Constitutional Developments Of Turkey Since Ottoman Times To The Present State Of The Modern Turkish Republic

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPİRE
I. The Ottoman Empire in General
II. The Legal System of the Ottoman Empire in General
III. Nizam-ı Cedit
IV. Sened-i İttifak
V. Tanzimat Fermanı (Gülhane Hattı Hümayunu)
VI. Islahat Fermanı
VII. Kanun-i Esasi (First Constitutional Monarchy)
VIII. II. Meşrutiyet (Second Constitutional Monarchy)

Chapter 2
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TURKİSH REPUBLİC
I. The start of the Turkish national liberation war period
II. The Constitution of 1921
III. The Constitution of 1924
IV. The Constitution of 1961
V. The Constitution of 1982

CONCLUSİON

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

This Study concerns itself with the Turkishconstitutional developmentsfrom Ottoman times to the present state of the modern TurkishRepublic.^[1] In this way, the historical constitutional experience of the Turkish society will be presented compactly . This situation will also allow making constitutional comparisons with other countries. Implies the following description, the Turkey's constitutional experience is not at all backward from other developed Western countries. The main problem consists of this experience not based on a massive sociological movement.

To this end , first ageneral overview of Turkish history of law is to be given. The constitutional developments are herebypointed out from the OttomanState to the today's TurkishRepublic,whereby the respective constitution laws are presented content together. A comparative method will be pursued at this point.Then an introduction is given into the Turkish constitutional amendments in the frame of the EU full membership of Turkey whereby the meaning of these constitutional amendmentsis shown under the 1982 Constitution of Turkey.Finally, it will be shown that the Turkish people can entirely make a new constitution with only theirown natural inner dynamics .The Turkish society,with its rich constitutional experience and its advanced level of development is in a position to do so easily.

Chapter 1
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPİRE

I. TheOttoman Empire in General

Turkic tribes originated from Central Asia and accepted Muhammadanismaround the middle of the 10th century,^[2] as a nation of immigrants, migrated to Anatolia^[3] in the last decades of the 11th century.^[4] They foundedprimarily the Selçuk (English Seljuk) State in the mid - 11th century.^[5] The founder of the SelçukState and its first ruler was Tuğrul Bey, the grandson of Selçuk (therefore “Selçuk” or “Seljuk”) the khan (leader) of a tribe of the Oghuz Turks.^[6] TheTurk-controlled and ruled Ottoman Empire, which had been for six centuries an effective power in affairs between nations,^[7] was founded afterwards by a Turkish Emir Osman I (r. 1281–1326)^[8] the son of Ertugrul (for this reason “Osman” or “Ottoman”)^[9],attained the position of authority in 1299.^[10] A s conquering power, t he Empire was also affected by Byzantine forms in some ways like Court ceremonial and central administrative practices.^[11] Ottoman society was formed varied communities on the basis of differences in religion.The non-Muslim communities were hierarchically under the Islam community. However, other communities, especially in the field of private law were free in their own affairs.The Ottoman law was strictly valid in the field of public law. For example Jizya (Turkish Cizye) was apoll tax or a tribute or a head tax collected only from free non-Muslims adult males.^[12] Although t he Ottoman Empire was living dominantly under Islamic law, but thelegal conflicts regarding all matters related to personal status except criminal cases of its non-Muslim subjects could not be brought before Islamic courts.^[13] Therefore, courts of various religious communities (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) were founded and concurrently operated.^[14] The Ottoman Empire, described a theocratic monarchy,^[15] was the last major Turco-Islamic state,^[16] which was ruled by Ottoman rulerstitled Sultan^[17] or Padishah.^[18] Ottoman rulers on the one hand, while adhering to the principles of Islam; on the other hand they stuck to tightly the old concept of Turkish rule.^[19] According to Islamic law, sovereignty belongs to God and t he Caliph mostly regarded as a prophet Muhammad'ssuccessor is the head of state governing an Islamic community .^[20] The reign of the Ottoman Empire was under the Ottoman view of power, as derived in the Turkish view of power the pre-Islamic period, from God.^[21] W ith reference to that view, the state was the common property of the family.^[22] Accordingly, God had all male members of the Ottoman family granted the absolute right to govern the state.^[23] But this governing power was practiced since beginning 17thcentury only of that, which was oldest son of the family (a seniorat monarchy form).^[24]

