TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF TWITTER SHARES

Öz

Confidence in the judiciary is considered important as a part of the social trust in the political system as a whole. In this context, there are some practices that will reinforce confidence in the judiciary. These practices have started to become widespread, especially with the development of information and communication technologies. The Constitutional Court is a guarantee for individuals, especially through individual applications. This study, which evaluates the communication of the Constitutional Court with the citizens through the use of social media, focuses on what the Court uses Twitter account for. In this context, tweets shared in 2022 were analyzed by content analysis method. According to the results of the analysis, the Court, as expected, mostly shared tweets about individual application and review of norm decisions. Apart from these, publications and statistical information on court activities are among the most frequently sent tweets. Considering the number of followers of the court, it can be stated that the shared content does not receive enough interaction. However, the court's use of social media is considered important in terms of its contribution to transparency, awareness and legitimacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Media
• Constitutional Court
• Twitter
• Content Analysis

TÜRK ANAYASA MAHKEMESİNİN SOSYAL MEDYA KULLANIMI: TWİTTER PAYLAŞIMLARININ İÇERİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Yargıya güven bir bütün olarak siyasal sisteme duyulan toplumsal güvenin bir parçası anlamında önemli görülmektedir. Bu kapsamda yargıya güveni pekiştirecek bazı uygulamalar bulunmaktadır. Bu uygulamalar özellikle bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin de gelişmesiyle yaygınlaşmaya başlamıştır. Anayasa mahkemesi özellikle bireysel başvuru vasıtasıyla bireyler açısından bir güvence niteliğindedir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin vatandaşla iletişimini sosyal medya kullanımı üzerinden değerlendiren bu çalışma, Mahkemenin Twitter hesabını ne amaçla kullandığına odaklanmaktadır. Bu kapsamda 2022 yılında paylaşılan tweetler incelenerek içerik analizi yöntemiyle değerlendrilmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucuna göre Mahkeme, beklendiği gibi, en çok bireysel başvuru ve norm denetimi kararlarıyla ilgili tweetler paylaşmıştır. Bunlar dışında mahkeme faaliyetlerine ilişkin yapılan yayınlar ve istatistik bilgileri en çok gönderilen tweetler içerisinde yer almaktadır. Mahkemenin takipçi sayısını göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda paylaşılan içeriklerin yeterince etkileşim almadığı ifade edilebilir. Ancak mahkemenin sosyal medya kullanımı şeffaflığa, farkındalığa ve meşruiyetine sunduğu katkı açısından önemli görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Medya
• Anayasa Mahkemesi
• Twitter
• İçerik Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Alexy, R. (2005). Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International journal of constitutional law, 3(4), 572-581.
2. Aliefendioğlu Yılmaz (1997). Anayasa Yargısı, Yetkin Yayınları.
3. Blackham Alysia & George Williams, Australian Courts and Social Media (September 27, 2013). Alternative Law Journal, 38(3), 171, https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1303800308.
4. Andrew J.A. Mattan , Kate Puddister & Tamara A. Small (2020). Tweet Justice: The Canadian Court’s Use of Social Media, American Review of Canadian Studies, 50:2, 229-244, DOI: 10.1080/02722011.2020.1759945
5. Aydın Çakır, A., & Şekercioğlu, E. (2016). Public confidence in the judiciary: the interaction between political awareness and level of democracy. Democratization, 23(4), 634-656.
6. Bireysel Başvuru İstatistikleri (23/9/2012 – 30/6/2022/2), T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı, https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/media/8113/bb_2022_2_tr.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 08.12.2022).
7. Brown, R. (2009). Public Relations and the Social Web: How to use social media and web 2.0 in communications. Kogan Page Publishers.
8. Burbank, S. B. (2006). Judicial independence, judicial accountability, and interbranch relations. Geo. LJ, 95, 909-927.

9. Bühlmann, M., & Kunz, R. (2011). Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West European Politics, 34(2), 317-345.
10. Cappelletti, M., & Adams, J. C. (1966). Judicial Review of Legislation: European Antecedents and Adaptations. Harvard Law Review, 79(6), 1207-1224.
11. CEPEJ (2016). European judicial systems Efficiency and quality of justiceEuropean judicial systems: Efficiency and quality of justice, CEPEJ Studies No.24.
12. Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1-2), 1-9.
