MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Karaoğlu, Ali Osman

MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Ali Osman KARAOĞLU (Yalova Üniversitesi, Hukuk Fakültesi, Yalova, Türkiye)

Law and Justice Review

4 0

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 20 Sayfa Aralığı: 163 - 194 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 24-11-2020

MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Öz:

International law, particularly human rights treaties andprotection mechanisms, assume both complementaryand transformative functions in their relation withdomestic law. Transformative impact of internationallaw is observable in the judgments of TurkishConstitutional Court (TCC) although change ofinterpretation pertaining to laicism seems uninfluenced.In 2012, TCC specified its understanding of the laicismcited in its former judgments as “strict interpretation oflaicism”, and declared that a “libertarian interpretationof laicism” was embraced upon renunciation of formerinterpretation. From that time on, TCC interprets itsjudgments on freedom of religion from the viewpointof libertarian laicism. Nevertheless, the interpretationdefined as “strict laicism” by TCC was regarded to fallwithin the scope of margin of appreciation according tothe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in suchjudgments as Refah v. Turkey and Leyla Şahin v. Turkey.The margin of appreciation doctrine of ECtHR exertedan adverse impact in this sense and thus led to delay inchange of TCC’s interpretation of laicism. Even thoughindividual application to the Constitutional Court wasintroduced through a Constitutional amendment in2010, and subsequently, in 2012 individuals wereentitled to make application with respect to the rightsand freedoms regulated in the Constitution and ECHR,these developments have likewise not been consideredas a factor stimulating TCC to change its interpretationof laicism. In this context, it can be construed thatthe given change did not take place because of thetransformative impact of international human rightslaw, but instead stemmed from the adaptation of TCCto changing socio-cultural atmosphere and appointmentof new judges to TCC. This situation requiresreconsidering the preventive function of the margin ofappreciation doctrine as well as its obstructive functionin transformation of domestic law. This study will firstbriefly address the discussions on the concept of laicismand thereafter will explicate the change in interpretationof laicism by TCC in a comparative analysis with therelevant ECtHR judgments

Anahtar Kelime:

Uluslararası Hukukun Dönüştürücü Etkisine Bir Engel Olarak Takdir Marjı: Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Laiklik Yorumunun Değişimi

Öz:

Uluslararası hukuk, özellikle insan hakları andlaşmaları ve koruma mekanizmaları, iç hukuku tamamlayıcı bir işlev görürken aynı zamanda dönüştürücü bir fonksiyona sahiptir. Uluslararası hukukun dönüştürücü etkisi Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi (AYM) kararlarında gözlemlenebilmekle beraber laiklik bağlamında görülen yorum değişikliği bu durumdan etkilenmemiş görünmektedir. AYM 2012 tarihinde, eski kararlarında geçen laiklik anlayışını “katı laiklik anlayışı” olarak nitelendirmiş ve bu anlayıştan vazgeçerek “özgürlükçü laiklik anlayışı”na geçtiğini beyan etmiştir. AYM din özgürlüğü kapsamında verdiği kararları artık özgürlükçü laiklik anlayışı ile birlikte yorumlamaktadır. Ancak AYM’nin katı laiklik şeklinde adlandırdığı yorum Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) tarafından, Refah v. Türkiye ve Leyla Şahin v. Türkiye kararlarında görüleceği üzere, takdir marjı kapsamında sayılmıştır. AİHM’in takdir marjı doktrini bu anlamda negatif bir etkiye sahip olmuş ve AYM’nin laiklik yorumunun değişmesini geciktirmiştir. Her ne kadar 2010 yılında yapılan bir Anayasa değişikliği ile Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne bireysel başvuru yolu kabul edilmiş ve 2012 yılında bireylere Anayasa’da ve AİHS’te düzenlenen temel hak ve özgürlüklere ilişkin başvuru hakkı tanınmış ise de bu durum da AYM’nin laiklik yorumunu değiştirmesine etki eden bir neden olarak görünmemektedir. Bu anlamda değişimin sebebi uluslararası insan hakları hukukunun dönüştürücü etkisi değil AYM’nin değişen sosyo-kültürel atmosfere ayak uydurması ve AYM yargıçlarının değişimidir. Bu durum da takdir marjı doktrininin önleyici ve fakat iç hukukun dönüşümü açısından engelleyici fonksiyonunu yeniden düşünmeyi gerektirmektedir. Çalışmamızda öncelikle laiklik kavramı üzerindeki tartışmalar kısaca ele alınacak, daha sonrasında ise AYM’nin laiklik yorumundaki dönüşüm AİHM kararları ile karşılaştırmalı bir şekilde izah edilecektir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

