A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF THE JURISDICTION RULE IN THE RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN TÜRKİYE

Öz

This article examines the jurisdictional rule for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards under Article 60/2 of the Turkish Private International and Procedural Law Code (No. 5718, “PIL Code”). The current regulation equates recognition with enforcement, mandating the "presence of assets" of the award-debtor in Türkiye as the final jurisdictional link. This article argues that this rule creates a "latent gap" (örtülü boşluk) by disregarding the non-executive, "shield" function of recognition, such as establishing res judicata for negative declaratory awards. The rule erroneously conflates the "shield" function of recognition with the "sword" function of enforcement (i.e., executability), thereby improperly utilizing a jurisdictional rule as a restrictive test for legal interest. This issue is shown to be further complicated by the conflicting precedents of the Turkish Court of Cassation (e.g., the 1985/2025 restrictive view vs. the 2019 proactive view) regarding the existence of legal interest for standalone recognition requests. Through a comparative analysis of certain frequently preferred arbitral seats—France, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Hong Kong, the USA, and the UAE—this study confirms that none of these legal systems require the presence of assets as a prerequisite for recognition and enforcement. Consequently, this article proposes two specific legislative amendments to remedy this latent gap: (i) explicitly allowing for in-proceeding recognition, or (ii) expanding jurisdiction for standalone recognition claims to include the domicile of the applicant or a designated central court (e.g., in Istanbul or Ankara).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• arbitration
• arbitrator
• recognition
• enforcement
• jurisdiction
• comparative law
• foreign
• award
• judgment

TÜRKİYE’DE YABANCI HAKEM KARARLARININ TANINMASINDAKİ YETKİ KURALININ MUKAYESELİ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Öz

Bu makale, 5718 sayılı MÖHUK’un 60. maddesinde düzenlenen yabancı hakem kararlarının tanınmasındaki yetki kuralını incelemektedir. Mevcut düzenleme, tanımayı tenfiz hükümleriyle eş tutmakta ve yetki silsilesinin son halkası olarak aleyhine tanıma istenen tarafın Türkiye’de "mal varlığının bulunmasını" şart koşmaktadır. Bu makale, söz konusu kuralın, tanımanın (bir "kalkan" olarak) icraî nitelik taşımayan ve kesin hüküm etkisine dayanan koruma işlevini göz ardı ederek "örtülü bir boşluk" oluşturduğunu savunmaktadır. Kural, tanımanın "kalkan" işlevini, tenfizin "kılıç" işleviyle (yani icra kabiliyetiyle) hatalı bir şekilde birleştirmekte; böylece yetki meselesini hukukî menfaat testi gibi kullanmaktadır. Bu sorunun, Yargıtay'ın müstakil tanıma taleplerinde hukukî menfaatin varlığı konusundaki çelişkili içtihatlarıyla (örn. 1985/2025 ve 2019 tarihli kararlar) daha da karmaşık hale geldiği tespit edilmiştir. Fransa, İngiltere, Singapur, Hong Kong, ABD ve BAE gibi önde gelen tahkim rejimlerinin mukayeseli incelemesi, bu ülkelerin hiçbirinde tanıma-tenfiz için mal varlığı şartı aranmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu örtülü boşluğun giderilmesi için iki somut kanunî değişiklik önerilmektedir: (i) Herhangi bir yargılama içinde (dava içi) tanımaya açıkça izin veren bir hüküm eklenmesi veya (ii) müstakil tanıma başvuruları için yetkinin, talep edenin yerleşim yeri ya da merkezî bir mahkemeyi (örn. İstanbul/Ankara) kapsayacak şekilde genişletilmesi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Milletlerarası
• Tahkim
• Hakem
• Karar
• İlam
• Tanıma
• Tenfiz
• Yetki
• Mukayeseli Hukuk

Kaynakça

1. Acomb, Frederick A. ve James L. Woolard. “U.S. Court Recognizes $123M English Judgment Without Personal Jurisdiction.” The National Law Review. Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 29, 2025. https://natlawreview.com/article/us-courts-can-recognize-foreignjudgment- even-without-personal-jurisdiction.
2. Akıncı, Ziya. Milletlerarası Tahkim. İstanbul: Vedat, 2021.
3. Akıncı, Ziya ve Cemile Demir Gökyayla. Milletlerarası Aile Hukuku. İstanbul: Vedat, 2010.
4. Akkan, Mine. “Kesin Yetki Kuralları.” İn Pekcanıtez Usûl - Medenî Usûl Hukuku, edited by Hakan Pekcanıtez, Muhammet Özekes, Mine Akkan ve Hülya Taş Korkmaz, I. İstanbul: On İki Levha, 2017.
5. Al Jazeera. “These are the Countries Russia Considers ‘Unfriendly.’” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 12, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/8/russia-deals-with-unfriendlycountries- require-moscow-approval.
6. Ali, Khadija S. ve Andrew Massey. “United Arab Emirates.” In Arbitration Law and Practice in the Middle East, edited by Loukas A. Mistelis ve Laurence L. Shore. Huntington: Juris, 2023.
7. Amirfar, Catherine M., Natalie L. Reid ve Ina C. Popova. “National Report for the United States of America (2018 through 2023).” In International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, edited by Lise Bosman, 1-124. Kluwer Law International, 2023.
8. Arat, Tuğrul. “Yabancı İlâmların Tanınması ve Tenfizi.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 21, no. 1 (1964): 421-527.

9. Arcelormittal USA LLC v Essar Steel Ltd [2019] EWHC 724 (Comm) (England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) March 25, 2019). https://www.bailii.org/ew/ cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/724.html.
10. Aşık, İbrahim. Medeni Usûl Hukukunda Bekletici Sorun. Ankara: Seçkin, 2012.
11. Bateson, David. Commercial Arbitration in Hong Kong. Longman Business Guide. Hong Kong: Longman, 1989.
12. Baumgartner, Samuel P. “How Well Do U.S. Judgments Fare in Europe?” George Washington International Law Review 40, no. 1 (2007): 173-231.
13. Birsel, Mahmut Tevfik. “Türkiye’de Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizinin Anayasal ve Küresel Boyutları.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7, no. Özel Sayı (2005): 1-38.
14. Blackaby, Nigel, Constantine Partasides, Alan Redfern ve Martin Hunter. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
15. Blanke, Gordon. “The DIFC Courts as a Conduit: Saving Grace or Just a Lifeline?” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, December 18, 2017. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/ arbitration-blog/the-difc-courts-as-a-conduit-saving-grace-or-just-a-lifeline/.
16. Cargill Financial Services International, Inc. et al v. Barshchovskiy, No. 1:2024cv05751 - Document 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 29, 2025. https://law.justia.com/ cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv05751/625628/32/.
17. Çelikel, Aysel ve Bahadır Erdem. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk. İstanbul: Beta, 2021.
18. China Minmetals Materials Import and Export Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Corporation, Appellant, 334 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2003) (United States Court of Appeals June 26, 2003). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/334/274/636183/.
19. Choong, John ve J. Romesh Weeramantry, eds. The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance: Commentary and Annotations. Hong Kong Commentary and Annotations Library. Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015.
20. Coates, Paul ve James Abbott. “United Arab Emirates.” In The Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review 2022, by Global Arbitration Review. Law Business Research, 2024. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/review/the-middle-eastern-and-africanarbitration- review/2022/article/united-arab-emirates.
21. Coco, Sarah E. “The Value of a New Judgments Convention for U.S. Litigants.” New York University Law Review 9, no. 5 (2019): 1210-43.
22. Cooke, Timothy, Min Jian Chan ve Anand Tiwari. “Singapore.” In The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards - 4th Edition, by Global Arbitration Review. Law Business Research, 2025. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guidechallenging- and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition.
23. Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre Civile 1, 25 Mai 2016, 15-13.151, Inédit, Inédit ___ (Cour de cassation 2016). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000032600615.
24. Cour de Cassation, Civile, Chambre Civile 1, 26 Juin 2019, 17-19.240, Publié Au Bulletin, Publié au bulletin ___ (Cour de cassation 2019). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ juri/id/JURITEXT000038734145.
25. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. “Commercial Court.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 28, 2025. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/commercial- court/.
26. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014). Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 20, 2025. https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/571/117/.
27. Deynekli, Adnan. “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Karşılaşılan Sorunlar.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 16, no. Özel Sayı 2014 (2014): 105-22.
28. Doğan, Vahit. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk. Ankara: Savaş, 2015.
29. Dowans v. TANESCO, Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2011] EWHC 1957 (High Court of Justice of England and Wales July 27, 2011). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-dowans-holding-sa-and-dowanstanzania- ltd-v-tanzania-electric-supply-co-ltd-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justiceof- england-and-wales-2011-ewhc-1957-wednesday-27th-july-2011.
30. Dubai, TenTwenty | Webdesign, Webshops & E.-marketing |. “DIFC Courts.” DIFC Courts. Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 22, 2025. https://www.difccourts.ae/about/difc-courts.
31. Dubai, TenTwenty | Webdesign, Webshops & E.-marketing |. “DIFC Courts | Courts Structure.” DIFC Courts. Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 22, 2025. https://www.difccourts.ae/ about/court-structure.
32. Dymond, Tony, Benjamin Teo ve Tiffany Wu. “Hong Kong.” In The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards - 4th Edition, by Global Arbitration Review.
33. Law Business Research, 2025. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guidechallenging- and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition.
34. Ekşi, Nuray. “Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Icc Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tanınması ve Tenfizi.” Ankara Barosu Dergisi 67, no. 1 (2009): 54-74.
35. Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb (Rev1) [2020] UKSC 38 (UKSC October 9, 2020). https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/38.html. euronews. “Türkiye’nin ticaret hacmi: İthalatta Doğu, ihracatta Batı.” 07:34:41 +01:00. http://tr.euronews.com/business/2025/01/10/turkiyenin-ticaret-hacmi-ithalatta-doguihracatta- bati.
36. Fan, Kun. “The New Arbitration Ordinance in Hong Kong.” Journal of International Arbitration 29, no. 6 (2012): 715-22.
37. Ferrari, Franco ve Friedrich Rosenfeld. International Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Introduction. Edited by John Fellas. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
38. French Business Law. “French Code of Civil Procedure.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 24, 2025. https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation/legitext000006070716-frenchcode- of-civil-procedure/.
39. Friedman, Elliot, David Y. Livshiz ve Paige von Mehren. “USA.” In The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards - 4th Edition, by Global Arbitration Review. Law Business Research, 2025. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/theguide- challenging-and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition.
40. Gaillard, Emmanuel ve John Savage, eds. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
41. Güven, Pelin. Tanıma - Tenfiz: Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları, 2013.
42. Hanağası, Emel. “Davada Menfaat.” Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk (Medeni Usul ve İcra İflas Hukuku) Anabilim Dalı, 2007.
43. Harris, Bruce, Rowan Planterose ve Jonathan Tecks. The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2014.
44. Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. “The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 26, 2025. https://www.hkiac.org/arbitration/why-hong-kong/HKarbitration- ordinance.
45. Huysal, Burak. “6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu ile Getirilen Yenilikler Işığında Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi Konusunda Bazı Tespitler.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 32, no. 1 (2013): 71-101.
46. Huysal, Burak. “Yabancı Mahkemenin Dava ve Taraflar ile Gerçek Bağlantısının Tanıma ve Tenfiz Üzerindeki Etkisi.” Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 10, no. 1 (2011): 467-502.
47. International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA). ICCA’s Guide to the Interpretation of the 1958 New York Convention: A Handbook for Judges. Kluwer Law International, 2024.
48. Kats, Rostislav ve Anastasiya Ryabova. “Russian Supreme Court’s Stance Shakes Up Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, August 25, 2024. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/russian-supreme-courtsstance- shakes-up-enforcement-of-foreign-arbitral-awards/.
49. Kats, Rostislav, Stepan Sultanov ve Anastasiya Ryabova. “Russian Courts Claim Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Disputes Between Russian-Domiciled Companies: Another Blow to International Arbitration.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, January 29, 2025. https:// legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/russian-courts-claim-exclusivejurisdiction- over-disputes-between-russian-domiciled-companies-another-blow-tointernational- arbitration/.
50. Kiffer, Laurence. “National Report for France (2020 through 2021).” In International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, edited by Lise Bosman. Kluwer Law International, 2021.
51. Knoll-Tudor, Ioana. “Paris Arbitration Week Recap: The Impact of Russian Sanctions on International Commercial Arbitration - From Arbitrability to Enforcement.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 13, 2022. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitrationblog/ paris-arbitration-week-recap-the-impact-of-russian-sanctions-on-internationalcommercial- arbitration-from-arbitrability-to-enforcement/.
52. Knoll-Tudor, Ioana. “Recognition or Enforcement and Annulment of Arbitral Awards in France: An Analysis of the Kluwer Research Results.” Journal of International Arbitration 39, no. 3 (2022): 453-90.
53. Kokoz, Olga. “New Exclusive Competence of Russian Courts in International Sanctions- Related Disputes: Is It as Bad as It Sounds?” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, July 29, 2020. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/new-exclusive-competence-ofrussian- courts-in-international-sanctions-related-disputes-is-it-as-bad-as-it-sounds/.
54. Korkmaz, Abdullah Harun. “1958 Tarihli Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve İcrası Hakkındaki New York Sözleşmesi’nde Yapılması Teklif Edilen Değişiklikler.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40, no. 2 (2021): 1721-29. https://doi. org/10.26650/ppil.2020.40.2.0066.
55. Korkmaz, Abdullah Harun. Tanıma-Tenfiz Hukukunda Yeni Eğilimler: 2 Temmuz 2019 Tarihli Hukuki veya Ticari Konularda Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi Hakkında Lahey Sözleşmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Özel Hukuk Yüksek Lisans Tezleri Dizisi 54. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık, 2021.
56. Kreindler, Richard H., Reinmar Wolff ve Markus S. Rieder. Commercial Arbitration in Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
57. Lai, Ho Hock. “Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award: Re An Arbitration Between Hainan Machinery Import and Export Corporation and Donald & McArthy Pte Ltd.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law), 1996, 241-50.
58. Landbrecht, Johannes. “The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) an Alternative to International Arbitration?” ASA Bulletin 34, no. 1 (2016): 112-25.
59. Lew, Julian D. M., Loukas A. Mistelis ve Stefan M. Kröll. Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003.
60. Liebscher, Christoph. “Preliminary Remarks.” In New York Convention: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Article-by-Article Commentary, edited by Reinmar Wolff, 1-24. München, Germany: C.H. Beck & Hart & Nomos, 2019.
61. LII - Legal Information Institute. “Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” Erişim Tarihi: Kasım 28, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction.
62. Marchadier, Fabien. “L’intérêt à Agir En Exequatur Devant Le Juge Français n’est Pas Subordonné à La Présence En France de Biens Appartenant Au Débiteur: (Civ. 1 Re, 26 Juin 2019, N° 17-19.240, D. 2019. 1398 ; Ibid. 1956, Obs. L. d’Avout, S. Bollée et E. Farnoux ; JCP 2019. 916, Note A. Danet).” Revue Critique de Droit International Privé N° 2, no. 2 (2020): 295-300.
63. Masih-Hanneghan, Nathan. “Current Trends in the Use of Worldwide Freezing Orders to Enforce Foreign Arbitral Awards: Powers of the English Courts.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, December 3, 2025. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/ current-trends-in-the-use-of-worldwide-freezing-orders-to-enforce-foreign-arbitralawards- powers-of-the-english-courts/.
