SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adalet Dergisi / 2021 / Sayı: 67

International Law and Maraş (Varosha) Vaqfs

ULUSLARARASI HUKUK VE MARAŞ (VAROŞA) VAKIFLARI

Emete Gözügüzelli(ANKARA SOSYAL BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4659-3000
Pages
29–75
Publication Date
2021-11-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

One of the most important results of the study, in which Ahkamül Evkaf rules are discussed, states that Ahkamül Evkaf and Foundation law, which has become a part of international customary law, is determinative in the property rights of foundations in the Maraş(Varosha) issue.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study mainly deals with the property issue of the vaqfs in the Maraş region of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although, it has been stressed that the Court records and registrations are important for vaqfs foundations to gain legal existence as a legal person.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:One of the most important results of the study, in which Ahkamül Evkaf rules are discussed, states that Ahkamül Evkaf and Foundation law, which has become a part of international customary law, is determinative in the property rights of foundations in the Maraş(Varosha) issue.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Maraş · Kıbrıs · Mülkiyet Hakkı

Abstract

The study mainly deals with the property issue of the vaqfs in the Maraş region of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Although, it has been stressed that the Court records and registrations are important for vaqfs foundations to gain legal existence as a legal person. The legal status of vaqf class such as mulhaq and mazbut vaqfs, is decisive in legal proceedings. The validity of legal proceedings in such foundations is only after obtaining the approval of the Awqaf Foundations Administration and processing before the Turkish/Muslim Court (including the consent of the Trustees in mulhaq vaqfs). In addition, the fact that these foundations are subject to permanent property rights for charitable purposes, which cannot be changed hands, transferred or gifted, will also be decisive in terms of evaluations in international law. One of the most important results of the study, in which Ahkamül Evkaf rules are discussed, states that Ahkamül Evkaf and Foundation law, which has become a part of international customary law, is determinative in the property rights of foundations in the Maraş(Varosha) issue.

Özet

Çalışma temel olarak, Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde Maraş bölgesinde yer alan Vakıflar’a ait mülkiyet meselesine değinmektedir. Vakıfların bir tüzel kişi olarak hukuksal varlık kazanmasında mahkeme kayıtları ve bunun sonucunda kütük kayıtları önemlidir. Bu belgelerde vurgulanan vakıf sınıfı kapsamında mülhak ve mazbut vakıfların hukuki statüsü hukuki işlemlerde belirleyicidir. Bu tip vakıflarda hukuki işlemlerin geçerliliği yalnızca Evkaf İdaresi’nin onayının alınması ve (mülhak vakıflarda Mütevelli rızası da eklenerek) Türk/Müslüman mahkemesi önünde işleme tabi olunmasıyladır. İlaveten bu vakıfların el değiştiremez, devredilemez, hediye edilemez yapıda hayır maksadı ile süreklilik arz eden mülkiyet haklarına tabi olması, uluslararası hukuktaki değerlendirmeler açısından da belirleyici olacaktır. Zira Ahkamül Evkaf kurallarının ele alındığı çalışmanın en önemli sonuçlardan biri, uluslararası örf adet hukukunun bir parçası haline gelen Ahkamül Evkaf ve Vakıf hukukunun Maraş meselesinde vakıfların mülkiyet haklarında belirleyici olduğunu ifade etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gözügüzelli, E. (2021). International Law and Maraş (Varosha) Vaqfs. Adalet Dergisi, Sayı: 67, 29–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/1351836

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (79)

