Advertisement

The Judiciary in Autonomy Arrangements: Lessons for the Kurdish Case

  • Derya Bayır
Chapter
Part of the Comparative Territorial Politics book series (COMPTPOL)

Abstract

The rigid application of the unitary state model in Turkey has been one of the main obstacles for a satisfactory solution to the enduring problems of the Kurdish people in Turkey. In recent years, the Kurdish political parties have strongly vocalized their opposition towards this model and demanded a solution including non-territorial autonomy (e.g. cultural, linguistic rights, etc.) for Kurdish people and territorial autonomy arrangements (requiring administrative, legislative, judicial power sharing) in the areas mostly populated by Kurds. This paper concentrates on the Kurdish political opposition’s demand for territorial autonomy and, in particular, their demand for judicial autonomy. In so doing, it will primarily look at the scope of this demand from a historical perspective. It then examines various models existing in the world. Although there are many studies exploring the various models for the administrative and legislative power-sharing in countries having autonomous arrangements, there are limited studies exploring the territorial distribution of judicial power between central and local governments. Therefore, the paper aims to examine the judicial systems of the countries having regional autonomous arrangements. In so doing, the paper scrutinizes judicial systems of Canada, Spain, Belgium and the UK (including Northern Ireland and Scotland) with different and distinct models, and their possible application in Turkey’s Kurdish autonomous areas.

