Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorÖzbek, Mustafa
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-20T07:44:53Z
dc.date.available2015-02-20T07:44:53Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/1953
dc.description.abstractİdarenin her türlü eylem ve işlemine karşı yargı yolunun açık olması hukuk devleti ilkesinin bir gereğidir. İdare ile bireyler arasında çıkan uyuşmazlıklar, idarî yargı sisteminin benimsendiği ülkemizde, bu amaçla kurulmuş olan idare mahkemelerince çözümlenmektedir. Ancak günümüzde, belirli koşullarda ve belirli uyuşmazlıklarda, bir taraftan kamu idaresinin kaynaklarının tedbirli kullanılmasına ve idarenin sorumluluğunun artmasına imkân verirken, diğer taraftan bireylerin haklarını aramasını sağlayabilecek alternatif çözümler bulunmaktadır. Son yıllarda idarî uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde önemli bir gelişme gösteren yargılama dışı usuller, mukayeseli hukukta büyük ilgi görmektedir. İdarî uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde yargılama dışı usullerin tanımının, amacının, gelişiminin, uygulanma şeklinin ve hem ülkemizdeki hem mukayeseli hukuktaki düzenlemelerinin incelenmesi amacıyla yapılan bu çalışmada, dahili incelemeler, uzlaştırma, arabuluculuk, müzakere ve tahkim usullerine değinilmiştir. Over the past several decades, the serious crisis of justice systems have been the subject of academic studies and analyses by academicians and lawyers in this field. If there was a dispute, does that mean there will be a lawsuit? It is misleading to think that lawsuits are the way most legal disputes are resolves. In the United States, about 90 percent of all cases are resolved by non-judicial procedures before trial. The crisis of justice is primarily a matter of effectiveness. Civil litigation is excessively expensive, protracted and adversarial. However, if both parties are interested in doing so, disputes can be resolved quickly by means of negotiation. Thus, different procedures that can be used to resolve disputes outside of court have emerged. These procedures that serve as alternatives to litigation are called Alternative Dispute Resolution. ADR is particularly appropriate to use of settling administrative disputes. In recognition of this reality, many federal administrative agencies of the United States discovered the benefits of ADR and implemented various ADR programs for citizens nationwide. Subsequently, the Congress passed the Administrative Dispute resolution Act in 1990. This Act authorities the use of ADR techniques by executive agencies. Because of some problems arising the Act, in 1996, congress amended the Act to increase the effectiveness of ADR in the government. Also, Council of Europe has been interested for some years in the introduction of ADR procedures with the effects of these developments. As part of this effort, the Council of Europe?s Project Group on Administrative Law and the Portuguese Ministry of Justice jointly organized a multilateral Conference on Alternatives to Litigation between Administrative Authorities and Private Parties: Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, held in Lisbon from 31 May to 2 June 1999. Following the Lisbon conference the Project Group on Administrative Law embarked on a study aimed at defining common principles that could guide member states in their efforts to introduce of alternative methods for resolving disputes between administrative authorities and private parties. The draft recommendation for the Committee of Ministers was prepared by the Project Group on Administrative Law and was approved by the Committee of Ministers on 5 September 2001. The recommendation, after drawing attention to the overburdening of tribunals resulting in interference with the right of litigants to a hearing within a reasonable time, calls for remedies to this interference and stresses that alternative methods of resolving disputes can provide a worthwhile avenue in this respect, with the further advantage of bringing the administration closer to the public by avoiding antagonism between the parties. In the light of above developments, Turkish Legislature should implement ADR into the administrative law system with respect to administrative disputes. Relevant statutory provisions must based on the principles of good practice contained in the appendix of the recommendation adopted by the Committee of Ministers. Especially, draft of the Administrative Procedure Act should provide for institution of friendly settlement between the parties to the administrative act. ADR means like mediation and arbitration not only reduce of the number of pending trials, but also bring administrative authorities closer to the public by operation on the reconstruction of relationships.en_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.publisherTürkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2005, Say.57, cilt.-, s.82-134,en_US
dc.subjectAlternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümüen_US
dc.subjectİdari uyuşmazlıklaren_US
dc.subjectGenel İdari Usul Kanunu Taslağıen_US
dc.subjectAlternative Dispute Resolutionen_US
dc.subjectAdministrative disputesen_US
dc.subjectDraft of the Administrative Procedure Acten_US
dc.titleİdarî Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümünde Yargılama Dışı Usûller IIen_US
dc.typearticleen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster