The Constitutional Court of Turkey

Prof. Dr. Silvia von Steinsdorff; Prof. Dr. Ece Göztepe LL.M.; Dr. Maria Abad Andrade; Dr. Felix Petersen

doi:10.5771/9783845288628

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2022
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-4632-3
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-8862-8
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Politik und Recht
Language: English
Pages: 720
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisPages 1 - 20 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. The AYM – an Influential but Under-Researched Institution
2. 2. Non-Legal Explanations of Judicial Behaviour and the AYM
3. 3. Interdisciplinary Analysis of AYM Rulings and its Politico-Legal Reasoning
4. 4. Plan of the Book
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1.1 The 1961 Constitution and the AYM
  2. 1.2 The 1982 Constitution and the AYM
2. 2. Selection of the Justices
3. 1. 3.1 Abstract Judicial Review
  2. 3.2 Concrete Judicial Review
  3. 3.3 The AYM as the Supreme Criminal Tribunal
  4. 3.4 Immunity and Loss of Membership Cases
  5. 3.5 Procedures for the Prohibition of Parties
  6. 3.6 Financial Checks on Political Parties
  7. 3.7 Constitutional Complaints
4. 1. 4.1 Suspensive Effect and Interim Measures
  2. 4.2 Scope of Decisions
  3. 4.3 Binding Force
5. 1. 5.1 Structure and Prominent Figures of the Court
  2. 5.2 Decision-Making Process
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. Content Analytical Approach
2. 2. AYM Rulings – a Quantitative Assessment
3. 3. The Sample: Selection Criteria and Overall Features
4. 1. 4.1 Political Party Ban Cases
  2. 1. 4.2.1 General Principles of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers
    2. 4.2.2 Judicial Independence
    3. 4.2.3 Decree Power
    4. 4.2.4 State Security and Anti-Terrorism
    5. 4.2.5 Presidency and Parliament
  3. 1. 4.3.1 Fundamental Rights vs. Principles of the Republic
    2. 4.3.2 Freedoms of Assembly and Association
    3. 4.3.3 Freedom of Speech and Media
    4. 4.3.4 Prisoners’ Rights and Fair Trial
    5. 4.3.5 Equality Before the Law and Gender Equality
5. 1. 5.1 Formal, Structural and Linguistic Incoherencies
  2. 5.2 Methods and Patterns of Argumentation
  3. 5.3 Key Concepts and Values
  4. 5.4 Internal Dissent and Doctrinal Inconsistency
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. How to Read the AYM’s Decisions
2. 1. 1. 1. A. Position of the Provisional Law on the Trial of Civil Servants in Our Legal System
      2. B. Structure of the Provisional Law on the Trial of Civil Servants
      3. C. Opinions against the Current System
      4. D. Issue of Unconstitutionality
    2. VI. CONCLUSION
  2. 1. V. MERITS
    2. VI. THE REQUEST OF STAY OF EXECUTION
    3. VII. CONCLUSION
  3. 1. V. MERITS
    2. A- General Explanation
    3. B- Examination of Sentences and Phrases to be Annulled
    4. 1- Examination of the phrase “Person or Commission to be authorised exclusively by the Prime Minister” in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Law No. 5397
    5. 2- Examination of the second sentence of additional Article 7 (10) of Law No. 2559 amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5397
    6. 3- Examination of the fifth sentence of additional Article 7 (10) of Law No. 2559 amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5397
  4. 1. V. MERITS
    2. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue
    3. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality
    4. VI. CONCLUSION
    5. DISSENTING OPINION
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
  5. 1. 1. a) The aims and meaning of the guarantees
      2. b) Issue of unconstitutionality of the provisions at issue
  6. 1. 1. 1- The preferential and urgent proceedings in the National Assembly
      2. 2- The preferential and urgent proceedings in the Senate of the Republic
      3. a) Adoption of the motion for a preferential and urgent debate without a renewed reading
      4. b) Issue of voting on the motion without debate
      5. 3- Issue of voting on Articles 1 and 6 without debate in the Senate of the Republic
  7. 1. 1. A - Review of Article 1
      2. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
      3. B- Review of Article 3
      4. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue
      5. 2. Issue of unconstitutionality
      6. a. Review with regard to Articles 140 and 159 of the Constitution
      7. b. Review with regard to Articles 8 and 104 of the Constitution
      8. C- Review of Article 4
      9. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue
      10. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
      11. D- Review of Article 6
      12. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue
      13. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
      14. E- Review of Article 8
      15. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue
      16. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
      17. a- Review with regard to Articles 8, 104, and 105 of the Constitution
      18. b- Review with regard to Article 159 of the Constitution
      19. F- Review of Article 12
      20. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue
      21. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
  8. 1. VI. MERITS
    2. 1- General consideration
    3. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality
  9. 1. IV. MERITS
  10. 1. 1. A. Constitutional Examination of the Scope of Decree Competences Given to the Council of Ministers by the TBMM
      2. 1- Reasons for Empowerment of the Council of Ministers
      3. 2- Characteristics of the Empowerment Given to the Council of Ministers
      4. 3- Condition and Content of the Enabling Law
      5. B. The Provision foreseen by Enabling Law No. 3481
      6. 1- Justification of the enabling law
      7. C. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Enabling Law No. 3481
      8. 1- Review of Constitutionality with regard to Article 87 and 91 of the Constitution
      9. 2- Review of Constitutionality with regard to the Preamble and Article 2 of the Constitution
      10. 3- Review of Constitutionality with regard to Article 7 of the Constitution
  11. 1. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
    2. REASONING OF THE APPLICATION
    3. CONCLUSION
  12. 1. 1. B. Constitutional Status of Enabling Laws and Statutory Decrees (KHK)
      2. C. Constitution and Privatisation
      3. D. Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 3987
      4. 1- Review with regard to Articles 35 and 91 of the Constitution
  13. 1. 1. B- Review with regard to Articles 2, 7, 87 and 91 of the Constitution
  14. 1. 1. A- Constitutional Review of Emergency Regimes especially of States of Emergency
      2. 1- Procedures of the state of emergency
      3. 2- (...)
      4. 3- Statutory decrees which can be enacted in times of emergency
      5. a. Content of state of emergency decrees
      6. c. Constitutional review of state of emergency decree laws
      7. B- State of Emergency KHKs No. 424 and 425
      8. 1- (...)
      9. 2- Statutory decree No. 425
      10. a- (...)
      11. b- Characteristics of KHKs and the issue of unconstitutionality of KHKs that are considered as lacking these characteristics
      12. aa- Examination with regard to Article 1
  15. 1. 1. A. Constitutional Review of Emergency Regimes especially of/in a State of Emergency
      2. 1- Procedures of the state of emergency
      3. 2. Restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms under state of emergency regimes
      4. 3. Statutory decrees which can be issued during the state of emergency
      5. a) Subject of state of emergency KHKs
      6. b) Spatial and temporal scope of state of emergency KHKs
      7. c) Review of state of emergency KHKs
      8. B. Statutory Decree No. 430
      9. 1 (…)
      10. 1- Examination in terms of Article 1
      11. 2. Examination in terms of Article 2
    2. V. CONCLUSION
  16. 1. III. THE LAW
    2. A. Provision at Issue
    3. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    4. V. MERITS
    5. VI. CONCLUSION
  17. 1. 1. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue
      2. a) (…)
      3. b) It is claimed that Article 1 violates the principle of legality of crimes and punishments governed under Article 38 of the Constitution.
      4. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue
  18. 1. 1. A- Provisions at Issue
    2. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    3. IV. STAY OF EXECUTION
    4. 1. 1. Issue of Unconstitutionality
  19. 1. V. MERITS
    2. A- Examination of Article 4, which amends Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (12/04/1991), i.e. the Anti-Terrorism Law, by adding the following sentence: "Provisions of this Article shall not apply to children...
    3. B- The Examination of Article 250 (4) of Law No. 5271 (04/12/2004) on Criminal Procedures, added through Article 8; and examination of Article 10 (A1) of the law under consideration
  20. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. THE TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY´S DECISION IN QUESTION
    3. III. JOINDER OF DECISIONS
    4. 1. A- With Regard to Procedure
      2. B- With Regard to Merits
    5. 1. A- Examination with Regard to the Claims of a Procedural Violation of the Constitution
      2. 1- The claim that Article 83 of the Constitution was violated in the process of removing the parliamentary immunity
      3. 2- The claims about the urgent discussion of the report of the Joint Committee in the plenary session
      4. 3- The claim that procedural rules of examination and debate were breached in the Plenary Session and the committees
      5. 4- The claim that the right to defense was ignored in the activities of Committees and the Plenary Session
      6. B- Examination With Regard to the Claims in Terms of Merits
      7. a- The Meaning of Parliamentary Immunity and Indemnity
      8. b- Examination of the Facts
      9. 1- Whether the acts that led to the removing of parliamentary immunity are governed under the principle of indemnity
      10. 2- Whether the accusation was so serious that it demanded the removal of parliamentary immunity
      11. 3- Whether or not the decision to remove the parliamentary immunity was politically motivated
    6. VI. CONCLUSION
  21. 1. I. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST OF ANNULMENT AND STAY OF EXECUTION
    2. II. THE LAW
    3. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    4. IV. MERITS
    5. DISSENTING OPINION
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
    7. 1. General assessment
    8. 1. 1- Whether the TBMM decision at issue constitutes an amendment of the Rules of Procedure
      2. 2- Concerning the merits of the issue
  22. 1. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
  23. 1. IV. MERITS
    2. F- Review of Provisional Article 1 of the Law at Issue
    3. 1- Concerning the first paragraph
    4. 2- Concerning the second paragraph
    5. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION
    6. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION
    7. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION
3. 1. 1. 1. A - Review with Regard to the Term “one's religion” as stated in Article 43 of the Law on Civil Registration
      2. 1 - Because of their close relation to each other, Articles 2 and 19 of the Constitution shall be examined first
      3. 2 - Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution
      4. 3 - Review with regard to Article 20 of the Constitution
      5. B - Review of Article 46 of the Law on Civil Registration in Accordance with the Decision to Limit the Review
    2. DISSENTING OPINION
    3. DISSENTING OPINION
  2. 1. 1. A. Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality
      3. 1- Review with regard to Article 2 of the Constitution
      4. a- Religion cannot have any influence and control over state affairs.
      5. b- Without discrimination all religions have constitutional protection.
      6. c- Where religion exceeds the individual's spiritual life and actions and behaviour have an effect on societal life, it is possible to limit the freedom of religion in order to protect public order, s...
      7. d- The State has regulatory power in issues pertaining to religious rights and freedoms in order to protect public order and rights.
      8. 2- Review with regard to Article 24 of the Constitution
    2. DISSENTING OPINION
    3. DISSENTING OPINION
    4. DISSENTING OPINION
  3. 1. 1. A. Review with Regard to the Preamble of the Constitution
      2. B. Review with Regard to Article 2 of the Constitution
      3. C. Review with Regard to Article 10 of the Constitution
      4. D. Review with Regard to Article 24 of the Constitution
      5. E. Review with Regard to Article 174 of the Constitution
    2. DISSENTING OPINION
  4. 1. IV. EXAMINATION OF PROCEDURAL CONFORMITY
    2. A- Legislative process
    3. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality
    4. 1- Examination of the request to declare null and void
    5. 2 - Examination of the annulment request
    6. a) Possibility of proposal
    7. b) Concerning the content
    8. 1. 1- PROCEDURAL ISSUES
      2. 2- ON THE GROUNDS
    9. DISSENTING OPINION
  5. 1. 1. A- Provision at Issue
    2. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    3. 1. B - Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 3278 with regard to Article 3 and the Preamble of the Constitution
      2. 1- On the Constitutionality of the Right of Foreign States to Acquire Property in Turkey
      3. 2- Issue of conformity of granting the right to acquire real estate property in Turkey to foreign natural persons with the Constitution
  6. 1. V. MERITS
    2. DISSENTING OPINION
    3. DISSENTING OPINION
  7. 1. 1. 1. (…)
      2. 2. (…)
      3. 3. Concerning the applicant's request with regard to Article 11 of the Law on Associations
    2. IV. CONCLUSION
  8. 1. 1. A- Issue of Unconstitutionality with Regard to the Form of the Provisions at Issue
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality with Regard to the Content of the Provisions at Issue
      3. 1- Concerning some constitutional principles and concepts relevant for the issue at hand
      4. 2- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the terms “verbal or” in Article 9 (3) of Law No. 171 added by Law No. 1932
      5. 3- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Article added as Article 10 of Law No. 171 by Law No. 1932
      6. a) (…)
      7. b) (…)
    2. V. CONCLUSION
  9. 1. V. MERITS
    2. A- Review of Article 11 (2nd sentence)
    3. B- Review of Article 28 (3)
    4. 1) Issue of Restriction
    5. 2) Issue of Unconstitutionality
  10. 1. 1. 2- Regarding the application in light of Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 765 (01/03/1926):
      2. a) To praise an action that is counted as a crime by law,
      3. b) To prompt the people to disobey the law.
      4. c) To prompt hate and hostility among some social classes in a way that threatens public security.
