Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012    Tam Metin (PDF)

Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği

Rıfat Murat ÖnokIşık Önay

Zorunluluk hâline ilişkin olarak Türk öğretisinde bugüne kadar yapılmış çalışmalarda konunun medeni hukuk ve ceza hukuku bakımından çoğunlukla ayrı ayrı ele alındığı görülmektedir. Hâlbuki konunun medeni hukuk ve ceza hukuku arasındaki etkileşim dikkate alınarak, hukuk düzeninin birliği ilkesi ışığında incelenmesi bir gerekliliktir. Özellikle Türk Ceza Kanunu ve Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 01.06.2005’te yürürlüğe girmesinden sonra zorunluluk hâlinin hukuki niteliği ceza hukuku öğretisinde yoğun bir şekilde tartışılmış, fakat bu tartışmalarda, zorunluluk hâlinin medeni hukuk bakımından bir hukuka uygunluk sebebi teşkil ettiği ve bunun doğurduğu sonuçlar yeterince dikkate alınmamıştır. Bu çalışmada zorunluluk hâli hem medeni hukuk hem de ceza hukuku açısından bu bakış açısıyla ele alınmakta ve hukukun bu iki disiplini arasındaki etkileşime dikkat çekilmektedir. Çalışmada öncelikle hukuk düzeninin birliği ilkesi hakkında genel açıklamalara yer verilmekte, ardından sırasıyla medeni hukuk ve ceza hukuku açısından zorunluluk hâli incelenmektedir. Yapılan değerlendirmeler sonucunda CMK m 223/3-c’deki açık hüküm karşısında ceza hukukunda zorunluluk hâlinin bir hukuka uygunluk sebebi olmadığı, dolayısıyla TCK m 25/2 anlamında zorunluluk hâlleri bakımından beraat değil, ceza verilmesine yer olmadığı kararı verilmesi gerektiği; bununla birlikte medeni hukuk bakımından zorunluluk hâli teşkil eden fiillerin hukukun birliği ilkesi gereği ceza hukuku anlamında da hukuka uygun sayılarak, bu hâllerde beraat kararı verilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmaktadır.

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012    Tam Metin (PDF)

The Legal Nature of State of Necessity in Light of the Principle of Unity of the Legal Order

Rıfat Murat ÖnokIşık Önay

The current Turkish legal doctrine on the state of necessity mostly handles the concept separately in terms of civil and criminal law. However, the principle of unity of the legal order requires a holistic approach. Especially after the entry into force of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC) and the Code of Penal Procedure (CPP) on 01.06.2005, the legal nature of the state of necessity has been extensively discussed in criminal law doctrine. But these discussions rarely, if ever, take the fact that the state of necessity constitutes a ground of justification under civil law into account. This study takes a holistic approach in examining the legal nature of the state of necessity and emphasizes the interaction between civil law and criminal law within the context of grounds for justification. It starts with general remarks on the principle of unity of the legal order and proceeds with a description of the state of necessity with a particular focus on its legal nature from civil law and criminal law perspectives respectively. The study concludes that in light of the clear provision in Art. 223 (3) (c) CPP, the state of necessity does not constitute a justification in criminal law, and therefore, where Art. 25 (2) TPC applies, the judgment to be rendered is not an acquittal, but a decision that infliction of punishment is not required. Nonetheless in cases where the act qualifies as one performed in a state of necessity from a civil law perspective, the act shall also be deemed lawful in terms of criminal law and the court shall decide for acquittal.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


