Yolcu, Serkan

Profile Picture
Profile URL
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14365/7313
Name Variants
Yolcu. S
Serkan Yolcu
Job Title
Email Address
serkan.yolcu@ieu.edu.tr
Main Affiliation
08.01. Law
Status
Former Staff
Website
ORCID ID
0000-0002-2951-4406
Scopus Author ID
55205049600
Turkish CoHE Profile ID
7D1A5F85FE962E38
Google Scholar ID
WoS Researcher ID
AFP-1751-2022

Sustainable Development Goals

SDG data is not available
Documents

5

Citations

46

h-index

2

Go to Scopus profile
Documents

6

Citations

40

Go to WoS profile
Scholarly Output

6

Articles

5

Views / Downloads

0/0

Supervised MSc Theses

0

Supervised PhD Theses

0

WoS Citation Count

4

Scopus Citation Count

4

WoS h-index

1

Scopus h-index

2

Patents

0

Projects

0

WoS Citations per Publication

0.67

Scopus Citations per Publication

0.67

Open Access Source

3

Supervised Theses

0

JournalCount
European Publıc Law2
Annales de la Faculté de Droit d Istanbul1
European Journal of Comparatıve Law And Governance1
Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi1
Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi1
Current Page: 1 / 1

Scopus Quartile Distribution

Competency Cloud

GCRIS Competency Cloud

Filters

2018 - 201922020 - 20224
Reset filters

Settings

Scholarly Output Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    ANAYASACILARIN KARŞILAŞTIRMA SORUNU: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANAYASA HUKUKU NEDİR, NE DEĞİLDİR?
    (2020) Yolcu, Serkan
    Türkiye’de kamu hukuku ve özel olarak anayasa hukuku alanında karşılaştırmalı araştırmalara duyulan ilgi oldukça sınırlıkalmış, karşılaştırmalı anayasa hukuku müstakil bir inceleme alanıolarak görülmemiştir. Oysa karşılaştırmalı anayasa hukuku dünyaçapında hızla akademik kimliğini pekiştirmekte, bu disiplindeki aka-demik birikim her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu çalışma Türk hukukun-daki ilgi eksikliğine dikkat çekmeyi ve karşılaştırmalı anayasa huku-kunun tarihsel gelişim çizgisini takip ederek onu kavramsallaştırmayıamaçlamaktadır. Dolayısıyla makalenin temel motivasyonu, tarihselsüreç ekseninde karşılaştırmalı anayasa hukukunun çağdaş kimliğinibelirlemektir. Bunun için karşılaştırmalı anayasa hukukunun kurucudinamikleri ve ayırt edici özellikleri açıklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın so-nunda Türk anayasa hukuku doktrininin artık karşılaştırmalı anayasahukukunu müstakil bir hukuk bilimi dalı olarak kabul etmesi gerektiğivurgulanmaktadır.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Transforming the Judiciary Into the Rulers’ Proxies: the Case of Hagia Sophia
    (2022) Bahçeci, Barış; Yolcu, Serkan
    This article examines from a critical perspective the judgment of the Turkish Council of State (Danıştay) in 2020, which invalidated the executive decision of 1934 regarding the designation of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul as a museum. We argue that Council of State did not really perform adjudication of a legal dispute in this case, but rather functioned as a proxy of the executive power for particular reasons. As a matter of fact, we argue the justifications regarding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the right to property on which the decision was based to be a falsification. Moreover, the developments before and after the decision demonstrate this judgement to be a product of a non-judicial motivation. Lastly, the sequence of political actions regarding the conversion of several other museums into mosques that have been observed in Turkey over the last ten years implies the non-judicial dynamics behind the Council of State’s decision regarding Hagia Sophia. Our analysis reveals the political decisions that would possibly be the subject of criticism by domestic opponents and the international community to have been eliminated by referring the issue to the packed courts in order to avoid all undesired consequences.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Citation - WoS: 1
    Citation - Scopus: 2
    From an Illiberal Posture To an Anti-Liberal Other: the Changing Composition and Jurisprudence of the Turkish Constitutional Court
    (Kluwer Law Int, 2022) Bahceci, Baris; Yolcu, Serkan
    This article reveals the change in the Turkish Constitutional Court's (TCC/Court) jurispru-dence due to the transformation in its structure. We develop our arguments on the assumption that the Court's ideological attitude is determined according to interaction with political actors and argue that from 1980 onwards, two facts were determinant: (1) the role of the constitutional amendment in 2010 in relation to court-packing aim and (2) the role of President of Turkish Republic due to his appointment power. To this end, we examine the changing ideological line of the TCC by focusing on selected rulings delivered during Court's two eras divided by 2010 constitutional amendments. We argue that the TCC dramatically changed direction from liberal towards anti-liberal line in its decisions and structure. Before 2010, members who did not act in line with the president who appointed them and did not have a sharp ideological stance were encountered. This situation was reflected in the voting behaviour of the members and brought ambivalent attitudes. After 2010, this situation was reversed and especially as of 2017, some members became loyal to the president, and it was seen that the court acted with a sharper division in critical decisions and transform into an anti-liberal stance in its jurisprudence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Article
    Siyasetin Yargısallaşmasının Hükümet Sistemine Etkisi Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Moldova’nın Anayasal Zaman Yolculuğu
    (2018) Yolcu, Serkan
    Karşılaştırmalı hukuk birçok anayasal meselede her geçen gün farklı bir bakış açısı elde edebilmeyi mümkün kılmakta, dünyada yaşanan güncel anayasal gelişmeler daha önce üzerinde pek durulmayan analizlere kapı aralamaktadır. Bunlardan biri de siyasetin yargısallaşması olgusu ile hükümet sistemleri arasındaki ilişkide görülebilir. Anayasa hukuku doktrininde genellikle siyasetin yargısallaşmasının anayasal haklar rejimi üzerindeki sonuçları üzerine yoğun bir birikim görülmektedir. Oysa yargısal bir uyuşmazlığın konusu haline gelen siyasi sorunlar, kurumsal anayasa hukuku alanında da sonuç yaratmaktadır. Bu bakımdan Moldova deyim yerindeyse bir anayasa hukuku laboratuvarı sunmaktadır. Bağımsızlığını ilan ettiği ilk günden beri Moldova, esasen siyasal elitlerin iktidar yarışının yön verdiği bir hükümet sistemi kriziyle mücadele etmektedir. Ancak bu kriz, Moldova Anayasa Mahkemesinin 2016’da verdiği beklenmeyen bir kararla bir kez daha ama bu sefer farklı bir boyutla pekişmiştir. Moldova Anayasa Mahkemesi ülkenin bağımsızlık sonrası benimsediği yarı-başkanlık hükümet sistemini saf parlamenter sistem ile değiştiren 2000 tarihli anayasa değişikliğini iptal etmiş, bununla da kalmayıp adeta zamanda yolculuk yaparak anayasanın iptal edilen değişiklik öncesi hükümlerini tekrar yürürlüğe koymuştur. Böylece ülkenin hükümet sistemi bir kez daha yarı-başkanlığa doğru yön değiştirmiştir. Bu yönüyle Moldova’nın anayasal zaman yolculuğu, yargısal denetimin hükümet sistemini nasıl etkileyebileceği sorununu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışma Moldova örneğinden hareketle bu soruna ne tür cevaplar verilebileceğini ele almaktadır.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Review Article
    Citation - WoS: 2
    Citation - Scopus: 2
    East Nordic Model of Pre-Enactment Constitutional Review: Comparative Evidence From Finland and Sweden
    (Kluwer Law Int, 2020) Yolcu, Serkan
    For the last three decades, legal scholarship on the judicial review of legislation has dominated comparative constitutional studies. Moreover, one of the emerging interests in comparative constitutional law is pre-enactment (ex ante) control of constitutionality. Historically, legal thinking in the US has advanced judicial review, while British tradition has prioritized parliamentary sovereignty, in which parliament, not courts, is the ultimate decision maker related to constitutional disputes. The current scholarship, nevertheless, argues that a particular constitutional model has emerged in a number of Commonwealth countries in which courts and legislatures are not considered alternative to each other, contrary to the traditional paradigms that prioritize either courts or legislatures. One of the defining features of this model is the pre-enactment constitutional review of proposed legislation. In some of those countries, pre-enactment review of legislation is available only in the form of executive responsibility, while the legislature has a key role in the remaining countries, in addition to the commitment of the executive. This article investigates whether similar pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms exist elsewhere. For this purpose, it will examine East Nordic constitutional practice and ask whether there is a particular type of pre-enactment constitutional review in Finland and Sweden. The function to review constitutionality of proposed legislation belongs to non-judicial mechanisms in both Finland and Sweden. However, pre-enactment constitutional review mechanisms in. these two polities are hardly considered in comparative constitutional law. This article aims to fill this gap by drawing comparative scholars' attention to the East Nordic constitutionalism.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book Review
    Citation - WoS: 1
    Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: a Comparative and Legal Perspective
    (Brill, 2019) Yolcu, Serkan
    [Abstract Not Available]