Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 67 - Sayı: 1

Citations to the International and Comparative Law in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court: An Empirical Analysis

ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ KARARLARINDA ULUSLARARASI VE KARŞILAŞTIRMALI HUKUKA YAPILAN ATIFLAR: AMPİRİK BİR ANALİZ

Pages
105–144
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)

The TCC employs foreign sources of law as a supportive norm in its decison-making process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Citations to international and comparative law by national supreme courts has been an important topic of discussion in recent years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is within this context that this study empirically examines citations made to the international and comparative law by the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) in its rulings with regard to abstract and concrete review and political party closure cases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The TCC employs foreign sources of law as a supportive norm in its decison-making process.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Citations to international and comparative law by national supreme courts has been an important topic of discussion in recent years. It is within this context that this study empirically examines citations made to the international and comparative law by the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) in its rulings with regard to abstract and concrete review and political party closure cases. To this end, we address the following questions: Which sources of foreign law are cited by the TCC? Why and how are they cited and used? Is there any difference in citations in terms of the subject matter of the case? We have conducted a logit analysis to investigate whether litigators’ the identity, the subject-matter, the outcome and the direction of the case influence citation practices of the TCC. We have found that while the direction and the subject-matter of the case have no impact on the use of foreign citations, the identity of the litigator and the outcome of the case have a weak influence on it. The TCC employs foreign sources of law as a supportive norm in its decison-making process.

Özet

Ulusal yüksek mahkemelerin uluslararası ve karşılaştırmalı hukuka kendi kararlarında atıf yapmaları son yıllarda önemli bir tartışma konusu haline gelmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin iptal, itiraz ve siyasi parti kapatma ve ihtar davalarında uluslararası ve karşılaştırmalı hukuka yaptığı atıflar ampirik olarak incelenecektir. AYM’nin hangi uluslararası hukuk kaynaklarına, hangi konularda, ne kadar sıklıkla ve nasıl bir şekilde göndermede bulunduğu çalışmamızın cevap arayacağı temel sorulardır. Bu amaca dönük olarak, davayı açanın, dava konusunun, dava sonucunun ve karar yönünün kararda ya da ayrışık oylarda yapılan atıflar üzerinde bir etkisinin olup olmadığı Logit analizi yoluyla incelenmiştir. Davayı açanın ve dava sonucunun kararda yapılan atıflar üzerinde zayıf olarak bir etkisi olduğu karar yönünün ve konusunun ise bir etkisi olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. AYM kararlarında yabancı hukuk kaynaklarını yardımcı/destek norm şeklinde değerlendirmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, E., GÜLENER, S. (2018). Citations to the International and Comparative Law in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court: An Empirical Analysis. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 67 - Sayı: 1, 105–144. https://ajindex.com/articles/143063

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alford, R. P. (2006). Four mistakes in the debate on ‘outsourcing authority’. Albany Law Review 69, s. 653-681.
  2. Arcioni, E. ve A. McLeod (2015). Cautious but engaged -- an Empirical study of the Australian High Court's use of foreign and international materials in constitutional cases. International Journal of Legal Information, 42(3): s. 437- 470. Başlar, Kemal (2008). Türk Mahkemelerinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi. Avrupa Konseyi yayını. Ankara.
  3. Baudenbacher, C. (2003). Judicial globalization: new development or old wine in new bottles? Texas International Law Journal, vol. 38, s. 505-526.
  4. Belov, Sergey (2013). Russia: Foreign Transplants in the Russian Constitution and Invisible Foreign Precedents in Decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court. T. Groppi and M. Ponthoreau (der.) The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges, Oxford, Hart Publishing, s. 347-371.
  5. Bentele, U. (2009). Mining for gold: the Constitutional Court of South Africa's experience with comparative constitutional law. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 37, s. 219-40.
  6. Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming democracy: the strategic uses of foreign and international law by national courts. American Journal of International Law, 102(2), s. 241-274.
  7. Benvenuto, O. J. (2006). Reevaluating the Debate Surrounding the Supreme Court’s Use of Foreign Precedent. Fordham Law Review, 38, s. 2596-2759.
  8. Bertea S. ve Claudio S. (2014). Foreign precedents in judicial argument: a theoretical account. European Journal Legal Studies, 7, 2, s. 140-179.
  9. Bettina-Kaiser, A. (2017). It isn’t true that England is the moon: comparative constitutional law as a means of constitutional interpretation by the courts? German Law Journal, 18, 02, s. 291-308.
  10. Black, R., C. Owens, Ryan J. Walters, Daniel E., Brookhart, Jennifer L. (2014). Upending a global debate: an empirical analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's use of transnational law to interpret domestic doctrine. Georgetown Law Journal, 103(1), s. 1-46.
  11. Bobek, M. (2013). Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Black, Ryan C., Ryan J. Owens and Jennifer L. Brookhart (2016), We Are the World: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Foreign Sources of Law, British Journal of Political Science 46(4 ), ss:. 891-913, s. 892. Buyse, A. (2015). Tacit citing: the scarcity of judicial dialogue between the global and the regional human rights mechanisms in freedom of expression cases. Tarlach McGonagle and Yvonne