Türk Anayasa Hukukunda karşı-imza kuralı
Loading...
Files
Date
2015-09-02
Authors
Taşdöğen, Salih
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Parlamenter sistemlerde yürütme erki devlet başkanı ve bakanlar kurulu tarafından kullanılır. Devlet başkanları ise yürütme erkini kullanan organlardan daha az yetkili ve daha az etkili olanıdır. Bu nitelik onlara parlamenter sistemin oluşum süreci içerisinde miras kalmıştır. Bu sistemin beşiği olan İngiltere'de önceleri Kral yasama, yürütme ve hatta yargı erklerini kullanan tek yetkili organken, yasama ve yargı yetkileri ondan zamanla koparılmış, yürütme erkine ilişkin olan yönetme yetkileri ise törpülenmiştir. Böylece Kralda belli bazı yönetme yetkileri ve devletin birliği ve bütünlüğüne ilişkin bazı sembolik yetkiler kalmıştır. Bu bağlamda parlamenter sistemlerde devlet başkanlarından genel olarak tarafsız ve bağımsız hakem rolü biçilmiştir. Tarafsızlık ve bağımsızlık özelliğinin sağlanabilmesi için de bazı araçlar kullanılmaktadır. Bunlardan biri de devlet başkanlarının sorumsuzluğudur. Devlet başkanlarının sorumsuzluğu da karşı-imza kuralıyla sağlanır. Karşı-imza kuralı, devlet başkanının işlemlerine anayasada belirtilmiş olan kişi veya kişilerin imza atması şeklinde tezahür eder. Bu kuralla, devlet başkanlarının yapmış olduğu işlemlerden dolayı ortaya çıkan sorumluluk, karşı-imza atmaya yetkili olan makama geçer. Karşı-imza kuralının tek fonksiyonu bu değildir. Ancak en önemli fonksiyonu da budur. Türk anayasalarında da genel itibariyle parlamenter sistem benimsenmiş veya bu sisteme yaklaşan yapılar kurulmuştur. Bu olguyla paralel olarak karşı-imza kuralı da ana-yasalarda yer bulmuştur. Ancak uygulanması konusunda büyük problemler yaşanmıştır, yaşanmaktadır. Tez bağlamında kuvvetlerin birbiriyle ilişkisine göre hükümet sistemleri, parlamenter sistemin genel özellikleri, parlamenter sistemin oluşum sürecinde devlet başkanının bu konuma gelmesi, bu sistemi benimsemiş ülkelerde ve Türkiye'de devlet başkanının sistem içerisindeki konumu, karşı-imza kuralının genel ilkeleriyle birlikte Türkiye uygulamasının detaylı bir incelemesi yapılacaktır.
In parliamentary systems executive power is exercised by the heads of states and the cabinets. The heads of states are less authorised and less effective than the cabinets. This qualification has been inherited by them within the emergence of the parliamentary systems. At first in England, the cradle of the parliamentary system, while the King was the only organ exercising the legislative, executive and the judiciary powers, yet he was deprived of using the legislative and the judiciary powers and his powers pertaining to execution were restricted over time. Therefore, the King was left with certain ruling powers and some other symbolic powers in relation to the unity of the state. In this context, the head of state was casted as an impartial and independent referee in the parliamentary systems. Some means are used to provide the impartiality and independence features. One of these is the irresponsibility of the heads of states. The irresponsibility of the heads of states is provided by the countersignature rule. Countersignature rule requires that person or persons determined by the constitution sign the acts of the heads of states. Via this rule the responsibilty emerging from the acts performed by the heads of states conveys to the other authority who has the countersignature. This is not the only function of the counter signature rule. But this is the most important function thereof. Parliamentary system has also been generally adopted or structures similar to this system have been founded in Turkish constitutions. Parallel to this, countersignature rule has also found a place in the constitutions however, there have been great problems with regards to the implementation thereof. In the context of the thesis, government systems other than the parliamentary sys-tem, general features of the parliamentary system, that reformation of the heads of states's position during the emergence of the parliamentary system, his position within the system, and the rule of the countersignature will be analysed in detail.
In parliamentary systems executive power is exercised by the heads of states and the cabinets. The heads of states are less authorised and less effective than the cabinets. This qualification has been inherited by them within the emergence of the parliamentary systems. At first in England, the cradle of the parliamentary system, while the King was the only organ exercising the legislative, executive and the judiciary powers, yet he was deprived of using the legislative and the judiciary powers and his powers pertaining to execution were restricted over time. Therefore, the King was left with certain ruling powers and some other symbolic powers in relation to the unity of the state. In this context, the head of state was casted as an impartial and independent referee in the parliamentary systems. Some means are used to provide the impartiality and independence features. One of these is the irresponsibility of the heads of states. The irresponsibility of the heads of states is provided by the countersignature rule. Countersignature rule requires that person or persons determined by the constitution sign the acts of the heads of states. Via this rule the responsibilty emerging from the acts performed by the heads of states conveys to the other authority who has the countersignature. This is not the only function of the counter signature rule. But this is the most important function thereof. Parliamentary system has also been generally adopted or structures similar to this system have been founded in Turkish constitutions. Parallel to this, countersignature rule has also found a place in the constitutions however, there have been great problems with regards to the implementation thereof. In the context of the thesis, government systems other than the parliamentary sys-tem, general features of the parliamentary system, that reformation of the heads of states's position during the emergence of the parliamentary system, his position within the system, and the rule of the countersignature will be analysed in detail.
Description
Keywords
Anayasa, Parlamenter sistem, Cumhurbaşkanı, Karşı-imza kuralı, Sorumluluk, Constitution, Parliamentary government, Head of state, Countersignature rule, Accountibility
Citation
Taçdöğen, S. (2015). Türk Anayasa Hukukunda karşı-imza kuralı. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.