ABEL, Oliver & ARKOUN, Mohammed & MARDİN, Şerif, ‘Avrupa’da Etik, Din ve Laiklik’ Metis Kitap, 1995, p.20-21.
ALTINDAL, Aytunç, ‘Laiklik: Enigma’ya Dönüşen Paradigma’ Anahtar Kitaplar Yayınevi, 1994, p.29-35.
ARSLAN, Zühtü, ‘Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde Din Özgürlüğü’ Ankara, Liberal Düşünce Topluluğu Yayınları, 2005, p.86.
ASAD, Talal, ‘Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity’, Stanford University Press, California 2003, p.23.
BALİ, Aslı, ‘Courts and Constitutional Transition: Lessons from the Turkish Case’ International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.11, Issue 3, July 2013, pp.691-693.
BAŞGİL, Ali Fuat, ‘Din ve Laiklik’, Kubbealtı Yayınları, 2016, p.173, 189- 191.
BAUBEROT, Jean & MILOT, Micheline, ‘Parlons Laïcité en 30 Questions’ La Documentation Française, p.24.
BAUBEROT, Jean (ed), ‘Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Dinler ve Laiklik’ Ufuk Kitapları, 2003.
BAUBEROT, Jean, ‘Laiklik - Tutku ve Akıl Arasında: 1905-2005’ İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul 2018, p.6-8.
BİLGİN, Beyza, ‘Turkey’de Din ve Laiklik’ Venice, Presentation paper dated 2000 p.42-43. See: http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/37/756/9630. pdf (access date 30.06.2019).
DECKER, Christopher & LLOYDD, Marnie, ‘Case Comment, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey’ European Human Rights Law Review, Vol.6, 2004, p.677.
DUGUİT, Leon, ‘Traite de droit Constitutionnel’, V.5, p.376. Stated by DİNÇKOL, Bihterin Vural, ‘1982 Anayasası Çerçevesinde ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Laiklik’, Kazancı Hukuk Yayınları, İstanbul, 1992 p.7.
ECtHR, Alexandridis v. Greece, Application No. 19516/06, 21 February 2008, parag.32.
ECtHR, Dahlab v. Switzerland, Application No. 42393/98, 15 February 2001, p.13.
ECtHR, Gündüz v. Turkey, Application no. 35071/97, 4 December 2003, parag.51.
ECtHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom. Application No. 5493/72, Judgement of 7 December 1976, parag.48.
ECtHR, Hasan ve Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, Başvuru No.1448/04, 09.10.2007, parag.77.
ECtHR, Hizb-ut-Tahrir v. Germany, Application no. 31098/08, Decision, 12 June 2012, parag.74.
ECtHR, Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, Applications nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06, Judgement, 14 March 2013, parag.107-114.
ECtHR, Kavakçı v. Turkey, Application No. 71907/01, 05.04.2007, parag.47.
ECtHR, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Application no. 14307/88, 25 May 1993, parag.48.
ECtHR, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, 44774/98, The Judgement [GC], dated 10.11.2005.
ECtHR, Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application No. 45701/99, 13 December 2001, parag.114.
ECtHR, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, Grand Chamber, Application No. 41340/98, 41342/98 and 41344/98, 13 February 2003, parag.135. Full case published by American Society of International Law (2003) ‘International Legal Materials’, Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 560-595.
ECtHR, Sinan Işık v. Turkey, Application No. 21924/05, 2 February 2010, parag.51-52.
ECtHR, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber, Application No. 113/1996/752/951, 30 January 1998, parag. 45-57.
ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, ‘AİHM’in RP Kararının Düşündürdükleri’, Liberal Düşünce, sayı 23, Summer 2001, p.46.ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Nasıl Karar Veriyor: Başörtüsü Kararı’, Liberal Düşünce, Ankara,1998, p.9.
ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, ‘Anayasal Demokrasi’ Ankara, Siyasal Kitabevi, 3rd Edition, 1999, p.241.
ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, ‘Fazilet Partisi’ni Kapatma Kararı Işığında Türkiye’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi Sorunu’ Liberal Düşünce, Yaz 2001, p.38- 40.
ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, ‘İnsan Hakları Teorisi ve Hukuku’, Ankara, Orion Yayınevi, 2007, p.163.
ERTİT, Volkan, ‘Birbirinin Yerine Kullanılan İki Farklı Kavram: Sekülerleşme ve Laiklik’ Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 2014, V.9, Issue 1, p.103.
ESEN, Selin, How Influential are the Standards of the European Court of Human Rights on the Turkish Constitutional System in Banning Political Parties? Ankara Law Review, Vol.9, No.2, 2012, p.153-154.
European Convention on Human Rights, Official Gazette, Issue 8662, Date: 19.03.1954. For English version, please see https://www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf (access date 30.06.2019).
EVANS, Carolyn, ‘The ‘Islamic Scarf’ in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2006) Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol.7(1), p.70-71.
FREEMAN, Michael, ‘Human Rights’, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2002, p.5.
HAKYEMEZ, Yusuf Şevki, ‘Militan Demokrasi Anlayışı ve 1982 Anayasası’ Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2000, p.231-235.
HÖJELİD, Stefan, ‘Headscarves, Judicial Activism and Democracy: The 2007–8 Constitutional Crisis in Turkey’ The European Legacy, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2010, p.467.
IGLESIAS VILA, Marisa, ‘Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation and International Adjudication within a Cooperative Conception of Human Rights’ International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2017, p.401.
KABOĞLU, İbrahim Ö. & KOUTNATZIS, Stylianos-Ioannis G., ‘The Reception Process in Greece and Turkey’, in Keller, Helen & Sweet, Alec Stone (ed), ‘A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems’, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.468.
