| Teaching Staff
|
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Serdar Ünver |
| Language of Instruction |
İngilizce (English) |
| Type Of Course |
Compulsory |
| Prerequisites |
None |
| Recommended Optional Programme Component |
|
| Course Objectives |
The first goal is the course is to teach students the nature of law and legal thinking and to gain them legal argumentation skills on the basis of justice and rights. Teaching students different perspectives and not to study them justice in only one way are the goals of this course through the arguments which procures to look in a critical way to all prejudices and previous learnings, that called ice breaker. |
| Course Content |
The basic aim of this course is to provide students general informations about arguments on legal philosophy. In the light of these informations it is aimed to teach students philosophical thinking under the fundamental terms of law. |
| Learning Outcomes (LO) |
1) To have general information about historical development of legal philosophy.
2) To gain argumental thinking skills.
3) To learn basic terms of both public and private law courses, to understand that these terms were created under the arguments of legal philosophy and to learn the philosophical thinking lies under all these terms.
4) To realize that law is not just consisted of rules and there is a huge thinking tradition and practising which equal with history of humanity.
5) The development of reasoning skills. |
| Mode of Delivery |
Face to face |
| Course Outline |
| Week |
Topics |
| 1. Week |
Introduction and ice breaking arguments about what law is.
|
| 2. Week |
Classical natural law thinking, law-moral arguments.
|
| 3. Week |
Modern natural law thinking, law-moral arguments.
|
| 4. Week |
Theory of the social contract. |
| 5. Week |
Classical legal positivism, Bentham.
|
| 6. Week |
Classical legal positivism, Austin. |
| 7. Week |
Sovereign law concept on Bentham and Austin.
|
| 8. Week |
Midterm Exam
|
| 9. Week |
Modern legal positivism: Kelsen, Hart
|
| 10. Week |
Comparison between natural law and legal positivism, arguments on a ice breaker subject and special plays that were made for the course. |
| 11. Week |
Dworkin and moral integrity oft he law and comparison between positivism and natural law. |
| 12. Week |
Legal realism: American legal realism and Scandinavia legal realism.
|
| 13. Week |
Argumental theory, Feminist law theory, Marxist law theory. |
| 14. Week |
Final exam |
|
| Assessment |
| |
Percentage(%) |
| Mid-term (%) |
40 |
| Quizes (%) |
- |
| Homeworks/Term papers (%) |
- |
| Practice (%) |
- |
| Labs (%) |
- |
| Projects/Field Work (%) |
- |
| Seminars/Workshops (%) |
- |
| Final (%) |
60 |
| Other (%) |
|
| Total(%) |
100 |
|
| Course Book (s) and/or References |
Hukuk Kuramını Anlamak, Raymond Wacks, Astana, Eylül 2017, Ankara. Hukuk Felsefesi Yasemin Işıktaç, Filiz Kitabevi, Ekim 2018, İstanbul.
Hukuk Felsefesi, Adnan Güriz, Siayasal Kitabevi, Haziran 2018, Ankara.
Felsefe, Sosyoloji, Hukuk ve Devlet, Niyazi Öktem, Ahmet Ulvi Türkbağ, Der Yayınları, Ekim İstanbul.
Antigone, Sophocles.
Hakları Ciddiye Almak, R. Dworkin, Dost Yayınları, 2007, Ankara.
Edebiyat, Hukuk ve Sair Tuhaflıklar, Cemal Bali Akal, Yalçın Tosun, Dost Yayınları, Şubat 2016, A Hukuk Özgürlük ve Ahlak, H.L.A. Hart, Çeviren: Erol Öz, Dost yayınları, 2015, Ankara
|
| Work Placement(s) |
|
| The Relationship between Program Qualifications (PQ) and Course Learning Outcomes (LO) |
| PQ1 | PQ2 | PQ3 | PQ4 | PQ5 | PQ6 | PQ7 | PQ8 | PQ9 | PQ10 | PQ11 | PQ12 | PQ13 | O1 | | | | 3 | | 5 | | | | | | | | O2 | | | | | | 5 | | | 4 | | | 4 | | O3 | 4 | | | 3 | | | 5 | | | | | 5 | | O4 | | | | 4 | | | | 3 | | 3 | | | | O5 | | | | | | | | 4 | | | | 5 | |
|