ANALYTICAL JURISPRUDENCE READING ON THE HART-BODENHEIMER DEBATE

Öz

Adjudication is one of the mandatory stages in the functioning of the law. Theoretical approaches aiming to deal with the law in all its aspects cannot neglect adjudication. Hart, the representative of analytical school of jurisprudence, distinguishes law from morality by analyzing the concepts exclusive to positive law and the relationship between these concepts. Bodenheimer, who adopts the natural law doctrine, aspire to bring up the necessary relationship between law and morality from different perspectives. According to him, the rules of law adopted by most societies are reflection of human nature and have a moral basis. The legislator is inspired by the moral judgments of himself or the society while establishing a rule. Another situation that reveals the relationship is that the judge receives support from moral principles in difficult cases. In difficult cases, the autonomy of the law is lost since the existing law is not interpreted as it is, but as it should be. For Hart, the relation of law to morality does not harm the principles adopted by analytical jurisprudence, because this relationship is not mandatory. Where both the legislator and the judge are claimed to have engaged in legislative activity, law cannot necessarily derive from morality. This discussion, which has not yet been examined in the Turkish legal literature, has been written to contribute to the comprehensive discussion and correct evaluation of analytical legal science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Analytical Jurisprudence
• Is and Ought
• Jurisdiction
• Hart
• Bodenheimer

Hart-Bodenheimer Tartışması Üzerinden Analitik Hukuk Bilimi Okuması

Öz

Yargılama, hukukun işleyiş sürecindeki zorunlu aşamalardan biridir. Hukuku tüm yönleriyle ele almak isteyen kuramsal yaklaşımlar, yargılamayı görmezden gelemez. Analitik hukuk biliminin temsilcisi Hart, genel olarak pozitif hukuka özgü kavramları ve bu kavramların birbirleriyle ilişkisini analiz ederek hukuku ahlaktan ayırır. Doğal hukuk öğretisini benimseyen Bodenheimer ise hukuk ve ahlak arasında zorunlu bir ilişki olduğunu farklı açılardan gündeme getirmeyi amaçlar. Ona göre, çoğu toplum tarafından benimsenen hukuk kuralları, insan doğasının bir yansımasıdır ve ahlaki temele sahiptir. Yasa koyucu, kural ihdas ederken kendisinin veya toplumun ahlaki yargılarından esinlenir. Hukuk ve ahlak arasındaki ilişkiyi açığa çıkaran bir diğer durum, yargıcın zor davalarda ahlaki prensiplerden destek almasıdır. Zor davalarda mevcut yasa olduğu gibi değil, olması gerektiği gibi yorumlandığı için hukukun otonomisi kaybolur. Hart için hukukun ahlakla ilişkisi analitik hukuk biliminin benimsediği ilkelere zarar vermez; çünkü bu ilişki zorunlu değildir. Hem yasa koyucu hem de yargıcın yasama faaliyetinde bulunduğu durumlarda, hukuk zorunlu biçimde ahlaktan türemez. Türk hukuk literatüründe incelenmemiş olan bu tartışma, analitik hukuk biliminin etraflıca tartışılması ve doğru biçimde değerlendirilmesine katkı sunmak üzere kaleme alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Analitik Hukuk Bilimi
• Olan ve Olması Gereken
• Yargılama
• Hart
• Bodenheimer

Kaynakça

1. Aristoteles, Metafizik, Çev. Ahmet Arslan, Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmir, 1993.
2. Aristoteles, Organon V, Topikler, Çev. H. Ragıp Atademir, MEB Yayınları, İstanbul, 1996.
3. Austin, John. “On the Study of Jurisprudence”, Lectures on Jurisprudence, Vol. II, 5th Edition., Ed. Robert Campell, John Murray, London, 1911, s. 1071-1091.
4. Austin, John. Hukukun Belirlenmiş Alanı, Çev. Ülker Yükselbaba, Saim Üye, Umut Koloş, Tekin Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2015.
5. Bayles, Michael D. Hart’s Legal Philosophy: An Examination, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992.
6. Bentham, Jeremy. “Essay on Logic”, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. VIII, Ed. John Bowring, William Tait, Edinburgh, 1843, ss. 213-294.
7. Bentham, Jeremy. A Fragment of Government, Ed. F. C. Montague, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1891.
8. Birmingham, Robert. “Hart's Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence Again”, Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 16, 1984, ss. 775-801.

9. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “The Natural Law Doctrine before the Tribunal of Science: A Reply to Hans Kelsen”, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1950, ss. 335-363.
10. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “Power and Law: A Study of the Concept of Law”, Ethics, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1940, ss. 127-143.
11. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “Modern Analytical Jurisprudence and The Limits of Its Usefulness”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 104, 1956, ss. 1080-1086.
12. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “Analytical Positivism, Legal Realism, and the Future of Legal Method”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 44, 1958, ss. 365-378.
13. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “The Province of Jurisprudence”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1960, ss. 1-15.
14. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “The Case against Natural Law Reassessed”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1964, ss. 39-54.
15. Bodenheimer, Edgar. Treatise on Justice, Philosophical Library, New York, 1967.
16. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “The Notion of Positive Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1978, ss. 17-29.
17. Bodenheimer, Edgar. “Law as a Bridge Between Is and Ought”, Ratio Juris, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1988, ss. 137-153.
18. Bronzo, Silver. “Bentham’s Contextualism and Its Relation to Analytic Philosophy”, Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 8, 2014, ss. 1-41.
19. Chiassoni, Pierluigi. “Kelsen and Natural Law Theory: An Enduring Critical Affair”, Kelsenian Legal Science and the Nature of Law, Ed. Peter Langford, Ian Bryan, John McGarry, Springer, 2017, ss. 275-301.
20. Hacker, P. M. S. “Definition in Jurisprudence”, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 77, 1969, ss. 343-347.
21. Hart, H. L. A. “Analytical Jurisprudence in Mid-Twentieth Century: A Reply to Professor Bodenheimer”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 105, No. 7, 1957, ss. 953-975.
22. Hart, H. L. A. “Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence”, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, ss. 21-48.
23. Hart, H. L. A. “Jhering’s Heaven of Concepts and Modern Analytical Jurisprudence”, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, ss. 265-277.
24. Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law, 2nd Edition, Ed. A. Bulloch and Joseph Raz, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.
25. Hart, H. L. A. “Introduction”, Essays on Bentham, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001, ss. 1-20.
26. Hart, H. L. A., “Pozitivizm ve Hukuk ile Ahlakın Ayrılması”, Çev. Ertuğrul Uzun, H. L. A Hart ve Hukuk-Ahlak Ayrımı, Ed. Sercan Gürler, Tekin Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2015, ss. 101-151.
27. Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law, Translated By: Max Knight, 5th Edition, The Lawbook Exchange, Clark, New Jersey, 2008.
28. Lacey, Nicola. “The Path Not Taken: H. L. A. Hart’s Harvard Essay on Discretion”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 127, No. 2, 2013, ss. 636-651.
29. Menne, Albert. Mantığa Giriş, Çev. Lokman Çilingir, Elis Yayınları, Ankara, 2005.
30. Özlem, Doğan. Mantık, 12. Baskı, Notos Kitap, İstanbul, 2011.
31. Pound, Roscoe. Law and Morals, 2nd Edition, The University of North Carolina Press, 1926.
32. Rumble, Wilfrid E. “Austin in the clasroom: Why were his courses on Jurisprudence unpopular?”, The Journal of Legal History, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2007, ss. 17-40.
33. Shaw, Geoffrey C. “H.L.A. Hart’s Lost Essay: Discretion and the Legal Process School”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 127, No. 2, 2013, ss. 666-727.
34. Summers, Robert S. “Professor H. L. A. Hart’s Concept of Law”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1963, No. 4, 1963, ss. 629-670.
35. Türkmen Birlik, Pınar. “H. L. A. Hart’ın Hukuk Anlayışında Gündelik Dil Felsefesinin Etkileri”, Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 2, 2021, ss. 781-797.
36. Üye, Saim. “Gündelik Dil Felsefesi, Betimleyici Sosyoloji ve Eleştirellik”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, Cilt: 27, Sayı: 114, 2014, ss. 361-380.