The Effects of the Judiciary as a Governance Actor on Mega Projects: The Example of Türkiye

Governance is a management approach that transforms the single-centred nature of the policy process and diversifies it based on actors. In this respect, it enables a participation platform that includes not only public actors but also the private sector, non-governmental organisations, the public, the media and international organisations. While this situation creates a structure in which different social demands and expectations are considered, it also brings about conflicts of interest and disagreements. At this point, the policy process is disrupted, and the decision-making mechanism becomes dysfunctional. In such cases, determining the role, importance and position of the independent and impartial judiciary, which has a binding position on everyone, emerges as an important fact. This study was prepared to find an answer to the question "Where does the judiciary stand among the actors of governance?" In this context, by focusing on the principle of the rule of law, which is among the important principles of governance, it emphasises the need to redefine governance in the context of actors and to make a distinction between actors. Accordingly, it is thought that governance actors should be expressed with a new classification as primary (executive, private sector and civil society), secondary (legislative and judicial bodies) and complementary actors (public, media and international organisations, etc.). This study aims to contribute to the literature in this respect. It addresses this through mega projects where governance has a wide range of applications. In the study, 8 mega projects that were completed or are still ongoing in Turkey were examined. Mega projects are always brought to court due to disputes and disagreements between different actors. The executive branch, which has fundamental decision-making authority, is confronted with non-state actors for various reasons. At this point, the judiciary, as a secondary actor of governance, prevents the policy process from being interrupted by resolving disputes that arise between the primary actors of governance.