TANZİMAT SONRASI KANUNLAŞTIRMA ÇALIŞMALARININ KAYNAKLARI VE METODOLOJİSİ

Öz

Avrupa’daki iktisadî, siyasî ve sosyal değişim Osmanlı Devleti’ni de etkilemiş,   bu değişim Osmanlı hukuk anlayışını da sirayet etmiştir. Bunun sonucunda Osmanlı’da yeni hukukî normlar ve kurumlar ortaya çıkmıştır. Osmanlı Devleti, her alanda olduğu gibi Avrupa’da meydana gelen kanunlaştırma hareketlerini de takip etmiştir. Bu çerçevede Osmanlı Devleti’nde modern anlamda kanunlaştırma hareketleri Tanzimat Fermanı’nın mahiyetine ve amacına uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Tanzimat ve sonrasında, kamu hukuku ve özel hukuk gibi alanlarda hem geleneksel hem de modern metotlarla kanunlaştırma çalışmalarına önem verilmiştir. Kanunlaştırma çalışmalarıyla türdeş bir Osmanlı toplumu meydana getirilmesi amaçlanmış, fakat istenilen amaca ulaşılamamıştır. Bununla birlikte ortaya çıkan hukuki değişim, hukuk devleti olma yolunda önemli bir adım olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Tanzimat sonrasında Osmanlı Devleti’nde kanunlaştırma çalışmalarının kaynakları ve metodolojisi üzerinde durulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Osmanlı Devleti,Tanzimat Fermanı,Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri,Hukuk

Resources and Methodology of Post-Tanzimat Law Actvities

Abstract

Economic, political and social changes in Europe also affected the Ottoman Empire and this change spread to the Ottoman legal understanding. As a result, new legal norms and institutions emerged in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, as in all other fields, followed the legalization movements that took place in Europe. In this context, the modernization of the Ottoman Empire in the legal sense took place in accordance with the content and purpose of the Tanzimat Edict. In the Tanzimat and later periods, both the traditional and modern methods of legalization in the fields of public law and private law were given importance. It was aimed to create a homogeneous Ottoman society with the enactments, but the desired aim could not be achieved. However, the legal change that emerged was an important step towards becoming a state of law. In this study, the sources and methods of the legalization studies in the Ottoman Empire after the Tanzimat were emphasized, and the historical mission, ideology and institutions of the legalization movements in the Ottoman Empire after the Tanzimat Edict were discussed. The economic, political and social changes that emerged in Europe after the French Revolution brought new legal norms. The Ottoman Empire was also affected by this situation and tried to adapt the European rules to its structure. The legalization movements initiated in line with the principles envisaged by the Tanzimat Edict influenced the interaction with Europe. Changing economic, political and social relations have revealed the necessity of new regulations. On the other hand, it was aimed to institutionalize an ideology which was explained by the codification movements in the form of Ottoman society by the Tanzimat Edict. Again in this context, as a natural result of legalization movements, new institutions were established in the Ottoman legal system. These institutions, in particular the courts and local councils, had important roles in the functioning of the justice mechanism. Important arrangements were made in the field of law after the Tanzimat. It is possible to divide these regulations in the form of legalization and changes in the judicial system. New ones were added to the existing the sharia courts, community courts and consular courts of embassies established through capitulations. The trade council, which was first established under the Ministry of Commerce in 1840, was transformed into a commercial court in 1847 and 1848. The most radical change in the area of the courthouse was made in 1864 with the provincial regulations. Accordingly, criminal and civil courts were established in all provinces. In addition, the courts established under the name parliament-i deâvî, mecca-i appeal, divan-ı appeal in the provinces and sanjaks served as both first instance and appeal courts. With the Law of Organization of Mehakim-i Nizamiyen, which was enacted in 1879, these courts were restructured and for the first time an institution of public authority (prosecution) was established. In the same period, the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts was narrowed and the newly established courts were expanded. Since the proclamation of the Tanzimat, an intense legalization was carried out in almost every field of law. In addition to the legislative efforts carried out under the influence of the West, important legal arrangements based on the traditional understanding of law were made. The difference of the period that began in the Ottoman history with the Tanzimat Edict and developed with the Edict of Islahat is that it takes into consideration the civil values which form the basis of Europe and the concepts of being a state of law and individual rights which are necessary for the modern state. Both edicts can be said to be a social contract to determine the rights and duties between the individual and the state. The intention of recognizing the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual indicates a new era for the Ottoman Empire.

