Agenda: Environment! Critical evaluation of the thesis on the right to environment in Turkey

Öz

This article includes a content analysis of master's and doctoral theses on environmental right, environmental law and climate crisis. In this context, 47 theses accessed through the Turkey's national thesis database were examined. In the content analysis, the contributions of the theses evaluated to the environmental sensitivity agenda were discussed. The conclusions reached in this context are as follows: It is an issue that can be handled within the framework of both third and fourth generation rights of the environment, both cultural and universal dimension of the environment should be handled together, national and international legal system should be shared on the environment, local and central governments and international institutions on environment and organizations need a common point of view, environmentally sensitive perspective should not include gender-age-class discrimination, education systems should be created from eco-friendly curricula, the importance of environmental impact assessment should be understood, and the capacity needs to be professionally developed, concerns that might arise from environmental destruction in the new environment It is essential to be added to their agenda.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Right to environment
• environmental law
• gender
• environmental impact assessment
• new generation rigths

Kaynakça

1. 1. Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri. https://sozluk.gov.tr/, 10.09.2020.
2. 2. Olgun, H., Işık, V. (2017). Envıronmental Rıghts As Human Rıghts And Its Place In Turkısh Law
3. 3. http://www.kaced.org/tr/insan-haklari.html?sayfa=447, 10.09.2020.
4. 4. Göçmen, D. (2018). What is the law? What kind of system is law?, Genç Hukukçular Topluluğu Konferansı, https://www.academia.edu/38810329/Hak_Nedir_Hukuk_Nas%C4%B1l_Bir_Sistemdir
5. 5. Dadak, K. (2015). The Environmental Right As a New Generation Right. Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi Dergisi.
6. 6. The evolution of the human rights, Bilgi Üniversitesi İnsan Hakları Merkezi, https://insanhaklarimerkezi.bilgi.edu.tr/media/uploads/2015/08/14/pusula_bolum4_insanhaklarininevrimi_istanbulbilgiuniversitesiyayinlari.pdf
7. 7. Aykul, Ö. (2017). Fourth generation rights or sustainable living rights, http://ekoiq.com/2017/11/06/dördüncü-kuşak-haklar-ya-da-sürdürülebilir-yaşam-haklari/
8. 8. Wiley, Norbert. (2011). The Chicago School: A Political Interpretation. Blue Ribbon Papers: Interactionism: The Emerging Landscape Studies in Symbolic Interaction

9. 9. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2016). The Chicago School and Ecology: A Reappraisal for the Digital Era. American Behavioral Scientist.
10. 10. Lane, Jen-Erik. (2018). Clımate Crısıs And The “We”: An Essay in Deconstruction. Journal of Economics and Public Finance ISSN 2377-1038 (Print) ISSN 2377-1046 (Online) Vol. 4, No. 3, (Pp. 208-222). www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jep
11. 11. Özsoy, E., Dinç, A. (2016). Sustainable Development and Ecological Footprint. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar. 53/619. Pp. (35-55).
12. 12. Ökmen, M., Demir, F. (2015). Participants Environmental Impact Assessment And Usak Province Representative in Turkey, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dpusbe/issue/4769/65614
13. 13. Climate talks are not enough. Editorial. Nature, (2018). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04925-4. Updated. 4.4.2020.
14. 14. Doctors against climate catastrophe. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/doctors-against-climate-catastrophe.
15. 15. Panu, P. (2019). Climate Anxiety. Helsinki: MIELI Mental Health Finland.
16. 16. Koçak, A. Arun, Ö. (2006). Sampling Problem in Content Analysis Studies. Selçuk İletişim Dergisi, 4, 3. (Pp. 21-28).
17. 17. Conrad P., Barker KK. (2010). The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383495