Özet:

In the nineteenth century, Ottoman law took on a structure consisting of Islamic law and European law. In this period, European law was cited in some areas, whereas Islamic law was codified in other areas. In addition, in the organization of the judiciary, the courts in which European and Islamic laws were to be applied were initially separated. In this context, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the jurisdiction of the commercial councils, which were established to adjudicate cases involving foreigners according to European laws and customs, was expanded to hear all commercial cases. This made the commercial courts the competent authority in the commercial field for all identities (Muslims, non-Muslims, and foreigners) in the Ottoman Empire. Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts (qadi courts) was restricted, and the Nizamiye courts were established. It was decided to hear disputes on some issues not regulated by the Commercial Code in these courts. However, despite the arrangements made, the deficiencies in the judicial organization and the possibility of bias towards the religions of the parties in the trial were decisive in the court preference of the litigants. Accordingly, this study aims to explain the factors that affect the victory of Muslims and non-Muslims in cases as a result of the arrangements made in the Ottoman legal system in the nineteenth century with the help of the chi-square independence test by using the data obtained from Ceride-i Mehâkim. The results show that there are significant relationships between the religious identities of the litigants, their gender, the type of court, the type of transactions, the location of the courts, referring to the law in adjudicating, and the variables of winning according to religious identity.

Anahtar Kelimeler: