59, pp. 795-815.
  • Sartor, Giovanni (2008), "Legal Validity: An Inferential Analysis", Ratio Juris, Vol. 21, pp. 212-247.
  • Sartor, Giovanni (2000), "Legal Validity as Doxastic Obligation: From Definition to Normativity", Law and Philosophy, Vol. 19, Issue: 5, pp. 585-625.
  • Shapiro, Scott J. (2008), "What is Rule of Recognition (And Does It Exist?)", http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1304645, Date of Access: 13 April 2017.
  • Somló, Felix (1917), Juristische Grundlehre, Leipzig, Verlag von Felix Meiner.
  • Surlu, Aydan Ömür (2008), H.L.A. Hart'ta Tanıma Kuralı, Supervisor: Gülriz Uygur, unpublished PhD thesis, on file with Ankara University Faculty of Law Library under T-1214.
  • Tülen, Hikmet (2004), "Olağanüstü Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerin Yargısal Denetimi Sorunu", Ankara Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 8, No. 3-4, pp. 79-110.

INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALIDITY, EFFICACY AND COERCIVENESS

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 66 Sayı: 4, 677 - 730, 01.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001905

Öz

Validity, efficacy and coerciveness are all central concepts in legal theory. Every major legal theoretician has somehow touched upon in each of these concepts. However, their meaning and interrelationship remain problematic. Some of these problems originate from the adopted definitions of these concepts, some others from the ambiguous tone of legal philosophers. This article can be viewed as an effort to reconcile these three concepts and re-discover their central position in legal theory. In this regard, the article examines the work of three important positivists, each leading a different understanding of positivism: Austin, Kelsen and Hart. The article reaches the conclusion that the concepts of efficacy and validity are intertwined as the efficacy of the legal system has always been conceived of as the pre-condition for its validity. On the other hand, an individual norm's efficacy should have no effect on its validity. The connection of sanctions as the tool of coerciveness to these two concepts depends on the adopted definition of sanction. There are two understandings of sanctions: Normative and factual. In case the normative understanding or definition is adopted, sanction and coerciveness have very little to do with either validity or efficacy. If sanction is considered to be a factual "evil", however, its effect on the system's efficacy and validity increases

Kaynakça

  • Austin, John (1875), Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. Robert Campbell, New York, Henry Holt and Company.
  • Austin, John (2001), The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfrid E. Rumble, 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Barber, N. W. (2000), "Sovereignty Re-examined: The Courts, Parliament and Statutes", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 131-154.
  • Bernstroff, Jochen von and Dunlap, Thomas (2011), The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen, Cambrdige, Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, E. C. (1883), Practical Jurisprudence: A Comment on Austin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Coleman, Jules L. (1982), "Negative and Positive Positivism", The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 139-164.
  • Delacroix, Sylvie (2006), Legal Norms and Normativity: An Essay in Genealogy, Oxford, Hart.
  • Fuller, Lon L. (1958), "Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart", Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 630-672.
  • Gözler, Kemal (2012), "Aslî Kurucu İktidar - Tali Kurucu İktidar Ayrımı: TBMM Yeni Bir Anayasa Yapabilir Mi?", in Demokratik Anayasa: Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Ece Göztepe and Aykut Çelebi, İstanbul, Metis, pp. 45-61.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1998b), Hukukun Genel Teorisine Giriş: Hukuk Normlarının Geçerliliği ve Yorumu Sorunu, Ankara, US-A.
  • Gözler, Kemal (1998a), Kurucu İktidar, Bursa, Ekin.
  • Gözler, Kemal (2013), "Yorum İlkeleri", Anayasa Hukukunda Yorum ve Norm Somutlaştırması, ed. Ozan Ergül, Ankara, Public Lawyers Platform and Turkish Bar Association, pp. 15-119.
  • Green, Leslie (2012), "Introduction", The Concept of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Grelette, Matthew (2010), "Legal Positivism and the Separation of Existence and Validity", Ratio Juris, Vol. 23, pp. 22-40.
  • Gustafsson, Hakan (2007), Fiction of Law, No Foundations, No. 4, pp. 83-103.
  • Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol (2016), Normlar Hiyerarşisi: Türk, Alman ve İngiliz Hukuk Sistemlerinde Kural İşlemlerin ve Mahkeme Kararlarının Hiyerarşik Gücü, İstanbul, On İki Levha.
  • Haase, Marco (2004), Grundnorm-Gemeinwille-Geist, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.Hart, H.L.A. (1983), "Kelsen's Doctrine of the Unity of Law", Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 309-342.
  • Hart, H. L. A. (2012), The Concept of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Hauser, Raimund (1968), Norm, Recht und Staat, Vienna, Springer.
  • Heckmann, Dirk (1997), Geltungskraft und Geltungsverlust von Rechtsnormen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
  • Hobbes, Thomas (1998), Leviathan¸ ed. J. C. A. Gaskin, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Kelsen, Hans (1949), General Theory of Law and State, ed. Anders Wedberg, 3rd Edition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Kelsen, Hans (2008), Pure Theory of Law, trns. Max Knight, 5th Edition, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd..
  • MacCormick, Neil and Raz, Joseph (1972), "Voluntary Obligations and Normative Powers", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 46, pp. 59-102.
  • Marmor, Andrei (2011), Philosophy of Law, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
  • Mullock, Philip (1975), "Power Conferring Rules & The Rule of Recognition", Pittsburg Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 23-33.
  • Munzer, Stephen (1972), Legal Validity, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Nino, Carlos Santiago (1978), "Some Confusions Around Kelsen's Concept of Validity", Archiv Für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 357-377.
  • Raz, Joseph (1974), "Kelsen's Theory of the Basic Norm", The American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 19, Issue: 1, pp. 94-111.
  • Raz, Joseph (1972), "Legal Principles and the Limits of Law", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 823-854.
  • Raz, Joseph (1977), "Legal Validity", Archiv Für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 339-353.
  • Raz, Joseph (1980), The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Raz, Joseph (1971), "The Identity of Legal Systems", California Law Review, Vol. 59, pp. 795-815.
  • Sartor, Giovanni (2008), "Legal Validity: An Inferential Analysis", Ratio Juris, Vol. 21, pp. 212-247.
  • Sartor, Giovanni (2000), "Legal Validity as Doxastic Obligation: From Definition to Normativity", Law and Philosophy, Vol. 19, Issue: 5, pp. 585-625.
  • Shapiro, Scott J. (2008), "What is Rule of Recognition (And Does It Exist?)", http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1304645, Date of Access: 13 April 2017.
  • Somló, Felix (1917), Juristische Grundlehre, Leipzig, Verlag von Felix Meiner.
  • Surlu, Aydan Ömür (2008), H.L.A. Hart'ta Tanıma Kuralı, Supervisor: Gülriz Uygur, unpublished PhD thesis, on file with Ankara University Faculty of Law Library under T-1214.
  • Tülen, Hikmet (2004), "Olağanüstü Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamelerin Yargısal Denetimi Sorunu", Ankara Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 8, No. 3-4, pp. 79-110.
Toplam 39 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA54NU57US
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Yahya Berkol Gülgeç Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Aralık 2017
Gönderilme Tarihi 1 Aralık 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 66 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

Chicago Gülgeç, Yahya Berkol. “Geçerlilik, Etkililik Ve cebrîlik Arasindaki ilişki”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 66, sy. 4 (Aralık 2017): 677-730. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001905.

Cited By

Özne, Hukuk ve Hak
Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1423032


.