Anayasa Değişikliklerinin Denetimi Bağlamında Anayasa Mahkemesinin Meşruiyeti
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2005 Haziran
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
20 yy.da, özellikle II. Dünya Savaşı'ndan sonra, Batı Avrupa'da da yaygın olarak kurulan Anayasa Mahkemeleri günümüzde demokratik sistemin vazgeçilmez bir unsuru olarak kabul edilmektedir. Ancak hâlâ bu kurumun meşruiyetinin temelleri ve demokratik sistemdeki yeri konusundaki tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Ülkemizde de özellikle 1961 Anayasası döneminde Mahkeme verdiği kararlarla sürekli olarak tartışmaların odağında bulunmuştur. Türk ve Fransız anayasa yargısı deneyimi ışığında iddia edebiliriz ki Mahkeme "siyasi ve hukuki planda son sözün Egemene, halka veya onu meşru olarak temsil edenlere ait olduğu kabul ettiği" ölçüde bu tartışmalar en aza inmektedir. O halde Anayasa Mahkemesinin meşruiyetini onun "Egemene tabi olmasına" bağlayabiliriz. "Egemen ise halktır".
Constitutional courts, which are commonly established in Western Europe especially after World War II, are considered as an inevitable element of the democratic life today. However, an absolute consensus has not been reached among the jurists and the politicians about the legitimacy of this institution and its place in the democratic system yet. As such, the Turkish Constitutional Court was in the center of debates under the Constitution of 1961, because of its decisions. In the light of the Turkish and French experiences we can assert that as long as constitutional courts give up the last say in legal and political sense to the Sovereign, which refers to the people or to his (her) elected legitimate representatives, the debates on the legitimacy of constitutional courts are decreased. In this case, the legitimacy of constitutional courts depends upon their subordination to the Sovereign. “The Sovereign is one, and it is the people ".
Constitutional courts, which are commonly established in Western Europe especially after World War II, are considered as an inevitable element of the democratic life today. However, an absolute consensus has not been reached among the jurists and the politicians about the legitimacy of this institution and its place in the democratic system yet. As such, the Turkish Constitutional Court was in the center of debates under the Constitution of 1961, because of its decisions. In the light of the Turkish and French experiences we can assert that as long as constitutional courts give up the last say in legal and political sense to the Sovereign, which refers to the people or to his (her) elected legitimate representatives, the debates on the legitimacy of constitutional courts are decreased. In this case, the legitimacy of constitutional courts depends upon their subordination to the Sovereign. “The Sovereign is one, and it is the people ".
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi, Fransız Anayasa Konseyi, Anayasa Değişikliklerinin Denetimi, Anayasa Mahkemesinin Meşruiyeti, Kurucu İktidar, Turkish constitutional court, French Constitutional Council, Controlling constitutional laws, Constituent Power, Legitimacy of the Constitutional Court
Kaynak
Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
13
Sayı
1
Künye
Sağlam, M., (2005). Anayasa Değişikliklerinin Denetimi Bağlamında Anayasa Mahkemesinin Meşruiyeti. Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 109-126.
