AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, son 70 yılda gerek Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi gerekse de Kıta Avrupası ülkelerindeki Anayasa Mahkemelerinin Sözleşme’de yer alan haklar ya da Anayasalarda yer alan temel hak ve özgürlükleri genişletici bir şekilde yorumlayarak bu haklara evrimsel (dinamik) bir yaklaşım kazandırdıkları öne sürülmektedir. Dahası, Mahkemelerin benimsediği bu yorumsal anlayışın temelinde Gadamer’in “felsefi hermeneutik” adını verdiği bir kavramsallaştırmanın yattığı ileri sürülecektir. Bu anlayış, yorum faaliyetini, yazar ile okuyucunun niyeti arasında, okuyucunun yazarın niyetine sıkı sıkıya bağlı olmadığı bilişsel bir diyalog süreci olarak algılamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hukuksal Hermeneutik
• Gadamer
• Temel Hakların Yorumu
• Yargısal Denetim
• AİHM

The Rise of Hermeneutics in Human Rights Interpretation in the Case-Law of the ECtHR and the Domestic Courts

Öz

This paper aims to argue that over approximately the last 70 years, both constitutional courts in Continental European legal systems and the European Court of Human Rights have implemented an evolutive (dynamic) approach to human rights by making broad interpretation of both constitutional or Convention rights. It also argues that the philosophical grounds of this interpretive approach are consistent with Gadamer’s conception of “philosophical hermeneutics,” which refers to interpretation as a cognitive dialogue on the text, between the author’s and the reader’s intent, which is not strictly bound by an obligation on the reader to adhere to the author’s intent.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Legal Hermeneutics
• Gadamer
• Interpretation of Human Rights
• Judicial Review
• ECtHR

Teşekkür

I am extremely grateful for the help and advice of Dr. Benedict Douglas and Dr. Marianna Iliadou in Durham Law School and all my colleagues in Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Faculty of Law for their comments and contributions. Any errors are my own.

Kaynakça

1. Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, (Translated by Julian Rivers, Oxford University Press, 2002).
2. Annino, Paolo G., An Evaluation of Ronald Dworkin’s Hermeneutical Theory of Law (Dphil Thesis, Fordham University, 1997).
3. Bellamy, Richard, Political Constitutionalism: Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy, (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
4. Bellamy, Richard, Political Constitutionalism and The Human Rights Act, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.9, Issue. 1, 2011.
5. Björge, Eirik, “Bottom-Up Shaping of Rights: How the Scope of Human Rights at the National Level Impact upon Convention Rights”, in Eva Brems, Janneke Gerards (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of The European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
6. Brems, Eva, The “Logics” of Procedural-Type Review by the European Court of Human Rights, in Janneke Gerards, Eva Brems (eds.), Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases, (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
7. Caminker, Evan H., A Norm-Based Remedial Model for Underinclusive Statutes, The Yale Law Journal, Vol:95, No. 6, 1986.
8. Cappelletti, Mauro, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective, (Clarendon Press, 1989).

9. Çalı, Başak, From Flexible to Variable Standards of Judicial Review: The Responsible Domestic Courts Doctrine at the European Court of Human Rights, in Oddný Mjöll Árnadóttir, Antoine Buyse (eds.) Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking Between the ECHR, EU, and National Legal Orders, (Routledge, 2016).
10. Council of Europe, High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton Declaration, Brighton, 18-20 April 2012, H/Inf (2012) 3.
11. Cumper, Peter, Lewis, Tom, Blanket Bans, Subsidiarity, and the Procedural Turn of the European Court Of Human Rights, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 68, Issue 3, July, 2019.
12. Dembour, Marie-Benedicte, Who Believes in Human Rights Reflections on the European Convention, (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
13. Donato, James, Dworkin and Subjectivity in Legal Interpretation, Stanford Law Review, Vol 40, No 6, 1988.
14. Douglas, Benedict, Too attentive to our duty: the fundamental conflict underlying human rights protection in the UK, Legal Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 3, 2018.
15. Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle, (Harvard University Press, 1985).
16. Dworkin, Ronald, Law as Interpretation, Texas Law Review, Vol.60, No.60, 1982.
17. Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire, (Harvard University Press, 1986).
18. Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously, (Harvard University Press, 1978).
19. Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin, European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, German Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 10, 2011.
20. Elliot, Mark, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review, (Hart Publishing, 2001).
21. Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust A Theory of Judicial Review, (Harvard University Press, 1980).
22. Eskridge, William, Gadamer/Statutory Interpetation, Columbia Law Review, Vol 90, 1990.
23. European Court of Human Rights, Guidelines on the implementation of the advisory-opinion procedure introduced by Protocol No. 16 to the Convention (as approved by the Plenary Court on 18 September 2017.
24. Fickle, Stanley Conrad, The Dawn’s Early Light: The Contributions of John Hart Ely to Constitutional Theory, Indiana Law Journal, Vol: 56, 1981.
25. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Classical and Philosophical Hermeneutics, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, 2006.
26. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, (Continuum, 2004),
27. Gardbaum, Stephen, Are Strong Constitutional Courts Always a Good Thing for New Democracies?, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol: 53, 2015.
28. Gerards, Janneke, Advisory Opinions, Preliminary Rulings and the New Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights A Comparative and Critical Appraisal, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 21, Issue 4, 2014.
29. Ginsburg, Tom, Judicial Review in New Democracies Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
30. Hall, Jeffrey B., Taking “Rechts” Seriously: Ronald Dworkin and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, German Law Journal, Vol 9, Issue 6, 2008.
31. Henley, Kenneth, Protestan Hermeneutics and the Rule of Law: Gadamer and Dworkin, Ratio Juris, Vol 3, Issue 1, 1990.
32. Hasnas, John, Back to the Future: From Critical Legal Studies forward to Legal Realism, or How not to Miss the Point of Indeterminacy Argument, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 45, Issue. 84, 1995.
33. Hoy, David Couzens; Interpreting The Law: Hermeneutical and Poststructuralist Perspectives, Southern California Law Review, Vol 58, No 135, 1985.
34. Hutt, Donald E. Bello, Against Judicial Supremacy in Constitutional Interpretation, Revus, Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, Issue. 31, 2017. Issacharoff, Samuel, Constitutional Courts and Democratic Hedging, The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol 9, No 4, 2010.
35. Kemmerer, Alexandra, Sources in the Meta-Theorie of International Law: Hermeneutical Conversations, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2017-02.
36. Kleinlein, Thomas, The Procedural Approach of the European Court of Human Rıghts: Between Subsidiarity And Dynamic Evolution, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 68, Issue 1, January, 2019.
37. Knowles, Helen J., Toia, Julianne A., Defining 'Popular Constitutionalism: The Kramer versus Kramer Problem, Southern University Law Review, Vol. 42, Issue. 1, 2014
38. Kramer, Larry, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, (Oxford University Press, 2004).
39. Koch, Ida Elisabeth, Human Rights as Indivisible Rights The Protection of Socio-Economic Demands under the European Convention on Human Rights, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009).
40. Koffeman, N.R., (The right to) personal autonomy in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, (LL.M), Leiden, 2010, available at: https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2885722/view, Access: 21.08.2021.
41. Kommers, Donald, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, (Duke University Press, 1989).
42. Lemmens, Koen, Protocol No 16 to the ECHR: Managing Backlog through Complex Judicial Dialogue?, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 15, Issue 4, December 2019
43. Letsas, George, Strasbourg’s Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2010.
44. Lever, Annabelle, Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 7, Issue. 4, 2009.
45. Leyh, Gregory, Dworkin’s Hermeneutics, Mercer Law Review, Vol 39, 1987.
46. Lord Kerr, The Need for Dialogue Between National Courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Spyridon Flogaitis, Tom Zwart, Julie Fraser (eds.) The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013).
47. Madsen, Mikael Rask, The Protracted Institutionalization of the Strasbourg Court: From Legal Diplomacy to Integrationist Jurisprudence, in Jonas Christoffersen, Mikael Rask Madsen, (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics, (Oxford University Press, , 2011).
48. Masterman, Roger, Aspiration or Foundation? The status of the Starsbourg Jurisprudence and the “Convention Rights” in domestic law, in Helen Fenwick, Gavin Phillipson, Roger Materman, (eds.) Judicial Reasoning under the Human Rights Act, (Cambridge University Press, 2007)
49. Mcgarry, John, Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review, (Routledge, 2017).
50. Mootz, Francis J.,The Ontological Basis of Legal Hermeneutics: A Proposed Model of Inquiry Based on the Work of Gadamer, Habermas and Ricoeur, Boston University Law Review, Vol 68, 1988.
51. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treatise in the Recent Jurisprudence of European Court Human Rights , European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2003
52. Palmer, Richard, Hermeneutics Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer, (Northern University Press, 1969).
53. Plunkett, David, Sandel, Timothy, Dworkin’s Interpretivism and The Pragmatics of Legal Disputes, Legal Theory, Vol. 19, 2013.
54. Roach, Kent, The Varied Roles of Courts and Legislatures in Rights Protection, in Murray Hunt, Hayley J. Hooper and Paul Yowell, (eds.) Parliaments and Human Rights Redressing the Democratic Deficit, (Hart Publishing, 2015).
55. Rosenfeld, Michel, Dworkin and the One Law Principle: A Pluralist Critique, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 2005/3, 233.
56. Scheuerman, William, Carl Schmitt, The End of Law, (Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 1999).
57. Senden, Hanneke, Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System, (Intersentia, 2009).
58. Solum, Lawrence B., Indeterminacy, in A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, ed. Dennis Patterson, (Wiley-Blackwell, Second Edition, 2010).
59. Spano, Robert, The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 18, Issue 3, 2018.
60. Stelmach, Jerzy, Brozek, Bartosz, The Methods of Legal Reasoning, (Springer, 2006).
61. Stiansen, Øyvind, Voeten, Erik, Backlash and Judicial Restraint: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 64, Issue 4, 2020.
62. Tushnet, Mark, Alternative Forms of Judicial Review, Michigan Law Review, Vol.101, No.8, 2003.
63. Tushnet, Mark, Weak Form Judicial Review and “Core” Civil Liberties, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review, Vol. 41, 2006.
64. Tushnet, Mark, Taking the Constitution Away from The Courts, (Princeton University Press, 1999).
65. Tschentscher, Alex, The Basic Law (Grundgesetz): The Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany (May 23rd, 1949), (Jurisprudentia, 2016)
66. Waldron, Jeremy, The Core of The Case Against Judicial Review, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115, No. 6, 2006.
67. Airey v. Ireland, Application No: 6289/73, 09. 09. 1979.
68. Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others, Application no. 52207/99, 12.12.2001.
69. BVerfGE 6, 32. (The Federal German Constitutional Court –Bundesverfassungsgericht)
70. Case "Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Educatıon in Belgium" V. Belgıum (Merits), Application no 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, 23.07.1968.
71. Engel and Others v. Netherlands, Applications No.5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, 08.06.1976.
72. Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Application No: 5310/71, 18.01.1978.
73. Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Application No: 9697/82, 18. 12.1986.
74. Loizidou v. Turkey, Application No: 15318/89, 18.12.1996.
75. Lawless v. Ireland, Application No: 332/57, 01.07.1961.
76. Öneryıldız v. Turkey, Application No. 48939/99, 30.11.1993.
77. Sorensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark, Application Nos: 52562/99 and 52620/99, 11.07.2006.
78. Tyrer v. United Kingdom, Application No: 5856/72, 25.04.1978.
79. X and Y v. Netherlands, Application No. 8978/80, 26.03.1985.
80. Vordur Olafsson v. Iceland, Application. no. 20161/06, 27.04.2010.
81. Wemhoff v. Germany, Application no 2122/64, 27.07.1968.
82. Squirrell Ltd. v. National Westminister Bank plc and HM Customs and Excise, [2006] -1-W.L.R.-637.
83. Emin Aydın (2) Başvurusu, Application No: 2013/3178. (Turkish Constitutional Court)