  11. 1. II. THE LAW
    2. 1- Provision at Issue
    3. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    4. IV. STAY OF EXECUTION
    5. V. MERITS
    6. A. Meaning and Scope
    7. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality
    8. VI. THE ISSUE OF DATE OF ENTERING INTO FORCE OF THE RULING FOR ANNULMENT
  12. 1. 1. A- Preliminary Examination
      2. 1- Issue of agenda
      3. 2- Whether the examination of the case lies within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
      4. 3- Issue of conformity of the case with the conditions for preliminary examination
      5. 4- Issue of stay of execution of the law at issue
      6. 5- The issue of getting the documents
      7. b) At the end of the examination, for the reasons mentioned above, the Court ruled that:
      8. b) Therefore, it was decided that;
    2. 1. A- Issue of Re-arrangement of the Agenda
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 1576
      3. 1- The problem caused by the way of sending the file regarding the enforcement of the death sentence
      4. 2- The problem deriving from the position of the Presidency Council of the National Assembly during the readings
      5. 3- The problem deriving from the priority and urgency decisions which were taken in plenary sessions of the National Assembly and the Senate of the Republic
      6. C- Other Claims of Violation
      7. Ç- Issue of Publishing the Part Concerning the Annulment
    3. V. CONCLUSION
    4. DISSENTING OPINION
    5. DISSENTING OPINION
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
    7. 1. 1- Issue of the agenda for preliminary examination
      2. 2- Issue of the arrangement of the agenda regarding substantial examination
      3. 3- Issue of the time span for distributing the agenda of the substantial examination report
      4. 4- Issue of taking a decision on stay of execution
  13. 1. 1. C) Question of Unconstitutionality of the Provisions at Issue
      2. 1- Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to procedural requirements
      3. a) Issue of voting on the provisions of the law separately
      4. b) Issue of voting only the text of the Joint Committee without voting other texts
      5. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to merits
      6. 3- Date of entering into force of the ruling for annulment
    2. V. CONCLUSION
    3. 1. I. Whether the case falls into the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
    4. 1. 1. Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to procedural requirements
    5. DISSENTING OPINION
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
    8. DISSENTING OPINION
    9. DISSENTING OPINION
  14. 1. 1. REASONS FOR APPLICATION
    2. V. MERITS
    3. DISSENTING OPINION
  15. 1. V. MERITS
    2. DISSENTING OPINION
  16. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. 1. (a) Provision at Issue
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. 1. A. Content of the Provision Subject to the Application
      2. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality by the Provision Subject to the Application
      3. 1- Review of the provision with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution
      4. 2- Review of the provision with regard to Article 12 (1) and 19 (1) of the Constitution
      5. 3- Review of the provision with regard to Article 17 (1) of the Constitution
    6. IV. CONCLUSION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
    8. DISSENTING OPINION
    9. DISSENTING OPINION
  17. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. 1. A. Provision at Issue
      2. B. Relevant Constitutional Provisions
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. 1. A. Issue of Restriction
      2. B. Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue
      3. C. Issue of Unconstitutionality
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
  18. 1. 1. A. Provision at Issue
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    3. V. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR THE STAY OF EXECUTION
    4. 1. A- Decision of Joinder
      2. B- The Provision to be Applied and the Issue of Restriction
      3. C- Issue of Unconstitutionality
      4. 1- Examination of the notion “without complaint” with regard to sub-paragraph (a)
      5. 2- Examination of the notion “penalty shall be increased by half” with regard to sub-paragraph (a)
    5. VII. CONCLUSION
    6. DISSENTING OPINION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
  19. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. III. THE LAW
    4. A- Provision at Issue
    5. B- Relevant Legal Provision
    6. C- Relevant Constitutional Provisions
    7. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    8. V. MERITS
    9. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue
    10. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality
    11. C- Coming Into Force of the Decision
  20. 1. III. THE LAW
    2. A. Provisions at issue
    3. B- Relevant Constitutional Provisions
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. V. MERITS
    6. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at issue
    7. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality
    8. C- Coming into Force of the Decision
    9. VI. CONCLUSION
    10. DISSENTING OPINION
  21. 1. 1. A. Provision at Issue
      2. c) Occupation or profession of the wife
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    3. 1. a) Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution
      2. b) Review with regard to Article 49 of the Constitution:
      3. c) Review with regard to Article 50 of the Constitution:
    4. VI. CONCLUSION
  22. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. III. THE LAW
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. V. MERITS
    6. VI. CONCLUSION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
  23. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. III. THE LAW
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. 1. A. Meaning and Scope of the Provision Subject to the Application
      2. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality
    6. VI. CONCLUSION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
  24. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRALS
    3. 1. A. Provision at Issue
      2. B. Relevant Constitutional Provisions
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. V. JOINDER OF DECISIONS
    6. VI. MERITS
    7. VII. CONCLUSION
    8. DISSENTING OPINION
    9. DISSENTING OPINION
    10. DISSENTING OPINION
  25. 1. I. THE CASE
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL
    3. 1. A) Provision at Issue
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    5. 1. A) General Explanation
      2. B) Examination of Provisions at Issue with Regard to the Constitution
      3. 1. Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution:
      4. 2- Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution
      5. 3- Review with regard to Article 35 of the Constitution
      6. 4- Review with regard to Article 41 of the Constitution
    6. VI. CONCLUSION
    7. DISSENTING OPINION
    8. DISSENTING OPINION
    9. DISSENTING OPINION
  26. 1. 1. A) Provision at Issue
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
    3. 1. A) Issue of Restriction
      2. B) Meaning and Scope of the Provision Subject to the Application
      3. 1) The relevant regulation in the preliminary draft of the Turkish Civil Code
      4. 2) The provision at issue with regard to the Civil Amnesty Laws
      5. 3) Approach of the Constitutional Court on the legal status of children with illegitimate lineage
      6. C) Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue
      7. 1- Review with regard to Article 5 of the Constitution:
      8. 2- Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution:
      9. 3- Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution
      10. 4- Review with regard to Article 41 of the Constitution:
    4. VI. CONCLUSION
    5. DISSENTING OPINION
  27. 1. 1. A- Meaning and Scope of Article 34 of Law No. 506 on Social Insurance
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue
      3. 1. Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution
      4. 2. Review with regard to Article 17 and Article 56 of the Constitution
      5. 3. Review with regard to Article 60 and Article 65 of the Constitution
    2. VI. CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONPages 687 - 696 Download chapter (PDF)
REFERENCESPages 697 - 712 Download chapter (PDF)
INDEXPages 713 - 720 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (222 entries)

Abad Andrade, Maria 2020. Verfassungsgerichtliche Entscheidungsfindung und ihre Folgen. Das Türkische Verfassungsgericht zwischen Mehrheitslogik und Konsensverfahren. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Ahmad, Feroz 1993. The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Akbulut, Olgun 2010. „Criteria Developed by the European Court of Human Rights on the Dissolution of Political Parties” in Form International Law Journal 34, 1, pp. 46-77. Open Google Scholar
Aksoy, Muammer 1962. Anayasa Mahkemesi Üyelerinin Seçim Konusundaki Tartışma (Ve Bunun Ortaya Çıkardığı Kamu Hukuku Meseleleri). Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Open Google Scholar
Aliefendioğlu, Yılmaz 1996. Anayasa Yargısı ve Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Altunışık, Meliha Benli; Tür, Özlem 2005. Turkey. Challenges of continuity and change. New York, NY: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Arato, Andrew 2010. “The Constitutional Reform Proposal of the Turkish Government: The Return of Majority Imposition”, in Constellations 17, 2, pp. 345–50. Open Google Scholar
Arold, Nina-Louisa 2007. The Legal Culture of the European Court of Human Rights. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Open Google Scholar
Arsel, İlhan 1970. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Bazı Eğilimleri Üzerine Görüşler ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarından Özetler. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Open Google Scholar
Arslan, Zühtü 2002. “Conflicting Paradigms: Political Rights in the Turkish Constitutional Court”, in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 11, 1, pp. 9–25. Open Google Scholar
Arslan, Zühtü 2005. Anayasa Teorisi. Ankara: Seçkin. Open Google Scholar
Ars lan, Zühtü 2007. “Reluctantly Sailing Towards Political Liberalism: The Political Role of the Judiciary in Turkey”, in Fighting for Political Freedom. Comparative Studies on the Legal Complex and Political Liberalism, eds. Halliday, Terence C.; Karpik, Lucien; Feeley, Malcom M., pp. 219-246. Oxford, Portland (OR): Hart Publishing. Open Google Scholar
Arslan, Zühtü 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesinin “Yorum Tekeli”, Yargısal Üstünlük ve Demokrasi”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 59–89. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Aybar, Mehmet Ali 2014. Türkiye İşçi Partisi Tarihi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Aydin-Cakir, Aylin 2018 . “The impact of judicial preferences and political context on Constitutional Court decisions: Evidence from Turkey”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, 4, pp. 1101–1120. Open Google Scholar
Azrak, A. Ülkü 2007. „Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Türkei“, in Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Teilband I: Berichte, eds. Luchterhandt, Otto; Starck, Christian; Weber, Albrecht, pp. 213–236. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A.; Maltzman, Forrest 2011. The constrained court. Law, politics, and the decisions justices make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
Bâli, Aslı 2010. Unpacking Turkey’s ‘Court-Packing’ Referendum, 11.05.2010, in MERIP. https://merip.org/2010/11/unpacking-turkeys-court-packing-referendum/ (last accessed: 15/07/2020). Open Google Scholar
Bâli, Aslı 2011-2012. “The Perils of Judicial Independence: Constitutional Transition and the Turkish Example”, i n Virginia Journal of International Law 52, 2, pp. 235–320. Open Google Scholar
Bâli, Aslı 2013. “Courts and Constitutional Transition: Lessons from the Turkish Case”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 666–701. Open Google Scholar
Barkow, Rachel E. 2002. „More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy”, in Columbia Law Review 102, 2, pp. 237-336. Open Google Scholar
Balta, Tahsin Bekir 1968. “Das türkische Verfassungsgericht”, in Hundert Jahre Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Fünfzig Jahre Verfassungsgerichtshof in Österreich, eds. Ermacora, Felix; Klecatsky, Hans; Marcic, René, pp. 47–72. Wien: Europa Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Barın, Taylan 2020. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamelerinin Hukuki Rejimi ve Anayasallık Denetimi. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Başlar, Kemal 2012. „The Fifty Years of the Constitutional Court of Turkey (1962-2012)“, in Law & Justice Review 3, 4, pp. 13–58. Open Google Scholar
Belge, Ceren 2006. “Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey”, in Law & Society Review 40, 3, pp. 653–692. Open Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2010. “The Return of Political Theology: The Scarf Affair in Comparative Constitutional Perspective in France, Germany and Turkey”, in Philosophy & Social Criticism 36, 3/4, pp. 451–471. Open Google Scholar
Bilgin, Mehmet Fevzi 2008. “Constitution, Legitimacy and Democracy in Turkey”, in Constitutional politics in the Middle East. With special reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, ed. Arjomand, Saïd Amir, pp. 123–146. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Open Google Scholar
Boulanger, Christian 2013. Hüten, richten, gründen: Rollen der Verfassungsgerichte in der Demokratisierung Deutschlands und Ungarns. Berlin: epubli. Open Google Scholar
Brown, Nathan J.; Waller, Julian G. 2016. “Constitutional courts and political uncertainty: Constitutional ruptures and the rule of judges”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 14, 4, pp. 817–850. Open Google Scholar
Bundesverfassungsgericht 2014. Entscheidungen mit oder ohne Sondervotum in der amtlichen Sammlung (BVerfGE), Bände 30-132 (1971-2013). https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/organisation/gb2013/A-I-7.html (last access 28.10.2014). Open Google Scholar
Can, Osman 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court as Defender of the Raison d’Etat”, in Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries. Between Upheaval and Continuity, eds. Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J., pp. 259–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Cappelletti, Mauro 1989. The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Open Google Scholar
Casanova, José 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
Celep, Ödül 2012. “The Political Causes of Party Closures in Turkey”, in Parliamentary Affairs 67, 2, pp. 1–20. Open Google Scholar
Çalışkan, Koray 2018. “Toward a new political regime in Turkey: From competitive toward full authoritarianism”, in New Perspectives on Turkey 58, pp. 5–33. Open Google Scholar
Celep, Ödül 2014. “The Political Causes of Party Closures in Turkey”, in Parliamentary Affairs 67, 2, pp. 371-390. Open Google Scholar
Cohen, Mathilde 2014. „Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Deliberations: Two Models of Judicial Deliberations in Courts of Last Resort“, in American Journal of Comparative Law 62, 4, pp. 401–458. Open Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court. Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Coşkun, Vahap 2010. “Turkey’s Illiberal Judiciary: Cases and Decisions”, in Insight Turkey 12, 4, pp. 43–67. Open Google Scholar
Da Silva, Virgílio Afonso 2013. “Deciding Without Deliberating”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 557–584. Open Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker”, in Journal of Public Law 6, pp. 279–295. Open Google Scholar
Daly, Tom G. 2017. The Alchemists: Questioning our Faith in Courts as Democracy-Builders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Davis, Sue 1999. “The Chief Justice and Judicial Decision-Making: The Institutional Basis of Leadership on the Supreme Court”, in Supreme Court Decision-Making. New Institutionalist Approaches, eds. Clayton, Cornell W.; Gillman, Howard, pp. 135–154. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar
Döner, Ayhan 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Gerekçelerinin Bağlayıcılığına İlişkin Bazı Sorunlar”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 215-233. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Dyevre, Arthur 2010. “Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behaviour”, in European Political Science Review 2, 2, pp. 297–327. Open Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee; Knight, Jack 1997. The Choices Justices Make. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. Open Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee; Knight, Jack; Shvetsova, Olga 2001. “The Role Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government”, in Law & Society Review 35, 1, pp. 117-164. Open Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee; Segal, Jeffrey; Spaeth, Harold; Walker, Thomas 2012. The Supreme Court Compendium. Data, Decisions, and Developments, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. Open Google Scholar
Erdem, Fazıl Hüsnü 2004. “Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında Siyasal Partilerin Kapatılması: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”, in Hukuk ve Adalet 1, 4, pp. 252–301. Open Google Scholar
Ergül, Ozan (ed.) 2005. Democracy and the Judiciary. Ankara: TBB. Open Google Scholar
Ergül, Ozan 2007. Yeni Kurumsalcı Yaklaşımla Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Demokrasi. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi. Open Google Scholar
Ergül, Ozan 2014. “On Yıl Süreli Denetim Yasağının Kapsamını Genişleten Anayasa Mahkemesi İçtihadı: Anayasaya Uygunluk Denetiminde Sessiz Bir Geri Adım”, in Akademik Yaşamının 55. Yılı Onuruna Rona Aybay’a Armağan, pp. 863-895. İstanbul: Legal Yayı nları . Open Google Scholar
Ergül, Ozan 2016. Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında İçtihat İstikrarsızlığı. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi. Open Google Scholar
Esen, Bülent Nuri 1966. Anayasa Mahkemesine Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku Anlayışı. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. Open Google Scholar
Ewert, Stephan; Hein, Michae l 2016. „Der Einfluss der Verfahrensarten auf die Politisierung europäischer Verfassungsgerichte. Deutschland, Bulgarien und Portugal im Vergleich“, in Politische Vierteljahresschrift 57, 1, pp. 53–78. Open Google Scholar
Favoreu, Louis / Loïc, Philip 2009. Les grandes décisions du Conseil constitutionnel, Paris: Dalloz. Open Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John; Pasquino, Pasquale 2002. „Constitutional Courts as Deliberative Institutions: Towards an Institutional Theory of Constitutional Justice“, in Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in A Comparative Perspective, ed. Sadurski, Wojciech, pp. 21–36. The Hague, New York: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John; Pasquino, Pasquale 2004. “Constitutional Adjudication: Lessons from Europe”, in Texas Law Review 82, 7, pp. 1671–1704. Open Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John; Rosenbluth, Frances; Shipan, Charles 2009. “Comparative Judicial Politics”, in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles; Stokes, S.C., pp. 727–751. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Feyzioğlu, Turhan 1951. Kanunların Anayasaya Uygunluğunun Kazai Murakabesi. Ankara: Güney Matbaacılık. Open Google Scholar
Gençkaya, Ömer Faruk; Özbudun, Ergun 2009. Democratization and the Politics of Constitution-making in Turkey. Budapest: Central European University Press. Open Google Scholar
Giles, Michael W.; Blackstone, Bethany; Vining, Richard L. 2008. “The Supreme Court in American Democracy. Unraveling the Linkage Between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making”, in The Journal of Politics 70, 2, pp. 293–306. Open Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom 2003. Judicial review in new democracies. Constitutional courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom; Moustafa, Tamir 2008. Rule by law. The politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Gönenç , Levent 2004. “The 2001 Amendments to the 1982 Constitution of Turkey”, in Ankara Law Review 1, 1, pp. 89-109. Open Google Scholar
Gönenç , Levent 2008. “Presidential elements in government: Turkey”, in European Constitutional Law Review 4, 3, pp. 488–523. Open Google Scholar
Gözler, Kemal 2011. Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi. Cilt: II. Bursa: Ekin. Open Google Scholar
Gözler, Kemal 2015. Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, 18. Baskı. Bursa: Ekin. Open Google Scholar
Gözler, Kemal 2020. Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, 25. Baskı. Bursa: Ekin. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 1998. Anayasa Şikayeti. Ankara: AÜHF Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2004. “Die Kopftuchdebatte in der Türkei – Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme für die deutsche Diskussion”, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 33-34, pp. 32–38. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2007a. “Sevilmeyen Anayasayı Kim Korumak İster? 2007 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçimlerinin Hukuki Bir Değerlendirmesi”, in Haziran 2007, 218, pp. 69-84. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2007b. “Türkiye’de Bir Rejim Sorunu Olarak Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçimi – Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirme”, in Cumhurbaşkanı Seçimi Öncesi Cumhurbaşkanlığı. Türkiye Barolar Birliği (ed.), Sempozyum – Ankara 12-13 Ocak 2007 içinde, pp. 193-212. Ankara: TBB Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2010. "Eine Analyse der Verfassungsänderungen in der Türkei vom 7. Mai 2010: Ein Schritt in Richtung mehr Demokratie?”, in EuGRZ, 22–23, pp. 685–700. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2015. “Die Einführung der Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Türkei – Eine Zwischenbilanz (2012-2014)“, in Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts 63, pp. 485–542. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2017. “Ein Paradigmenwechsel für den Sicherheitsstaat: Die Praxis des Ausnahmezustandes im Südosten der Türkei”, in Ausnahmezustand, ed. Matthias Lemke, pp. 105-127. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2018a. Turkey, the Constitutional Amendment of April 2017 as a Transition to a ‘State-Presidential System’, 23.10.2018, in Reset Dialogues. https://www.resetdoc.org/story/constitutional-amendment-april-2017-turkey-crucial-transition-unknown-state-presidential-system/ (last accessed: 15.07.2020). Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2018b. “The Permanency of the State of Emergency in Turkey. The Rise of a Constituent Power or Only a New Quality of the State?”, in Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 28, pp. 521–534. Open Google Scholar
Göztepe, Ece 2018c. “Normative Foundations of the Right to Individual Complaint in Turkey with a Case Study on Electoral Rights”, Research and Policy on Turkey, 1/2018, pp. 68-89. Open Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter; Kirchhof, Paul; Eichberger, Michael, eds., 2007. Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Studienauswahl, 3rd ed., Heidelberg: Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter 2019. “What Exactly Is Political about Constitutional Adjudication?”, in Judicial Power. How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, ed. Landfried, Christine, pp. 307–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Grunwald, Wolfgang 1996. „Psychologische Gesetzmäßigkeiten der Gruppenarbeit. Über die Grundbedingungen erfolgreicher Zusammenarbeit“, in Personalführung 9, pp. 740–750. Open Google Scholar
Gülener, Serdar; İrfan Haşlak 2011. “Relations between Politics and Constitutional Review in Turkey with Special Reference to the Referrals of Republican People’s Party: 2002-2010 Period”, in Alternatives. Turkish Journal of International Relations 10, 2-3, pp. 1–19. Open Google Scholar
Gülsoy, Mehmet Tevfik 2007. Özgürlüklerin Korunmasında Anayasa Yargısının Yeri ve Meşruluğu. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Güney, Aylin; Başkan, Filiz 2008. “Party Dissolutions and Democratic Consolidation: The Turkish Case”, in South European Society and Politics 13, 3, pp. 263–281. Open Google Scholar
Güney, Necla 2002. “Das Antiterrorgesetz-Urteil des türkischen Verfassungsgerichts vom 6. Januar 1999”, in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 62, pp. 461–475. Open Google Scholar
Haimerl, Maria 2017a. „Ein Gericht im Ausnahmezustand: das Türkische Verfassungsgericht nach dem Putschversuch“, in Zeitschrift für Recht und Islam (ZRI) 9, pp. 247–264. Open Google Scholar
Haimerl, Maria 2017b. “The Turkish Constitutional Court under the Amended Turkish Constitution”, in Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-turkish-constitutional-court-under-the-amended-turkish-constitution/ (last accessed: 15.07.2020). Open Google Scholar
Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesi Karar Gerekçelerinin Bağlayıcılığı Sorunu”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 365-398. Ankara: Yetkin. Open Google Scholar
Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki 2009. Hukuk ve Siyaset Ekseninde Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargısal Aktivizmi ve İnsan Hakları Anlayışı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris 2012. “Dissent in Iberia: The Ideal Points of Justices on the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Tribunals”, in European Journal of Political Research 51, 5, pp. 671–692. Open Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris 2012. “The Bulgarian Constitutional Court as an Additional Legislative Chamber”, in East European Politics & Societies 28, 3, pp. 540–558. Open Google Scholar