KABOĞLU, İbrahim Ö., ‘Özgürlükler Hukuku’ 6. Baskı, Ankara, İmge Yayınları, 2002, p.364.
KAYA, Emir, ‘Secularism and State Religion in Modern Turkey: Law, Policy-Making and the Diyanet’ London, 2017, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.KILIÇBAY, Mehmet Ali, ‘Laiklik ya da Bu Dünyayı Yaşayabilmek’ Cogito, Laiklik, Issue 1, 1994, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, p.15-16.
KIRSHNER, Alexander S., ‘A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combatting Political Extremism’ Yale University Press, 2014, p.130-131.
KURU, Ahmet T., ‘Secularism and State Policies: The United States, France and Turkey’ Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.1.
LOEWENSTEIN, K. ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I’ The American Political Science Review, 1937, Vol.XXXI, No.3, p.417.
MACKLEM, Patrick, ‘Militant Democracy, Legal Pluralism, and the Paradox of Self-Determination’ International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 4, Issue 3, 2006, p.512-515.
MCGOLDRICK, Dominic, ‘Accommodating Muslims in Europe: From Adopting Sharia Law to Religiously Based Opt Outs from Generally Applicable Laws’ 2009, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.9/4, p.612-613.
MERT, Nuray, ‘Laiklik Tartışmasına Kavramsal Bir Bakış: Cumhuriyet Kurulurken Laik Düşünce’, 1994, İstanbul, Bağlam Yayıncılık, p.95-115.
ODER, Bertil Emrah, ‘Turkey’, in Thiel, Markus (ed), ‘The Militant Democracy Principle in Modern Democracies’ Routledge Publishing, 2009, p.289.
OKDEMİR, İlkay, ‘Din ve Vicdan Özgürlüğü ve Laiklik Bağlamında Üniversitelerde Türban Sorunu’ Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya, 2005, p.142.
ÖKTEM, A. Emre, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta İnanç Özgürlüğü’, Ankara, Liberte Yayınları, 2003, p.187 et. seq
ÖKTEM, Niyazi, ‘Ronald Dworkin ve Hukuk Felsefesi’ Anayasa Yargısı, Sayı: 28, 2011, p.88.
ÖZBUDUN, Ergun, ‘Laiklik ve Din Hürriyeti’. GÖZTEPE, Ece &
ÇELEBİ, Aykut (ed), ‘Demokratik Anayasa: Görüşler ve Öneriler’ İstanbul, Metis Yayınları, 2012, p.197.
ÖZBUDUN, Ergun, ‘Türk Anayasa Hukuku’ Ankara, 2004, Yetkin Yayınları, p.77-78.
ÖZBUDUN, Ergun, ‘Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargısal Aktivizmi ve Siyasal Elitlerin Tepkisi’ Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol: 62, Issue: 3, 2007, p.264-265.
PALOMBINO, Fulvio Maria, ‘Compliance with International Judgments: Between Supremacy of International Law and National Fundamental Principles’, ZaöRV, vol.75, 2015, p.504.
SCHILLING, David, ‘European Islamophobia and Turkey - Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) v. Turkey’, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.26, (2004), p.512.
TCC, Individual Application No. 2013/7443, 20.05.2015.
TCC, Individual Application No. 2014/256, 25.6.2014.
TCC, Individual Application No. 2015/269, 22.11.2018.
TCC, Individual Application No. 2015/8491, 18.7.2018.
TCC, Judgment No. E. 1963/128 K. 1964/8, 28.01.1964.
TCC, Judgment No. E. 2008/16 K.2008/116, 5.6.2008.
TCC, Judgment No. E.1997/1 ve K.1998/1, 16.01.1998, p.99-100.
TCC, Judgment No. E.1999/2 ve K.2001/2, 22.06.2001.
TCC, Judgment No. E.2012/65 K.2012/128, 20.09.2012, p.60.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1989/1 and K.1989/12 dated 7.3.1989, p.11.
TCC, The Judgment No. E. 1986/12 and K. 1987/4 dated 21.11.1987.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1970/53 and K.1971/76, dated 21.10.1971, p.6- 7.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1971/1 and K.1971/1, dated 20.05.1971, p.17.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1979/9 and K.1979/44 dated 27.11.1979.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1983/2 and K.1983/2 dated 25.10.1983.
TCC, The Judgment No. E.1986/11 and K.1986/26 dated 04.11.1986.
TEITGEN, Pierre-Henri, delivering a speech before the consultative Assembly of Council of Europe in September 1949, cited in Bates, E., The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights, from Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights, Oxford U.P., 2010, p.44.
The Constitution of 1982, Republic of Turkey a.24. See https://www.tbmm. gov.tr/anayasa/anayasa_2011.pdf (access date 30.06.2019).
The Constitution of Republic of Turkey, No: 2709, Official Gazette Date: 09.11.1982 – Issue:17863, Art. 90/5. TURHAN, Mehmet, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Fazilet Partisi Kararı’ Liberal Düşünce, Yaz 2002, p.42.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 See: https://www. un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf (access date 30.06.2019).
USTABULUT, Batuhan, ‘İfade Özgürlüğünde Açık ve Mevcut Tehlike’, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 16, 2017, p.52.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Concluded in Vienna on May 23, 1969, art.27. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf (access date 22.11.2019). YAYLA, Atilla, ‘AİHM’in RP Kararı Üzerine’ Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, Yaz 2001, p.76-79.
YILDIRIM, Engin & GÜLENER Serdar, ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Uluslararası ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukuka Yapılan Atıflar: Ampirik Bir Analiz’ Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 67/1, 2018, p.123.
YILDIRIM, Mustafa, ‘Mecelle’nin Külli Kaideleri’ Tibyan Yayıncılık, 2015, İzmir, p.112.
YÜKSEL, Saadet, ‘The Clash Between Free Exercise of Religion and Secularism within The Turkish Legal System’ Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 2013, Vol. 33, Issue 2, p.121.

