The Legal Nature of the Rule of Necessity

Burak Boz

Makale detayları

The Legal Nature of the Rule of Necessity

Yazarlar:

Burak Boz

Yayıncı:

Hacettepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.295-326

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001331695

pISSN:

2146-1708

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 The study examines the legal nature of the rule of necessity in Turkish criminal law, focusing on its role as an excuse for absolving blame or a defence justification for complying with the law. The answer of this question would be decisive for the resolution of many special problematic issues. The Turkish Penal Code only addresses the rule of necessity as a means to excuse those responsible for committing a crime, but tort law also includes provisions that govern the concept of necessity as a justification for adhering to the law. Despite the presence of only one instance of the necessity rule in the Turkish Penal Code, it is not contradictory to assert that the rule of necessity possesses a dual legal nature and two distinct characteristics. In compensation law, the principle of necessity is established as a justification for legality in certain situations. It has to be mentioned that Turkish legislation does not have a specific provision that differentiates between the rule of necessity that excuses blame and the rule of necessity that justifies actions that match a crime type. Thus, establishing a clear distinction between the two is a significant challenge. Comparative law regulations can help to handle this issue, but it is essential to acknowledge that the law of a foreign state cannot be directly implemented in Turkish criminal law without establishing a theoretical rationale within Turkish legal boundaries. For example, in German law, provisions in 34 and 35 of the German Criminal Code are established considering the varying importance of the rights behind conflicted interests. The state of necessity arises from a state of conflict. In this conflict, essentially, interests are opposed. However, in many countries, such as in German law, it is accepted that the comparison should not be made between the interests, but between the right to which these interests are related. However, Turkish law does not offer a clear foundation for incorporating this criterion when differentiating between types of the necessity rule. As the result, we believe, the differentiation of the necessity rule in Turkish law hinges on whether the recipient of the action is required to bear it or not.

 The study examines the legal nature of the rule of necessity in Turkish criminal law, focusing on its role as an excuse for absolving blame or a defence justification for complying with the law. The answer of this question would be decisive for the resolution of many special problematic issues. The Turkish Penal Code only addresses the rule of necessity as a means to excuse those responsible for committing a crime, but tort law also includes provisions that govern the concept of necessity as a justification for adhering to the law. Despite the presence of only one instance of the necessity rule in the Turkish Penal Code, it is not contradictory to assert that the rule of necessity possesses a dual legal nature and two distinct characteristics. In compensation law, the principle of necessity is established as a justification for legality in certain situations. It has to be mentioned that Turkish legislation does not have a specific provision that differentiates between the rule of necessity that excuses blame and the rule of necessity that justifies actions that match a crime type. Thus, establishing a clear distinction between the two is a significant challenge. Comparative law regulations can help to handle this issue, but it is essential to acknowledge that the law of a foreign state cannot be directly implemented in Turkish criminal law without establishing a theoretical rationale within Turkish legal boundaries. For example, in German law, provisions in 34 and 35 of the German Criminal Code are established considering the varying importance of the rights behind conflicted interests. The state of necessity arises from a state of conflict. In this conflict, essentially, interests are opposed. However, in many countries, such as in German law, it is accepted that the comparison should not be made between the interests, but between the right to which these interests are related. However, Turkish law does not offer a clear foundation for incorporating this criterion when differentiating between types of the necessity rule. As the result, we believe, the differentiation of the necessity rule in Turkish law hinges on whether the recipient of the action is required to bear it or not.

 The study examines the legal nature of the rule of necessity in Turkish criminal law, focusing on its role as an excuse for absolving blame or a defence justification for complying with the law. The answer of this question would be decisive for the resolution of many special problematic issues. The Turkish Penal Code only addresses the rule of necessity as a means to excuse those responsible for committing a crime, but tort law also includes provisions that govern the concept of necessity as a justification for adhering to the law. Despite the presence of only one instance of the necessity rule in the Turkish Penal Code, it is not contradictory to assert that the rule of necessity possesses a dual legal nature and two distinct characteristics. In compensation law, the principle of necessity is established as a justification for legality in certain situations. It has to be mentioned that Turkish legislation does not have a specific provision that differentiates between the rule of necessity that excuses blame and the rule of necessity that justifies actions that match a crime type. Thus, establishing a clear distinction between the two is a significant challenge. Comparative law regulations can help to handle this issue, but it is essential to acknowledge that the law of a foreign state cannot be directly implemented in Turkish criminal law without establishing a theoretical rationale within Turkish legal boundaries. For example, in German law, provisions in 34 and 35 of the German Criminal Code are established considering the varying importance of the rights behind conflicted interests. The state of necessity arises from a state of conflict. In this conflict, essentially, interests are opposed. However, in many countries, such as in German law, it is accepted that the comparison should not be made between the interests, but between the right to which these interests are related. However, Turkish law does not offer a clear foundation for incorporating this criterion when differentiating between types of the necessity rule. As the result, we believe, the differentiation of the necessity rule in Turkish law hinges on whether the recipient of the action is required to bear it or not.