  1. 12 OF 1907.A/ To Make Better Provision For The Registration Of Title To And The Valuation Of Immovable Property and to amend Law Relating to Immovable Property in certain Respect.ss.431-452., The Statue Laws of Cyprus. A.D.1907.
  2. A. Martin, L’Estoppel en Droit International Public, Paris, 1979.
  3. A. Qadri, Islamic Jumrsprudfnce In The Modern World 222, 1963.
  4. Acer, Yücel / Kaya, İbrahim, Uluslararası Hukuk. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları, 2015, 6. Basım.
  5. Al-Adsani v. UK, 21 Kasım 2001, paragraf 60; 123 ILR.
  6. Altan, Ahmet, Haşim, Belgelerle Kıbrıs Türk Tarihi, Kıbrıs Vakıflar İdaresi Yayını, 1986
  7. Boz, Selman Sacit, “Türk İdare Hukukunda Estoppel Kuramının Uygulanabilirliği”, TAAD, yıl:9, Sayı 34, 2018.
  8. Cattan, Henry, “The Law of Waqf' in Majid Khadduri and Herbery J. Liebesny (eds)”,. Law in the Middle East, vol I,2015.
  9. C. Dominice, A Propos du Principe de l’Estoppel en Droit des Gens’ Recueil d’Etudes de Droit International en Hommage `a, Paul Guggenheim, Geneva, 1968.
  10. Çatal, Ali, Kıbrıs Vakıflarına Ait Taşınmazların Yasa Dışı Mülkiyet İntikaller, Evkaf Dairesi, 2020.
  11. Cornell Law School, Estoppel by Deed, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel_by_deed Current Legal Framework On Islamic Family Law In Myanmar.
  12. Cyprus Vaqfs Administration Cyprus Court Registers – Cyprus Court Register No.1 ( A.H.988 -1003/A.D. 1580- 1595 ), Ed.: Tamçelik, Soyalp/Kasapoğlu, Mustafa Kemal, Ekim, 2020.
  13. D. W. Bowett, ‘Estoppel before International Tribunals and its Relation to Acquiescence’, 33 BYIL, 1957
  14. D. Warriner, Land Reform And Development In The Middle East,1962.
  15. Fratcher, William F., Islamic Wakf, The, 36 Mo. L. Rev. 1971.
  16. Gaudiosi, Monica M., “The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1988, Vol.136, 1231-1262
  17. Göçmen, 2019, “Avrupa Birliğinde Yargısal Koruma, Öncelik İlkesi”, Ankara Üniversitesi, s.17, http://litreur.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/935/2019/11/Oncelik-Ilkesi-23-10-2019.pdf
  18. Hala Sultan Tekke Nazırı Yusuf Ziya and Ahmed Kenan and Others Case.
  19. I. Sinclair, ‘Estoppel and Acquiescence’ Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice (ed. A. V. Lowe ve M. Fitzmaurice), Cambridge, 1996.
  20. Joseph., Schacht., An Introduction to Islamic Law,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
  21. Jurist. WAQF, 4 Moslem World 173, 1914.
  22. Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti Anayasası, 1975.
  23. Küçük, Fazıl, Mücadelemizin Görkemli Yılları, KKTC Dışişleri ve Savunma Bakanlığı Yayını, 2002.
  24. KKTC Mahkemelerinde Uygulanan Temel Mevzuat, https://www.mahkemeler.net/cgi-bin/cevap1.aspx, Erişim Tarihi, 02.11.2021.
  25. Kılınç Ahmet, “Mecelle’ye göre Zamanaşımı: Uygulamada Görülen Aksakliklar Ve Çözüm Önerileri”, Nisan 2021, Uluslararası Mecelle Sempozyumu: https://yayin.taa.gov.tr/yuklenenler/dosyalar/kitaplar/ uluslararasi-mecelle-sempozyumu.pdf)
  26. Martin, Elizabeth, Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edition,Oxford, 2002.
  27. Minister Hits out at Evkaf Claims of Varosha Ownership, 31 Temmuz 2019, Cyprus Mail, https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/07/31/minister-hits-out-at-evkaf-claims-of-varosha-ownership/
  28. Gaudiosi, Monica M., “The influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: the Case of Merton College”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 136 (1988), at 1231-1261.) Necatigil, Zaim M., Kıbrıs Uyuşmazlığı ve AHİM Kıskacında Türkiye, Turhan Kitapevi, 2006.
  29. Necatigil, Zaim, KKTC Anayasa ve Yönetim Hukuku,Rüstem Kitapevi, İstanbul, 1988.
  30. Obaidullah, Mohammed, “A Framework For Analysis Of Islamic Endowment (Waqf) Laws”, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law / Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2016 / 54,ss.1-11,
  31. Our View: “President running out of opportunities for Varosha”, 4 Ağustos 2019, Cyprus Mail,
  32. Pazarcı, Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri I, Turhan Kitapevi, 1996, 6.baskı.
  33. Permanent Court Of International Justice, Tenth (Extraordinary) Session, Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits), Germany v. Poland,1926 (German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1926 P. C. I. J. (ser. A) No. 7 (May 25).
  34. Robert Rhodes, vd., “Vested Rights: Establishing Predictability in a Changing regulatory system”, Stetson Law Review, V. 13, No.1) Schønberg, Søren J., Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law, New York, 2000.
