Kelsen-Schmitt Tartışması Aracılığıyla Devlet-Hukuk İlişkisini Yeniden Düşünmek: Eleştirel Bir Giriş
Abstract
Bu makale, modern devlette hukuk-devlet ilişkisini Carl Schmitt ve Hans Kelsen’in fikirlerini mukayese ederek incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda, önce modern hukukun ne olduğu, feodal dönemden farklarının hangi noktalarda ortaya çıktığını tartışmaktadır. Ardından, Hans Kelsen’in modern devlette anayasayı yaratan ‘Grundnorm’ kavramsallaştırması, modern devlette meşruiyet kaynağı olarak incelenmektedir. Ancak Kelsen politik olanın önemini ıskalamış, olgusal düzenin ya da hukukun pratik sosyal düzendeki görünümü ve ilişkilerini incelemeyi yadsımıştır. Diğer taraftan Schmitt ise, modern devletin kurucu iradesi ve tek meşruiyet kaynağı olan egemenliğe yaptığı vurgu ile Kelsen’in davet ettiği güzergaha –hukukun Grundnorm’la inşasına- pek yanaşmamıştır. Schmitt politik olan ve politik birlik üzerinden, hukuku toplumla/halkla özdeş olan egemenin olağanüstü haldeki ‘karar’ı üzerinden tanımlayarak olgusal düzeni baz almıştır. Bu çalışmada modern devletin anlaşılabilmesi için kabul edilen yaklaşım ise, hem Kelsen’in hukuk bilimine yaptığı vurguyu önemsemekte hem de Schmitt’in haklı olarak gündeme getirdiği egemenlik nosyonuna eşit değer vermektedir. Daha doğrusu, modern devletin anlaşılabilmesi için mezkur iki hukuk kuramcısının da beraber okunup, hem hukuk kuramının hem de egemenlik kavramının modern devlet için vaz geçilmez olduğunu iddia etmektedir.
References
- Akal, C. B. (2017). Hukuk ‘Nedir’? Ankara: Dost Kitapevi Yay.
- Akal, C. B. (2013). Modern Düşüncenin Doğuşu -İspanyol Altın Çağı-, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Baume, S. (2009). “On political theology: A controversy between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt”, History of European Ideas, 35, p. 369.
- Bezci, B. (2006). Carl Schmitt'in Politik Felsefesi -Modern Devletin Müdafaası-, İstanbul: Paradigma Yay.
- Bloch, M. (2005). Feodal Toplum, Çev. M. Ali Kılıçbay, Ankara: Doğubatı, 2005.
- Bourdieu, P. (1987). ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, trans. Richard Terdiman, The Hastings Law Journal, vol. 38, July.
- Buldur, İ. (2019). Egemenlik Kavramına Hukuki ve Politik Bakış: Kelsen ve Schmitt, unpubl. MA Thesis, Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
- D’entreves, A. P. (2013). ‘Devlet Kavramı’, in Devlet Kuramı, ed. Cemal Bali Akal Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Delacroix, S. (2005). ‘Schmitt’s Critique of Kelsenian Normativism’, Ratio Juris, Vol. 18 No. 1, March, pp. 37.
- Duguit, L. (2013). ‘Egemenlik ve Özgürlük’, in Devlet Kuramı, ed. Cemal Bali Akal, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth.
- Frye, C. E. (1966). ‘Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political’, Journal of Politics 28, pp. 818–830.
- Heidegger, M. (2009). Metafizik Nedir? Was ist Metaphysik?, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yay.
- Kantorowicz, E. H. (1957). The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton-New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Kardeş, M. E. (2015). Schmitt'le Birlikte Schmitt'e Karşı -Politik Felsefe Açısından Carl Schmitt ve Düşüncesi- İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
- Kelsen, H. (2016). Saf Hukuk Kuramı -Hukuk Kuramının Sorunlarına Giriş-, trans. Ertuğrul Uzun, İstanbul: Nora Yay.
- Kelsen, H. & Schmitt, C. (2015). The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the Limits of Constitutional Law, Trans. Lars Vinx, Cambridge University Press.
- Kronman, A. (1983). Max Weber (Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory), London: Edward Arnold.
- Lash, S. (2013). Sociology of Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
- le Goff, J. (2017). Ortaçağ Batı Uygarlığı, çev. Hanife Güven, Uğur Güven, Ankara: Doğubatı.
- Poggi, G. (1978). The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction, Stanford University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Raz, J. (2013). ‘Kelsen’in Temel Norm Kuramı’, trans. Şule Şahin Ceylan, AÜHFD, vol: 62/4pp. 1169–1193.
- Schmitt, C. (1988). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, trans. Ellen Kenedy, The MIT Press.
- Schmitt, C. (2004 [2016]). Legality and Legitimacy, trans. Jeffrey Seitzer, Duke University Press.
- Schmitt, C. (2005). Political Theology -Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty-, trans. George D. Schwab, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, University of California Press.
Abstract
This article examines the law-state relationship in the modern state by comparing the ideas of Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen. In this context, firstly, what modern law is and where its differences emerge from will be discussed. Then, the article examines Hans Kelsen's conceptualization of 'Grundnorm', which created the constitution(s) in the modern state(s), as a source of legitimacy in the modern state. The law-state relationship that Kelsen builds on the basis of his 'Pure Theory of Law' is compared to the situation in which Carl Schmitt considers law as the 'decision' of the sovereign. Although Kelsen has accepted law as thing-in-itself and intensified his efforts to build an objective science, the juridical science presents a legitimacy in factual order; even if it was not Kelsen’s goal. Kelsen, however, neglects what is political and failed to examine the appearance of factual order or law in practical social order and their relationship. On the other hand, Schmitt did not much get closer to Kelsen’s approach- building the law with Grundnorm- with his emphasis on sovereignty as the constituent will and unique source of legitimacy. Over what is political and political unity, Schmitt’s approach is based on factual order by defining the law over extraordinary “decision” of the sovereign which is identical with the society/people. The approach to understand the modern state in this article both attaches importance to the Kelsen’s emphasis on the juridical science and attaches equivalent value to the notion of sovereignty which Schmitt rightfully developed. In the last part, this article argues that the law-state relationship in the modern state emerged with both Grundnorm and 'sovereignty', that is, in the partnership of both.
Keywords
References
- Akal, C. B. (2017). Hukuk ‘Nedir’? Ankara: Dost Kitapevi Yay.
- Akal, C. B. (2013). Modern Düşüncenin Doğuşu -İspanyol Altın Çağı-, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Baume, S. (2009). “On political theology: A controversy between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt”, History of European Ideas, 35, p. 369.
- Bezci, B. (2006). Carl Schmitt'in Politik Felsefesi -Modern Devletin Müdafaası-, İstanbul: Paradigma Yay.
- Bloch, M. (2005). Feodal Toplum, Çev. M. Ali Kılıçbay, Ankara: Doğubatı, 2005.
- Bourdieu, P. (1987). ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’, trans. Richard Terdiman, The Hastings Law Journal, vol. 38, July.
- Buldur, İ. (2019). Egemenlik Kavramına Hukuki ve Politik Bakış: Kelsen ve Schmitt, unpubl. MA Thesis, Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
- D’entreves, A. P. (2013). ‘Devlet Kavramı’, in Devlet Kuramı, ed. Cemal Bali Akal Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Delacroix, S. (2005). ‘Schmitt’s Critique of Kelsenian Normativism’, Ratio Juris, Vol. 18 No. 1, March, pp. 37.
- Duguit, L. (2013). ‘Egemenlik ve Özgürlük’, in Devlet Kuramı, ed. Cemal Bali Akal, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay.
- Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth.
- Frye, C. E. (1966). ‘Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political’, Journal of Politics 28, pp. 818–830.
- Heidegger, M. (2009). Metafizik Nedir? Was ist Metaphysik?, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yay.
- Kantorowicz, E. H. (1957). The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton-New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Kardeş, M. E. (2015). Schmitt'le Birlikte Schmitt'e Karşı -Politik Felsefe Açısından Carl Schmitt ve Düşüncesi- İstanbul: İletişim Yay.
- Kelsen, H. (2016). Saf Hukuk Kuramı -Hukuk Kuramının Sorunlarına Giriş-, trans. Ertuğrul Uzun, İstanbul: Nora Yay.
- Kelsen, H. & Schmitt, C. (2015). The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the Limits of Constitutional Law, Trans. Lars Vinx, Cambridge University Press.
- Kronman, A. (1983). Max Weber (Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory), London: Edward Arnold.
- Lash, S. (2013). Sociology of Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
- le Goff, J. (2017). Ortaçağ Batı Uygarlığı, çev. Hanife Güven, Uğur Güven, Ankara: Doğubatı.
- Poggi, G. (1978). The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction, Stanford University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Raz, J. (2013). ‘Kelsen’in Temel Norm Kuramı’, trans. Şule Şahin Ceylan, AÜHFD, vol: 62/4pp. 1169–1193.
- Schmitt, C. (1988). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, trans. Ellen Kenedy, The MIT Press.
- Schmitt, C. (2004 [2016]). Legality and Legitimacy, trans. Jeffrey Seitzer, Duke University Press.
- Schmitt, C. (2005). Political Theology -Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty-, trans. George D. Schwab, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, University of California Press.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Policy and Administration (Other) |
| Journal Section | Makaleler |
| Authors | |
| Early Pub Date | October 25, 2023 |
| Publication Date | October 30, 2023 |
| Submission Date | July 28, 2023 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2023Volume: 24 Issue: 4 |
Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).