MİLLETLERARASI ANDLAŞMALARIN DENETLENMESİ
[ X ]
Tarih
2016
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
Özet
Milletlerarası andlaşmalar, devletlerarası ilişkilerin bir sonucu ola- rak ortaya çıkar. Devletler, çeşitli konularda taahhüt altına girerek ikili ve çoklu ilişkilerini devam ettirebilirler. Şüphesiz, hukuki işlem niteli- ğini taşıyan bu andlaşmaların denetim sistemi de mevcuttur. Ancak kimi devletler, bu denetimi sadece şekli denetim ile sınırlı tutarken, kimileri ise esasa ilişkin denetim kapısını yetkili yargı organlarına açmış, andlaşmaların Anayasalarına aykırılığını inceleme olanağı getirmiştir. Türkiye, bu konuda sadece şekli denetimi benimserken, Fransa, İspanya, Avusturya, Macaristan gibi devletler ise esasa ilişkin denetimi de kapsa- yan bir denetim mekanizması oluşturmuştur. Bu çerçevede Fransız ve İspanyol Anayasaları, önleyici denetim sistemini benimsemiştir. Fransız sisteminde Yüksek Mahkeme, milletlerarası andlaşmanın imzalandığı andan itibaren denetim yapabilir duruma gelmektedir. İspanya siste- minde ise, hem bazı milletlerarası andlaşmalar için parlamentodan izin alınması şartı getirilmiş, hem de yürürlük öncesi denetim için re’sen Yüksek Mahkeme’ye gönderebilme imkanı tanınmıştır. İki sistemde de milletlerarası andlaşmanın yürürlüğe girişi sonrası denetimi mümkün değildir. Avusturya ve Macaristan Anayasasında, önleyici ve düzeltici denetim olanağı tanınmıştır. Soyut ve somut norm denetiminin uygulan- dığı bir sistemdir.
International Treaties emerge as a result of relationships between states. States can only maintain their bilateral or multilateral relation- ships through commitments to various issues. No doubt there should be are viewing system of such treaties which may be def ined as an act in law. While some states make their reviews f or international treaties on the ground of procedures, some other make their reviews on substantive grounds by means of authorized j udicial bodies to determine whether it is compatible with their constitutional law. For example, Turkey adopted procedural review of international treaties, some countries such as France, Spain, Austria, and Hungary adopted a substantive review mechanism. Within this f ramework, Constitutional law of France and Spain have adopted preventive reviewing system. Supreme Court of France has the authority to make j udicial review of international treaties f rom signature dates of those treaties. As to Spanish j udicial system, f irstly the prior consent of parliament of Spain is required f or some in- ternational treaties, and secondly treaties can be send to the Supreme Court f or j udicial review bef ore entering into f orce. In both systems, treaties that are duly entered into f orce cannot be reviewed. In Austrian and Hungarian Constitutional Law, there are preventive and corrective j udicial review mechanisms which provide an application of abstract and concrete j udicial review.
International Treaties emerge as a result of relationships between states. States can only maintain their bilateral or multilateral relation- ships through commitments to various issues. No doubt there should be are viewing system of such treaties which may be def ined as an act in law. While some states make their reviews f or international treaties on the ground of procedures, some other make their reviews on substantive grounds by means of authorized j udicial bodies to determine whether it is compatible with their constitutional law. For example, Turkey adopted procedural review of international treaties, some countries such as France, Spain, Austria, and Hungary adopted a substantive review mechanism. Within this f ramework, Constitutional law of France and Spain have adopted preventive reviewing system. Supreme Court of France has the authority to make j udicial review of international treaties f rom signature dates of those treaties. As to Spanish j udicial system, f irstly the prior consent of parliament of Spain is required f or some in- ternational treaties, and secondly treaties can be send to the Supreme Court f or j udicial review bef ore entering into f orce. In both systems, treaties that are duly entered into f orce cannot be reviewed. In Austrian and Hungarian Constitutional Law, there are preventive and corrective j udicial review mechanisms which provide an application of abstract and concrete j udicial review.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk
Kaynak
Legal Hukuk Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
14
Sayı
157
Künye
Bu makale açık erişimli değildir.
