保护规范理论的始源形态——布勒公权论的再认识

布勒的公权理论可谓保护规范理论的始源形态,应当立足于其历史脉络与整体结构来理解。在布勒的保护规范理论中,法规的强行性排除了裁量规范,但包含不确定法律概念的法规范仍具有强行性。私益保护目的以公私益的划分为基础,构成了布勒保护规范理论的核心要义。援用可能性不同于诉讼可能性,是指受保护的私人可以援用法规范请求行政机关为特定行为。只要法律并未明确排除,即可承认援用可能性的存在。经由布勒保护规范理论所得出的公权具有严格的法规从属性,但也使公权受立法者的宰制。此外,布勒所讨论的公权仅指以特定实体决定为内容的实体性公权,程序性公权被排除在外。在审判实践中,我国法院应对布勒的旧保护规范理论保持警觉,合理地确定行政诉讼的原告资格。     

Photographs of Ataturk in the early Republican Press: how his image was used to visualize events?

Since its invention, photography has been seen as representing reality as it was, as a result of which an evidential quality has been attributed to it. This quality comes more to the fore in certain contexts, one of them being press photography. Photographs in a newspaper are meant to testify to the event described in the news. This article looks at the photographs of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, which were circulated in the early Republican Press. Many photographs of Ataturk which were published in the periodicals at that time did not testify to the actualization of an event and henceforth did not provide any evidence for the events. They nevertheless have an evidential quality, which they acquire not from what they show, but from what they signify.     

基于合法律性的合法性——从韦伯到哈贝马斯

韦伯具有强烈的民族主义情结,这种情结使他尤为强调学术的文化政治担当,亦使其具有学者和"群众性政治家"双重身份。作为学者,他对现代社会"基于合法律性的合法性"(法理型统治)模式进行了详尽分析;作为群众性政治家,他又明确提出了"领袖民主"(卡理斯玛型统治)合法化模式。这两种理论模式均具有政治现实主义和实证论倾向。哈贝马斯总体上拒绝了韦伯合法化模式的描述性路径,并极力批判了其领袖民主模式;但他亦将其合法化论说建基于韦伯式基于合法律性的合法性模式之上,并做出了可以容纳道德性内容的理论重构。     

Turkish nationalism at its beginning: Analysis of Türk Yurdu, 1913–1918

Turkish nationalism became an element of the Ottoman political scene in the late nineteenth century. Although its roots can be traced back to the Hamidian period (1876–1909), Turkish nationalism emerged as one of the most important political ideologies during the Constitutional Regime. Wars that the Ottoman State participated in from 1911 to the end of the empire in 1918 resulted in population and land losses. Especially, following the Balkan Wars, most of the lands that were populated by non-Muslim and non-Turkish subjects were lost. Within this context, Turkish nationalism came to be seen as the most dominant ideological tool intended to save the Empire. This article argues that Turkish nationalism emerged as a reactive ideology that addressed Ottomanism and Islamism, which were the two other dominant state ideologies during the late Ottoman State, due to the changing political context. In this article, Türk Yurdu, a well-known and influential periodical, is used as the primary source of reference to demonstrate the basic features of Turkish nationalism in its infancy.     

奥斯曼、伊斯兰还是土耳其?——浅析土耳其独立运动的革命话语问题

土耳其革命史把1919～1923年间在安纳托利亚发生的革命斗争定性为一场为了建立土耳其共和国而进行的民族独立运动。这种革命意识形态主导下的史观忽略了当时历史情形的复杂性,带有很强的革命目的论色彩。在安纳托利亚的革命阵营中,存在着对奥斯曼王朝、伊斯兰教或土耳其民族等不同身份的忠诚,以及对所有这些忠诚的混合;更多人是忠于苏丹-哈里发的,并非一开始就有建立独立的土耳其国家的明确目标。以凯末尔为首的共和主义者为了其革命目的和统一战线的需要,不得不暂时与强大的保守势力妥协。     

伏羲女娲与日本神话——以巡绕合婚为中心

通过考察中国古典文献中＂天道左旋,地道右周＂、＂雄左行,雌右行＂等左右思维方式,并结合人类学田野调查采集的资料,以及借助敦煌写本的研究成果,对中日巡绕合婚类神话进行比较研究可以得出：日本伊耶那岐、伊耶那美二神巡绕合婚神话深受我国伏羲女娲巡绕合婚的兄妹婚神话影响。     

From kanun-ı kadim (ancient law) to umumun kuvveti (force of people): historical context of the Ottoman constitutionalism

This paper attempts to examine the prevailing scholarly view on the Young Ottoman and the Young Turk movements, which postulates that the concept of constitutionalism was solely and directly based on the western model, imported by the constitutionalist movements to the Ottoman Empire. As a child of the ‘modernization theory’, this approach mostly concentrates on European impact in an isolated manner, thus overlooking not only the manifold sources of the Ottoman constitutionalism, but also the means of legitimation that the Young Ottomans and the Young Turks cultivated. In view of this, I seek to shed light on the historical context of the Ottoman constitutionalism, by pointing out how the Young Ottomans and the Young Turks perceived the power struggles in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and built continuity between themselves and the political position that aimed to restrict the royal prerogative before the nineteenth century.     

Reading Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Armenian genocide of 1915

ABSTRACT

The debate on where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey and universally known as the ‘Father of the Turks’, stood in regard to the colossal violence committed against Armenians during the First World War has become a fiercely contested part of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, especially within the past few years. Ulgen aims to clear away the clouds of dust surrounding Kemal by delving into his texts and examining his role in the reification of Turkish denial of the destruction of Ottoman Armenians. Based on a textual analysis of his entire corpus, including Nutuk—the Great Speech of 1927 and the master-narrative of modern Turkish history and national identity—her article examines and documents how his charismatic leadership helped to consolidate both the myth of ‘murderous Armenians’ and that of the Turks as an ‘oppressed nation’ (mazlum millet), monumentalizing both in official Turkish historiography. Ulgen argues that Kemal's portrayal of Armenians and the Armenian Question was generally consistent across the years and in various political documents, as well as being consistent with contemporary Turkish representations of the events of 1915. What really tips the balance towards Turkish innocence in Kemal's representation of the conflict is not his framing of the issue per se but the stark difference in the rhetoric he deploys in depicting Armenian and Turkish atrocities and, hence, Armenians and Turks. The undeniable authority of this discursive regime is central to the resilience of Turkish denial today.     

The strategic depth doctrine of Turkish foreign policy

Turkey's heavy involvement in Middle Eastern politics following the end of the Cold War eroded its Western image in the eyes of most Europeans and strengthened the hands of those who have traditionally argued against Turkey's EU membership by referring to the unbridgeable inherent differences between the parties in terms of cultural, historical, religious, and geographical considerations.