An Analysis on the Demands for Linguistic Pluralism in Light of the Interpretation of the Constitutional Court on the Principle of Equality

Hakan Kolçak

Makale detayları

An Analysis on the Demands for Linguistic Pluralism in Light of the Interpretation of the Constitutional Court on the Principle of Equality

Yazarlar:

Hakan Kolçak

Yayıncı:

Cukurova University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Issue 3, pp.80-99

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001283652

pISSN:

2822-4809

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Demands for linguistic pluralism have been voiced in a frequent manner by taking into account the principle of equality, which is set out in the Turkish Constitution of 1982. In this article, it is examined whether the aforementioned principle requires such demands to be satisfied or not. The scope of the constitutional principle and the well-established case-law of the Turkish Constitutional Court are scrutinised in answering the research question. It is therefore underlined that the article draws on the formal dogmatic approach. The article argues that the general rule in Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution is to ensure legal equality, but it is also possible for those groups identified by the aforementioned constitutional article to ensure substantive equality in an exceptional way. It is likely for the demands for linguistic pluralism to be claimed by referring the principle of equality only for the aforementioned groups. The disadvantage that the practice of substantive equality seeks to eliminate should not, however, be in place due to linguistic differences as Article 101 of the Constitution puts a ban on linguistic discrimination. For other elimination processes in which disadvantages are in place because of the reasons, not those arising from linguistic differences, it is possible to voice the pluralist demands when they would contribute to the elimination of the disadvantage. These demands should be based upon objective cornerstones and be proportional, according to the well-established case-law of the Constitutional Court.

 Demands for linguistic pluralism have been voiced in a frequent manner by taking into account the principle of equality, which is set out in the Turkish Constitution of 1982. In this article, it is examined whether the aforementioned principle requires such demands to be satisfied or not. The scope of the constitutional principle and the well-established case-law of the Turkish Constitutional Court are scrutinised in answering the research question. It is therefore underlined that the article draws on the formal dogmatic approach. The article argues that the general rule in Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution is to ensure legal equality, but it is also possible for those groups identified by the aforementioned constitutional article to ensure substantive equality in an exceptional way. It is likely for the demands for linguistic pluralism to be claimed by referring the principle of equality only for the aforementioned groups. The disadvantage that the practice of substantive equality seeks to eliminate should not, however, be in place due to linguistic differences as Article 101 of the Constitution puts a ban on linguistic discrimination. For other elimination processes in which disadvantages are in place because of the reasons, not those arising from linguistic differences, it is possible to voice the pluralist demands when they would contribute to the elimination of the disadvantage. These demands should be based upon objective cornerstones and be proportional, according to the well-established case-law of the Constitutional Court.

 Demands for linguistic pluralism have been voiced in a frequent manner by taking into account the principle of equality, which is set out in the Turkish Constitution of 1982. In this article, it is examined whether the aforementioned principle requires such demands to be satisfied or not. The scope of the constitutional principle and the well-established case-law of the Turkish Constitutional Court are scrutinised in answering the research question. It is therefore underlined that the article draws on the formal dogmatic approach. The article argues that the general rule in Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution is to ensure legal equality, but it is also possible for those groups identified by the aforementioned constitutional article to ensure substantive equality in an exceptional way. It is likely for the demands for linguistic pluralism to be claimed by referring the principle of equality only for the aforementioned groups. The disadvantage that the practice of substantive equality seeks to eliminate should not, however, be in place due to linguistic differences as Article 101 of the Constitution puts a ban on linguistic discrimination. For other elimination processes in which disadvantages are in place because of the reasons, not those arising from linguistic differences, it is possible to voice the pluralist demands when they would contribute to the elimination of the disadvantage. These demands should be based upon objective cornerstones and be proportional, according to the well-established case-law of the Constitutional Court.

 Dilsel çoğulculuk talepleri, 1982 Anayasası tarafından düzenlenen eşitlik ilkesi referans gösterilerek sıklıkla ileri sürülmektedir. Söz konusu ilkenin mevzubahis taleplerin karşılanmasını gerekli kılıp kılmadığı, bu çalışma kapsamında irdelenmektedir. Not edilen araştırma sorusuna cevap verilirken anayasal eşitlik ilkesinin kapsamı ile Anayasa Mahkemesinin AYM bahse konu ilkeye dair yerleşik içtihadı incelenmiştir. Bu sebeple çalışmada hukuk dogmatiği yönteminin benimsendiği belirtilmelidir. Çalışmada 1982 Anayasasının 10. maddesi uyarınca genel kuralın mutlak eşitliğin sağlanması olduğu; fakat anılan maddede ismen zikredilen kesimler yönünden, nispi eşitlik uygulamalarının istisnai olarak tatbik edilebileceği belirtilmektedir. Sadece bu kesimler bakımından, dilsel çoğulculuk taleplerinin eşitlik ilkesine atıf yapılarak ileri sürülmesi sınırlı da olsa mümkündür. Ancak nispi eşitlik uygulaması ile bertarafı hedeflenen dezavantajlı durumun, bir başına dilsel farklılıktan kaynaklanmaması gerekir; çünkü dil yönünden ayrımcılık, Anayasanın 101. maddesi mucibince özgül ayrım yasaklarındandır. Dezavantajlı durumun dilsel farklılıklardan kaynaklanmadığı hâllerde ise söz konusu dezavantajın bertarafında dilsel çoğulculuk talebinin pozitif etki sunma potansiyeli varsa, bu taleplerin ileri sürülmesi olasıdır. AYMnin yerleşik içtihadına göre, ileri sürülebilecek taleplerin nesnel temele dayanması ve ölçülü olması da ayrıca gerekmektedir.

Makale detayları

An Analysis on the Demands for Linguistic Pluralism in Light of the Interpretation of the Constitutional Court on the Principle of Equality

Yazarlar:

Hakan Kolçak

Yayıncı:

Cukurova University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Issue 3, pp.80-99

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001283652

pISSN:

2822-4809

Principle of equality

legal equality

substantive equality

linguistic pluralism

the Constitutional Court of Türkiye

Eşitlik ilkesi

Mutlak eşitlik

Nispi eşitlik

Dilsel çoğulculuk

Anayasa Mahkemesi

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Hakan Kolçak

Yayıncı: Cukurova University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk

Dergi: Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Issue 3, pp.80-99

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001283652

pISSN: 2822-4809

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Hakan Kolçak

Yayıncı:

Cukurova University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk

Dergi:

Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Issue 3, pp.80-99

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001283652

pISSN:

2822-4809