YARGI KARARLARINDA KANUN ÖNÜNDE EŞİTLİK İLKESİ VE KADIN ERKEK EŞİTLİĞİ
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2017
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bilinen en eski tabletlerde dahi hükümdarların hayata geçirmiş olmakla övündüğü ve bir şekilde kanun koyuculardan, filozoflara herkesin ülküsü olarak ortaya konan eşitlik ilkesi, modern hukuk anlayışının en temel hedeflerinden biridir. Eşitlik yolunda yapılan hukuki ve siyasi mücadeleler neredeyse insanlık yaşıttır ve son derece zorlu geçmiştir. Bugün en azından hukuk devletinin en temel ilkelerinden biri olduğu konusunda tartışma yoktur. Ancak nasıl değerlendirilip hayata geçirileceği ve hukuk tarafından nasıl güvenceye alınacağı konusunda pek çok farklı yorum vardır. İlke 1982 Anayasası'nın 10. maddesinde düzenlenmiştir. Madde, 2004 ve 2010 yıllarında değişikliğe uğramıştır. Bu değişikliklerle kadın erkek eşitliği vurgulanmış ve bu konuda devlete açıkça sorumluluk verilmiştir. Ayrıca yaşlılar, çocuklar, şehit yakınları, gaziler ve özürlüler için alınacak tedbirlerin eşitliğin ihlali olmayacağı belirtilmiştir. Ancak tabiiki eşitliğin anayasa da olsa bir yasal metinde nasıl ye aldığından çok nasıl hayat bulduğu önemlidir. Bu noktada idari uygulamalar ve uygulamaların yargısal kararlarda yorumlanışı çok büyük önem taşımaktadır. İlkenin sistem içinde nasıl yaşayacağı, bir anlamda yargı kararlarıyla şekillenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Danıştay'ın ilkeyi nasıl yorumladığı ele alınmaktadır. Özellikle bu iki yüksek mahkeme, eşitlik ilkesini yorumlarıyla şekillendirmekte, idari uygulamaları hukuka uygunluk bakımından değerlendirirken ona adeta yeniden biçim vermektedirler. Makalede eşitlik ilkesinin önemli ve yine çok sorunlu bir boyutunu oluşturan kadın erkek eşitliği meselesi de ilkenin kendi içinde daha da özelleşmiş bir örnek uygulaması olarak ele alınmış ve özellikle Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Danıştay kararlarında izi sürülmüştür
The principle of equality, which was put forward as the principle for everyone from lawmakers to philosophers, and about which the rulers boasted for achieving even in the ancient tablets, has been one of the fundamental goals of modern law. The legal and political struggles on the road to equality are almost as old as human beings and have been very challenging. Today, there is no debate as to the idea that it is one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law. However, there are many different interpretations on how to materialize and guarantee equality by law. The principle was regulated in Article 10 of the 1982 Constitution. The article was amended in 2004 and 2010. These amendments emphasized the equality between men and women and clearly held the state accountable for this responsibility. It is also stated that there shall be no violation of equality of measures for the elderly, children, martyr relatives, veterans and disabled people. However, how the equality is achieved in real life rather than how it takes place in the constitution is important. At this very point, the interpretation of administrative practices and implementations in judicial decisions are of great importance. How the principle sustains in the system is shaped by judicial decisions in a sense. This study touches upon how the Constitutional Court and the Council of State interpret this principle. In particular, these two high courts shape the principle of equality with their interpretations, and they almost reform it while evaluating administrative practices in terms of compliance with the law. The issue of equality between men and women, which constitutes an important and also problematic dimension of the equality principle, has been treated as a more specialized example of the principle, and has been examined particularly in the decisions of the Constitutional Court and Council of State
The principle of equality, which was put forward as the principle for everyone from lawmakers to philosophers, and about which the rulers boasted for achieving even in the ancient tablets, has been one of the fundamental goals of modern law. The legal and political struggles on the road to equality are almost as old as human beings and have been very challenging. Today, there is no debate as to the idea that it is one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law. However, there are many different interpretations on how to materialize and guarantee equality by law. The principle was regulated in Article 10 of the 1982 Constitution. The article was amended in 2004 and 2010. These amendments emphasized the equality between men and women and clearly held the state accountable for this responsibility. It is also stated that there shall be no violation of equality of measures for the elderly, children, martyr relatives, veterans and disabled people. However, how the equality is achieved in real life rather than how it takes place in the constitution is important. At this very point, the interpretation of administrative practices and implementations in judicial decisions are of great importance. How the principle sustains in the system is shaped by judicial decisions in a sense. This study touches upon how the Constitutional Court and the Council of State interpret this principle. In particular, these two high courts shape the principle of equality with their interpretations, and they almost reform it while evaluating administrative practices in terms of compliance with the law. The issue of equality between men and women, which constitutes an important and also problematic dimension of the equality principle, has been treated as a more specialized example of the principle, and has been examined particularly in the decisions of the Constitutional Court and Council of State
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
[No Keywords]
Kaynak
Akademik Hassasiyetler
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
4
Sayı
8