  35. Serengil, Şölen, Külahçı, “Vakıf Taşınmazlarının Olağanüstü Zamanaşımı Yoluyla Kazanılması”, AUHFD, 60 (4) 2011: ss.921-933, s. 927
  36. Shadiya Mohamed S. Baqutayan / Aini Suzana Ariffin / Magda Ismail A. Mohsin / Akbariah Mohd Mahdzir, “Waqf Between the Past and Present,Mediterranean”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 9 No 4, Temmuz 2018, ss.149-155.
  37. Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul Kader Ve Nor Asiah Mohamed, “Legal Framework For Management Of Waqf Land In Malaysia”, [2014] 4,ss.1-23.
  38. Shaw Malcom, Uluslararası Hukuk, TÜBA, Ankara, 2018.
  39. Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu.
  40. Tunkin, Grigory, “Is General International Law Customary Law Only?”, 4 EJIL(1993), 534-541).
  41. Universal Decleration of Human Rights, G. A. Resolution 217 (III) A, UN. Doc., A/RES/217 (III), (December 10,1948, contained protections of life, liberty and property
  42. Waqf Core Principles, Islamic Social Sector Development Initiatives,1993
  43. Xenides-Arestis v Turkey davası, KKTC Mahkemeleri
  44. Yost, Chris., A Case Review and Analysis of the Legitimate Expectations Principle as it Applies within the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard”, Honour Thesis, The Australian National University, Australian, 2008.
  45. Zayka v. Giambro, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 748, 594 N.E.2d 894 [1992]).
  46. General Assembly Resolution 41/132, 10, UN Doc. A/RES/41/132,December 4,1986.
  47. 1899 (V5) 1 CLR 20, 1899 December 23, Haralambo and Others, Children and Heirs of Constantino deceased v. A.Ashmore, Mehmed Sadık Efendi, As Trustees of Evqaf.
  48. 3 May 1904 (V6) 1 CLR 109, Muzaffer Bey and Others, v. W. Collet and M. Irfan Effendi Case.
  49. V9 1 CLR 48, 1910 March 1, G. Smith and M.Irfan Effendi, Delegates of Evqaf, Yussuf Zia, As Nazır of Hala Sultan Tekke, v. Ahmed Kennan and Others Davası
  50. 15 January 1916 (V10) 1 CLR 97, The Delegates of Evqaf v. The Municipality of Nicosia Case.
  51. 29 January 1963 (1963) 2 A.A. Δ. 312, Müveddet Toygar and Other v. Ali Ratıb Case.
  52. Malaysia/Singapore, ICJ Reports, 2008.
  53. Anayasa Mahkemesi 3/2006 D.3/2006
  54. Yargıtay’ın Asli Yetki 32/2012 D.1/2014
  55. Birleştirilmiş YİM/İstinaf:12-13-14/2015-YİM Dava No: 262/2012
  56. YİM/İstinaf 6/2013 D.6/2014;
  57. YİM/İstinaf:12-13-14/2015-YİM Dava No:262/2012
  58. Ulunay, Ergin, Maraş’ın Vakıf Statüsü’ne dair 2/7/2019 tarihli hukuki görüş metni, KKTC Vakıflar ve Evkaf İdaresi,2021
  59. Türkiye Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü. Davalarda Zamanaşımı Yasası, Fasıl 15, KKTC Mahkemeleri.
  60. Tyser, C.R./ Ongley F./ Izzet, M., The Laws Relating To Immovable Property Made Vaqf, Cyprus,1901.
  61. Acer, Yücel / Kaya, İbrahim, Uluslararası Hukuk. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları, 2015, 6. Basım.
  62. Al-Adsani v. UK, 21 Kasım 2001, paragraf 60; 123 ILR.
  63. D. Warriner, Land Reform And Development In The Middle East,1962.
  64. Fratcher, William F., Islamic Wakf, The, 36 Mo. L. Rev. 1971.
  65. Hala Sultan Tekke Nazırı Yusuf Ziya and Ahmed Kenan and Others Case.
  66. Joseph., Schacht., An Introduction to Islamic Law,Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
  67. Jurist. WAQF, 4 Moslem World 173, 1914.
  68. Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti Anayasası, 1975.
  69. Küçük, Fazıl, Mücadelemizin Görkemli Yılları, KKTC Dışişleri ve Savunma Bakanlığı Yayını, 2002.
  70. Martin, Elizabeth, Dictionary of Law, Fifth Edition,Oxford, 2002.
  71. Pazarcı, Hüseyin, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri I, Turhan Kitapevi, 1996, 6.baskı.
  72. Shaw Malcom, Uluslararası Hukuk, TÜBA, Ankara, 2018.
  73. Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu.
  74. Universal Decleration of Human Rights, G. A. Resolution 217 (III) A, UN. Doc., A/RES/217 (III), (December 10,1948, contained protections of life, liberty and property
  75. Yost, Chris., A Case Review and Analysis of the Legitimate Expectations Principle as it Applies within the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard”, Honour Thesis, The Australian National University, Australian, 2008.
  76. Zayka v. Giambro, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 748, 594 N.E.2d 894 [1992]).
  77. General Assembly Resolution 41/132, 10, UN Doc. A/RES/41/132,December 4,1986.
  78. Malaysia/Singapore, ICJ Reports, 2008.
  79. Tyser, C.R./ Ongley F./ Izzet, M., The Laws Relating To Immovable Property Made Vaqf, Cyprus,1901.