T o the contrary of separation of powers doctrine, all state authority consisted of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, concentrated concurrently in the person of the Sultan and exercised by him in conformity with the provisions of the Ottoman laws.^[25] Although, as in other Islamic countries, the powers of the sultan had to be used theoreticallyin conformity with Shariah rules, but in practice there was no establishment of any mechanism,which the transactions of the Sultan on theircompliance to Shariahcould effectively check.^[26] Although beside the Padishah still another officers and state organs (for exampleDivan acted more as an advisory body than an decision-making body) were present, which participated in the practice of the state authority, there was no real power share,because all officers especially Sadrazam (Grand Vizier)^[27] were taking their authorities from Sultan.^[28] Sultan assigned a cavalry officer the usufruct of a piece of land as a substitute for breeding and training a particular number of troops( the tımar system ).^[29] The Sultan's authority was further developed and its place in the Sunni Muslim world strengthenedby the fact that Sultan Yavuz Sultan Selim conquered Egypt in 1517 and became the protector of the all Islamic world.^[30] Thereafter the Ottoman Sultans began to hold the title of Caliph of Islam,^[31] which was the theocratic nature of the monarchy state system, adhering to the most liberal of the four schools in Sunni Islam Hanafi “madhhab” (Turkish Hanefi mezhebi) as a school of jurisprudence,^[32] further consolidated.However, as we will explain in more detail below, the OttomanState, in which there was up until the end of the 18. centurya remarkably tolerant attitude toward its diverse, multi- ethnic and multi-lingual Community^[33] and each non-Muslim Community wasgot pleasure from a certain extent of autonomy,^[34] never has been a strict religious regime.Thusall the powerful sultans, did not hesitate to make arrangements incompatible with theIslamic law. For example, Fatih Sultan Mehmet or Mehmet II. (1451–1481), who was the conqueror of Constantinople,^[35] had allowed through a sultanic decree the princes of the kingdom to murder their brothers to avoid the throne-fighting , ^[36] although the Islamic law is notpermitted such a practice, which was then annulled by Sultan Ahmet I. (1590-1617)the son of Mehmet III.,^[37] but maintainedexceptionally .^[38] Therefore in the history of OttomanEmpire in general had the ascending of a sultan to the throne not ever occurred lacking a shock,without blood shedding, and lacking a changing of ministry.^[39] As another eloquent example of the conflict regarding the Islamic code of war and also the position of non-Moslem aliens remaining in the sovereignty of Islam between Islamic law and sultanic decree inherent in the legal system of the Ottoman Empire were the diplomatic agreements made by the Ottoman Empire with various Christian states through written expressions of the sultan’s will.^[40] In this context, f orinstance,the consular courts (Turkish konsolosluk mahkemesi) of foreign powers have been granted by Ottoman ruler’ssolely jurisdiction over the judicial mattersof their non-Muslim subjectsstaying in the Ottoman area.^[41]

II. The Legal System of the Ottoman Empire in General

The Ottoman legal system, which was composed of combination of Muslim religious lawand sultanic decrees,^[42] was in the Empire valid. So theTurkic Empire had been ruled under both law systems operating with each otheralongside one another.^[43] Moslem religious law (Sharia)^[44], which has two fundamental (the revelations of the Qur’an and the habits of the Prophet Mohammad (Sunnah or TurkishSünnet) and two secondary [on the basis of opinion of Muslim theologians (ra’y or Turkishrey), composing of general agreement of opinion (lyma or Turkish İcma ) and analogy (Qiyas or Turkish Kıyas)]^[45], was applied.In addition to the Islamiclaw, the implementation of the sultanic decrees (firman^[46] or Turkishferman^[47] )in the Empire is remarkable. Because of containing of incomplete and inadequate regulations of Islamic law, especially in public law, these gaps were filled with the decrees, or that is to say, the personal and free decisions of the Ottoman rulers (Padishah’s), which based on Turkishcustomary law and practices^[48] and required the approval (fetva or fatwa)^[49] of the Islamic legal scholars (ulema),^[50] or that is to say, of Sheik-ul-Islam as the chief of the ulema and religious official in the Ottoman Empire,^[51] expressing in words that these decisions (kanunlar) were comply with the Islamic law.^[52] However,the Sheik-ul-Islam’s (Turkish Şeyhülislam) wereboth nominated and could be fired bythe Padishah’severy time.^[53] Therefore their fatwa’sweregenerally in line with the will of the Padishah’s. Sothe Turks were able to continue its own publicly legal customs in the course of the general Islamic country view under the coat of the Islam’s.^[54]