Harding, Andrew; Leyland, Peter (eds.) 2009. Constitutional Courts. A Comparative Study. London: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill. Open Google Scholar
Hazama, Yasushi 1996. “Constitutional Review and the Parliamentary Opposition in Turkey”, in The Developing Economies 34, 3, pp. 316–338. Open Google Scholar
Hazama, Yasushi 2011. “Hegemonic Preservation or Horizontal Accountability: Constitutional Review in Turkey”, in International Political Science Review 33, 4, pp. 421–440. Open Google Scholar
Hein, Michael 2012. “Macht oder Recht? Der Einfluss der Verfahrensarten auf die Politisierung südosteuropäischer Verfassungsgerichte”, in Herrschaft in Südosteuropa. Kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, eds. Grigore, Mihai-D.; Dinu, Radu Harald; Živojinović, Marc, pp. 55–78. Göttingen: V&R unipress. Open Google Scholar
Heper, Metin 1985. „The state and public bureaucracies: A comparative and historical perspective”, in Comparative Studies in Society and History 27, 1, pp. 86–110. Open Google Scholar
Hirsch, Ernst E. 1975. “Verfassungsgericht und politische Gewalt in der Türkei. Analyse zweier Entscheidungen des türkischen Verfassungsgerichts”, in Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, Band: 100, pp. 52–79. Open Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran 2004. “’Juristocracy’ – Political, not Juridical”, in The Good Society 13, 3, pp. 6–11. Open Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran 2005. “Preserving Hegemony – Assessing the Political Origins of the EU Constitution”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 3, 2-3, pp. 269–291. Open Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran 2007. Towards Juristocracy. The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran 2018. Verfassungsrecht und vergleichende Politikwissenschaft – an den Grenzen der Disziplinen. In: Die Grenzen der Verfassung Nomos, pp. 15-30. Open Google Scholar
Hönnige, Christoph 2006. „Die Entscheidungen von Verfassungsgerichten – ein Spiegel ihrer Zusammensetzung?“, in Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie Band 4, eds. Thomas Bräuninger, Joachim Behnke, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 179-214. Open Google Scholar
Hübner Mendes, Conrado 2013. Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Ishiyama Smithey, Shannon; Ishiyama, John 2002. “Judicial activism in post-communist politics”, in Law and Society Review 36, 4, pp. 719–742. Open Google Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel 2015. Fragile Democracies. Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts. Cambridg e: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Is iksel, Turkuler 2013. “Between Text and Context: Turkey’s Tradition of Authoritarian Constitutionalism”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 702–726. Open Google Scholar
Jakab, András 2013. “Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective”, in German Law Journal 14, 8, pp. 1215-1275. Open Google Scholar
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2015. CONREASON – The Comparative Constitutional Reasoning Project. Methodological Dilemmas and Project Design. (MTA Law Working Papers 2015/9). http://jog.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/mtalwp/2015_09_jakab.pdf, (last access 11.01.2021). Open Google Scholar
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017a. “Introduction”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 1–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017b. “Conclusion”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 761–797. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017c. “Appendix”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 798–820. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Kaboğlu, İbrahim Ö. 2015. Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri (Genel Esaslar). Yenilenmiş ve Sadeleştirilmiş 10. Baskı. İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık. Open Google Scholar
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin 2019. “Elections, Parties, and the Party System”, in The Routledge Handbook of Turkish Politics, eds. Özerdem, Alpaslan; Whiting, Matthew, pp. 83–102. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin 2012. "Kulturkampf in Turkey: The Constitutional Referendum of 12 September 2010", in South European Society and Politics 17, 1, pp. 1–22. Open Google Scholar
Kanadoğlu, Korkut 2004. Anayasa Mahkemesi. İstanbul: Beta. Open Google Scholar
Karacaoğlu, Emine 2009. “1982 Anayasasının Anayasa Mahkemesine Üye Seçimi Tercihinden Kaynaklanan Sorunlar”, in Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Aliefendioğlu’na Armağan, pp. 227-254. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Kelemen, Katalin 2007. The Use of Dissenting Opinions by Constitutional Courts of East-Central Europe, Paper presented at the workshop “Constitutional Courts in Central and Eastern Europe: An Overview and Perspectives”, held at the University of Trento. Open Google Scholar
Kelemen, Katalin 2010. “The Road from Common Law to East-Central Europe: The Case of the Dissenting Opinion”, in Legal and Political Theory in the Post-National Age. Selected papers presented at the Second Central and Eastern European Forum for Legal, Political and Social Theorists (Budapest, 21-22 May 2010), eds. Cserne, Péter; Könczöl, Miklós, pp. 118-134. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar
Kelemen, Katalin 2013. “Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts”, in German Law Journal 14, 8, pp. 1345–1371. Open Google Scholar
Kelemen, Katalin 2018. Judicial dissent in European constitutional courts. A comparative and legal perspective. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Kıratlı, Metin 1966. Anayasa Yargısında Somut Norm Denetimi (İtiraz Yolu), Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Open Google Scholar
Kneip, Sascha 2009. Verfassungsgerichte als demokratische Akteure. Der Beitrag des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Qualität der bundesdeutschen Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Koçak, Mustafa; Esin Örücü 2003. “Dissolution of Political Parties in the Name of Democracy: Cases from Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights”, in European Public Law 9, 3, pp. 399–423. Open Google Scholar
Kogacioglu, Dicle 2003. “Dissolution of Political Parties by the Constitutional Court in Turkey. Judicial Delimitation of the Political Domain”, in International Sociology 18, 1, pp. 258–276. Open Google Scholar
Kogacioglu, Dicle 2004. “Progress, Unity, and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey”, in Law & Society Review 38, 3, pp. 433–461. Open Google Scholar
Korteweg, Anna C.; Gökçe Yurdakul 2014. The Headscarf Debates. Conflicts of National Belonging. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Köker, Levent 2010. “Turkey’s Political-Constitutional Crisis: An Assessment of the Role of the Constitutional Court”, in Constellations 17, 2, pp. 328–344. Open Google Scholar
Kranenpohl, Uwe 2010. Hinter dem Schleier des Beratungsgeheimnisses. Der Willensbildungs- und Entscheidungsprozess des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Kurnaz, A. Haluk 2006. “Üye Seçimi ve Bireysel Başvuru ile Bazı Yetki ve Görevleri Açısından Anayasa Mahkemesi”, Yasama Dergisi, 2, pp. 92-122. Open Google Scholar
Landfried, Christine 2019. “Introduction”, in Judicial Power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, ed. Landfried, Christine, pp. 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Lerch, Kent D. 2004. “Recht verstehen, eine Vorbemerkung”, in Die Sprache des Rechts (Band 1), Recht verstehen. Verständlichkeit, Missverständlichkeit und Unverständlichkeit von Recht, ed. Lercht, Kent D., pp. XV-XIX. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Open Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Karl 1937a. “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXI, No. 3, pp. 417-432. Open Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Karl 1937b. “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 638-358. Open Google Scholar
Lustig, Doreen; Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2018. „Judicial review in the contemporary world - Retrospective and prospective”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, 2, pp. 315–372. Open Google Scholar
Magalhães, Pedro C.; Coroado, Susana; Garoupa, Nuno 2017. “Judicial Behavior Under Austerity: An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Changes in the Portuguese Constitutional Court, 2002–2016”, in Journal of Law and Courts 5, 2, pp. 289–311. Open Google Scholar
Moore Kerr, Andrea 1992. Lucy Stone. Speaking out for Equality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Open Google Scholar
