Hukuk Araştırmasında Teorik ve Normatif Çerçeveler: Teorinin Uygulamaya Aktarımı

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 1524 - 1552, 29.12.2021

Çevirmen: Sezai Çağlayan

https://doi.org/10.32957/hacettepehdf.947172

Öz

Doktriner hukuk bilimi, hukuk pratiğinin sorunlarıyla ilgilenir. Doktriner hukuk bilimi, hukukta meydana gelen gelişmeleri sistematik hale getirir, yorumlar, değerlendirir ve tartışır. Bu faaliyetler bir boşlukta gerçekleşmez: Bunlar, bilimsel bir gelenek ve teoriler içerisinde gömülü bir şekilde bulunur. Bu makale, hukuk araştırmalarında kullanılan teorik çerçevelerin rolünü tartışmakla birlikte, birbiriyle ilişkili iki amaca sahiptir. Birincisi, bu çalışma hukuk araştırmalarını anlamak ve yürütmek için faydalı olan teorik ve normatif çerçevelerle ilgili bazı pratik kavramsallaştırmalar ve kılavuzlar sağlamayı amaçlar. İkincisi, farklı türdeki normatif çerçeveler arasındaki ilişkileri ve bunların ampirik çalışmalarla olan ilişkilerini araştırmayı amaçlar. İkinci bölümde, normatif kuramlaştırma ve ampirik çalışma arasındaki etkileşimin pragmatist bir şekilde anlaşılması için bir tartışma gerçekleştirilmektedir. Peki, tüm bunlar hukukun mevcut durumu ile ilgili hususlarda nasıl birlikte hareket ederler?

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hukuk yöntemleri, normatif teori, araştırma dizaynı, hukuk teorisi, pragmatizm

Teşekkür

Hukuk yazınında ihmal edilen konuların başında gelen metodolojiye dair bu önemli eserin Türk hukuk camiasına kazandırılmasına vesile olan, Erasmus Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi’nden Prof. Sanne Taekema’ya teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