State of necessity is a legal concept, which is of importance for both criminal and civil liability. It relieves the perpetrator of an act from criminal liability and deems the act lawful in the context of civil liability. Nonetheless the scope of the concept is not uniform for criminal and civil law: An act may be considered one of necessity within the context of criminal law, whereas not within the context of civil law. This discrepancy is acceptable, albeit not ideal, in light of the principle of unity of the legal order, as it is not uncommon for the same term to mean different things in different branches of law. The interaction between civil and criminal law within the context of necessity’s legal nature is however more problematic. Due to the principle of unity of the legal order, an act is either lawful or wrongful in the eyes of the whole legal order. This means that deeming an act lawful in one branch of law would lead to consequences for another. An inquiry on the legal nature of state of necessity therefore requires a holistic approach. This article deals with the problem of necessity’s legal nature with that in focus and explores the interaction between civil law and criminal law within this context. State of necessity constitutes a ground for justification under civil law (Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 63, para. 2). A state of necessity in civil law exists if a person deliberately inflicts damage on another person’s assets in order to avert an imminent danger directed to a considerably higher interest, which could not have been avoided otherwise. Such a lawful act may nevertheless trigger an obligation to compensate the damage (Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 64, para. 2) for the person who has benefited from the intervention by evading the danger. In cases of dispute, it is up to the court to decide whether and to what extent the damage must be compensated. Under § 4, the regulation and legal nature of necessity under Turkish Penal Code (TPC) is discussed. At the time of the previous Penal Code, necessity was very widely regarded as a justification. The entry into force of the new Penal Code (Law no. 5237) caused great debate around the nature of the new provision embodied in TPC Art. 25 (2). The wording of the provision and a systematic method of interpretation do not lead to a definitive result. As a consequence, two main views emerged. The seemingly (narrowly) prevailing view argues that necessity does not constitute a justification, but either an excuse or a ground precluding culpability. In both cases, Art. 223 (3) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) would apply since this provision does not distinguish between excuses and grounds precluding culpability. On the other hand, numerous writers still argue that necessity constitutes a justification. We are of the opinion that Art. 25 (2) TPC lays down a ground precluding culpability. This is confirmed by the official reasoning of the provision, and the caselaw of the Court of Cassation. Whereas neither the reasoning nor the case-law is binding, we base our view on the clear wording of Art 223 (3) (b) which provides that in case of necessity no punishment shall be imposed on the defendant due to a lack of culpability. In cases where a justification enters into play, Art. 223 (2) (d) shall apply, and the defendant shall be acquitted. Surely, it can be (and has been) argued that a provision of the PPC is not the place where the legal qualification of a provision of the TPC shall be made. Yet, that is what the lawmaker has done. Therefore, even when a perpetrator acts under a state of necessity, his or her act is still criminal, but - in the words of CPP Art. 223 (3) (b) - ‘there is no need to inflict punishment’. The reason for a lack of punishment is the abnormality in the formation of the perpetator’s motive in the face of a grave and imminent danger, which creates a difference in the value judgment to be passed over culpability, and leads to the conclusion that he or is she does not deserve punishment. On the other hand, it cannot be argued that it is impossible to qualify TPC Art. 25 (2) as a justification by virtue of Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 64 (2): whereas it is argued that by reserving the right to demand damages Art. 64 (2) implicitly accepts the unlawful nature of the act, this is not true! That provision is based on equity, and not on the unlawful nature of the act. We conclude that the state of necessity does not constitute a justification in criminal law, and therefore, where Art. 25 (2) TPC applies, the judgment to be rendered is not an acquittal, but a decision that infliction of punishment is not required. Nonetheless in cases where the act qualifies as one performed in a state of necessity from a civil law perspective, the act shall also be deemed lawful in terms of criminal law and the court shall decide for acquittal.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Akbulut B, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (5th edn, Adalet 2018) google scholar
  • Ambos K and Bock S, ‘Germany’ in Reed A, Bohlander M, Wake N and Smith E (eds) General Defences in Criminal Law - Domestic and Comparative Perspectives (Ashgate, Farnham/ Burlington 2014) Antolisei F, Manuale di Diritto Penale, Parte Generale (16th edn, Giuffre 2003) google scholar
  • Artuk M E, Gökcen A, Alşahin E and Çakır K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (11th edn, Adalet 2017) google scholar
  • Atalı M, ‘Karar ve Hüküm’ in Pekcanıtez H, Özekes M, Akkan M, Taş Korkmaz H (eds) Pekcanıtez Usûl Medenî Usûl Hukuku Cilt III (15th edn, On İki Levha 2017) google scholar
  • Atamer K, Deniz Ticareti Hukuku (vol 1, On İki Levha 2017) google scholar
  • Bayraktar K, Kiziroğlu S K, Zafer H, Kartal P M, Sınar H, Erman R B, Eroğlu F and Önok R M, Dönmezer & Erman Nazarî ve Tatbikî Ceza Hukuku, (Vol II 14th edn, DER 2019) google scholar
  • Belgesay, M R, ‘Mecellenin Külli Kaideleri ve Yeni Hukuk’ (1946) XII (2-3) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 561 google scholar
  • Bekar E, Türk ve Amerikan Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Hali (Seçkin 2013) google scholar
  • Bohlander M, Principles of German Criminal Law (Hart Publishing 2009) google scholar
  • Brehm R, ‘Die Entstehung durch unerlaubte Handlungen, Art. 41-61 OR’ in Hausheer H, Walter H P (eds) Berner Kommentar Band/Nr. VI/1/3/1 (3th edn, Stämpfli 2006) google scholar
  • Canaris C W, ‘Systemdenken und Systembegriff in der Jurisprudenz’ in Neuner J and Grigoleit H C (eds) Claus-Wilhelm Canaris Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 1: Rechtstheorie (De Gruyter 2012) google scholar
  • Canestrari S, Cornacchia L and De Simone G, Manuale di diritto penale – Parte generale, (Il Mulino 2007) google scholar
  • Canpolat C, Kusur İlkesi Işığında Mazeret Nedeni Olarak Zorlayıcı Cebir, (Adalet 2016) google scholar
  • Card R, Card, Cross & Jones Criminal Law (17th edn, Oxford University Press 2006) google scholar
  • Centel N, Zafer H and Çakmut Ö, Türk Ceza Hukukuna Giriş (10th edn, Beta 2017) google scholar
  • Chiesa L E, ‘United States of America’ in Reed A, Bohlander M, Wake N ve Smith E (eds), General Defences in Criminal Law - Domestic and Comparative Perspectives (Ashgate 2014) google scholar
  • Coing H ‘Geschichte und Bedeutung des Systemgedankens in der Rechtswissenschaft’ Frankfurter Universitätsreden Heft 17 (Buchdruckerei Otto 1956) google scholar
  • Demirbaş T, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (13rd edn, Seçkin 2018) google scholar
  • Dönmezer S and Erman S, Nazari ve Tatbiki Ceza Hukuku, (Vol II, 11th edn, Beta 1997) google scholar
  • Desax M, Haftung für erlaubte Eingriffe (Universitätsverlag Freiburg 1977) google scholar
  • Elliott C, ‘Germany’ in Reed A, Bohlander M, Wake N and Smith E(eds), General Defences in Criminal Law - Domestic and Comparative Perspectives (Ashgate 2014) google scholar
  • Engisch K, Einführung in das juristische Denken (9th edn, Kohlhammer 1999 - Die Einheit der Rechtsordnung (Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung 1935) google scholar
  • Enneccerus L and Lehmann H, Das Bürgerliche Recht (1st vol, Verlag N. G. Elwertsche 1900) google scholar
  • Erem F, Danışman A and Artuk M E, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (14th edn, Seçkin 1997) google scholar
  • Eren F, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (21st edn, 2017 Yetkin) google scholar
  • Fellmann W and Kottmann A, Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht (vol 1, Stämpfli 2012) google scholar
  • Flume W, Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts (vol 2, 4th edn, Springer 1992) google scholar
  • Grothe ‘§ 226-231 BGB: Ausübung der Rechte, Selbstverteidigung, Selbsthilfe’ in Säcker F J, Rixecker R, Oetker H and Limperg B (ed) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (8th ed, vol 1, Beck 2018) google scholar
  • Guhl T and Koller A, Das Schweizerische Obligationenrecht mit Einschluss des Handels- und Wertpapierrechts (9th edn, Schultess 2000) google scholar
  • Haab R, Simonius A, Scherrer W and Zobl D, ‘Das Eigentum, Art. 641-729 CGB’ in Zürcher Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Das Sachenrecht (2nd edn, Schultess 1977) google scholar
  • Hafızoğulları Z and Özen M, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (8th edn, US-A 2015) google scholar
  • Hakeri H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (21st edn, Adalet 2017) google scholar
  • Heinrich B, Ceza Hukuku Genel Kısım – I (Ünver Y ed; Hakeri H, Ünver Y, Özbek V Ö, Yenerer Çakmut Ö, Erman B, Doğan K, Atladı R B, Bacaksız P and Tepe İ trs, Adalet 2014) google scholar
  • Honsell H and Mayer-Maly T, Die Grundlagen des Rechts (7th edn, Stämpfli 2017) google scholar
  • Honsell H, Isenring B and Kessler M A, Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht (5th edn, Schultess 2013) google scholar
  • İçel K, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (7th edn, Beta 2017) google scholar
  • Jäggi P, ‘Zum Begriff der vertraglichen Schadenersatzforderung’ in Festschrift Wilhelm Schönenberger, (Universitätsverlag Freiburg 1968) google scholar
  • Kan Ç, Türk Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Hali (Yetkin 2018) google scholar
  • Kaneti S, Haksız Fiilde Hukuka Aykırılık Unsuru (Kazancı 2007) google scholar
  • Kangal Z T, Ceza Hukukunda Zorunluluk Durumu (Seçkin 2010) google scholar
  • Kapancı K B, ‘Ceza Mahkemesi Kararlarının Hukuk Mahkemesi Kararlarına Etkisi (TBK m. 74)’ 7 (1) (2016) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 511 google scholar
  • Katoğlu T, Ceza Hukukunda Hukuka Aykırılık (Seçkin 2003) google scholar
  • Kelsen H, Reine Rechtslehre (2th edn, Österreichisches Staatsdruckerei 1992) google scholar
  • Kessler M, ‘Art. 52 OR’ in Honsell H, Vogt N, Wiegand W (eds) Basler Kommentar Obligationenrecht I (6th edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2015) - ‘Art. 53 OR’ in Honsell H, Vogt N, Wiegand W (eds) Basler Kommentar Obligationenrecht I (6th edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2015) google scholar
  • Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (11th edn, Seçkin 2018) google scholar
  • Kramer E, Juristische Methodenlehre (5th edn, Stämpfli 2016) google scholar
  • Landmann V, Notwehr, Notstand und Selbsthilfe im Privatrecht (Schultess 1975) google scholar
  • Larenz K, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft (6th edn, Springer 1991) google scholar
  • Larenz, K, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, I. Band: Allgemeiner Teil (6th edn, Beck, 1963) google scholar
  • Lauta K C, ‘When a Right is a Wrong: Compensation for Acts of Necessity’ (2017) 8(3) JETL 297 google scholar
  • Mahmutoğlu F S, ‘5237 Sayılı Türk Ceza Kanununda Hukuka Uygunluk Nedenleri’ (2005) 5 Hukuk ve Adalet Dergisi 42 - and Karadeniz S, Türk Ceza Kanunu Genel Hükümler Şerhi (Beta 2017) google scholar
  • Mir Puig S, Derecho Penal Parte General (8th edn, Editorial Reppertor 2006) google scholar
  • Nomer H N, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15th edn, Beta 2017) google scholar
  • Nuhoğlu A, ‘Tıp Ceza Hukukunda Zaruret Halinin Sınırları’ in Tıp Ceza Hukukunun Güncel Sorunları: V. Türk Alman Tıp Hukuku Sempozyumu (TBB 2008) 44 google scholar
  • Oechslin K, Kernpunkte der Kausalhaftungsproblematik (Bern, 1966) google scholar
  • Oftinger K and Stark E W, Schweizerisches Haftpflichtrecht Zweiter Band: Besonderer Teil - Erster Teilband: Verschuldenshaftung, gewöhnliche Kausalhaftungen, Haftung aus Gewässerverschmutzung (4th edn, Schultess 1995) google scholar
  • Oğuzman M K and Barlas N, Medenî Hukuk (25th edn, 2019 Vedat) google scholar
  • Oğuzman M K and Öz M T, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (vol 2, 12th edn, 2016 Vedat) google scholar
  • Olgaç S, Kazai ve İlmi İçtihatlarla Türk Borçlar Kanunu Şerhi (İsmail Akgün Matbaası, 1976) google scholar
  • Ormerod D, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law (11th edn, Oxford University Press, 2005) google scholar
  • Oser, H, Schönenberger, W, Kommentar zum schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Das Obligationenrecht, erster Halbband: Art. 1-183 (2nd edn, 1929 Schultess) google scholar
  • Önder A, Ceza Hukuku Dersleri (Filiz Kitabevi 1992) google scholar
  • Özbek V Ö and Doğan K, ‘Zorunluluk Halinin (TCK m.25/2) Hukuki Niteliği’ (2007) 9(2) DEÜHFD 195 google scholar
  • Özbek V Ö, Doğan K, Bacaksız P and Tepe İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (9th edn, Seçkin 2018) google scholar
  • Özgenç İ, ‘Ana Hatlarıyla TCK Tasarısı’ (2004) 2 Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi 102 - Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (14th edn, Seçkin 2018) google scholar
  • Öztürk B and Erdem M R, Uygulamalı Ceza Hukuku ve Güvenlik Tedbirleri Hukuku (17th edn, Seçkin 2017) google scholar
  • Rey H, Ausservertragliches Haftpflichtrecht (4 edn, Schultess, 2008) google scholar
  • Serozan R, Hukukta Yöntem (Vedat 2015) google scholar
  • Soyaslan D, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (6th edn, Yetkin 2014) google scholar
  • Söğüt İ S, ‘A Synoptic Overview of the Lex Rhodia De Iactu’ 23(3) MÜHFHAD 209 google scholar
  • Şen E, Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu Yorumu, C: I (Madde 1-140) (Vedat 2006) google scholar
  • Tandoğan H, Türk Mes’uliyet Hukuku (Vedat 2010) google scholar
  • Tekinay S S, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H and Altop A, Tekinay Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (7th edn, Filiz 1993) google scholar
  • Toroslu N, Ceza Hukukunda Zaruret Hali (Sevinç Matbaası 1968) - and Toroslu H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Kısım (24th edn, Savaş 2018) google scholar
  • Ulusan İ, Fedakarlığın Denkleştirilmesi İlkesi ve Uygulama Alanı (2nd edn, Vedat 2012) google scholar
  • Ünan S, Çetingil E, Kender R, Müşterek Avarya Hukuku (On İki Levha 2011) google scholar
  • Ünver Y, ‘YTCK’da Kusurluluk’, (2006) 1 CHD 37 v.Tuhr A, Der Allgemeine Teil des Deutschen Bürgerlichen Rechts (vol 2/2, Duncker & Humblot 1918) - and Peter H, Allgemeiner Teil des Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht (3rd edn, Schultess 1979) google scholar
  • Wolf, M, Neuner, J, Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts (11th edn, Beck, 2016) google scholar
  • Yenisey F and Plagemann G, Alman Ceza Kanunu – Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) (2nd edn, Beta 2015) google scholar
  • Zafer H, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (6th edn, Beta 2016) google scholar
  • Zimmermann R, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (2nd edn, Juta & Co., Beck, Kluwer 1992) google scholar