Moral, Mert; Tokdemir, Efe 2017. “Justices ‘en Garde’: ideological determinants of the dissolution of anti-establishment parties”, in International Political Science Review 38, 3, pp. 264–280. Open Google Scholar
Neumann, Ulfrid 2005. “Wahrheit statt Autorität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Legitimation durch Begründung im Recht“, in Die Sprache des Rechts (Band 2), Recht verhandeln. Argumentieren, Begründen und Entscheiden im Diskurs des Rechts, ed. Lercht, Kent D., pp. 369-384. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Open Google Scholar
Onar, Erdal 2003. Kanunların Anayasaya Uygunluğunun Siyasal ve Yargısal Denetimi ve Yargısal Denetim Alanında Ülkemizde Öncüler. Ankara. Open Google Scholar
Öden, Merih 2000. “Türk Anayasa Yargısında On Yıl Süreli Denetim Yasağı”, in Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 4, 55, pp. 47-81. Open Google Scholar
Öktem, Kerem 2011. Turkey since 1989. Angry nation. Halifax, London, New York: Zed Books. Open Google Scholar
Öngel, Murat 2017. “‚Anayasa’nın Eksiksiz, Tastamam Uygulanması’: Türkiye İşçi Partisi’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi’nde Açtığı İptal Davaları (1963 – 1971)”, ViraVerita E-Dergi 6, pp. 36-100. Open Google Scholar
Örücü, Esin 2009. “The Constitutional Court of Turkey: The Anayasa Mahkemesi as the Protector of the System”, in Constitutional Courts. A Comparative Study, eds. Harding, Andrew; Leyland, Peter, pp. 196–214. London: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 1997 “Constitution making and democratic consolidation in Turkey”, in Institutions and Democratic Statecraft, ed. Heper, Metin; Ali Kazancigil; Bert A. Rockman, pp. 229-243. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2000. Contemporary Turkish politics. Challenges to democratic consolidation. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2006. “Political Origins of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Problems of Democratic Legitimacy”, in European Public Law 12, 2, pp. 213–223. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2009. “Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Turkey”, in European Public Law 15, 4, pp. 533–538. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2010. “Party prohibition cases: different approaches by the Turkish constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights”, in Democratization 17, 1, pp. 125–142. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and Political Crisis”, in Democracy, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey, eds. Kuru, Ahmet T.; Stepan, Alfred, pp. 149–165. New York: Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2014. Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Gözden geçirilmiş 15. Baskı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Özbudun, Ergun 2021. Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Gözden geçirilmiş 21. Baskı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Öztürk, Kâzım 1966. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası, izahlı, gerekçeli, anabelgeli ve maddelere göre tasnifli bütün tutanakları (Vol. 2): Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Pekcanıtez, Hakan 1995. “Mukayeseli Hukukta Medeni Yargıda Verilen Kararlara Karşı Anayasa Şikayeti”, Anayasa Yargısı 12, pp. 257-287. Open Google Scholar
Perilli, Luca 2014. Needs Assessment Report on The Individual Application to the Constitutional Court of Turkey. Brussels: Council of Europe. Open Google Scholar
Peters, Pam 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Petersen, Felix; Yanaşmayan, Zeynep 2017. “The Final Trick? Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and the Recomposition of the Turkish State”, 28.01.2017, Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-final-trick-separation-of-powers-checks-and-balances-and-the-recomposition-of-the-turkish-state/ (last accessed: 15/07/2020). Open Google Scholar
Petersen, Felix; Yanaşmayan, Zeynep 2019. The Failure of Popular Constitution Making in Turkey: Regressing Towards Constitutional Autocracy, New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Piazolo, Michael 1994. Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und politische Fragen, die Political Ques tion Doktrin im Verfahren vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht und dem Supreme Court der USA. München: Ernst Vögel Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Raffaelli, Rosa 2012. Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States, Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/ 201304/20130423ATT64963/20130423ATT64963EN.pdf (last accessed: 29.10.2014). Open Google Scholar
Rawlinson, Kevin 2014. Turkey blocks use of Twitter after prime minister attacks social media site, 21.03.2014, in The Guardian online. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/turkey-blocks-twitter-prime-minister (last accessed: 19/10/2021). Open Google Scholar
Robertson, David 2010. The Judge as Political Theorist. Contemporary Constitutional Review. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
Röhl, Klaus; Röhl, Hans Christian 2008. Allgemeine Rechtslehre. Ein Lehrbuch. Köln: Heymann. Open Google Scholar
Roznai, Yaniv; Serkan Yolcu 2012; “An unconstitutional constitutional amendment – The Turkish perspective: A comment on the Turkish Constitutional Court’s headscarf decision”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 10, 1, pp. 175–207. Open Google Scholar
Rumpf, Christian 1990. “Türkisches Verfassungsgericht Urteil v. 7.3.1989, Rs. 1989/1, Ents. 1989/121 (‚Kopftuch-Urteil‘)“, in Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien, pp. 135–148. Open Google Scholar
Rumpf, Christian 1992. Das Rechtsstaatsprinzip in der türkischen Rechtsordnung. Bonn: Bouvier. Open Google Scholar
Rumpf, Christian 1998. “Das Verbot der Wohlfahrtspartei: Verteidigung des Laizismusprinzips durch das türkische Verfassungsgericht”, in Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien 2, pp. 285–293. Open Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 2006. “Conclusion”, in Appointing judges in an age of judicial power. Critical perspectives from around the world, eds. Russell, Peter H.; Malleson, Kate, pp. 420-436. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Open Google Scholar
Sabuncu, Yavuz 1982. “Federal Almanya’da Anayasa Şikayeti”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 37, 3-4, pp. 139-152. Open Google Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech (ed.) 2002. Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech 2009. “Judicial review in Central and Eastern Europe: rationales or rationalizations?”, in Israel Law Review 42, 3, pp. 500–527. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 1982 . Temel Hakların Sınırlanması ve Özü. Ankara: AÜSB F Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2005. “Religionsfreiheit und Laizismus nach den Entscheidungen des türkischen Verfassungsg erichts im Vergleich mit der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte”, in Zwischen Säkularität und Laizismus, eds. Depenheuer, Otto; Doğan, İlyas; Can, Osman, pp. 95–101. Münster: LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2006. “Die Türkei auf dem Weg zum Rechtsstaat – Stand und praktische Umsetzung der Reformen”, in Bitburger Gespräche, Jahrbuch 2005/II. pp. 179–198. München: C.H. Beck. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2008. “Der Einfluss der Lehre von Friedrich Müller auf das türkische Verfassungsrecht”, in Rechtstheorie in rechtspraktischer Absicht, Freundesgabe zum 70 Geburtstag von Friedrich Müller, eds. Chistensen, Ralph; Pieroth, Bodo, pp. 217–233. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2012. “Anayasa Şikâyeti Anlamı, Kapsamı ve Türkiye Uygulamasında olası Sorunlar”, in Demokratik Anayasa –Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Göztepe, Ece; Çelebi, Aykut, pp. 419-465. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2013. Anayasa Hukuku Ders Notları, Lefkoşa: Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını.Sağlam, Fazıl 2018. “Devlet Güçlerinin OHAL KHK Rejimi ve 2017 Anayasa Değişikliğinden Sonraki Görünümü”, Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 7, Sayı 13, pp. 21-102. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Fazıl 2020. “Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Ürettiği Yapay Bir Kavram: “Ortak Koruma Alanı”“, Metin Günday Armağanı, Ankara: Atılım Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 1101-1163. Open Google Scholar
Sağlam, Musa; Göksu, Hasan Tuna (eds.) 2014. Kabul Edilebilirlik Kriterleri Rehber. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Saygılı, Abdurrahman 2010. “What is Behind the Headscarf Ruling of the Turkish Constitutional Court?”, in Turkish Studies 11, 2, pp. 127–141. Open Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane 2005. „Democracy by Judiciary (Or Why Courts Can Sometimes Be More Democratic than Parliaments)”, in Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism, eds. Czarnota, Adam; Krygier, Martin; Sadurski, Wojciech, pp. 25-60. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press. Open Google Scholar
