Search

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In an ordinary partnership, as a rule, all partners have management authority. This management authority is regulated as a substitute rule of law in Article 625 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO). On the other hand, by granting the right of objection to “managing partners” in the 2nd paragraph of Article 625 of the TCO, the problems that may arise from the individual administration were tried to be prevented, and a bridge was built between the individual administration and the administration, so to speak. There are many controversial issues in both Turkish law and comparative law regarding the right of objection, which is of great importance in terms of ordinary partnership management. In fact, many of the issues that have been discussed for a long time in comparative law have not been sufficiently discussed in Turkish law. In this article, the owner of the right of objection and its addressee, whether there are pre-conditions for the use of the right of objection, the validity conditions of the objection, the situations in which the objection will be considered invalid and the legal consequences of the objection are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Ilahiyat Researches / Ilahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There are basically two methods in the usul al-Fiqh, the Islamic Jurists’ (Fuqaha) and the Theologians’ (Mutakallimun). In later periods, “mamzudj” books were also written combining these two methods. Since the Fukaha’s usul was a method first introduced by them, although there were non-hanafi scholars worked with this method, it has known for Hanafis. Regardless of the method, qiyas is one of the significant subjects of the works. The first discussion about qiyas is whether it could be used to determine the Decree (Hukm). Starting with al-Zahiri’s rejection of qiyas, several debates occured between Zahiris and Hanafis. Since examining qiyas according to all scholars would exceed our article, the definition of qiyas in the Fuqaha’ usul, qiyas’ evidence, the objections and the answers given by the Legal Theorists (Usuliyyun) were examined. This study is carried out within the framework of al-Fusul of al-Jassas, Takvimu’l-adilla of al- Dabusi, al-Usul of Al-Bazdawi and al-Usûl of Al-Sarakhsi which are the four basic works of the Fuqaha’ usul. Proving method of those who reject qiyas and those who accept is the same. Both groups first brought evidence from Qur'an, then Hadith, then from the Companions and finally from the mind. Additionally, both groups examined the evidence brought by the other according to their own criteria and rejected it if it was a rational evidence and interpreted it as their own opinion if it was a verse or a authentic (sahih) hadith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Religious Studies / Dini Araştırmalar is the property of Diyanet Isleri Baskanligi Yayinlari and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The incident, became a subject of international law textbooks, took place on August 2, 1927 in the Aegean Sea, off Mytilene, in the form of a collision between the French SS Lotus and the Turkish ship Bozkurt. The next day, the captain of SS Lotus, was arrested due to mutual complaints. At this point, the French authorities had intense objections to the jurisdiction of the Istanbul Court, while the Republic of Turkey proposed to refer the case to The Hague Court of Justice. Thus, the case is transferred to international law. While the Turkish press generally maintained its courtesy at the beginning and continuation of the Hague process, it is difficult to find the same style in some newspapers published in French media. In this study, it is aimed to examine some news published in the French press of the period from a linguistic perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A resolution adopted by the general meeting in a joint stock company may be challenged by bringing an action for avoidance. Beside the board of directors and the board members also any shareholder can bring an action for avoidance. Any shareholder or its representative has to attend the general meeting (physically or online), to vote against the resolution and to get recorded the objection in the minutes in order to bring such an action. It is a very controversial subject if the objection can be raised at any time during the general meeting. According to Supreme Court an action must be dismissed if the objection concerning the resolution has been raised before the resolution. The topic of this article is whether it is important in regard of an action for avoidance the general meeting resolution when the objection is raised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]