 Bu çalışma, Türk ceza hukukunda zorunluluk hâlinin hukukî niteliğini incelemekte ve zorunluluk hâlinin kusuru kaldıran bir mazeret veya bir hukuka uygunluk sebebi olarak oynadığı role odaklanmaktadır. Bu soruya verilecek cevap pek çok münferit sorunun da çözümü bakımından belirleyici olacaktır. Türk Ceza Kanunu zorunluluk hâlini yalnızca suç işlemekten sorumlu olanları mazur göstermenin bir yolu olarak ele almaktadır, ancak haksız fiil hukuku da zorunluluk kavramını hukuka uygunluk sebebi olarak düzenleyen hükümler içermektedir. Belirtilmelidir ki Türk Ceza Kanununda zorunluluk hâlinin yalnızca kusuru kaldıran bir sebep olarak düzenlenmesine rağmen, esasen zorunluluk hâlinin ikili bir hukuki niteliğe ve iki farklı kimliğe sahip olduğunu söylemek çelişkili değildir. Çünkü tüm hukuka uygunluk sebeplerinin ceza kanunda yazması gerekmez. Türk mevzuatında suçu mazur gösteren zorunluluk kuralı ile bir suç tipine uyan eylemleri haklı gösteren zorunluluk kuralı arasında ayrım yapan özel bir hüküm bulunmamaktadır. Bu nedenle bu ikisi arasında net bir ayrım yapmak önemli bir zorluktur. Karşılaştırmalı hukuk düzenlemeleri bu sorunun ele alınmasına yardımcı olabilir, ancak yabancı bir devletin hukukunun, Türk yasal sınırları içinde teorik bir gerekçe oluşturmadan doğrudan Türk ceza hukukuna uygulanamayacağını kabul etmek gerekir. Örneğin Alman hukukunda, Alman Ceza Kanunu 34 ve 35, farklı menfaatlerin çatıştığı noktada söz konusu olan hakların ağırlığını kıyaslamaya dayanan bir ölçütü esas almaktadır. Zorunluluk hâli bir çatışma durumundan ileri gelir. Bu çatışmada, esasen, menfaatler karşı kaşıya gelmektedir. Ancak Alman hukuku örneğinde olduğu gibi pek çok ülkede kıyaslama menfaatler arasında değil bu menfaatlerin ilgili oldukları hak arasında yapılması gerektiği kabul edilmektedir. Fakat Türk hukuku, böyle bir kriteri esas almak için açık bir temel sunmamaktadır. Sonuç olarak, kanaatimizce, Türk hukukunda zorunluluk hâlinin farklı nitelikleri arasındaki ayrım, eylemin muhatabının buna katlanma yükümlüğünün bulunmasına dayandırılmalıdır.

Makale detayları

The Legal Nature of the Rule of Necessity

Yazarlar:

Burak Boz

Yayıncı:

Hacettepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.295-326

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001331695

pISSN:

2146-1708

the rule of necessity

excuse

defence

conflict of rights

conflict of interestsZorunluluk hâli

kusuru kaldıran sebep

hukuka uygunluk sebebi

hakların çatışması

menfaatlerin çatışması

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Burak Boz

Yayıncı: Hacettepe University

Ana Başlıklar: Ceza Hukuku

Dergi: Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.295-326

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001331695

pISSN: 2146-1708

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Burak Boz

Yayıncı:

Hacettepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

Ceza Hukuku

Dergi:

Hacettepe Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.14 Issue 2, pp.295-326

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001331695

pISSN:

2146-1708