Türkiye’de Yasama Ombudsmanının Kamusal Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümünde Arabulucu Fonksiyonu

Yıl 2021, , 33 - 59, 20.01.2021

Hazal Duran

https://doi.org/10.12995/bilig.9602

Öz

Bu makale Türkiye’de yasama ombudsmanının kamusal uyuşmazlıkların çözülmesindeki rolüne odaklanarak kamu kurumları ve vatandaşlar arasındaki arabulucu fonksiyonunu incelemektedir. 2012 yılında Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi’ne bağlı olarak kurulmasından itibaren Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu 80,535 kamusal uyuşmazlığı çözüme kavuşturmuştur. Ombudsmanın arabulucu fonksiyonu literatürde göz ardı edilmesine ve kurumun daha çok idari fonksiyonuna odaklanılmasına rağmen Türkiye örneği arabuluculuk yöntemlerinin uygulanmasının kurumun uyuşmazlık çözüm kapasitesini artırdığını göstermektedir. Arabuluculuk yöntemlerinin kurumun uyuşmazlık çözüm kapasitesini artırmadaki fonksiyonunu daha iyi anlamak amacıyla bu makale dostane çözüm yöntemi olarak adlandırılan ve 2017 yılından itibaren Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu tarafından uygulanan arabuluculuk yöntemiyle çözülen 1003 uyuşmazlığı ampirik olarak analiz etmektedir. Bu çalışma, arabuluculuk yöntemlerinin kısıtlı olsa da taraflar arasındaki etkileşimi artırarak ombudsmanın uyuşmazlık çözüm kapasitesine olumlu katkı yaptığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ombudsman, kamusal uyuşmazlık çözümü, arabuluculuk yöntemleri, dostane çözüm

The Intermediary Function of Turkey’s Legislative Ombudsman in Resolving Public Disputes

Öz

This article focuses on the function of legislative ombudsman in Turkey in resolving public disputes to understand its intermediary position between public institutions and citizens. Since its establishment in 2012 under the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Ombudsman Institution of Turkey has resolved 80,535 public disputes. Although the intermediary function of ombudsman has been unexplored in the literature, with studies focusing more on legal and administrative functions, the Turkish context shows that the adoption of intermediary methods enhances the dispute resolution capacity of this institution. To understand the function of intermediary methods in increasing the dispute resolution capacity of ombudsman, this article empirically analyzes 1003 cases resolved via friendly settlement, an intermediary method adopted by the Ombudsman Institution of Turkey since 2017. This study reveals that intermediary methods make limited but positive contribution to the dispute resolution capacity of ombudsman by increasing the interaction between the parties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ombudsman, public dispute resolution, intermediary methods, friendly settlement

Kaynakça

• Abdioğlu, Hasan (2007). “Yönetişim İlkelerinin Uygulanmasında Kamu Denetçiliği (Ombudsmanlık) Kurumu ve Avrupa Birliği Sürecinde Türkiye Açısından Önemi”. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 6 (11): 79–102.
• Abedin, Najmul (2011). “Conceptual and Functional Diversity of the Ombudsman Institution: A Classification”. Administration and Society 43 (8): 896-929.
• Abraham, Henry J (1960). “A People’s Watchdog against Abuse of Power”. Public Administration Review 20 (3): 152-57.
• Addison-Laurie, Evelyn (2017). The Role of an Ombudsman in Mitigating Conflict. PhD Dissertation. Minneapolis: Walden University.
• Ambrož, Milan (2005). “The Mediating Role of the Ombudsman in the Protection of Human Rights”. International Journal of Social Welfare 14 (2): 145-53.
• Arklan, Ümit (2006). “Bir Kamu Denetim Sistemi Olarak Ombudsman ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği”. Selçuk İletişim 4 (3): 82-100.
• Asper y Valdes, Daisy De (1989). Toward a National Ombudsman for Brazil. PhD Dissertation, Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
• Ayeni, Victor (1985). A Typology of Ombudsman Institutions. Vienna: The International Ombudsman Institute.
• Bennett, Dana M. (2014). Roles and Functions of Organizational Ombuds Officers in the United States. Master Thesis. Colorado: University of Denver.
• Bingham, Lisa Blomgren (2009). “Collaborative Governance: Emerging Practices and the Incomplete Legal Framework for Public and Stakeholder Voice”. Journal of Dispute Resolution (2): 269-325.
• Bingham, Lisa Blomgren et al. (2005). “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government”. Public Administration Review 65 (5): 547–58.
• Boege, Volker et al. (2008). On Hybrid Political Orders and Emerging States: State Formation in the Context of Fragility. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict.
• Chigas, Diana (2005). “Negotiating Intractable Conflicts: The Contributions of Unofficial Intermediaries”. Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Eds. Chester A. Crocker et al. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. 123-158.
• Creutzfeldt, Naomi (2018). Ombudsmen and ADR: A Comparative Study of Informal Justice in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Denis, Jean Louis et al. (2015). “Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations”. Public Administration 93 (2): 273-89.
• Dragos, Dacian C. and Bogdana Neamtu (2014). Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Ertekin, Yücel (2004). “Çağdaş Yönetim ve Denetim.” Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1 (1): 55–67.
• EU Progress Report for Turkey (1998). Strasbourg: European Commission.
• Friedmann, Karl A. (1977). “The Public and the Ombudsman: Perceptions and Attitudes in Britain and in Alberta”. Canadian Journal of Political Science 10 (3): 497–525.
• Gadlin, Howard (2012). “Some Thoughts on Informality”. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 5 (1): 31-37.
• Georgekopoulos, Alexia (2017). The Mediation Handbook: Research, Theory, and Practice. New York: Routledge.
• Gill, C. O. Anderson (2016). Administrative Justice and the Control of Bureaucratic Decision-Making: A Study Investigating How Decision-Makers in Local
• Authority Education Departments Respond to The Work of Redress Mechanisms. PhD Dissertation, Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
• Gregory, Roy and Philip Giddings (2003). Ombudsman, the Citizen, and Parliament. London: Politicos.
• Hill, L.B. (1974). “Institutionalization, the Ombudsman, and Bureaucracy”. The American Political Science Review 68 (3): 1075-85.
• Hill, L.B. (1976). The Model Ombudsman: Institutionalizing New Zealand’s Democratic Experiment. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Hill, L.B. (1981). “Bureaucracy, the Bureaucratic Auditor, and the Ombudsman: An Ideal-Type Analysis”. In State Audit. Eds. B. Geist. Tel Aviv: State Comptroller’s Office. 83-121.
• International Ombudsman Institution Standards of Practice. Retrieved from https://www.ombudsassociation.org/assets/docs/IOA_Standards_of_Practice_Oct09.pdf (Accessed: 29.04.2020).
• Kılavuz, R. et al. (2003). “Etkin Bir Denetim Aracı Olarak Ombudsmanlık ve Türkiye’de Uygulanabilirliği”. C. Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 4 (1): 49–68.
• Kolb, Deborah M. (1988). “Corporate Ombudsman and Organization Conflict Resolution”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 31 (4): 673–91.
• Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Gabriele (2008). European Ombudsman-Institutions: A Comparative Legal Analysis Regarding the Multifaceted Realization of An Idea. Vienna: Springer.
• Male, Barbara Detrick (1999). Assessing Ombudsman Performance: Two Case Studies in North America. PhD Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
• Monogioudis, Georgios (2015). Tracing Public Accountability in Serbia: The Ombudsman Institutions in Search of Allies. PhD Dissertation. London: UCL.
• Moore, Kathleen (2016). “The Art of Ombudsing: Using Multiple Frames to Resolve Conflict”. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 9 (1): 8-22.
• O’Brien, Nick (2015). “What Future for the Ombudsman?”. Political Quarterly 86 (1): 72-80.
• O’Brien, Nick and Mary Seneviratne (2017). Ombudsmen at the Crossroads: The Legal Services Ombudsman, Dispute Resolution and Democratic Accountability. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Oğuşgil, V. Atilla (2014). “The Operational Effectiveness of the European Ombudsman”. International Journal of Social Inquiry 7 (1): 46-63.
• Prince, Ethlyn Agatha (1979). Changing Politics and Society in Post-Independent Guyana: The Ombudsman as A Device for Mediating Relations Between the
• Bureaucracy and The Citizen. PhD Dissertation. Falmer: University of Sussex.
• Rauanheimo-Casey, Debra Lynn (2007). Managing Conflict Through Organizational Ombuds Programs: The Exercise of Remedial and Preventive Voice in the Workplace. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
• Regulation No: 28601. “Procedures and Principles Concerning the Implementation of Law on the Ombudsman Institution” (2013). Official Gazette.
• Reif, Linda C. (2004). The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System. Leiden: Springer.
• Remac, Milan (2013). “Standards of Ombudsman Assessment: A New Normative Concept?”. Utrecht Law Review 9 (3): 62-78.
• Roosbroek, Steven Van and Steven Van De Walle (2008). “The Relationship between Ombudsman, Government, and Citizens: A Survey Analysis”. Negotiation Journal 24 (3): 287-302.
• Rowat, Donald C. (1965). The Ombudsman: Citizen’s Defender. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
• Rowat, Donald C. (1985). The Ombudsman Plan. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
• Rowe, Mary (1991). “The Ombudsman’s Role in a Dispute Resolution System”. Negotiation Journal 7 (4): 353-62.
• Rowe, Mary (2015). “Negotiations Theory and Ombuds Practice”. Negotiation Journal 31 (4): 419-23.
• Şengül, Ramazan (2005). “Ombudsman Kurumu Kötü Yönetime Çare Olabilir Mi?” Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik Sempozyumu. Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi.
• Siemiatycki, Myer et al. (2015). The Impact of Ombudsman Investigations on Public Administration: A Case Study and an Evaluation Guide. Toronto: Office of the Toronto Ombudsman.
• Singer, Linda R. (1990). Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution in Business, Families, and the Legal System. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
• Sirianni, Carmen (2010). Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Stuhmcke, Anita (2013). “The Evolution of the Classical Ombudsman: A View from the Antipodes”. SSRN Electronic Journal 2 (1): 83-95.
• Sudhankitra, Jiraporn (2015). A Study of the Constitutional Role of the Thai Ombudsman. PhD Dissertation. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
• “The European Ombudsman’s Mandate (2000). Retrieved from https://www.ombudsman.eu ropa.eu/en/speech/en/302 (Accessed: 29.04.2020).
• The Ombudsman Institution of Turkey (2019). Annual Report. Ankara.
• Utley, T.E. (1961). Occasion for Ombudsman. London: Johnson.
• Vogiatzis, Nikos (2018). The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Yılmaz, Ece (2009). “Domestic Implementation of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights at the National Level: Turkey”. Ankara Bar Review 1: 85-91.
• Zagoria, Sam (1988). The Ombudsman: How Good Governments Handle Citizens’ Grievances. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks.
• Ziegenfuss, James T. (1988). Organizational Troubleshooters: Resolving Problems with Customers and Employees. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Ziegenfuss, James T. and Patricia O’Rourke (2011). The Ombudsman Handbook: Designing and Managing an Effective Problem-Solving Program. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co.