Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004   IUP :10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004    Tam Metin (PDF)

AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi

Murat Erdoğan

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.

DOI :10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004   IUP :10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004    Tam Metin (PDF)

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

Murat Erdoğan

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.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Books, Articles and Reports google scholar
  • Alexy, R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Julian Rivers tr, Oxford University Press 2002) google scholar
  • Annino, PG, An Evaluation of Ronald Dworkin’s Hermeneutical Theory of Law (Dphil Thesis, Fordham University, 1997). google scholar
  • Bellamy, R, Political Constitutionalism: Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy, (Cambridge University Press, 2007). google scholar
  • Bellamy, R, ‘Political Constitutionalism and The Human Rights Act’ (2011) 9 (1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 86-111. google scholar
  • Björge, E, ‘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) google scholar
  • Brems, E, ‘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) google scholar
  • Cappelletti, M, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective, (Clarendon Press, 1989). google scholar
  • Çalı, B, ‘From Flexible to Variable Standards of Judicial Review: The Responsible Domestic Courts Doctrine at the European Court of Human Rights’ in Oddny Mjöll Ârnadöttir, Antoine Buyse (eds) Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking Between the ECHR, EU, and National Legal Orders, (Routledge, 2016) google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Cumper, P/Lewis, T, ‘Blanket Bans, Subsidiarity, and the Procedural Turn of the European Court Of Human Rights’ (2019) International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68 (3) 611-638 google scholar
  • Dembour, MB, Who Believes in Human Rights Reflections on the European Convention (Cambridge University Press 2006) google scholar
  • Donato, J, ‘Dworkin and Subjectivity in Legal Interpretation’ (1998) 40 (6) Stanford Law Review 1517-1541 google scholar
  • Douglas, B, ‘Too attentive to our duty: the fundamental conflict underlying human rights protection in the UK’ (2018) 38 (3) Legal Studies’ 360-378 google scholar
  • Dworkin, R, A Matter of Principle (Harvard University Press 1985) google scholar
  • Dworkin, R, ‘Law as Interpretation’ 1982 (60) Texas Law Review 179-200 google scholar
  • Dworkin, R, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press 1986) google scholar
  • Dworkin, R, Taking Rights Seriously, (Harvard University Press, 1978). google scholar
  • Dzehtsiarou, K, ‘European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2011) 12 (10) German Law Journal 1730-1745 google scholar
  • Elliot, M, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review, (Hart Publishing, 2001). google scholar
  • Ely, JH, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press 1980) google scholar
  • Eskridge, W, ‘Gadamer/Statutory Interpetation’ (1990) 90 Columbia Law Review 609-681 google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Fickle, SC, ‘The Dawn’s Early Light: The Contributions of John Hart Ely to Constitutional Theory’ (1981) 56 Indiana Law Journal 637-672 google scholar
  • Gadamer, HG, ‘Classical and Philosophical Hermeneutics’ (2006) 23 (1) Theory, Culture And Society 29-56 google scholar
  • Gadamer, HG, Truth and Method (Continuum 2004) google scholar
  • Gardbaum, S, ‘Are Strong Constitutional Courts Always a Good Thing for New Democracies?’ (2015) 53 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 285-320 google scholar
  • Gerards, J, ‘Advisory Opinions, Preliminary Rulings and the New Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights A Comparative and Critical Appraisal’ (2014) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 21 (4) 630-651 google scholar
  • Ginsburg, T, Judicial Review In New Democracies Constitutional Courts In Asian Cases (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2003) google scholar
  • Hailbronner, M, ‘Rethinking the Rise of the German Constitutional Court: From anti-Nazism to Value Formalism’ (2014) 12 (3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 626-649. google scholar
  • Hall, JB, ‘Taking “Rechts” Seriously: Ronald Dworkin and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany’ (2008) 9 (6) German Law Journal 771-798 google scholar
  • Henley, K, ‘Protestan Hermeneutics and the Rule of Law: Gadamer and Dworkin’ (1990) 3 (1) Ratio Juris 14-28 google scholar
  • Hasnas, John, ‘Back to the Future: From Critical Legal Studies forward to Legal Realism, or How not to Miss the Point of Indeterminacy Argument’ (1995) 45 (84) Duke Law Journal 84-132 google scholar
  • Hoy, DC ‘Interpreting The Law: Hermeneutical and Poststructuralist Perspectives’ (1985) 58 (135) Southern California Law Review 135-176. google scholar
  • Hutt, DEB, ‘Against Judicial Supremacy in Constitutional Interpretation’ (2017) (31) Revus, Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law 83-106 google scholar
  • Issacharoff, S, ‘Constitutional Courts and Democratic Hedging’ (2010) 9 (4) The Georgetown Law Journal 961-1012 google scholar
  • Kemmerer, A, ‘Sources in the Meta-Theory of International Law: Hermeneutical Conversations’ in Samantha Besson and Jean d’Aspremont (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law (Oxford University Press 2017). google scholar
  • Kleinlein, T, ‘The Procedural Approach of the European Court of Human Rights: Between Subsidiarity and Dynamic Evolution’ (2019), International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68 (1) 91-110 google scholar
  • Klement, JH, ‘Common Law Thinking in German Jurisprudence-on Alexy’s Principles Theory’ in Matthias Klatt (ed), Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy (Oxford University Press 2012) google scholar
  • Knowles, HJ/Toia, JA, ‘Defining ‘Popular Constitutionalism: The Kramer versus Kramer Problem’ (2014) 42 (1) Southern University Law Review 31-59 google scholar
  • Kramer, L, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, (Oxford University Press, 2004). google scholar
  • Koch, IE, Human Rights as Indivisible Rights The Protection of Socio-Economic Demands under the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) google scholar
  • 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. google scholar
  • Kommers, D, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (Duke University Press 1989) google scholar
  • Lemmens, K, ‘Protocol No 16 to the ECHR: Managing Backlog through Complex Judicial Dialogue?’ (2019), European Constitutional Law Review 15 (4) 691-713 google scholar
  • Letsas, G, ‘Strasbourg’s Interpretive Ethic: Lessons for the International Lawyer’ (2010) 21 (3) European Journal of International Law 509-541 google scholar
  • Lever, A, ‘Democracy and Judicial Review: Are They Really Incompatible?’ (2009) 7 (4) Perspectives on Politics 805-822 google scholar
  • Leyh, G, ‘Dworkin’s Hermeneutics’ (1987) 39 Mercer Law Review 851-866 google scholar
  • Lord Kerr, ‘The Need for Dialogue Between National Courts and the European Court of Human Rights’ in (eds) Spyridon Flogaitis, Tom Zwart, Julie Fraser, The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013) google scholar
  • Madsen, MR, ‘The Protracted Institutionalization of the Strasbourg Court: From Legal Diplomacy to Integrationist Jurisprudence’ in Jonas Christoffersen and Mikael Rask Madsen (eds), The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics (Oxford University Press 2011) google scholar
  • Masterman, R, ‘Aspiration or Foundation? The status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the “Convention Rights” in domestic law’, in Helen Fenwick, Gavin Phillipson, Roger Masterman, (eds.) Judicial Reasoning under the Human Rights Act, (Cambridge University Press, 2007) google scholar
  • Mcgarry, J, Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review (Routledge 2017) google scholar
  • Mootz, FJ., ‘The Ontological Basis of Legal Hermeneutics: A Proposed Model of Inquiry Based on the Work of Gadamer, Habermas and Ricoeur’ (1988) 68 Boston University Law Review 523-617 google scholar
  • Orakhelashvili, A, ‘Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treatise in the Recent Jurisprudence of European Court Human Rights’ (2003) 14 (3) European Journal of International Law 529-568 google scholar
  • Palmer, R, Hermeneutics Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer (Northern University Press 1969) google scholar
  • Plunkett, D/ Sandel, T, ‘Dworkin’s Interpretivism and the Pragmatics of Legal Disputes’ 2013 (19) Legal Theory 242-281 google scholar
  • Roach, K, ‘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) google scholar
  • Rosenfeld, M, ‘Dworkin and the One Law Principle: A Pluralist Critique’ (2005) 3 (233) Revue Internationale de Philosophie 363-392 google scholar
  • Scheuerman, W, Carl Schmitt: The End of Law, (Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 1999). google scholar
  • Senden, H, Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System, (Intersentia 2009) google scholar
  • Solum, LB, ‘Indeterminacy’ in Dennis Patterson (ed), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Wiley-Blackwell 2010) google scholar
  • Spano, R, ‘The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law’ (2018) Human Rights Law Review, 18 (3) 473-494 google scholar
  • Stelmach, J/Brozek, B, The Methods of Legal Reasoning (Springer 2006) google scholar
  • Stiansen, 0/Voeten, E, ‘Backlash and Judicial Restraint: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) International Studies Quarterly 64 (4) 770-784 google scholar
  • Tushnet, M, ‘Alternative Forms of Judicial Review’ (2003) 101 (8) Michigan Law Review 2781-2802 google scholar
  • Tushnet, M, Weak Form Judicial Review and “Core” Civil Liberties’ (2006) 41 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review 1-22 google scholar
  • Tushnet, M, Taking the Constitution Away from The Courts, (Princeton University Press, 1999). google scholar
  • Tschentscher, A, The Basic Law (Grundgesetz): The Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany (May 23rd, 1949), (Jurisprudentia, 2016) google scholar
  • Waldron, J, ‘The Core of The Case Against Judicial Review’ (2006) 115 (6) The Yale Law Journal 1346-1406 google scholar
  • Court Judgments google scholar
  • Airey v. Ireland App no 6289/73 (ECtHR, 09 September 1979) google scholar
  • Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others, App no. 52207/99, (ECtHR, 12 December 2001) google scholar
  • Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Educatıon in Belgium” v. Belgıum (Merits) App nos 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, (ECtHR 23 July 1968) google scholar
  • Engel and Others v. Netherlands App nos 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (ECtHR, 08 June 1976) google scholar
  • Golder v. United Kingdom App no 4451/70 (ECtHR 21 February 1975) google scholar
  • Ireland v. The United Kingdom App no 5310/71 (ECtHR 18 January 1978) google scholar
  • Johnston and Others v. Ireland, App No 9697/82, (ECtHR, 18 December 1986) google scholar
  • Loizidou v. Turkey App no 15318/89 (ECtHR 18 December 1996) google scholar
  • Lawless v. Ireland App no 332/57 (ECtHR 01 July 1961) google scholar
  • Öneryıldız v. Turkey App no 48939/99 (30 November 1993) google scholar
  • Sorensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark, App Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99, (ECtHR, 11 July.2006) google scholar
  • The Federal German Constitutional Court -Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfGE 6, 32. google scholar
  • Turkish Constitutional Court, Emin Aydın (2) Başvurusu, App No: 2013/3178 google scholar
  • Tyrer v United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECtHR, 25 April 1978) google scholar
  • X and Y v. Netherlands App no 8978/80 (ECtHR 26 March 1985) google scholar
  • Vordur Olafsson v. Iceland, App no 20161/06, (ECtHR, 27 April 2010) google scholar
  • Wemhoff v. Germany App no 2122/64 (ECtHR 27 July 1968) google scholar
  • Squirrell Ltd. v. National Westminister Bank plc and HM Customs and Excise, [2006] -1-W.L.R.-637. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Erdoğan, M. (2021). AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(70), 91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


AMA

Erdoğan M. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul. 2021;0(70):91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


ABNT

Erdoğan, M. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 70, p. 91-118, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Erdoğan, Murat,. 2021. “AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 70: 91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


Chicago: Humanities Style

Erdoğan, Murat,. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0, no. 70 (May. 2022): 91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


Harvard: Australian Style

Erdoğan, M 2021, 'AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi', Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 70, pp. 91-118, viewed 27 May. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Erdoğan, M. (2021) ‘AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 0(70), pp. 91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004 (27 May. 2022).


MLA

Erdoğan, Murat,. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi.” Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 0, no. 70, 2021, pp. 91-118. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


Vancouver

Erdoğan M. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul [Internet]. 27 May. 2022 [cited 27 May. 2022];0(70):91-118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004 doi: 10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004


ISNAD

Erdoğan, Murat. AİHM ve Ulusal Mahkemeler İçtihadında Temel Hakların Yorumunda Hermeneutiğin Yükselişi”. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 0/70 (May. 2022): 91-118. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2021.70.0004



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim05.04.2021
Kabul09.08.2021
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma31.12.2021

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.