Derogation: istisna, aşağılama

 Derogation kelimesinin anlamı:

Derogation, iki ana anlamda kullanılır:

1. Hukuki / Resmi anlamı:

Bir kuraldan, yasadan veya standarttan istisna tanınması, muafiyet verilmesi veya kısmi olarak sapılması anlamına gelir.

• Bir düzenlemenin bazı durumlarda uygulanmaması
• Bir kuraldan özel olarak muaf tutulma

Örnek:

• The law allows certain derogations in emergency situations.
  (Yasa, acil durumlarda bazı istisnalara izin verir.)

2. Genel / Günlük anlamı:

Bir kişiyi, kurumu veya şeyi küçümseme, aşağılama veya değerini düşürme anlamına gelir.
(Bu anlam “derogatory” kelimesiyle yakından ilişkilidir.)

Örnek:

• His comments were seen as a derogation of her achievements.
  (Onun yorumları, kadının başarılarını küçümseyici olarak görüldü.)

Kısaca:

• Derogation = (hukuki) istisna / muafiyet
• Derogation = (genel) küçümseme, aşağılama, değerini düşürme

In the complex and often contentious field of international human rights law, the concept of derogation plays a crucial role because it allows states, under strictly defined and temporary circumstances such as public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation, to temporarily suspend or limit certain rights that would otherwise be considered absolute, provided that any such measure is officially proclaimed, remains strictly necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, does not involve discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, and never affects non-derogable rights including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and freedom from slavery, while at the same time requiring the state to notify other parties of the scope and reasons for the derogation so that international monitoring bodies can carefully examine whether the exceptional situation truly justifies the restriction and whether the authorities have avoided any form of abuse or unnecessary prolongation of these extraordinary powers, thereby maintaining a delicate balance between national security needs and the fundamental obligation to protect human dignity even in times of crisis.

Here are 150 separate English sentences using the word derogation:

1. The law permits a temporary derogation from certain rights during a national emergency.
2. Any derogation from human rights standards must be strictly necessary and proportionate.
3. The government announced a formal derogation from the treaty obligations.
4. Critics argued that the new policy represented an unjustified derogation from established norms.
5. The court examined whether the derogation was lawful under international law.
6. No derogation is allowed from the prohibition of torture.
7. The company requested a temporary derogation from environmental regulations.
8. Such a derogation requires clear justification and official notification.
9. The agreement includes a clause allowing limited derogation in special circumstances.
10. Experts warned against frequent derogation from democratic principles.
11. The minister defended the derogation as a necessary security measure.
12. International bodies closely monitor every derogation from human rights treaties.
13. The emergency law included a carefully limited derogation from freedom of assembly.
14. There can be no derogation from the right to life under any circumstances.
15. The proposal was rejected because it involved an excessive derogation from workers’ rights.
16. Officials claimed the derogation would last only as long as the crisis continued.
17. The constitution allows temporary derogation from certain civil liberties during wartime.
18. Human rights organizations strongly criticized the widespread derogation of protections.
19. The treaty permits derogation only when the life of the nation is under threat.
20. Lawyers challenged the legality of the government’s derogation notice.
21. A clear time limit must accompany every formal derogation.
22. The new regulation was seen as a quiet derogation from previous commitments.
23. Parliament debated the scope of the proposed derogation for several hours.
24. No derogation from the ban on slavery is ever acceptable.
25. The authority granted a special derogation for research purposes.
26. Excessive derogation from safety standards can endanger public health.
27. The government submitted a formal notice of derogation to the United Nations.
28. Critics described the move as an unnecessary derogation from free speech principles.
29. The court ruled that the derogation failed the proportionality test.
30. Temporary derogation does not mean permanent suspension of rights.
31. The policy allowed limited derogation from data protection rules.
32. International law strictly controls the conditions for any derogation.
33. The emergency decree contained a broad and controversial derogation.
34. Experts insisted that any derogation must be officially proclaimed.
35. The committee reviewed the justification for the recent derogation.
36. There was strong opposition to the proposed derogation from labor laws.
37. The state justified its derogation by citing an imminent public threat.
38. Continuous derogation from environmental agreements weakens global cooperation.
39. The judge questioned the necessity of such a wide derogation.
40. Certain fundamental rights are protected against all forms of derogation.
41. The company applied for a temporary derogation from import restrictions.
42. Lawyers argued that the derogation was both unlawful and excessive.
43. The government promised that the derogation would be lifted as soon as possible.
44. Public debate intensified after the announcement of the derogation.
45. The treaty clearly defines the limits of permissible derogation.
46. Officials denied that the measure amounted to a permanent derogation.
47. The report highlighted several cases of unjustified derogation.
48. No derogation can justify discrimination based on race or religion.
49. The parliament approved a narrowly defined derogation from travel restrictions.
50. Human rights experts demanded greater transparency regarding the derogation.
51. The emergency measures included a partial derogation from privacy rights.
52. Any derogation must be carefully monitored by independent bodies.
53. The opposition accused the government of abusing the power of derogation.
54. The court accepted that a limited derogation was justified in this case.
55. International observers expressed concern over the repeated use of derogation.
56. The law prohibits any derogation from the prohibition of cruel treatment.
57. Officials claimed the derogation was consistent with constitutional requirements.
58. The new rules were criticized as a quiet derogation from earlier promises.
59. A formal notice of derogation must be submitted to the relevant authorities.
60. The committee examined whether the derogation met the necessity threshold.
61. Temporary derogation should never become a permanent state of affairs.
62. The government faced legal challenges over its broad derogation powers.
63. Experts warned that frequent derogation undermines the rule of law.
64. The agreement allows for limited derogation in cases of force majeure.
65. Public trust declines when governments rely too heavily on derogation.
66. The court found the derogation to be both necessary and proportionate.
67. No derogation from judicial independence can be accepted.
68. The ministry requested a special derogation for urgent medical research.
69. Critics argued that the derogation went far beyond what was required.
70. The emergency legislation contained multiple clauses on derogation.
71. International law requires states to justify every instance of derogation.
72. The opposition demanded an immediate end to the current derogation.
73. Officials insisted that the derogation was temporary and targeted.
74. The report documented several problematic cases of rights derogation.
75. Certain core rights remain completely protected from derogation.
76. The government extended the period of derogation by another three months.
77. Legal experts questioned the constitutional basis for the derogation.
78. The policy was defended as a measured and limited derogation.
79. Continuous reliance on derogation can erode democratic norms.
80. The treaty body requested detailed information about the derogation.
81. No derogation is permitted from the principle of non-refoulement.
82. The new emergency powers included a carefully worded derogation clause.
83. Parliament insisted on strict oversight of any future derogation.
84. The court struck down the measure for lacking a valid basis for derogation.
85. Human rights groups monitored the practical effects of the derogation.
86. The state argued that the situation fully justified the derogation.
87. Excessive use of derogation can damage a country’s international reputation.
88. The regulation provided for limited derogation in exceptional cases.
89. Officials confirmed that the derogation would be reviewed monthly.
90. The legal challenge focused on the scope of the announced derogation.
91. Temporary derogation must always remain exceptional rather than routine.
92. The committee concluded that the derogation was not strictly necessary.
93. International standards require clear communication of any derogation.
94. The government faced criticism for the vague wording of its derogation notice.
95. No political crisis alone can automatically justify a broad derogation.
96. The court emphasized that derogation powers must be narrowly interpreted.
97. Experts called for stronger safeguards against abusive derogation.
98. The emergency framework allows controlled and time-limited derogation.
99. Public debate continued long after the formal notice of derogation.
100. The opposition described the measure as an unnecessary and dangerous derogation.
101. Certain absolute rights stand completely outside the possibility of derogation.
102. The ministry published detailed reasons supporting the requested derogation.
103. Legal scholars analyzed the historical use of derogation in similar crises.
104. The government promised greater transparency in future derogation decisions.
105. The court accepted the existence of a public emergency justifying limited derogation.
106. International monitors remain concerned about prolonged periods of derogation.
107. The new law carefully defines the conditions under which derogation is permitted.
108. Officials rejected claims that the measure amounted to permanent derogation.
109. The report recommended stricter limits on the use of emergency derogation.
110. Human rights treaties allow derogation only under the most serious circumstances.
111. The parliament required regular reports on the continuing need for derogation.
112. Critics argued that the derogation was politically motivated rather than necessary.
113. The legal framework demands that any derogation remain proportionate at all times.
114. Temporary measures of derogation should be lifted as soon as conditions allow.
115. The government submitted an updated notice explaining the ongoing derogation.
116. Experts stressed that transparency is essential whenever derogation is used.
117. The court examined whether less restrictive alternatives to derogation existed.
118. Prolonged derogation from fundamental rights risks normalizing exceptional powers.
119. The emergency powers act includes detailed rules governing any form of derogation.
120. International bodies continue to scrutinize the justification for the current derogation.
121. The opposition called for an independent review of the ongoing derogation.
122. Officials maintained that the limited derogation was fully consistent with the law.
123. The committee found that the scope of the derogation exceeded what was required.
124. Clear communication with the public is essential during any period of derogation.
125. The treaty system was designed to prevent the abuse of derogation powers.
126. Legal challenges focused on both the necessity and the duration of the derogation.
127. The government argued that the situation still met the threshold for continued derogation.
128. Human rights defenders warned against the gradual expansion of derogation measures.
129. The court reaffirmed that certain rights remain completely immune from derogation.
130. Officials provided a detailed timeline for the expected end of the derogation.
131. The new guidelines aim to ensure that every derogation remains strictly temporary.
132. Public confidence depends on the responsible and limited use of derogation.
133. The legal analysis confirmed that the conditions for lawful derogation had been met.
134. International observers continue to assess the impact of the current derogation.
135. The parliament reserved the right to terminate the derogation at any time.
136. Experts recommended clearer criteria for determining when derogation is justified.
137. The government rejected accusations that it was relying excessively on derogation.
138. Temporary derogation must never be used as a substitute for proper legislation.
139. The court stressed the importance of continuous review during any period of derogation.
140. Human rights standards demand that the least restrictive form of derogation be chosen.
141. The official notice clearly specified the rights affected by the derogation.
142. Prolonged reliance on emergency derogation can weaken democratic institutions.
143. The legal team prepared a detailed defense of the necessity of the derogation.
144. International law requires states to minimize the scope of any derogation.
145. The committee will reassess the justification for the derogation in three months.
146. Officials insisted that the current derogation remains both necessary and proportionate.
147. Clear time limits help prevent the misuse of emergency derogation powers.
148. The court will decide whether the ongoing derogation continues to meet legal standards.
149. Transparency and accountability are essential whenever a state resorts to derogation.
150. Ultimately, any use of derogation must remain exceptional, limited, and fully justified.