The legalization movements started to be carried out in the manner envisaged by the Tanzimat Edict were placed in a wider framework with the Edict of Islahat. While Tanzimat Edict put forward the necessity of legalization, Islahat Edict was instrumental in taking concrete steps to legalize it. Political, social and economic reasons matured the legalization process. The effects of European legal regulations based on rationalism brought a new legal approach in the Ottoman Empire. The understanding of rational and natural law, ensuring the safety of life and property, foresees that all people are equal before the law without any discrimination. These principles became a legal principle in the Ottoman Empire in two important documents such as Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümâyûn and Islahat Edict. The legalization movements in the Ottoman Empire followed a course in line with the understanding envisaged in the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts. One of the most important reasons of the legalization movements is the constantly changing economic, political and social relations and the necessity of new regulations. The desire to strengthen central government in the Ottoman Empire is another important reason for the post-Tanzimat legislative movements. Ottoman statesmen were in a rush to stop the state's decline in recent years. They believed that one of the major causes of the problems was the disruption of central authority. Therefore, the aim of establishing a strong central structure in the legislative movements was an important reason. The spread of nationalism in Europe accelerated the change in the legal field. The understanding of nationalism also affected the Ottoman Empire; it gave direction to the legalization movements that started with the Tanzimat Edict. Nizamnames of the Nation which is a natural result of legalization movements are the most important example in this regard. Although the Tanzimat Edict did not have a national identity, it can be said that the legalization movements that it promised paved the way for nationalist ideas. In this sense, the legalization movements resulted in the development of nationalism as a systematic movement.

Keywords

• Ottoman Empire,Tanzimat Edict,Legalization Movements,law

Kaynakça

1. DÜSTUR, I. Tertip, I. Cilt, “Ceza Kanunname-i Humayunu”, Matbaa-yı Amire, 1289.
2. DÜSTUR, I. Tertip, I. Cilt, “Arazi Kanunnamesi”, Matbaa-yı Amire, 1289.
3. DÜSTUR, I. Tertip, I. Cilt, “Ticaret-i Berriye Kanunnamesi”, Matbaa-yı Amire, 1289.
4. DÜSTUR, I. Tertip, I. Cilt, “Ticaret-i Bahriye Kanunnamesi”, Matbaa-yı Amire, 1289.
5. DÜSTUR, II. Tertip, 9. Cilt, “Hukuku Aile Kararnamesi’nin İlk Kitabı”, Evkaf Matbaası, İstanbul, 1928.
6. AKGÜNDÜZ, Ahmet, Mukayeseli İslam ve Osmanlı Hukuku Külliyatı, Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, No:6, Diyarbakır, 1986.
7. AKŞİN, Sina, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki, 3. Baskı, İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, 2001.
8. DEMİREL, Fatmagül, Adliye Nezareti: Kuruluşu ve Faaliyetleri (1876-1914), Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

9. BERKES, Niyazi, Türkiye’de Çağdaşlaşma, (Yayına Hazırlayan; Ahmet Kuyaş), 4. Baskı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2003.
10. BOZKURT, Gülnihal, Batı Hukuku’nun Türkiye’de Benimsenmesi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 2010.
11. ÇADIRCI, Musa, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik yapısı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 2013.
12. EBÜ’LULA MARDİN, Medeni Hukuk Cephesinden Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, İstanbul, 1949.
13. GAYRETLİ, Mehmet, “Tanzimat Sonrasından Cumhuriyet’e Kadar Olan Dönemde Kanunlaştırma Çalışmaları”, Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsi, İlahiyat Ana Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2008.
14. KARAL, Enver Ziya, Osmanlı Tarihi, C.V, 3.Baskı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1970.
15. KARAL, Enver Ziya, Osmanlı Tarihi, Cilt:VI, 2.Baskı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1976.
16. KAYNAR, Reşat, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat, 4. Baskı, TTK, Ankara, 2010.
17. KİLİ, Suna, Şeref Gözübüyük, Türk Anayasa Metinleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1985.
18. AKÇA, Gürsoy, Himmet Hülür, “Osmanlı Hukukunu Temelleri ve Tanzimat Döneminde Hukuksal Yeniliklerin Sosyo-Politik Dinamikleri” Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı:19, Konya, 2006, s.313.
19. MARDİN, Şerif, Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin doğuşu, 2. Baskı, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 1998.
20. OĞUZ, Ahmet, Birinci Meşrutiyet, Kanunu Esasi ve Meclis-i Mebusan, Ankara, 2010.
21. CEVDET PAŞA, Tezâkir, 1-12, 3. Baskı Ankara, 1991.
22. SEYİTDANLIOĞLU, Mehmet, Tanzimat Devrinde Meclis-i Vala(1838-1868), TTK, Ankara, 1999.
23. ÜÇOK, Coşkun, Ahmet Mumcu, Gülnihal Bozkurt, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Ankara, 2014.
24. ABADAN, Yavuz, , “Tanzimat Fermanı’nın Tahlili”, Tanzimat I, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul 1999, s.54-57.
25. AKGÜNDÜZ, Ahmet, “1274/1858 Tarihli Osmanlı Ceza Kanunnâmesinin Hukuki Kaynakları, Tatbik Şekli ve Men’-i İrtikap Kanunnâmesi, Belleten, Cilt: 51., Sayı: 199., Ankara, 1987, s.156-157.
26. AKYILDIZ, Ali, “Meclis-i Vâlâ-yı Ahkâm-Adliye, TDVİA, C.28, Ankara, 2003, s.250-251.
27. AKYILDIZ, Ali, “Şura-yı Devlet”, TDVİA, Cilt: 39, İstanbul 2010, s.236-239.
28. AYDIN, Mehmet Akif, “İslâm-Osmanlı Aile Hukukunun Kanunlaştırılması ve Hukuk-ı Aile Kararnamesi, Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: VI., (Editör: Güler Eren ), Ankara, 1999, s.497.
29. AYDIN, Mehmet Akif, “Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye”, Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: 28., Ankara, 2003, s.232.
30. AYTEKİN, E. Attila, “Hukuk, Tarih ve Tarihyazımı: 1858 Osmanlı Arazi Kanunnâmesine Yönelik Yaklaşımlar”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Cilt: 3., Sayı 5., İstanbul, 2005, s.723.
31. BARKAN, Ömer Lütfi, “Türk Toprak Hukuku Tarihinde Tanzimat ve 1274 (1858) Tarihli Arazi Kanunnâmesi”, Tanzimat I. Ankara, 1999, s.369.
32. BELGESAY, Mustafa Reşit, “Tanzimat ve Adliye Teşkilatı”, Tanzimat I, İstanbul, 1999, s.211-220.
33. BİNGÖL, Sedat, “Osmanlı Mahkemelerinde Reform ve Ceride-yi Mahakim’deki Üst Mahkeme Kararları”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, Cilt: XX, Sayı:I, Temmuz, 2005, s.20.
34. BİNGÖL, Sedat, “Tanzimat Sonrası Taşra Ve Merkezde Yargı Reformu”, Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi, C: X, Ankara, 2000, s.533.
35. CEYLAN, Ayhan, “Parlamentoya Uzanan Süreçte Türk Hukukunda “Danışma”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Cilt:XIII., (Editörler: Hasan Celal Güzel-Kemal Çiçek-Salim Koca), Ankara, 2002, s.592-593.
36. ÇADIRCI, Musa, “Tanzimat”, Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi, Cilt:VI, Ankara, 2002, s.191-192.
37. EKİNCİ, Ekrem Buğra, “Tanzimat Devri Osmanlı Mahkemeleri”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, (Editörler: Hasan Celal Güzel-Kemal Çiçek-Salim Koca), Cilt: XIII., Ankara, 2002, s.775.
38. ERDEM, Sami, “Türkçede Mecelle Literatürü”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Cilt: 3.,Sayı 5., İstanbul, 2005, s.673.
39. HIFZI VELDET, “Kanunlaştırma Hareketleri ve Tanzimat”, Tanzimat I, İstanbul, 1999, s.176.
40. KAŞIKÇI, Osman, “Osmanlı Medeni Kanunu: Mecelle”, Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi, (Editör: Güler Eren), Cilt: VI., Ankara, 1999, s.519-532.
41. MUTAF, Abdülmecit “Şura-yı Devlet”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: XIII., (Editörler: Hasan Celal Güzel-Kemal Çiçek-Salim Koca), Ankara, 2002, s.599.
42. ÖZKAYA, Yücel -Ali Akyıldız, “Muhassıl”, TDVİA, C.31, İstanbul, 2006, s.19.
43. ÖZKORKUT, Nevin Ünal, “Savcılık, Avukatlık ve Noterlik kurumlarının Osmanlı Devleti'ne Girişi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 52., Sayı: 4., Ankara, 2003, s.150.
44. ÖZTÜRK, Osman,“Osmanlılarda Tanzimat sonrası Yapılan hukukî çalışmalar ve Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye”, Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi, (Editör: Güler Eren), Cilt: VI., Ankara, 1999, s.505.
45. REYHAN, Cenk, “Osmanlı’da Millet Nizamnameleri: Avrupa ile Uyum Sürecinde Rum-Ermeni-Yahudi Cemaat Düzenlemeleri” Belgeler, Cilt: XXVII, Sayı: 31, Ankara 2006, s.33-90.
46. SEYYİTTANLIOĞLU, Mehmet, “Yenileşme Dönemi Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatı”, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: XIII., (Editörler: Hasan Celal Güzel-Kemal Çiçek-Salim Koca), Ankara, 2002, s.568.
47. ŞENTOP, Mustafa “Tanzimat Dönemi Kanunlaştırma Faaliyetleri”, TALİD Türk Hukuk Tarihi, cilt 3, sayı 5, İstanbul, 2005, s.647
48. TANER, Tahir, “Tanzimat Devrinde Ceza Hukuku”, Tanzimat I., İstanbul, 1999, s.226.
49. YAVUZ, Hulusi, “Adliye Nezareti”, TDVİA, C.I, İstanbul, 1988, s.389-390.