Judicial Ethics
Ejder YılmazEthics are a key ingredient in any social contract. Society is either civil or barbarous depending upon the presence of ethics in individual, commercial, and social spheres. While moral rules express the law in force; ethical rules, on the other hand, express the ideal law (lex ferenda).The concept of professional ethics is increasingly relevant, profound, and popular in today’s judiciary structure. In this context, ethics are closely related to judicature within the framework of “making decisions in accordance with justice.” As in other professions, judges are obliged to fulfill their duties within the framework of certain ethical principles. Various national and international regulations have been established regarding such principles. The two key precepts of judicial ethics are the “principle of independence,” where the judge is not influenced by external pressures, and the “principle of impartiality (neutrality),” where the judge does not succumb to personal inclinations and biases. These principles form the basis of a person’s right to a fair trial. Beyond these two fundamental ethical principles, judges must conduct their duties in accordance with the principle of good faith and within the framework of other rules and legal procedures. For example, judges should conduct legal proceedings in accordance with the universal rules of equality. Their decisions should not be affected by race, color, gender, national origin, or socio-economic status of the parties involved in the case. Accomplishing this ideal depends on the quality of the election system, appointing judges with high values including knowledge, intelligence, experience, affection, and respect for all people and nature. These qualities constitute the core requirements of the judge’s profession, defining competency in the role. This article was written for the purpose of clarifying and evaluating the importance of judicial ethics and fairness in Turkish courts.
Yargı Etiği
Ejder YılmazEtik, insanın gerek bireysel yaşamında gerek toplumsal yaşam bakımından uyması gereken önemli kavramlardan birisidir. Ahlâk kavramı ile ilişkisi konusunda genellikle kabul edildiği üzere ahlâk kuralları, “olan”ı; etik kuralları ise, “olması gereken”i anlatır. Etik kavramı, günümüzde “meslek etiği” şeklinde giderek canlanan, tartışılan ve derinleşen bir konu haline gelmiştir. Bu bağlamda etik, “adalete uygun karar verme” işlevi çerçevesinde, hâkimlik mesleğiyle de yakından ilgilidir. Diğer mesleklerde olduğu gibi hâkimlerin de görevlerini belli etik ilkeler çerçevesinde yerine getirmesi zorunludur. Etik ilkelerin neler olduğu veya olması gerektiği konusunda, millî ve milletlerarası çeşitli düzenlemeler yapılmıştır ve bu hususta yeni yeni gelişmeler yaşanmaktadır. Yargı etiğinin temel ilkelerinin başında, hâkimin dışardan gelecek etki ve baskılar altıda kalmamasını ifade eden “bağımsızlık ilkesi” ile doğrudan doğruya hâkimin bizzat kendisinden/içinden gelen kişisel eğilimlere yenilmemesi anlamına gelen “tarafsızlık ilkesi” gelir. Anılan ilkeler, adil yargılanma hakkının da gereklerindendir. Bu iki temel etik ilkenin yanı sıra hâkimin görevini, bireylerin mahkemeye ve aslında yargı işlevini yerine getiren Devlet’e karşı duydukları güven duygusunu zedelemeyecek şekilde, kanunların gösterdiği esas ve usuller çerçevesinde, doğru bir biçimde, dürüstlük kurallarına da uyarak yerine getirmesi şarttır. Hâkim, yargılamayı davanın tarafları ve davadaki diğer ilgililer arasında ırk, renk, cinsiyet, ulusal köken, sosyal ve ekonomik statü gibi hususları tümüyle göz ardı ederek evrensel eşitlik kurallarına göre yürütmelidir. Bütün bunların gerçekleştirilebilmesi; bilgi, akıl, deneyim, insana ve doğaya sevgi/saygı duygularıyla bezenmiş olma gibi yüksek değerlere sahip olan ve özetle hâkimlik mesleğinin gerektirdiği ehil ve liyakatli kimselerin hâkim olarak seçilmesine bağlı hususlardır. Elinizdeki makale, mahkemelerin verdikleri kararların adaletli olmasının asgari araçlarından olan yargı etiği kurallarının önemi ve bu konuda Türkiye’de kabul edilen yeni yargı etiği kuralları hakkında bilgi verilmesi ve bunların değerlendirilmesi amacıyla kaleme alınmıştır.
In Turkey, as much as anywhere else in the world, the rules of professional ethics provide a legal and commercial framework for operating a wide range of services. The Turkish Medical Association has published the rules of conduct for medical professionals based on the ethical standards of the Hippocratic Oath. Legal professionals abide by the ethical code published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations. Accountants comply with the ethical rules adopted by the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants and Sworn-In Certified Public Accountants of Turkey. Construction professionals follow the “Professional Rules of Conduct” regulations as members of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects. Even travel agencies must abide by “Professional Rules of Travel Agencies” as members of their governing body.
Public officials, too, must comply with specific ethical legislation recommended by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The “Public Officers Ethics Board developed certain ethical principles for public officials. Exceptions to these principles are provided for certain public officials, such as university officials and members of the judiciary. The Council of Higher Education has its own particular ethics regulations titled, “Higher Education Institutions Ethical Behavior Principles.”
Judicial ethics dictate how judicial services should be conducted with a purpose and in a fair manner. Therefore, judicial ethics need to be evaluated with the concept of justice. Although “justice” is ambiguously defined by philosophers, it is an inevitable and certain result or decision that emerges within the framework of the courts.
In my opinion, the purpose of a trial is “to make a decision in accordance with justice.” A fair decision is one that resolves the concrete dispute brought before the court in a way that conscientiously and legally satisfy the parties. The court’s resolution restores social peace and reflects material reality. Ideally, decisions should be made simply, inexpensively, and quickly. Justice enables people to come together and live in harmony. Judicial ethics have always had a prominent role in human history from regulating the sale of property, goods, and services; to settling disputes regarding compensation and overseeing the maintenance of human rights. They lay the foundation of the state (iustitia est fundamentum regnorum) and form the basis for our own legal history.
Article 1792 of the Ottoman Code of Civil Law (Mecelle-i Ahkam-ı Adliye) was enacted 150 years ago (1868–1876), during the Ottoman reign. It was a fundamental code, defining the role of the judge and expressing the basic principles of judicial ethics. It advocated that a judge should be “wise, understanding, accurate, reliable, respected, and resilien” according to the rules of Mecelle. Even when the Mecelle was abolished and new laws were established in the Republican period, this judicial code of ethics continued to be practiced in the Turkish judicial system.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted without modification by the United Nations (number 315) on 06.27.2006, stem from the principles of Mecelle. Specifically, it is a detailed annotation of Mecelle’s relevant provisions. The Turkish Board of Judges and Prosecutors recently conducted studies on judicial ethics and published their findings in the Official Gazette of 03.14.2019. The summary entitled, “Declaration of Turkish Judicial Ethics,” referred to Article 1792 of Mecelle which bears resemblance to The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, three judicial codes accepted by the Turkish Supreme Court are in accordance with the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the original Mecelle doctrine. They are the “Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Principles,” the “Supreme Court Prosecutors’ Ethical Conduct Principles,” and the “Supreme Court Staff Ethical Conduct Principles.” Clearly, the ethical principles codified within the Mecelle continue to influence judicial policy today