References

  1. Adam, E. C. (2009). Judicial Federalism from a Comparative Perspective: Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, European University Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, E. C. (2017). The Constitutional Court of Spain: From System Balancer to Polarizing Centralist. In N. Aroney & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists of Unitarists (pp. 367–403). Toronto and London: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  3. Agmon, I. (2004). Recording Procedures and Legal Culture in The Late Ottoman Shari’a Court of Jaffa 1865–1890. Islamic Law and Society, 11(3), 333–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akiba, J. (2005). “From Kadı to Naib”: Reorganization of the Ottoman Sharia Judiciary in the Tanzimat Period. In C. Imber & K. Kiyotaki (Eds.), Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West (pp. 43–60). London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  5. Akkaya, A. H., & Jongerden, J. (2014). Confederalism and Autonomy in Turkey: The Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Reinvention of Democracy. In G. Gunes & W. Zeydanlıoğlu (Eds.), The Kurdish Question in Turkey: New Perspectives on Violence, Representation and Reconciliation (pp. 186–204). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Allard, F. (2001). The Supreme Court of Canada and Its Impact on the Expression of Bijuralism. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/hfl-hlf/b3-f3/bf3a.pdf.
  7. Aroney, N., & Kincaid, J. (Eds.). (2017). Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists or Unitarists? Toronto and London: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aydınkaya, F. (2016). Aşiret, şeriat, anomali: Kürtlerde hukukun tarihi ve sosyolojisi [Tribe, Sharia, Anomaly: History and Sociology of Law in the Kurds]. Mesele, 115.Google Scholar
  9. Aykan, Y. (2016). Rendre la justice à Amid: Procédures, Acteurs et Doctrines Dans le Contexte Ottoman du XVIIIème Siècle. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bali, R. N. (2005). Bir Türkleştirme Serüveni: Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Türkiye Yahudileri, 1923–1945 [A Turkification Adventure: The Jews of the Republic of Turkey’s, 1923–1945]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  11. Başarır, Ö. (2014). XVIII. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Osmanlı Mali Uygulamaları Çerçevesinde Konargöçer Topluluklar [XVIII. Nomad Communities in the First Half of the Century Within the Frame of Ottoman Financial Practices]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 54(2), 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bayır, D. (2013). Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law. Farnham: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Bayır, D. (2014). The Role of the Judicial System in the Politicide of the Kurdish Opposition. In G. Gunes & W. Zeydanlıoğlu (Eds.), The Kurdish Question in Turkey: New Perspectives on Violence, Representation and Reconciliation (pp. 21–46). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Bayır, D. (2017). Türk Hukukunda Azınlıklar ve Milliyetçilik [Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law]. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
  15. Borucka-Arctowa M. (1976). Citizen Participation in the Administration of Justice: Research and Policy in Poland. In L. M. Friedman & M. Rehbinder (Eds.), Zur Soziologie des Gerichtsverfahrens. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie (Vol. 4). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brouillet, E. (2017). The Supreme Court of Canada: The Concept of Cooperative Federalism and Its Effect on the Balance of Power. In N. Aroney & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists of Unionist (pp. 135–164). Toronto and London: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruinessen, M. (1992). Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structure of Kurdistan. London, NJ: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  18. Carlson, S. N. (2006). Legal and Judicial Rule of Law Work in Multi-dimensional Peacekeeping Operations: Lessons Learned Study. UN Peacekeeping Best Practice Unit.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, R. (2011). Customary Legal Empowerment: Towards a More Critical Approach. In J. Ubink & T. Mclnerney (Eds.), Customary Justice: Perspectives on Legal Empowerment, No. 3 (pp. 43–66). Rome: IDLO.Google Scholar
  20. Duman, Y. (2017). Peace Building in a Conflict Setting: Peace and Reconciliation Committees in De-facto Rojava Autonomy in Syria. Journal of Peace Building & Development, 12(1), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eichhorst, K. (2010). Asymmetric Autonomy and Power Sharing for Sri Lanka: A Political Solution to Ethnic Conflict. In M. Weller & K. Nobbs (Eds.), Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflict (pp. 252–277). Philadelphia and Oxford: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  22. Ekinci, E. B. (2000). Tanzimat Devri Osmanlı Mahkemeleri [Tanzimat Period Ottoman Courts]. Yeni Türkiye, 6(31), 764–773.Google Scholar
  23. Ekinci, E. B. (2005). Osmanlı Devleti’nde Mahkemeler ve Kadılık Müessesesi Literatürü [Literature on Courts and Kadhi Institution in the Ottoman State]. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, 13, 417–439.Google Scholar
  24. El-Kazi, M. M. D. (1909). Studien aus dem Rechtsleben in Kurdistan. Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Rechtiswissenschaft, 22, 321–347.Google Scholar
  25. Faran, S. (2014). Is Tartan Fading. In S. Farran & E. Örücü (Eds.), A Study of Mixed Legal Systems Endangered, Entrenched or Blended (pp. 13–34). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Galanter, M. (1966). The Modernization of Law. In M. Weiner (Ed.), Modernization, the Dynamics of Growth (pp. 153–165). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Galanter, M. (1981). Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering and Indigenous Law. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 16, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gençer, F. (2011). Merkezîleşme Politikaları Sürecinde Yurtluk-Ocaklık Sisteminin Değişimi [Change of the Yurtluk-Ocaklik System in the Process of Centralization Politics]. http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/18/1627/17446.pdf.
  29. Gökalp, Z. (2013). Kürt Aşiretleri Hakkında Sosyolojik Tetkikler [Sociological Investigations on Kurdish Tribes]. İstanbul: Toker Yayınları.Google Scholar
  30. Gözel, O. (2007). The Implementation of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 in Eastern Anatolia. Unpublished Master thesis. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12608323/index.pdf.
  31. Grenfell, L. (2013). Promoting the Rule of Law in Post-conflict States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffiths, J. (1986). What Is Legal Pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 24, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Güneş, Ö. (2009). The Dynamics of Töre as the Ethos of Tribe in Kızıltepe. A Unpublished Master thesis, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.632.8039&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  34. Gürhan, V. (2012). 18. Yüzyıl Mardin Şehri [Mardin City in 18th Century]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. https://www.academia.edu/29412485/XVIII._Yüzyılda_Mardin_Şehri?auto=download.