As it is seen above, in the Ottoman Empire, the Padishah, as a secular authority, was authorized to set the rules. Different from another Islamic countries all around the world , Turkish people, used to set the rules of the secular authority, were not against the secularization of Turkish law. So the secular lawwithin the context of the westernization and modernization process in Turkey was widely accepted without strong social resistance and tension.

III. Nizam-ı Cedit

The Ottoman Empire has entered the phase of decline since the last period of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent^[55] (Turkish Kanuni Sultan Süleyman or Muhteşem Süleyman: 1520-1566).^[56] It is seen that starting from the Eighteenth Century; the Ottoman Empire has carried out some of the reforms under the influence of Western civilization.^[57] The reform movements began in the eighteenth century origins of the suspicion arising from military defeats taken place consecutively, so that's why the first attempts were in the military field.^[58] The important developments in the field of reform movements taken place under the reign of Sultan Selim III. (1789-1807), who was one of the main reform leaders^[59] and started to put his New Order (Turkish Nizam-ı Cedit) program into effect.^[60] The New Order in a broad sense consisted of the following elements: Establishing new army corps in place of the Janissary corps (Turkish Yeniçeri Ocağı) destroyed by Mahmut II. in 1826^[61] ; breaking the influence of Ulema; exerting efforts to reach Western civilization level.^[62] Furthermore, Sultan Selim III., who was the son of Mustapha III., and the nephew of Abdu-l- Hamid,^[63] sought to establish the method to counseling with high officials in the Empirefor crucial matters (Turkish meşveret, “müşavere etme”, danışma) .^[64] The introduction of the consultation methodin to the state government can be seen as a development towards a constitutional government.^[65] Thus, Sultan Selim III.has not only militarily area, but also the state government area initiated a new approach.^[66] The proponents of the old order were disturbed by new reforms, whichtouched their interests.^[67] Those, who opposed the New Order, have dethroned, murdered^[68] Selim III.,and placed Mustafa IV. on thethrone.^[69] After conservatives came to power,^[70] Mahmut II. ascended in 1808 with the military help of a reformist- feudal lord and then grand vizier, named Alemdar Pasha on the throne.^[71] In this way the revival of reform movements has started over again.^[72]

IV. Sened-i İttifak

It is showed that t he first step towards constitutional development in Ottoman Empire was Sened-i İttifak (1808),^[73] a alliance Pact^[74] or a deed of agreement^[75] signed between representatives of central government and representatives of local community leaders (Turkish â yan) .^[76] This was carried out under the rule of Sultan Mahmut II. (1807-1839)^[77], whohad to restore the authority of the increasingly decaying Ottoman central states power, which was in provinces completely ineffective.^[78] F eudal lords in provinces had attained much power in the Ottoman Empire, so that they had set up an independent authority and began not to recognize the authority of the center.^[79] So Mahmut II.,albeit unwillingly concluded, through the intermediary of Alemdar Mustafa Pasha (Turkish Paşa), a collaboration treaty with the feudal lords (Sened-i İttifak), to the authorityof the Ottoman central states powerto restore.^[80] By the Sened-i İttifak, consisted of an introduction, sevenarticles and a supplementary,^[81] the obligations of the Ottoman central authority and the Ayan’s were mutually regulated.^[82] On the one hand, the sultan and the central government's authority were accepted by everyone (in Article 1), on the other hand, all arbitrary actions of the grand vizier’s wereprevented (in Article 4)and all great feudal lords’administrative areas were acknowledged (in Article 5).^[83] According to Sened-i İttifak (in Article 5), the feudal lords, no more treated unjustly(in Article 5), could no longer interfere in the affairs, which occurred out of their territory.^[84] However, it was adopted (in Article 5) , that they could pass their right to dynasty from father to son.^[85] The rights of sovereignty of the great lords over the small lords wereacknowledged (in Article 5).^[86] Also for the first time in history of the Ottoman Sultan powers were being officially limited.^[87] In this respect, the Sened-i İttifak, as aninitiative to limit the Sultan powers, is the first constitutional document of the Ottoman history.^[88] As a contract one has comparedSened-i İttifak with the English Magna Carta Libertatum (1215)^[89] and sees him as the first step away on the way to the rule of law.^[90] However, the Sened-i İttifak emerged not a document as a result of resistance of a society, whose rights and freedoms have been destroyed or deprived.^[91] The domestic public opinion had no effect to regulate and the sign of this document.^[92] In addition to this, from the limitations of Padishah’ authoritybenefittednot the people or bourgeoisie, but on the contrary their arch-enemy feudalism, which was a decadent one.^[93] For these reasons, the Sened-i İttifak can not be considered as a part of constitutional political movements, which were essentially a political expression of the rising bourgeoisie.^[94]