64. Merkin, Robert ve Louis Flannery. Arbitration Act 1996. Lloyd’s Arbitration Law Library. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014.
65. Mesci, Barış ve Emre Esen. “Milletlerarası Ticarî Uyuşmazlıkların Yargısal Yolla Çözümünde Tahkime Rakip Olarak Milletlerarası Ticaret Mahkemeleri: Hollanda Ticaret Mahkemesi Üzerinden Bir Analiz.” Public and Private International Law Bulletin 40, no. 2 (2020): 1223-59.
66. Mikhail, Samoylov. “Validity of Arbitration Clauses in Russia Since 2022.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, September 9, 2025. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitrationblog/ validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/.
67. Moser, Michael J. ve Teresa Y. W. Cheng. Hong Kong Arbitration: A User’s Guide. Hong Kong: CCH Hong Kong, 2008.
68. Moser, Michael J. ve Robert Morgan. “National Report for the Hong Kong (2021 through 2023).” In International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, edited by Lise Bosman, 1-193. Kluwer Law International, 2023.
69. Murphy, Sean D. “Negotiation of Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments.” American Journal of International Law 95, no. 2 (2001): 418-21.
70. Naseer, Muhammad Mohsin. “United Arab Emirates.” In The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards - 4th Edition, by Global Arbitration Review. Law Business Research, 2025. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guidechallenging- and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition.
71. Nomer, Ergin. Devletler Hususî Hukuku. İstanbul: Beta, 2015.
72. NS Bank v. Lukoil, Decision of the Supreme Court of Russia А40-214726/2023, 28 nov. 2024. Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 14, 2025. https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/ decision/ru-joint-stock-comapny-ns-bank-v-public-joint-stock-company-lukoiloil- company-opredelenie-vysshego-arbitrazhnogo-suda-rossiiskoi-federatsii-a40- 214726-2023-thursday-28th-november-2024.
73. Özbakan, Işıl. Türk Hukukunda Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi. İstanbul: Kazancı Hukuk Yayınları, 1987.
74. PESA v. UralTransMash, Decision of the Arbitrazh Court of the Sverdlovsk Region А60-36897/2020, 24 Nov 2020. Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 14, 2025. https://jusmundi.com/ en/document/decision/ru-pojazdy-szynowe-pesa-bydgoszcz-sa-v-uraltransmashopredelenie- arbitrazhnyi-sud-sverdlovskoi-oblasti-tuesday-24th-november-2020.
75. Pinkston, Jarred, Zhong Guan, Genevieve Poirier, Wesley Pydiamah ve Pascal Schumacher. “Jurisdictional Requirements for the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against Defendants and Their Ownership Interest in Subsidiaries-a Comparative Review.” International Arbitration Law Review 15, no. 3 (2012): 97-117.
76. Rajput, Shelal Lodhi. Sanctions and Sovereignty: Russia’s Legal Retreat from International Arbitration - Daily Jus. Russia. July 15, 2025. https://dailyjus.com/world/2025/07/ sanctions-and-sovereignty-russia-legal-retreat-from-international-arbitration.
77. Reyes, Anselmo. Practice of International Commercial Arbitration: A Handbook for Hong Kong Arbitrators. Lloyd’s Arbitration Law Library. Routledge, 2021.
78. Rosseel NV v Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co (UK) Ltd [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 625 (High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division November 16, 1990). https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=150141.
79. ROST - Rus Türk Ticaret Evi. “Türkiye’nin 2024’ün İlk Ayında En Çok Ithalat Yaptığı Ülke, 15,3 Milyar Dolar Ile Rusya Oldu.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 12, 2025. https://ros-t. com/bilgilendirme-detay-turkiyenin-2024un-ilk-ayinda-en-cok-ithalat-yaptigi-ulke- 153-milyar-dolar-ile-rusya-oldu-22.
80. Rubinina, Evgeniya. “Russian Sanctions Law Bares Its Teeth: The Russian Supreme Court Allows Sanctioned Russian Parties to Walk Away From Arbitration Agreements.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, January 22, 2022. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/ arbitration-blog/russian-sanctions-law-bares-its-teeth-the-russian-supreme-courtallows- sanctioned-russian-parties-to-walk-away-from-arbitration-agreements/.
81. Şanlı, Cemal, Emre Esen ve İnci Ataman-Figanmeşe. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk. İstanbul: Beta, 2023.
82. Sargın, Fügen ve Rifat Erten. “MÖHUK Hükümleri Dairesinde Tanımanın Hukukî Niteliği Usûlü ve Karşılaşılan Bazı Sorunlar.” Uluslararası Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 3, no. 2 (2014): 37-136.
83. Scherer, Maxi. “Art. III, IV, V(1)(b).” In New York Convention: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Article-by-Article Commentary, edited by Reinmar Wolff, 199-230. München, Germany: C.H. Beck & Hart & Nomos, 2019.
84. School of International Arbitration - Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP. “2025 International Arbitration Survey: ‘The Path Forward: Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration’ - School of International Arbitration.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 19, 2025. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/arbitration/research/2025-internationalarbitration- survey/.
85. Seraglini, Christophe ve Quentin Herruel. “France.” In The Guide to Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards - 4th Edition, by Global Arbitration Review. Law Business Research, 2025. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-challengingand- enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition.
86. “Singapore International Commercial Court.” Accessed November 3, 2025. https://www. judiciary.gov.sg/singapore-international-commercial-court.
87. Srivastava, Abhishek. “The Enforcement of Arbitral Awards under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act 1921 in Singapore: An Enforcement Regime That Undermines the New York Convention?” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, December 23, 2022. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/the-enforcement-of-arbitralawards- under-the-reciprocal-enforcement-of-commonwealth-judgments-act-1921-insingapore- an-enforcement-regime-that-undermines-the-new-york-convention/.
88. Sutton, David St John, Judith Gill ve Matthew Gearing. Russell on Arbitration. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015.
89. Svenska v. Lithuania, Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales [2006] EWCA 1529 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales November 13, 2006). https:// jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-svenska-petroleum-exploration-ab-v-abgeonafta- and-the-republic-of-lithuania-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-englandand- wales-2006-ewca-1529-monday-13th-november-2006.
90. Tarman, Zeynep Derya. “Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Sıklıkla Karşılaşılan Hukuki Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri.” İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 14, no. 1 (2023): 73-86.
91. T.C. Moskova Büyükelçiliği Ticaret Müşavirliği. Rusya Federasyonu Ülke Raporu (2024). Ülke Raporu. 2024. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5bcc5d4813b876034cfece26/ RF%20%C3%9Clke%20Raporu%202024.pdf.
92. Teitz, Louise Ellen. “Both Sides of the Coin: A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation.” Roger Williams University Law Review 10, no. 1 (2004): 1-71.
93. “The Federal Judiciary | The Official Platform of the UAE Government.” Erişim Tarihi: Ekim 22, 2025. https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/the-uae-government/the-federal-judiciary. Tiryakioğlu, Bilgin. Yabancı Boşanma Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tanınması ve Tenfizi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Döner Sermaye Yayınları, 1996.
94. van Loon, Hans. “Towards a Global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.” University of Niš Collection of Papers of the Faculty of Law 58, no. 82 (2019): 15-36.
95. Vij, Jagriti. “Singapore’s Stance on Enforcement of Foreign Awards Set Aside at the Seat: Some Recent Developments.” Arbitration International 41, no. 1 (2025): 197-202.
96. Yahya Murat Demirel v Tasarruf Mevduati Sigorta Fonu [2007] EWCA Civ799 (England and Wales Court of Appeal July 26, 2007). https://vlex.co.uk/vid/tasarruf-mevduatisigorta- fonu-793520509.
97. