Mehrdad Rayejian Asli
Abstract
Penalization, as the definition and application of the criminal sanction by the state in the law (statist penalization), is subject to discussions in public law and criminal sciences, and even, in other disciplines out of these sciences. Meanwhile, criminology and human rights which are at the focal ...
Read More
Penalization, as the definition and application of the criminal sanction by the state in the law (statist penalization), is subject to discussions in public law and criminal sciences, and even, in other disciplines out of these sciences. Meanwhile, criminology and human rights which are at the focal address and in the interest of states could be defined as two main paradigms to study the penalization. The statist characteristic of penalization, indeed, demonstrates the importance of these two paradigms. Accordingly, the present article, by conceptualizing “human rights-based penalization”, explores the role of human rights in altering or modifying the governmental monopoly of penalization. Moreover, the article analyzes two international movements of the abolition of corporal punishment (emphasizing on death penalty) and the restriction on imposing imprisonment (prison). This analysis, finally, is tied into an attitude to the governmental structure of penalization in the contemporary history of Iran during the era of codification since Mashruteh to the beginning of the fifteenth century. The article concludes that the Iranian penalization system has not been apart from influences of the mentioned-above movements. Yet, the system, particularly in the post-revolution period has seriously resisted against the abolition movement, while it demonstrates a less reluctance to influences of the restriction movement, that it may imply the Iran’s dual policy of reluctant and positive attitudes to the international concrete norms of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Abdolmajid Seifi; Naser Pourhassan
Abstract
Since the failed coup in June 2016, a series of developments have begun in Turkey that are not comparable to the post-coup era of the past decades. The purpose of this article is to analyze the nature of the government in Turkey after the coup. The main question is what is the nature of the Turkish government ...
Read More
Since the failed coup in June 2016, a series of developments have begun in Turkey that are not comparable to the post-coup era of the past decades. The purpose of this article is to analyze the nature of the government in Turkey after the coup. The main question is what is the nature of the Turkish government after the abortive coup of June 2016? The paper also hypothesizes that the developments and set of changes that Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party (Justice and Development) have initiated in recent years, accelerated since the 2016 coup so that the nature of government in Turkey would be changed from fragile democracy into “anocracy". In this government, while some democratic institutions are in power, the symptoms of authoritarianism and the transition to anocratic government is increasing. The findings of the article show that changing 18 articles from the Turkish constitution, transforming parliamentary system into presidential, enhancing the power of the President and weakening the supervisory organizations, severe weakening of the judicial system, intense violation of human rights, particularly tough violence against Gulenists and Kurds and the widespread suppression and liquidation of government opponents at the level of the military and civilians, are the hallmarks of the emergence of anocratic government in Turkey after the 2016 coup. The data collected for the paper hypothesis were processed in a descriptive-analytical method.