The biggest drawback of the Sened-i İttifak was, however, that no rules, Institution or mechanism on the implementation of thesecontractual commitments were enshrined in it. As a matter of fact,it envisaged in its appendix only that the document shall be signed by all the new Grand Vizier.^[95] In addition, the power behind the Sened-i İttifak, Alemdar Mustafa Pasha, was killed on November 15, 1808, by the Janissaries.^[96] Those became grand vizier in place of Alemdar Pasha have not signed the Sened-i İttifak.^[97] Sultan Mahmut II. recognized the Sened-iİttifak no longer, after (within a few years) strengthened the central power of authority.^[98]

V. Tanzimat Fermanı (Gülhane Hattı Hümayunu)

The second stage of constitutional developments in the Ottoman Empireis theTanzimatDecree of 1839,^[99] whose roots can be found in the French Revolution of 1789.^[100] The word Tanzimat is derived from of tanzim, which means orderings.^[101] In this context Tanzimat meant a range of acts that would put into a new order to the state organization.^[102] Moreover, those matters, which Islamic law does not regulate, were quoted from Western law. For example, t hethen Trade Act and Criminal Code from France were translated and adopted respectively in 1856 and 1858.^[103] Thereby t he reception of the Western law began in the Turkish legal history in the time of Tanzimat,so that the Islamic and Western laws both have found applications( a law dualism) , until the founding of the modern TurkishRepublic.

After death of Mahmut II., Abdülmecit (1839-1861) was seated on the throne.^[104] The Minister of Foreign Affairs Mustafa Pasha^[105] in this eraread out in the Gülhane Park of Istanbul and proclaimed on 3 November 1839 in the name of Sultan Abdülmecit Tanzimat or Gülhane Fermanı (the Imperial Edict of 1839)^[106], which is the most important stepin the 19th centuryfor the Turkish constitutional movements^[107] for the following reasons: Firstly, the Tanzimat Decree can be called as the first declaration of basic rights of the Turkish People.^[108] Secondly, with the Tanzimat Fermanı, which was only a constitutional document ( not a constitution), limited unilaterally for the first time a sultan on his own initiative his own powers (auto-limitation through an octroi).^[109] Due to this second feature, the Tanzimat Fermanı is different from the Sened-i İttifak, whichbears a contractual character.^[110]

[...]

---

^[1] A detailed scientific description of the constitutional development of the Ottoman Empire to the modern Turkish Republic is found in, inter alia, Üçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., Türk Hukuk Tarihi, 13. Bası, Turhan Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara, 2008, p. 169-378

^[2] See Karpat, H. K., Studies on Turkish politics and society: selected articles and essays, volume 94/Social, economic, and political studies of the Middle East, BRILL, 2004, p. 438.

^[3] Antoniou, V. L., Soysal, Y. N., “Nation and the Other in Grek and Turkish History Textbooks”, in Hanna Schissler, Yasemin Nuhoğlu Soysal, The nation, Europe, and the world: textbooks and curricula in transition, Berghahn Series, Berghahn Books, 2005, pp. 105–121, p. 106; Pultar, G. “Ethnic Fatigue: Başçıllar’s Poetry as a Metaphor for the Other “Othe Literature”, in Werner Sollors (Editor), Multilingual America: transnationalism, ethnicity, and the languages of American literature, A Longfellow Institute Book, NYU Press, 1998,124–143, p. 128.

^[4] İnalcik, H., An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire, volume 1, inHalil İnalcik, Donald Quataert (Editors), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Donald Quataert, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 34.

^[5] Halman, T. S., Warner, J. L. (Editor), Rapture and revolution: essays on Turkish literature, Syracuse University Press, 2007, p. 213.

^[6] Üçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., op. cit., p. 179-180.

^[7] Toynbee, A. J., “The Otoman Empires Place in World History”, in Kemal H. Karpat (Editor), The Ottoman state and its place in world history, volume 11/Social, economic, and political studies of the Middle East, published by BRILL, 1974, pp. 15–27, p. 18.

^[8] Davies, N., Europe: a history, Pimlico (Series); 276, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 386.

^[9] Demant, P. R., Islam vs. Islamism: the dilemma of the Muslim world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006, p. 16-17.

^[10] See Grayson, F. N., CliffsAP World History, CliffsAP Series, John Wiley and Sons, 2006, p. 127.

^[11] See Shaw, S. J., History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Vol.1, first published 1976, reprinted 1977 (twice), 1978, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, transferred to digital printing 2002, published Cambridge University Press, p. 24.

^[12] Zawātī, H., Is Jihād a just war?: war, peace, and human rights under Islamic and public international law, Volume53/Studies in religion and societyStudies in Religion and Society (New York, N.Y.),
Irish Studies, published Edwin Mellen Press, 2001, p. 167.

^[13] See Göçek, F. M., Baer, M. D., “Social Boundaries of Otoman Women’s Experience in Eighteenth-Century Galata Court Records”, in Madeline C. Zilfi (Editor), Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern women in the early Modern Era,Vol. 10/The Ottoman Empire and its heritage,Vol.10/Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science, BRILL, 1997, pp. 48–65, p. 57.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Stefoff, R., Monarchy, Political Systems of the World, Marshall Cavendish, 2007, p. 49.

^[16] Quataert, D., op. cit., The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922, volume 34/New approaches to European history, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 4.

^[17] Hupchick, D. P., Conflict and chaos in Eastern Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1995, p. 239.

^[18] Agnew, J. H., Bidwell. W. H., Eclectic magazine: foreign literature, volume 32, Leavitt, Throw and Co., 1854, University of Michigan, digitized 13 September 2006, p. 376.

^[19] Üçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., op. cit., p. 206.

^[20] Ibid., p. 205.

^[21] Ibid., p. 205 ff.

^[22] Ibid., p. 205.

^[23] Ibid., p. 205 ff.

^[24] Ibid., p. 222–224.

^[25] See ibid., p. 225 ff.

^[26] Özbudun, E., Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Yetkin yayınları, 10. Baskı, Ankara, 2009, p. 25.

^[27] Turhan, F., The other empire: British romantic writings about the Ottoman Empire, Literary Criticism and Cultural Theory: Outstanding Dissertations Series, Routledge, 2003, p. 114.

^[28] Özbudun, E., op. cit., p. 25.

^[29] Hathaway, J., “Egypt in the seveententh century”, in M. W. Daly, Carl F. Petry (Editors), The Cambridge History of Egypt: Modern Egypt, from 1517 to the end of the twentieth century,Vol. 2/The Cambridge History of Egypt 2 volume hardback set, published Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 34–58, p. 38.

^[30] SeeÜçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., op. cit., p. 208.

^[31] Rai, R., Themes in World History, fourth revised Edition, FK Publications, p. 78.

^[32] Sfeir, A. (Editor), The Columbia world dictionary of Islamism, translated and edited by John King, published Columbia University Press, 2007, p. 91.

^[33] Vickers, M., The Albanians: a modern history, Third Edition, published I.B.Tauris, 1999, p. 11.

^[34] Barnai, Y., The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine, Judaic studies series, translated by Naomi Goldblum, University of Alabama Press, 1992, p. 12.

^[35] Cameron, A., The Byzantines, volume 13/The Peoples of Europe, published John Wiley and Sons, 2009, p. 165.

^[36] SeeÜçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., op. cit., p. 222-223.

^[37] See http://www.osmanli.org.tr/osmanlisultanlari-5-223.html,21.05.2010.

^[38] See http://gizlenentarihimiz.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-soruda-osmanlda-sehzadelik.html, 21.05.2010.

^[39] Burke, E. (Editor), The Annual register of world events: a review of the year, volume 82, published Longmans, Green, 1841, p. 461–462.

^[40] Peri, O., Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem: the question of the holy sites in early Ottoman Times
Vol. 23/The Ottoman Empire and its heritage, BRILL, 2001, p. 56-57.

^[41] Abramov, S. Z., Perpetual dilemma: Jewish religion in the Jewish State, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1976, p. 27.

^[42] Leeuwen, v. R., Notables and clergy in Mount Lebanon: the Khāzin Sheikhs and the Maronite Church, 1736-1840, volume 2/Ottoman Empire and its heritage,Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage BRILL, 1994, p. 22.

^[43] See Zürcher, E. J., Turkey: a modern history, 3. Edition, I.B.Tauris, 2004, p. 61.

^[44] Gregorian, V., Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith, Brookings Institution Press, 2004, p. 25.

^[45] El Zeidy, M. M., Murphy, R., “Islamic Law on Prisoners of War and Its Relationship with International Humanitarian Law”, in Benedetto Conforti, Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Editors), The Italian Yearbook of International Law 2004, volume 14, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 53–82, p. 58–61.

^[46] Brummett, P. J., Ottoman seapower and Levantine diplomacy in the age of discovery, SUNY series in the social and economic history of the Middle East, McGill Studies in the History of Religions, SUNY Press, 1994, p. 220; Moalla, A., The regency of Tunis and the Ottoman Porte, 1777-1814: army and government of a North-African Ottoman eyālet at the end of the eighteenth century, Islamic Studies Series, Routledge, 2004, p. 3.

^[47] Knudsen, S., Fishers and Scientists in Modern Turkey: The Management of Natural Resources, Knowledge and Identity on the Eastern Black Sea Coast, volume 8/Studies in environmental anthropology and ethnobiology, Berghahn Series, Berghahn Books, 2008, p. 49.

^[48] Üçok, C., Mumcu, op. cit., p. 78, 169 f., 197, 225 ff.

^[49] Gerber, H., State, society, and law in Islam: Ottoman law in comparative perspective, SUNY Press, 1994, p. 22.

^[50] Lewis. B., Ortadoğu, İki Bin Yıllık Ortadoğu Tarihi, 3. Baskı, çeviren: Selen Y. Kölay, arkadaş ltd. şti., 2003, p. 261.

^[51] Houdini, H., Collection (Library of Congress), Batchelder, J. D., Collection (Library of Congress), The eclectic magazine of foreign literature, science, and art, volume 32, published Leavitt, Trow, & Co., 1854, New York Halk Kütüphanesi, digitized 22 November 2007, p. 377.

^[52] See Peretz, D., the Middle East Today, 6. Edition, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994, p. 58.

^[53] Ibid.

^[54] Üçok, C., Mumcu, A., Bozkurt, G., op. cit., p. 170.

^[55] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., Anayasa Hukuku, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, Ağustos 2008, p. 107.

^[56] Şeker, M., Genç, Süleyman, Yazıcı, N., (Editor), Türk Medeniyet Tarihi, Anadolu Universitesi yayını no: 1150, Açıköğretim Fakültesi yayını 609, 6. Baskı, Eskişehir 2005, p. 226.

^[57] Gözübüyük, op. cit., p. 107.

^[58] Ibid.

^[59] Ibid.

^[60] Heper, M., Criss, B., Historical Dictionary of Turkey, volume 67/Historical dictionaries of Europe, G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, 3. Edition, published Rowman & Littlefield, 2009, p. 273.