13. Contini, F., & Mohr, R. (2007). Reconciling independence and accountability in judicial systems. Utrecht Law Review, 3(2), 26-43.
14. Council of Europe (2018). Transparency and How to Demystify the Work of Courts.
15. Garoupa, N. & Ginsburg, T. (2015). A Theory of Judicial Reputation and Audiences. In Judicial Reputation: A
16. Comparative Theory (pp. 14-49). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226290621-003
17. Garoupa, N., & Magalhães, P. C. (2021). Public trust in the European legal systems: independence, accountability and awareness. West European Politics, 44(3), 690-713.
18. Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Jimenez-Gomez, C. E. (2020). Information and Technology in Open Justice. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318810781.
19. Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge University Press.
20. Göztepe Ece (2012). “Anayasa Yargısının Meşruluğu”, Demokratik Anayasa: Görüşler Ve Öneriler, Haz. Ece Göztepe ve Aykut Çelebi, içinde(387-417), Metis Yayınları.
21. Göztepe, Ece (1998). Anayasa Şikayeti, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları.
22. Graham, M., & Avery, E. (2013). Government public relations and social media: An analysis of the perceptions and trends of social media use at the local government level. Public Relations Journal, 7(4), 1-21.
23. Groves, M. (2021). Judges and the Media. içinde The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia (pp. 259-282). G. Appleby & A. Lynch (Eds.), Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108859332.016
24. Gülener S. (2017). Türkiye'de Anayasa Yargısının Demokratik Meşruluğu, 2. Baskı, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
25. Gülener S. (2021). Anayasal Düzenler ve Türkiye’nin Anayasal Düzeni (Temel Bilgiler), 3. Baskı.
26. Gülener S. & Uzun Cem D. (2020). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi (Tarihsel Perspektiften Olaylar, Kişiler, Kararlar), On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
27. Gülener, S. (2011). Yargı bağımsızlığını güçlendirici bir mekanizma olarak yargısal hesap verebilirlik ve Türk yargı sistemi. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 215-252.
28. Gülsoy, Mehmet Tevfik (2007), Özgürlüklerin Korunmasında Anayasa Yargısının Yeri ve Meşruluğu, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara.
29. Haro-de-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook?. New media & society, 20(1), 29-49.
30. Jackson, M., & Shelly, M. (2015). The use of Twitter by Australian courts. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 24(1), 83-100.
31. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The Courts Are All a Twitter: The implications of social media use in the courts. Val. UL Rev., 46, 43.
32. Johnston, J. (2017). Courts’ use of social media: A community of practice model. International Journal of Communication, 11, 15.
33. Kaboğlu, İbrahim Ö (2000). Anayasa Yargısı, 3. Baskı, İmge Yayınları.
34. Kaigo, M. (2012). Social media usage during disasters and social capital: Twitter and the Great East Japan earthquake. Keio Communication Review, 34(1), 19-35.
35. Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public relations review, 38(4), 636-638.
36. Lupo, G., & Bailey, J. (2014). Designing and implementing e-Justice Systems: Some lessons learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws, 3(2), 353-387.
37. Marković, M., & Gostojić, S. (2020). Open Judicial Data: A Comparative Analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318770744.
38. Meyer Jr, N. H. (2014). Social media and the courts: innovative tools or dangerous fad-a practical guide for court administrators. In IJCA (Vol. 6, p. 2).
39. Meyer, Norman. (2014). Social Media and the Courts: Innovative Tools or Dangerous Fad? A Practical Guide for Court Administrators. International Journal for Court Administration. 6. 2. 10.18352/ijca.136.
40. Meyer, P. (2020). Judicial public relations: Determinants of press release publication by constitutional courts. Politics, 40(4), 477-493.
41. Mickoleit, A. (2014). Social media use by governments: A policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No:26
42. Müller, M. (2022). Spreading the word? European Union agencies and social media attention. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 1-13.
43. Ontanu, E. (2019). Adapting Justice to Technology and Technology to Justice. A Coevolution Process to e-Justice in Cross-border Litigation. East European Quarterly, 8(2), 54-74.
44. Park, A., & Youm, K. H. (2017). Judicial Communication in South Korea. Justices and Journalists: The Global Perspective, 184.
45. Parkin, M., & Wedeking, J. (2017). Connecting with the courts: Online access to state judicial systems. Justice System Journal, 38(1), 22-36.
