a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>of</strong> which <strong>the</strong> answers are searched for, are identified <strong>in</strong> this purpose as given<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Assumpti<strong>on</strong>: 1. There can be no stated s<strong>in</strong>gle def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> as accepted<br />
comm<strong>on</strong>ly by all. In def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s, different regulati<strong>on</strong>s are proposed giv<strong>in</strong>g priority<br />
sometimes to liberty or equality and o<strong>the</strong>r times <strong>in</strong>terests and rights. This causes <strong>justice</strong><br />
to be expressed as ra<strong>the</strong>r an <strong>in</strong>dividual preference or activity than those measures which<br />
can be used.<br />
The questi<strong>on</strong>s to be answered <strong>in</strong> this respect appear as menti<strong>on</strong>ed below:<br />
What is <strong>justice</strong>? Is <strong>the</strong>re any s<strong>in</strong>gle def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> reached by c<strong>on</strong>sensus <strong>of</strong><br />
all and any criteria determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with this def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>? What are <strong>the</strong> ways <strong>of</strong><br />
questi<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>justice</strong> with <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cepts up<strong>on</strong> which different <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> are based?<br />
In c<strong>on</strong>cepts <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong>, can <strong>the</strong>re be any superiority <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e up<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r? Is it possible<br />
for a def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> reached by c<strong>on</strong>sensus? In plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e, what can be <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong><br />
to be used and <strong>the</strong> criteria <strong>in</strong>cluded with<strong>in</strong> this def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>? What k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> opportunities do<br />
<strong>the</strong> Rawlsian <strong>justice</strong> present with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
Assumpti<strong>on</strong>: 2. In current Turkish plann<strong>in</strong>g practice, <strong>the</strong>re can be no s<strong>in</strong>gle def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> stated. Def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s and demands vary by events, circumstances and percepti<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> actors. In this sense, it is possible to speak <strong>of</strong> compet<strong>in</strong>g demands <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong><br />
represented by compet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests. With<strong>in</strong> such differences, <strong>the</strong>re also emerge different<br />
demands accompanied by different assents <strong>of</strong> <strong>justice</strong> with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>process</strong> <strong>of</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
where each demand determ<strong>in</strong>es space and <strong>the</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>process</strong> to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
power <strong>of</strong> arguments as much as <strong>the</strong>ir affectivity <strong>in</strong> regulati<strong>on</strong> mechanism.<br />
The questi<strong>on</strong>s to be answered <strong>in</strong> this respect appear as menti<strong>on</strong>ed below:<br />
How is a just <strong>process</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ed by adjudicati<strong>on</strong> bodies and governments <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
legal system; <strong>in</strong>dividuals with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>formal <strong>process</strong> and planners are <strong>the</strong><br />
representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prevail<strong>in</strong>g paradigm <strong>in</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e? How is <strong>justice</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidered with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> adjudicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>process</strong>? What is <strong>the</strong><br />
positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> adjudicati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> urban plann<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
developed with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> framework def<strong>in</strong>ed by Turkish positive law? What k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong><br />
disputes do <strong>the</strong> cases <strong>of</strong> lawsuit represent with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> adjudicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>process</strong>? When <strong>the</strong>se<br />
disputes are taken as some questi<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> “<strong>justice</strong>”, what k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> dispute,<br />
claims and results are revealed?<br />
7