Kaynakça

• BABBIE, Earl, The Practice of Social Research, 13. Basım, Wadsworth, Belmont, 2013.
• BARBER, Sotirios A / FLEMİNG, James E.,Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
• BLUMBERG, Boris / COOPER, Donald R / Schindler, Pamela S., Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008.
• BURCHILL, Scott / LINKLATER, Andrew, Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2013.
• CORBETTA, Piergiorgio, Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques, Thousand Oaks, 2003.
• DANIELS, Norman, Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
• DE BEEN, Wouter, Legal Realism Regained: Saving Realism from Critical Acclaim, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2008.
• DEL MAR, Maksymilian, “The Natural and the Normative: The Distinction, Not the Dichotomy, Between Facts and Values in a Broader Context”, Facts and Norms in Law. Interdisciplinary Reflections on Legal Method, (der. S. Taekema vd.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016, (s. 224-241).
• DEWEY, John. Reconstruction in Philosophy, the Middle Works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 12). Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 1988.
• DHAMI, Mandeep / BELTON, Ian Keith “Statistical Analyses of Court Decisions: An Example of Multilevel Models of Sentencing”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2016, (s. 1-15).
• DWORKIN, Ronald, Law’s Empire, Belknap, Cambridge, 1986.
• DWORKIN, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Mass, 1978.
• FRANKEN, Hans “Rechtsgeleerdheid in De Rij Der Wetenschappen”, Nederlands Juristenblad, Yıl: 2004, Sayı: 28, (s. 1400-1408).
• FREEMAN, R. Edward, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, 1984.
• GLASER, Barney G. / Strauss, Anselm L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, 1967.
• HART, H.L.A. The Concept of Law, 2. Basım, Clarendon, Oxford, 1994.
• HOLTERMANN, Jakob v. H. / MADSEN, Mikael Rads “What is Empirical in Empirical Studies of Law? A European New Legal Realist Conception”, Retfærd, Yıl: 2016, Cilt: 39, Sayı:4, (s. 3-21)
• HUTCHINSON, Terry / DUNCAN, Nigel “Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research”, Deakin Law Review, Yıl: 2012, Cilt: 17, Sayı: 1, (s. 83-119).
• IJZERMANS, Maria “Lessen Geleerd: Onderwerp, Object, En Theoretisch Kader Van Rechtswetenschappelijk Onderzoek”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2015, (s. 1-23).
• JENSEN, Michael C. / MECKLING, William H. “Theory of the Firm. Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Yıl: 1976, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 3, (s. 305-360).
• KESTEMONT, Lina “A Meta-Methodological Study of Dutch and Belgian Phds in Social Security Law: Devising a Typology of Research Objectives as a Supporting Tool”, European Journal of Social Security, Yıl: 2015, Cilt: 17, Sayı: 3, (s. 361-384).
• KRYGIER, Martin / SELZNICK, Philip, Ideals in the World, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2012.
• LAYDER, Derek, Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research, Sage, Newcastle, 1998.
• MAXWELL, Joseph A., Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3. Basım, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2013.
• MCCONVILLE, Mike / CHUI, Wing Hong, Research Methods For Law, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2007.
• MCLEOD, Ian, Legal Method, 6. Basım, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, 2005.
• MELVILLE, Angela / HINCKS, Darren “Conducting Sensitive Interviews: A Review of Reflections”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2016, (s. 1-26)
• PAPINEAU, David, Naturalism, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/naturalism/.
• PUTNAM, Hilary, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
• RANDOLPH, Justus J “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Yıl: 2009, Cilt: 14, Sayı: 13, (s. 1-13).
• RAWLS, John, A Theory of Justice, Belknap, Cambridge, 1971.
• SALTER, Michael / MASON, Julie Writing Law Dissertations: An Introduction and Guide to Conducting Legal Research, Pearson Education, Harlow, 2007.
• SELZNICK, Philip / NONET, P. / VOLLMER, H., Law, Society and Industrial Justice, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1969.
• SELZNICK, Philip, A Humanist Science: Values and Ideals in Social Inquiry, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2008.
• SIEMS, Mathias, Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014.
• SMITH, Carel “The Vicissitudes of The Hermeneutic Paradigm in the Study of Law: Tradition, Forms of Life and Metaphor”, Erasmus Law Review, Yıl: 2011, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 1, (s. 21-38).
• SUNSTEIN, Cass, Behavioral Law and Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
• TAEKEMA, Sanne, “Relative Autonomy. A Characterization of the Discipline of Law”, Law and Method. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Legal Research, (der. B. Klink / S. Taekema), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2011, (s. 33-52).
• TAEKEMA, Sanne, “Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2018, Sayı: 2, (s. 1-17).
• UNGER, Umberto M.. The Critical Legal Studies Movement: Another Time, a Greater Task, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
• VAN DEN BOS, Kees / HULST, Liesbeth “On Experiments in Empirical Legal Research”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2016, (s. 1-18).
• VAN DER BURG, Wibren “The Merits of Law: An Argumentative Framework for Evaluative Judgements and Normative Recommendations in Legal Research”, Erasmus Working Paper Series on Jurisprudence and Socio-Legal Studies, Yıl: 2017, (s. 1-38).
• VAN HOECKE, Mark, “Legal Doctrine: Which Method(s) for What Kind of Discipline?”, Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline?, (der. M. Hoecke), Hart, Oxford, 2011, (s. 1-18).
• VAN KLINK, Bart / LEMBCKE, Oliver, “Exploring the Boundaries of Law: On the Is-Ought Distinction in Jellinek and Kelsen”, Facts and Norms in Law. Interdisciplinary Reflections on Legal Method, (der. S. Taekema vd.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016, (s. 201-223).
• VRANKEN, J.B.M “Exciting Times for Legal Scholarship”, Recht En Methode in Onderzoek En Onderwijs, Yıl: 2012, Sayı: 2, (s. 42-62).
• VRANKEN, J.B.M. “Methodology of Legal Doctrinal Research: A Comment on Westerman”, Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline?, (der. M. Hoecke vd.), Hart, Oxford, 2011, (s. 111-121).
• WALUCHOW, W.J. Inclusive Legal Positivism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
• WATKINS, Dawn / BURTON, Mandy, Research Methods in Law, Routledge, Abingdon, 2013.
• WEBLEY, Lisa “Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research: Case Study Research”, Law and Method, Yıl: 2016, (s. 1-21).
• WESTERMAN, Pauline, “Open or Autonomous? The Debate on Legal Methodology as a Reflection of the Debate on Law”. Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline?, (der. M. Hoecke), Hart, Oxford, 2011, (s. 87-110).