Humanity's legal security problem and hypocritical politicians

Great powers, large corporations, and powerful individuals—in other words, those who hold power—have frequently spoken of the rule of law, civilization, human rights, and freedom. However, when we look at history with a realistic eye, we see that the powerful have no belief in the law. They hate law and justice because it prevents their arbitrariness and immorality. Their own egos are above everything else. Citizens and the weak have no legal security.

The rule of law is more about large corporations selling their goods insecurity and making profit upon profit. The laborer has no legal security. It is painful that the rule of law is erased from minds once it reaches a certain point. The United States, the European Union, and Israel have, in fact, proven in the best possible way, leaving no room for doubt, that there is no legal security in the world through their stance on the Gaza events.

Today, in international relations, it is not the law that prevails in the world, but the command. If the command of the powerful replaces the law, then arbitrariness and oppression begin. Time will show what disasters the world will tumble into. For this reason, we all, as working citizens, need to understand and know the concept of legal security very well. Because, unfortunately, there is no legal security in our country either. There is no security at the international level either.

Days will surely come when all of humanity will prioritize the rule of law and the concept of legal security. Because where there is no legal security, there is no safety of life, and there is no security of property. Humanity is turning into ruinswemus t know this very well and we must fight for it.

WHAT IS A STATE OF LAW?

A state of law, ''the state is what recognizes fundamental rights and freedoms as rights for citizens, provides guarantees for these rights and freedoms, and protects the legal security of individuals., The state is what recognizes fundamental rights and freedoms as rights for citizens, provides guarantees for these rights and freedoms, and protects the legal security of individuals.''

The concepts of legal security and the rule of law are understood as they are defined with clarity and precision. Attains clarity and concreteness. To clarityas it becomes more concrete, it is applied more accurately. Incorrect decisions decrease, andtrust in the judiciary increases. The principle of legal security, is the foundation of the rule of law. If there is no legal security, we cannot speak of a state governed by the rule of law. 

Today, the general principles of law, are evaluated as the basis for international and national judicial decisions. The Constitutional Court has accepted through various rulings that the legislator does not possess unlimited authority while performing its legislative duties. It has stated in its decisions that the legislator is bound by general legal principles and, in particular, by the principles of the Constitution, and that our laws must comply with the known principles of law accepted in all civilized countries, even before the explicit provisions of the Constitution.

For example, in one of its decisions, thecourt, while defining the rule of law, stated that even the legislator cannot violate, "The Conceptual Development of the Universal Principle of Legal Security" principles of law as follows: “A state of law is a state that is based on human rights, protects and strengthens these rights and freedoms, whose actions and operations are in accordance with the law, establishes and maintains a fair legal order in every field, avoids situations and attitudes contrary to the Constitution, makes the law dominant over all state organs, considers itself bound by the Constitution and the supreme rules of law, is open to judicial review, and is aware that there are fundamental legal principles and the Constitution above the laws that even the legislator cannot violate.”''

In this context, in a state of law, the legislator is obliged to ensure that laws are in accordance not only with the Constitution but also with universal legal principles. The principle of legal security, although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is used as a principle-measure norm as a requirement of the rule of law principle, together with other rules in the Constitution.u as.

The Court, in many of its decisions, has indicated the principle of legal security among the general principles of law as follows: “When universal legal principles or general principles of law are mentioned, it is understood to mean universally accepted supreme rules of law such as the prohibition of abuse of rights, good faith, pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), non-discrimination, proportionality, respect for acquired rights, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactivity of laws, legal security, justice, equality, legality, certainty, and predictability.”

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL SECURITY?

Ensuring legal security is only possible if the concept of "legal security" is definable in advance. However, legal security is a concept that is difficult to define precisely. Legal security can be thought of simply as security, stability, and continuity in legal situations. More generally speaking, legal security can be defined as a guarantee or protection aimed at eliminating the risk of uncertainty or sudden changes in the application of the law.

The principle of legal security requires that legal rules be specific, stable, and predictable, and that individuals, when these rules are applied to them, cantrustthe state.  can be defined as having trust in the state regarding all transactions and actions carried out, and the protection of this trust by law. The foundation of law, isthe legal security of the state.. If there is no legal security, one cannot speak of a rule of law. Democracy also means legal security and the rule of law. It is clearly evident that a sack full of democratic chatter is of no use to anyone. Itisplainly visible. However, if we had defended legal security, the rule of law, and the democracy based on them, we would have had more concrete demands.

From now on, what is contemporary, the duty of any human being is to learn lessons from Gaza. In Gaza, those who find Israel justified should have their humanity and morality questioned. They are monsters in human form. Humanity has entered a process of becoming monstrous. 'Indifference' is increasing. Humanity, is heading toward a great decay. The decay is being led by the US, the EU, and Israel .