46. Passaglia, P. (2019). Institutional Communication as a Means to Strengthen the Legitimacy of Constitutional Courts. içinde Judicial Power in a Globalized World (pp. 359-375). Springer, Cham.
47. Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2018). Marketing your university on social media: a content analysis of Facebook post types and formats. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 175-191.
48. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government information quarterly, 29(4), 504-511.
49. Prakash, Saikrishna B. and Yoo John C. (2003). “The Origins Of Judicial Review”, University of Chikago Law Review, Vol. 69, Summer, 2003, s. 887-982.
50. Puddister, Kate, and Tamara A. Small (2019). "Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same." Canadian Public Administration 62.2: 202-224.
51. Reiling, D. (2016). Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform, Leiden University Press.
52. Relling, D. (2011). Technology in courts in Europe: Opinions, practices and innovations. In IJCA (Vol. 4, p. 11).
53. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public relations review, 36(4), 336-341.
54. Rufai, S. R., & Bunce, C. (2020). World leaders’ usage of Twitter in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a content analysis. Journal of public health, 42(3), 510-516.
55. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2020). Understanding e-justice and open justice through the assessment of judicial websites: Toward a conceptual framework. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 334-353.
56. Sobacı, Mehmet Zahid, Hatipoğlu, İbrahim., & Korkmaz, Mehmet Fürkan (2018). The effect of post type and post category on citizen interaction level on Facebook: The case of metropolitan and provincial municipalities in the Marmara Region of Turkey. içinde Sub-national democracy and politics through social media (pp. 91-105). Springer.
57. Sobacı, Mehmet Zahid & Karkın, Naci. (2013). The use of twitter by mayors in Turkey: Tweets for better public services?. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 417-425.
58. Staton, J. K. (2010). Judicial power and strategic communication in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.
59. Stone, Alec (1992). “Abstract Constitutional Review and Policy Making in Western Europe”, Comparative Judicial Review and Public Policy, Ed. Donald W. Jackson and C. Neal Tate, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, s. 41-57.
60. Sweet, Alec Stone (2008). “Constitutions and Judicial Power”, içinde Comparative Politics, Ed. Daniele Caramani, Oxford University Press, ss. 217-239.
61. Şirin, Tolga (2013). Türkiye’de Anayasa Şikayeti (Bireysel Başvuru): İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi ve Almanya Uygulaması İle Mukayeseli Bir İnceleme, Oniki Levha Yayıncılık A.Ş., İstanbul.
62. Tremblay, Luc B. (2005). “The Legitimacy of Judicial Review: The Limits of Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 3, No. 4, s. 617-648.
63. Troper, Michel (1997), “Anayasa Yargısı ve Demokrasi”, (Çev. Ender Ethem Atay). GÜHFD, C.1, S. 2, Ankara, ss. 293–310.
64. Tunç, Hasan (1997). Karşılaştırmalı Anayasa Yargısı, Yetkin Yayınları.
65. Turhan, Mehmet (2006), “Anayasa Yargısının İşlevi ve Meşruluğu”, Anayasa Yargısı İncelemeleri 1, Ed. Mehmet Turhan ve Hikmet Tülen, Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları, Ankara.
66. TUSHNET, Mark (1999). Taking The Constitution Away From The Courts. Princeton University Press.
67. UNODC (2011). Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity.
68. Velicogna, M., & Ng, G. Y. (2006). Legitimacy and Internet in the Judiciary: A lesson from the Italian Courts’ websites experience. International Journal of law and information technology, 14(3), 370-389.
69. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-justice in Continental Europe: the TéléRecours experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9(1), 38-59
70. Voermans, W. J. (2007). Judicial transparency furthering public accountability for new judiciaries. Utrecht Law Review, 3(1), 148-159.
71. Wallace, A. (2009). E-justice: An Australian perspective. In E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 204-228). IGI Global.
72. Warren, M. (2014). Open justice in the technological age. Monash UL Rev., 40, 45.
73. Waters, R. D., & Lo, K. D. (2012). Exploring the impact of culture in the social media sphere: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ use of Facebook. Journal of intercultural communication research, 41(3), 297-319.
74. Hammergren, Linn (2002). Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability: The Shifting Balance in Reform Goals”, içinde Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence an Impartiality (ss. 149-157), Office of Democracy and Governance,
75. Zalnieriute, M., & Bell, F. (2020). Technology and the judicial role. içinde The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia, Cambridge University Press.