Practical Challenges in Implementing Human Rights Treaties in National Law: Problems of Finding and Translating Relevant International Norms
Tolga Şirin, Necdet Umut OrcanThe Turkish Constitution provides that in case of a conflict, concerning fundamental rights and freedoms, between international treaties and national laws, the international treaty should prevail. This obligation requires the national decision-makers to directly implement the applicable international norms, despite these norms being made in a foreign language. The implementation of these international norms poses several practical difficulties, which have been grossly overlooked in Turkish literature. This article deals with three such significant problems. The first problem is finding the appropriate norm to implement, among the myriad of international legal sources. The second problem is the procedure of translating binding international norms into Turkish. The third is the process of rectifying the incomplete or inaccurate official translations of international treaties. It is propounded that these problems can be solved by introducing two new mechanisms, one facilitating the practitioners’ access to relevant international norms and one monitoring their compliance with these norms. It is further argued that the principle of iura novit curia also applies to laws made in a foreign language, and domestic decision-makers should be allowed to use their language proficiency. For those lacking that proficiency, an autonomous and independent national human rights institution should undertake the task of swiftly translating the relevant international norms into Turkish.
İnsan Hakları Sözleşmelerinin İç Hukukta Uygulanmasının Önündeki Pratik Güçlükler: İlgili Uluslararası Normu Bulma ve Türkçeleştirme Sorunu
Tolga Şirin, Necdet Umut OrcanHukuk uygulamacılarının Anayasa’nın madde 90/son hükmü gereğince bir uluslararası sözleşme hükmünü ve bu hükme anlamını veren uluslararası organların kararlarını “esas alması”, köken itibarıyla yabancı dilde kaleme alınmış olan bir normun ulusal hukukta uygulanması anlamına gelir. Ancak uluslararası hukukun iç hukukta uygulanmasında, Türkiye öğretisinde büyük ölçüde ihmal edilmiş pek çok teknik güçlük bulunmaktadır. Bu makalede uygulamacıların çok sayıda uluslararası hukuk kaynağı arasından yararlanmaları gereken hukuku nasıl bulacağı; yabancı dilde verilmiş bir bağlayıcı mahkeme kararının hangi usulle Türkçeye çevrilip uygulanacağı, resmî çevirilerdeki eksiklik ve yanlışlıklar gibi sorunlar üç başlık altında ele alınmaktadır. Makalede uygulanması gereken uluslararası hukuku bulabilme sorununa çözüm olarak ulusal hukuku esas alan ve ilgili kararları özlü biçimde yansıtan çevrim içi bir şerh çalışması önerilmektedir. Yine her kararın gereğinin AYM, diğer yargı kolları, yasama ve yürütme tarafından yerine getirilip getirilmediğini sınayan şeffaf bir sistem kurmak da bir diğer yararlı yöntem olacaktır. Makalede ayrıca “yargıç, hukuku resen uygular” (“iura novit curia”) ilkesinin yabancı dildeki bağlayıcı mahkeme kararları için de geçerli olduğu savunulmaktadır. Dolayısıyla uluslararası mahkeme kararlarını anlayıp uygulayabilecek dil bilgisine sahip yargıçlar, bu bilgilerinden yararlanabilmelidir. Yabancı dil bilgisine sahip olmayan yargıçlar için kararların Türkçeleştirilmesi gereğinde ise, ideal olarak, Paris İlkeleri’ne göre akreditasyon almış özerk/bağımsız bir ulusal insan hakları kurumu tarafından yerine getirilmelidir. Bu itibarla çalışmada henüz uluslararası akreditasyonu olmayan ulusal insan hakları kurumumuz Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumunun Paris İlkeleri’ne uygun olarak yeniden biçimlendirilmesi ve işleyişinin bu ilkelere uygun hâle getirilmesi gereğinin altı çizilmektedir.
As a constitutional mandate, the legal decision-makers in Turkey have a clear obligation to directly implement certain international norms in the domestic law system. The meaning and scope of this obligation have been subject to broad debate. However, the practical aspect of this implementation has been mostly overlooked. Against this backdrop, this article focuses on the practical challenges in implementing international law in the domestic law system. In this regard, there are three major problems. The first is the problem of finding the appropriate international norm. Like other modern states, Turkey’s international legal obligations are fast increasing, and these usually carry human rights aspects. It is unrealistic to expect all decision-makers to be familiar with all aspects of a significant number of international obligations. While international treaties ratified by Turkey are, as a rule, published in the Official Gazette, the decisions of the treaty bodies are not. These decisions are hard to find since the websites of treaty bodies are highly complicated, especially for those not particularly familiar with their systems. This article suggests that the problem may be solved by introducing an online commentary that captures the essence of all relevant international norms while being written from a national law perspective. Another useful step to address this problem would be introducing a transparent mechanism to examine the legislative, executive, and judicial organs’ levels of compliance with the international norms. The second problem is related to the first but reflects a different challenge for the decision-maker: that official translations of certain international treaties include several errors. Some of these translation errors are important enough to negatively affect the decisions. Whether a Turkish judge or a legal practitioner can use their linguistic proficiencies to rectify such mistakes is not clear. Our solution to this is included in our solution to the third problem, which is the difficulty of understanding and implementing the treaty body decisions made in a foreign language. As mentioned, most of these decisions are not translated into Turkish, and it is not clear whether Turkish judges and prosecutors can directly implement a treaty body decision made in a foreign language by resorting to their linguistic proficiencies. In this article, four different ways of implementing international norms made in a foreign language in domestic law are examined: a) the decision-makers making use of their linguistic proficiencies; b) resorting to a certified translator; c) resorting to a court expert’s report; and d) asking for an official translation from the relevant ministry. While it is acknowledged that all of these methods are applicable, each has its disadvantages. This problem can be addressed by resorting to the iura novit curia principle. If the national decision-makers have the language proficiency they need to understand and implement the international norms in question, they should be allowed to use this knowledge. It is thus argued that the principle of iura novit curia (“the judge knows the law”) applies to international law. If the judges in question do know the international law, they should be free to implement the law without having to ask for a translation from the ministry, a certified translator, or a court’s expert. For others who do not have sufficient linguistic proficiency, the relevant international norms should be translated into Turkish. Ideally, it is argued, an autonomous and independent national human rights institution accredited as complying with the Paris Principles should undertake this task. Accordingly, the structure and functioning of the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution, the yet-to-be-accredited national human rights institution in Turkey, should be reformed following the Paris Principles.
