Family Mediation in Turkish Legal History from Mecelle to Present: An Analysis in the Context of Conciliatory Justice Theory
Muhammed Mansur KaradağIn the constitutional frameworks of modern states, the protection of the family holds a significant place among the state’s positive obligations. Resolving family disputes through conciliatory methods is considered within the scope of this obligation, as it both promotes social harmony and strengthens the institution of the family. Indeed, many countries today have enacted regulations that enable the resolution of family disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, thereby developing effective mechanisms in this field. In Turkish legal history, from the Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye to the present, alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration have been employed to establish social harmony and conciliatory justice. This study examines the historical evolution of these methods, assesses their applicability in family law, and offers solutions to contemporary legal challenges based on past experiences. Uncovering the historical roots of family mediation and arbitration systems is crucial for identifying shortcomings in past practises and developing an effective resolution model by addressing these deficiencies. Accordingly, alternative dispute resolution methods in Turkish legal history are categorized and analyzed under three main headings: judicial mediation, mediation-arbitration, and direct mediation. Finally, the contributions and shortcomings of these methods to the legal system from the Mecelle era to the present are evaluated, and a model draft law for resolving family disputes is proposed.
Mecelle’den Günümüze Aile Uyuşmazlıklarında Alternatif Çözüm Yöntemlerinin Seyri: Uzlaştırıcı Adalet Teorisi Bağlamında Bir İnceleme
Muhammed Mansur KaradağModern devletlerin anayasal düzenlemelerinde, devletin pozitif yükümlülükleri arasında ailenin korunması önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Aile içi uyuşmazlıkların uzlaştırıcı yöntemlerle çözülmesi, hem toplumsal barışı sağlaması hem de aile kurumunu güçlendirmesi bakımından bu yükümlülüğün kapsamı içerisinde değerlendirilmektedir. Nitekim günümüzde birçok ülke, aile uyuşmazlıklarının alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleriyle giderilmesine imkân tanıyan düzenlemeler yaparak bu alanda etkili mekanizmalar geliştirmiştir. Türk hukuk tarihinde de Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliyye’den günümüze kadar uzanan süreçte, toplumsal barış ve uzlaştırıcı adaletin tesisi amacıyla arabuluculuk ve tahkim gibi alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yollarına yer verilmiştir. Bu yazıda, söz konusu yöntemlerin tarihsel gelişimi incelenerek aile hukukundaki uygulanabilirliği ele alınmakta ve geçmiş deneyimlerden hareketle güncel hukuki sorunlara çözüm önerisi sunulmaktadır. Zira aile arabuluculuğu ve hakemliği sistemlerinin tarihi kökenlerinin ortaya konması, geçmiş uygulamaların eksik yönlerinin tespit edilmesi ve bu eksikliklerin giderilerek etkili bir çözüm yöntemi geliştirilmesi açısından önemlidir. Binaenaleyh, Türk hukuk tarihinde uygulanan alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemleri; yargısal arabuluculuk, arabuluculuk-tahkim ve doğrudan arabuluculuk olmak üzere üç ana başlık altında tasnif edilerek incelenmiştir. Son olarak, bahsi geçen yöntemlerin her birinin Mecelle’den bugüne kadar hukuk sistemine katkıları ve eksiklikleri değerlendirilmiş ve aile uyuşmazlıklarına ilişkin örnek bir kanun taslağı önerisi sunulmuştur.
One of the requirements of the state’s positive obligations, as outlined in the constitutional texts of many nations, is the duty to “protect the family,” which includes resolving family disputes through amicable means. Recognising that strengthening the family institution is essential for reinforcing society, states have enacted the necessary legal regulations to enable the resolution of family disputes through alternative methods. Both the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Türkiye, aware of the necessity of these methods for establishing social peace and justice, have comprehensively regulated these methods within their family law legislation. For example, during World War I, “Hukûk-ı Âile Kararnamesi,” despite being criticised for its many shortcomings due to the limited resources available at the time, included detailed provisions on the mediation-arbitration institution. Similarly, the mediation-arbitration institution was thoroughly prepared in the draft civil codes developed by the first commissions of the newly established state.
The study titled “Family Mediation in Turkish Legal History from Mecelle to Present: An Analysis in the Context of Conciliatory Justice Theory” delves into the historical practises of family mediation and arbitration in the Ottoman Empire and the early periods of the Republic of Türkiye. It explores how these practises evolved from the Islamic law-based Mecelle to the modern legal frameworks, particularly within the scope of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure. The main objective of this research is to uncover the historical roots of the current family mediation and arbitration system in Türkiye, identify the shortcomings of previous practises, and highlight their functional aspects that could be adapted to contemporary applications.
This study critically analyzes family mediation and arbitration within the contexts of Islamic law, modern Turkish law, and international literature, aiming to pinpoint the intersections between these differing legal frameworks. Employing a historical research methodology, the study examines fundamental legal texts such as Mecelle, Usul-i Muhakemat-ı Hukukiye, HUMK, TMK, and HMK, alongside relevant court decisions and doctrinal approaches. Additionally, a comparative legal method was used to evaluate family mediation and arbitration theories from other countries.
Findings indicate that the roots of family mediation in Türkiye historically lie within the Islamic law principles embedded in Mecelle, but these practises have undergone significant changes under modern Turkish law, particularly with the HMK. While Mecelle’s mediation and arbitration rules were primarily aimed at maintaining social peace and resolving disputes between individuals, modern practises have become more formalised and state-controlled, which has diluted the fundamental principles of mediation.
In Türkiye, opponents of mandatory family mediation argue that this process unnecessarily prolongs divorce proceedings and delay access to justice. These critics contend that reconciliation attempts are mostly unsuccessful, that the parties are already disinclined to reconcile, and that the initiation of divorce proceedings marks the end of the marital union. Critics assert that family court judges can already attempt to reconcile the parties during the divorce process, and thus, the reconciliation attempt only serves to prolong the case and create a burden for the parties involved.
However, contrary to these criticisms, proponents of mandatory mediation argue that reconciliation efforts do not prolong divorce cases and, on the contrary, play a significant role in preserving the marital union. According to the data, 67.5% of reconciliation attempts made between 1939 and 1941 were successful, resulting in the preservation of marriages during these processes. Furthermore, it is argued that the failure of these attempts is often due to the limited approach of merely asking the parties whether they will reconcile, and that a more careful approach could increase the success rate to as high as 90%. It is emphasised that reconciliation attempts generally result in only a brief delay of about ten days, which does not significantly affect the course of the divorce case, and that this short delay is negligible when considering the benefits of reconciliation.
The study concludes that both the influences of Mecelle and the changes brought about by modern law coexist in the field of family mediation and arbitration in Türkiye. While the voluntary and flexible principles of Mecelle have been replaced by a more formal and state-controlled structure in modern law, the study emphasises the need to preserve the core principles of mediation, such as confidentiality and the consent of the parties. Furthermore, it suggests that current regulations, especially in family law, should be developed to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of the parties.
