Collective Arbitration

Year 2019, , 645 - 672, 03.12.2019

M. Talha Konukpay

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2019.39.2.0002

Abstract

Collective mechanisms serve to effectively protect injured parties from mass harm situations and enable the associated claims to be settled once and for all. Different types of large-scale arbitration systems are used in different jurisdictions to settle mainly domestic disputes. In the United States, class arbitration is the most widely used type of collective arbitration mechanism. The jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court has been instrumental in the development of this system. For example, these mechanisms change the nature of arbitration in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. It can be stated that there are differences between collective arbitration mechanisms and traditional arbitration, which may pose certain problems, particularly regarding the enforceability of awards. In Europe, class actions are not appreciated although the European Union is trying to create collective redress mechanisms. As a result, two models of collective arbitration have been developed in Europe, which differ from class arbitration. Collective arbitration proceedings that may have the benefits of both arbitration and collective proceedings are still in the development phase and will most likely continue to be used for internal disputes. 

Keywords

Arbitration, Class action, Class arbitration, Collective arbitration, Collective redress

Supporting Institution

The author received no financial support for this work.

Kollektif Tahkim

Abstract

Kolektif mekanizmalar, kitlesel boyutta zararların meydana geldiği durumlarda zarar görenlerin etkili bir biçimde korunmasını ve ortaya çıkan bütün uyuşmazlıkların bir seferde herkes için çözümlenmesini sağlar. Bu bağlamda tahkimde de yine böyle birçok tarafın mevcut olduğu durumlarda kolektif sistemler ortaya çıkmıştır. Çeşitli hukuk sistemleri daha çok yerel uyuşmazlıkları çözmek için farklı türdeki geniş kapsamlı tahkim sistemlerini kullanıyor. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde, grup tahkimi en yaygın kullanılan kolektif tahkim mekanizması türüdür. ABD Yüksek Mahkemesinin içtihatı, bu sistemin geliştirilmesinde etkili olmuştur. İlk başlarda, Yüksek Mahkemenin grup tahkimi hakkındaki görüşü oldukça olumludur ve grup üyeleri lehinedir. Nitekim grup tahkiminin resmi olarak kabul görmesi de yine Yüksek Mahkeme’nin buna ilişkin ilk kararından sonra olmuştur. Fakat Yüksek Mahkeme’nin bu pozitif tutumu zamanla radikal bir değişime uğramış ve grup tahkimi sisteminin aleyhine dönmüştür. Örneğin Yüksek Mahkeme’nin kararına göre grup tahkimi, tahkimin yapısını değiştiren bir sistem olarak tanımlanmış ve bu da taraflar arasındaki sözleşmenin çok dar bir biçimde yorumlanabileceği anlamına gelmiştir. Böylelikle de grup tahkiminin uygulanma alanı oldukça daralmıştır. Kolektif tahkim mekanizmaları ile geleneksel tahkim arasında, özellikle de kararların tenfizi noktasında belirli sorunlar doğurabilecek farklılıklar olduğu söylenebilir. Avrupa’da, her ne kadar Avrupa Birliği kolektif yargılama mekanizmaları oluşturmaya çalışsa da grup davaları benimsenmemektedir. Sonuç olarak, Avrupa’da grup tahkiminden farklı olarak iki kolektif tahkim modeli geliştirilmiştir. Hem tahkim hem de kolektif yargılamanın avantajlarını bünyesinde barındırma imkanı olan toplu tahkim yargılamaları hala gelişme aşamasındadır ve büyük olasılıkla iç anlaşmazlıklar için kullanılmaya devam edecektir. Bununla birlikte, özellikle Yüksek Mahkeme’nin son kararlarından sonra, grup tahkimi sisteminin kapsamının yerel uyuşmazlıklar için bile çok daralacağı söylenebilir. 