APA	Karaoğlu A (2020). MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. , 163 - 194.
Chicago	Karaoğlu Ali Osman MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. (2020): 163 - 194.
MLA	Karaoğlu Ali Osman MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. , 2020, ss.163 - 194.
AMA	Karaoğlu A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. . 2020; 163 - 194.
Vancouver	Karaoğlu A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. . 2020; 163 - 194.
IEEE	Karaoğlu A "MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT." , ss.163 - 194, 2020.
ISNAD	Karaoğlu, Ali Osman. "MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT". (2020), 163-194.

APA	Karaoğlu A (2020). MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law and Justice Review, 0(20), 163 - 194.
Chicago	Karaoğlu Ali Osman MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law and Justice Review 0, no.20 (2020): 163 - 194.
MLA	Karaoğlu Ali Osman MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law and Justice Review, vol.0, no.20, 2020, ss.163 - 194.
AMA	Karaoğlu A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law and Justice Review. 2020; 0(20): 163 - 194.
Vancouver	Karaoğlu A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. Law and Justice Review. 2020; 0(20): 163 - 194.
IEEE	Karaoğlu A "MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT." Law and Justice Review, 0, ss.163 - 194, 2020.
ISNAD	Karaoğlu, Ali Osman. "MARGIN OF APPRECIATION AS A HINDRANCE TO TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF LAICISM BY TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT". Law and Justice Review 20 (2020), 163-194.