Atıflar

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


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Önok, R., & Önay, I. (2019). Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 77(2), 847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


AMA

Önok R, Önay I. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası. 2019;77(2):847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


ABNT

Önok, R.; Önay, I. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, [Publisher Location], v. 77, n. 2, p. 847-895, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Önok, Rıfat Murat, and Işık Önay. 2019. “Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 77, no. 2: 847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


Chicago: Humanities Style

Önok, Rıfat Murat, and Işık Önay. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 77, no. 2 (Jul. 2022): 847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


Harvard: Australian Style

Önok, R & Önay, I 2019, 'Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği', İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 847-895, viewed 6 Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Önok, R. and Önay, I. (2019) ‘Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği’, İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 77(2), pp. 847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012 (6 Jul. 2022).


MLA

Önok, Rıfat Murat, and Işık Önay. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, vol. 77, no. 2, 2019, pp. 847-895. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


Vancouver

Önok R, Önay I. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası [Internet]. 6 Jul. 2022 [cited 6 Jul. 2022];77(2):847-895. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012


ISNAD

Önok, Rıfat Murat - Önay, Işık. Hukuk Düzeninin Birliği İlkesi Çerçevesinde Zorunluluk Hâlinin Hukukî Niteliği”. İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 77/2 (Jul. 2022): 847-895. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0012



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim08.10.2019
Son Revizyon18.12.2019
Kabul20.12.2019

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.