Keywords

Tahkim, Grup davası, Sınıfsal tahkim, Toplu tahkim, Toplu tazminat

References

• Akın P, “Uluslararası Tahkimde Çok Taraflılık”, (2014) 4 Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 299-340.
• Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim, (4th edn, Vedat 2016). Allor EP, “Keating v. Superior Court: Opressive Arbitration Clauses in Adhesion Contracts”, (1983) 71 Cal. L. Rev., 1239-1257.
• Athanassiou L, “Collective Redress and Competition Policy”, Cross-Border Class Actions- The European Way, ( Selp 2014), 145-172.
• Billiet P and Lozano L, “General Reflections on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Class Arbitral Awards in Europe”, Class Arbitration in the European Union, (Antwerpen 2013), 21-28.
• Blumrosen A, “The Globalization of American Class Actions: International enforcement of class action arbitral awards”, Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration, (Oxford University Press 2009), 355-374.
• Born G and Claudio S, “United States Supreme Court and Class Arbitration: A Tragedy of Errors, The Symposium”, (2012) J. Disp. Resol., 21-48.
• --International Commercial Arbitration, (Wolters Kluwer 2014).
• Borris C, “Collective Arbitration: The European experience”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 80-87.
• Burn G and Pearsall A, “Les exceptions au principe de confidentialité en matière d’arbitrage international”, La confidentialité dans l’arbitrage, (ICC 2009), 25-38.
• Carbonneau TE, The law and practice of arbitration, (5th ed, Juris 2014).
• Chernick R, “Class-wide arbitration in California”, Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration, (Oxford University Press 2009), 337-354.
• Demirkol B, “Çok Taraflı Tahkim Yargılaması”, Genç Milletlerarası Özel Hukukçular Konferansı, (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2018), 43-72.
• Drahozal CR, “Class Arbitration in the United States”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 23-32.
• --Commercial Arbitration: Cases and Problems, (2nd ed, LexisNexis 2006).
• Hanotiau B, Complex Arbitrations, Multiparty, Multicontract, Multi-issue and Class Actions, (Kluwer Law International 2005).
• Hensler DR, “Class actions in context”, Class actions in context-How culture, economics and politics shape collective litigation, (Edward Elgar 2016), 387-410.
• Huanfang D and Chuanlei, X, “The availability of class arbitration for silent agreements: Contract interpretation theory or arbitrability doctrine?”, (2017) Front. Law. China 12/1, 79-89.
• Júdice JM, “Collective Arbitration in Europe”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 46-57. Kaufmann-Kohler G and Rigozzi A, Arbitrage International- Droit et pratique à la lumière de la LDIP, (2nd edn, Weblaw 2010).
• Kleiman E, “The Future of Class, Collective and Mass Arbitrations in Europe”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 183-201.
• Kuck LH and Litt GA, “International Class Arbitration”, World Class Actions-A guide to group and representative actions around the globe, (Oxford University Press 2012), 700-737.
• Lamm CB and others, “Mass Claims in Investment Arbitration”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 114-126.
• Lew JDM and others, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2003).
• Mulheron R, The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems, (Hart Publishing 2004).
• Nater-Bass G, “Class Action Arbitration: A new challenge?”, (2009) 27/4 ASA Bulletin, 671-690.
• Obadia E, “Mass Arbitrations in International Investment Cases”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 105-113.
• Park WW, “La Jurisprudence Américaine en matière de « class arbitration » entre débat politique et technique juridique”, (2012) Revue de l’Arbitrage, 507-538.
• Pillard C, “Justice on the Move: From Class Action to Class-Wide Arbitration-Remarks”, La justice en marche: du recours collectif à l’arbitrage collectif, en passant par la mediation, (Thémis 2005), 29-38.
• Pineiro LC, “Collective Consumer Arbitration in Spain-What’s in a Name”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 88-104.
• Poudret JF and Besson S, Droit compare de l’arbitrage international, (Bruylant/L.G.D.J/Schulthess 2002). Racine JB, Droit de l’arbitrage, (Presses Universitaires de France 2016).
• Radicati di Brozolo LG, “Class arbitration in Europe?”, Cross-Border Class Actions- The European Way, ( Selp 2014), 209-222.
• --and Ponzana F, “Representative Aspects of “Mass Claim” Proceedings in Investor-State Arbitration”, Class and Group Actions in Arbitration, (ICC 2016), 127-145.
• Rajoo S, Law, Practice and Procedure of Arbitration, (2th edn, LexisNexis 2017).
• Scherer FM, “Class actions in the U.S. experience: an economist’s perception”, The law and economics of class actions in Europe- Lessons from America, (Edward Elgar 2012), 27-36.
• Strong SI, “Class Arbitration Outside the United-States: reading the tea leaves”, Multiparty Arbitration, (ICC 2013), 183-214.
• --Class, Mass, and Collective Arbitration in National and International Law, (Oxford University Press 2013).
• --“Collective Arbitration Under the DIS Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes: A European Form of Class Arbitration?”, (2011) 29 ASA Bulletin, 45-65.
• -- “Does Class Arbitration ‘Change the Nature’ of Arbitration? Stolt-Nielsen, AT&T and a Return to First Principles” (2011) University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper 2011/07, 201-271.
• -- “From Class to Collective: The De-Americanization of Class Arbitration”, (2010) University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-16, 493-548.
• Şahin M and Şahin HÇ, “Toplu Hak Aramada Etkin Bir Yol Olarak Mukayeseli Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda Sınıf Davaları”, (2014) 72 Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, 383-410.
• Tuchmann EP, “The Administration of Class Action Arbitrations”, Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration, ( Oxford University Press 2009), 325-336.
• --“The American Arbitration Association’s Administration of Class Arbitrations and the Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations”, La justice en marche: du recours collectif à l’arbitrage collectif, en passant par la mediation, (Thémis 2005), 39-48.
• Weiskopf NR, Commercial Arbitration Theory and Practice, (Vandeplas Publishing 2014).
• Yeazell SC, From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action, (Yale University Press 1987).
• Online resources
• International Labour Office, “Collective dispute resolution through conciliation, mediation and arbitration: European and ILO perspective”, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--europe/---ro-geneva/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_366949.pdf, accessed 19 october 2007.