Schwartz, Herman 2000. The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Com munist Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Open Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey Allan; Spaeth, Harold J. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey Allan; Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J.; Segal, Jeffrey Allan 2000. Majority rule or minority will. Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Sevinç, Murat 2005. Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Resmi Gazete'de Yayımı ile Bağlayıcılığı Arasındaki İlişki, in Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 60, 1, pp. 173-190. Open Google Scholar
Shambayati, Hootan 2008. “The Guardian of the Regime: the Turkish Constitutional Court in Comparative Perspective”, in Constitutional Politics in the Middle East: With special reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, ed. Arjomand, Said Amir, pp. 99–121. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Open Google Scholar
Shambayati, Hootan 2009. “In Pursuit of ‘Contemporary Civilization’: Judicial Empowerment in Turkey”, in Political Research Quarterly 62, 4, pp. 767–780. Open Google Scholar
Shambayati, Hootan; Güliz Sütçü 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and the Justice and Development Party”, in Middle Eastern Studies 48, 1, pp. 107–123. Open Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin; Stone Sweet, Alec 2002. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin 2005. “Law, courts and politics”, in Institutions and Public Law: Comparative Approaches, eds. Ginsburg, Tom; Kagan, Robert A., pp. 275-297. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar
Simon, Manfred 1980. “The Trial of the Türkiye Emekçi Partisi (Turkish Worker’s Party) Before the Constitutional Court of Turkey”, in The Review (International Commission of Jurists), pp. 53–64. Open Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie 2000. “Judicial Globalization”, in Virginia Journal of International Law 40, 4, pp. 1103–1124. Open Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J.; Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. “The US Supreme Court Judicial Data Base: Providing New Insights into the Court”, in Judicature 83, pp. 228–235. Open Google Scholar
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2010. “Verfassungsgerichte als Demokratie-Versicherung? Ursachen und Grenzen der wachsenden Bedeutung juristischer Politikkontrolle”, in Analyse demokratischer Regierungssysteme, eds. Schrenk, Klemens H.; Soldner, Markus, pp. 479–498. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Steinsdorff, Silvia von; Petersen, Felix 2016. “Die ʻKopftuchʼ-Debatte(n) der Gerichte: Bezüge zwischen der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und nationalen Verfassungs- und Obergerichten in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien und der Türkei”, in Gerichtsverbünde, Grundrechte und Politikfelder in Europa, eds. Rehder, Britta; Schneider, Ingrid, pp.177-232. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2017. Presidentialism à la Turka or what? The (missing) logic behind constitutional amendments, 13.02.2017, in Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/presidentialism-a-la-turka-or-what-the-missing-logic-behind-the-constitutional-amendments/ (last accessed 15.07.2020). Open Google Scholar
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2019. „(Verfassungs-)Richterliches Entscheiden“, in Interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung, eds. Boulanger, Christian; Rosenstock, Julika; Singelnstein, Tobias, pp. 207–226. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
Stüwe, Klaus 2006. „Bundesverfassungsgericht und Opposition“, in: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht im politischen System, eds. van Ooyen, Robert; Möllers, Martin, pp. 215-228. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
Sunar, Kemal Sahir 1978, Anayasa İle Anayasa Mahkemesi Üzerine Düşünce ve Eleştiriler. İstanbul: Mars. Open Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec 2002. Governing with Judges. Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec 2012. “Constitutional Courts”, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. Rosenfeld, Michel; Sajó, András, pp. 816–830. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
Tanör, Bülent; Necmi Yüzbaşıoğlu 2015. 1982 Anayasasına Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku. 14. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Open Google Scholar
Taşkın, Yüksel 2013 “Hegemonizing Conservative Democracy and the Problems of Democratization in Turkey: Conservatism without Democrats”, in Turkish Studies 14, 2, pp. 292–310. Open Google Scholar
Tezcür, Murat Tezcan 2009. “Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish Case”, in Law & Society Review 43, 2, pp. 305–336. Open Google Scholar
Teziç, Erdoğan 2009. Anayasa Hukuku. 13. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Open Google Scholar
Trochev, Alexei 2006. “Judicial selection in Russia: Towards accountability and centralization”, in Appointing judges in an age of judicial power: Critical perspectives from around the world, eds. Russel, Peter H.; Malleson, Kate, pp. 375–394. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Open Google Scholar
Tsebelis, Georg 2002. Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
Turan, İlter 2019. “Turkey’s never-ending search for democracy”, in The Routledge Handbook of Turkish Politics, eds. Özerdem, Alpaslan; Whiting, Matthew, pp. 27–36. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Turhan, Mehmet 2007. “Hukukta “Özgürlükçü” Yorum ve Refah Partisi Kapatma Davaları”, Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyolojisi Arşivi 17. Kitap, pp. 73-96. Open Google Scholar
Türkiye Barolar Birliği Anayasa Önerisi 2007. Ankara: Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Uzun, Mehmet Cengiz 2009/2010. “The Protection of Laicism in Turkey and the Turkish Constitutional Court: The Example of the Prohibition on the Use of the Islamic Veil in Higher Education”, in Penn State International Law Review 28, 3, pp. 383–426. Open Google Scholar
Ünsal, Artun 1980. Siyaset ve Anayasa Mahkemesi (“Siyasal Sistem” Teorisi Açısından Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi). Ankara: AÜSBF Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Ünsal, Artun 2002. Umuttan Yalnızlığa – Türkiye İşçi Partisi (1961–1971). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Vanberg, Georg 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
Varol, Ozan O.; Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia; Garoupa, Nuno 2017. „An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Transformation in Turkey “, in The American Journal of Comparative Law 65, 1, pp. 187–216. Open Google Scholar
Venice Commission 2009, Opinion No. 489/2008 on the constitutional and legal provisions relevant to the prohibition of political parties in Turkey, CDL-AD (2009) 006. Open Google Scholar
Vorländer, Hans 2006. “Deutungsmacht – die Macht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit”, in Die Deutungsmacht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, ed. Vorländer, Hans, pp. 9–33. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Wefing, Heinrich 2017. In dunkler Nacht, 27.12.2017, in Zeit Online. https://www.zeit.de/2018/01/justiz-rechtsstaatlichkeit-europa-polen-tuerkei-ungarn/komplettansicht (last accessed: 17.12.2018). Open Google Scholar
Wrase, Michael / Boulanger, Christian 2013. Die Politik des Verfassungsrechts: interdisziplinäre und vergleichende Perspektiven auf die Rolle und Funktion von Verfassungsgerichten. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Yazıcı, Serap 2006. A Guide to the Turkish Public Law Order and Legal Research, September 2006, in nyulawglobal.org. (http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/turkey.htm#_Fundamental_Rights_and_Liberties, last accessed: 29/08/2021). Open Google Scholar
Yazıcı, Serap 2012. “1982 Anayasası ve Parti Yasakları”, in Demokratik Anayasa. Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Göztepe, Ece; Çelebi, Aykut, pp. 228–269. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. Open Google Scholar
Yılmaz, Zafer 2019. “The genesis of the ‘Exceptional’ Republic: the permanency of the political crisis and the constitution of legal emergency power in Turkey”, in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 46, 5, pp. 714–734. Open Google Scholar