^[61] Howard, D. A., The history of Turkey,The Greenwood histories of the modern nations, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 206.

^[62] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 107.

^[63] Knight, C., Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, HarvardUniversity, Digitized May 20, 2005, Publisher C. Knight, 1843, p. 404.

^[64] Eroğul, C., Anatüzeye Giriş (“Anayasa Hukuku’na Giriş), Gözden Geçirilmiş 10. Bası, İmaj Yayınevi, Ankara, 2009, p. 206.

^[65] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 107.

^[66] Eroğul, C., op. cit., p. 206.

^[67] Ibid.

^[68] Ibid.

^[69] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 107.

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] See Eroğul, C., op. cit., p. 206.

^[72] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 107.

^[73] The Turkish text of the Sened-i İttifak can be found, for instance, in Kili, S., Gözübüyük, A. Ş., Türk Anayasa Metinleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1985, p.3-7; For details of the seven Article of the Sened-i İttifak in English see, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Alliance , 10.07.2010.

^[74] Karpat, K. H., “Some Historical and Methodological Considerations Concerning Social Stratification in the Middle East”, in Christoffel Anthonie Olivier Nieuwenhuijze (Editor), Commoners, climbers and notables: a sampler of studies on social ranking in the Middle East, Volume 21 of Social, economic, and political studies of the Middle East , Volume 21 of Philosophia Antiqua , published Brill Archive, 1977, pp. 83–101, p. 92.

^[75] See Buzpınar, Ş. T., “The Question of Caliphate under the Last Ottoman Sultans”, in Itzchak Weismann, Fruma Zachs (Editors), Ottoman reform and Muslim regeneration: studies in honour of Butrus Abu-Manneb, Volume 8 of Library of Ottoman studies , Publisher, B.Tauris, 2005, pp. 17–36, p. 24–25.

^[76] Özbudun, E., op. cit., p. 25.

^[77] Ahmad, F., The Making of Modern Turkey, the Middle East series, illustrated, reprint Edition, published by Routledge, 1993, p. 4.

^[78] See Gözler, K., Anayasa Hukukuna Giriş, Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım, 14. Baskı, Bursa, Eylül 2009, p. 161.

^[79] Ibid.

^[80] See Demir, F., Anayasa Hukuku, Genel Esaslar ve Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Birleşik Matbaacılık, 7. Baskı, İzmir, Şubat 2009, p. 253.

^[81] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 162.

^[82] Demir, op. cit., p. 254.

^[83] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 162.

^[84] Ibid.

^[85] Ibid.

^[86] Ibid.

^[87] Eroğul, C., op. cit., p. 207.

^[88] Ibid.

^[89] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 163.

^[90] See Demir, F., op. cit., p. 254-255.

^[91] Ibid., p. 255.

^[92] Ibid.

^[93] Eroğul, C., op. cit., p. 207.

^[94] Ibid.

^[95] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 162.

^[96] Ibid.

^[97] Ibid.

^[98] Özbudun. E., op. cit., p. 26.

^[99] Ibid;the Turkish text of the Tanzimat Fermanı can be found, for instance, in Kili, S., Gözübüyük, A. Ş., Türk Anayasa Metinleri, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 1985, p. 11 ff.; the English text is found in, inter alia,http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~genckaya/documents1.html, 10.07.2010.

^[100] Versan, V., “The Kemalist Reform of Turkish Law and Its Impact”, in Jacob M. Landau, Atatürk and the Modernization of Turkey, A Westview replica edition, BRILL, 1984, pp. 247-250, p. 248.

^[101] Berkes, N., The Development of Secularism in Turkey, Routledge, 1998, p. 144.

^[102] Ibid., p 144–145.

^[103] See Bilge, N., Hukuk Başlangıcı, Hukukun Temel Kavram ve Kuralları, 25. Bası, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, Ekim 2008, p. 88-89.

^[104] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 110.

^[105] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 163.

^[106] Kayaoğlu, T., Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and China,CambridgeUniversity Press, 2010, p. 114.

^[107] Gözübüyük, A. Ş., op. cit., p. 110.

^[108] Gözler, K., op. cit., p. 163.

^[109] Ibid., p. 164.

^[110] Ibid.