  35. Harper, E. (2011). Working with Customary Justice Systems: Post Conflict and Fragile State. Rome: IDLO.Google Scholar
  36. İnalcık, H. (1986). ‘Mahkama’. Encyclopaedia of Islam, 6, 3–11. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  37. Karataş, Y., & Karasu, D. (2017). Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Miras Kalan Bir Mesele: Yurtluk-Ocaklık ve Emlak-ı Mazbuta Mukabili Maaşların Tasfiyesi [An Inherited Question From Ottoman to The Republic: Liquidation of Salaries of Yurtluk-Ocaklık and Subjugated Properties]. International Journal of Social Science, 56, 369–381.  https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaya, M. (2013). Modernleşme Sürecinde Aşiretlerin Dönüşümü: Şanlıurfa Aile ve Aşiret Dernekleri [Transformation of Tribes Within the Modernization Process: The Familial and Tribal Associations in Şanlıurfa]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı. http://acikerisim.selcuk.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/5725/331768.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  39. Kayaoğlu, T. (2010). Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kılıç, O. (1999). Yurtluk-Ocaklık ve Hükûmet Sancaklar Üzerine bazı Tespitler [Some Findings About the Yurktuk-Ocaklik and Hükûmet Sancaks]. OTAM, 10, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kılıç, O. (2001). Van Eyaletine Bağlı Sancaklar ve İdarî Statüleri (1558–1740) [The Sancaks of Van Province and Their Administrative Statues, 1558–1740]. Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 21, 189–210.Google Scholar
  42. McCaffrey, R., & O’Connel, F. (2012). Judicial Appointments in Northern Ireland, Research and Library Service Research Paper, http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2012/justice/1912.pdf.
  43. Miller, R. A. (2000). The Ottoman and Islamic Substratum of Turkey’s Swiss Civil Code. Journal of Islamic Studies, 11(3), 335–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nikitin, B. (1976). Kürtler (Kurds) Cilt –1. İstanbul: Özgürlük Yol Yayınları.Google Scholar
  45. Ortaylı, İ. (2010). Türkiye Teşkilat ve İdare Tarihi. Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat.Google Scholar
  46. Özcoşar, İ. (2009). Merkezîleşme Sürecinde Bir Taşra Kenti: Mardin (1800–1900) [A Town in the Process of Centralization: Mardin 1800–1900]. Mardin: Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
  47. Özoğlu, H. (2001). Nationalism and Kurdish Notables in the Late Ottoman-Early Republican Era. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 33(3), 383–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peeters, P., & Mosselmans, J. (2017). The Constitutional Court of Belgium: Safeguard of the Autonomy of the Communities and Regions. In N. Aroney & J. Kincaid (Eds.), Courts in Federal Countries: Federalists of Unionist (pp. 69–102). Toronto and London: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rubin, A. (2007). Legal Borrowing and Its Impact on Ottoman Legal Culture in the Late Nineteenth Century. Continuity and Change, 22(2), 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sannerholm, R. (2007). Legal, Judicial and Administrative Reforms in Post-conflict Societies: Beyond the Rule of Law Template. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 12(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saydam, A. (2005). Trabzon’un İdarî Yapısı ve Yenileşme Zarureti (1793–1851) [Administrative Structure of Trabzon and Necessities for the Reforms, 1793–1851]. OTAM, 18(6), 285–317.Google Scholar
  52. Sezgin, Y. (2009). Legal Unification and Nation Building in the Post-colonial World: A Comparison of Israel and India. The Journal of Comparative Asian Development, 8(2), 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strohmeyer, H. (2001). Collapse and Reconstruction of a Judicial System: The United Nations Mission in Kosovo and East Timor. The American Journal of International Law, 95, 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tuğ, B. (2017). Politics of Honor in Ottoman Anatolia: Sexual Violence and Socio-legal Surveillance in the Eighteenth Century. Leiden: Berill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tural, E. (2008). Meşrutiyet Dönemi’nde Adliye ve Mezâhip Nezareti’nde Bürokratik Reform [The Ottoman Bureaucratic Reforms in the Ministry of Justice and Sectarian During the Second Constitution Era]. AÜHFD, 57(2), 223–252.Google Scholar
  56. Turan, I. (1984). Continuity and Change in Turkish Bureaucracy: The Kemalist Period and After. In J. M. Landau (Ed.), Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey (pp. 99–124). Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
  57. Ubicini, A. (1856). Letters on Turkey: An Account of the Religious, Political, Social and Commercial Condition of the Ottoman Empire, Part I (Lady Easthope, Trans.). London: W. Clowes and Sons.Google Scholar
  58. Ünal, M. A. (1992). XVI. Yüzyılda Palu Hükûmeti [Palu Government in the XVI. Century]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 241–265.Google Scholar
  59. Vallbé, J. (2014). Measuring the Judicial Power of Regions: A Judicial Regional Authority Index. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/8bab9f0e-3ba5-4b0a-895a-b569e2ae8fb6.pdf.
  60. Verstichel, A. (2009). Participation, Representation and Identity: The Right of Persons Belonging to Minorities to Effective Participation in Public Affairs: Content, Justification and Limits. Antwerp, Oxford, Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  61. Wellner, M., & Wolf, S. (2005). Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative Approaches to Institutional Design in Divided Society. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wojkowska, E. (2006). Doing Justice: How Informal Justice Systems Can Contribute. UNDP Oslo Centre. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/UNDP%20DoingJusticeEwaWojkowska130307.pdf.
  63. Wolf, S. (2010). Cases of Asymmetrical Territorial Autonomy. In M. Weller & K. Nobbs (Eds.), Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflict (pp. 17–47). Philadelphia and Oxford: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  64. Yılmazçelik, İ. (2010). Dersim Sancağının Kurulmasından Sonra Karşılaşılan Güçlükler ve Dersim Sancağı ile İlgili Bu Dönemde Yazılan Raporlar (1875–1918) [The Difficulties Encountered After the Establishment of Dersim Sancak and Reports Written in the Period, 1875–1918]. OTAM, 28, 163–214.Google Scholar
  65. Yılmazçelik, İ. (2012). XIX. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Taşra Teşkilatının Önemli Merkezlerinden Biri Olan Diyarbakır’da Bazı Görevlilerle İlgili Tespitler [Findings About of Some Officials in Diyarbakir Which Is One of the Important Centers of the Ottoman Provincial Organization in the XIX Century]. Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 31, 225–242.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derya Bayır
    • 1
  1. 1.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations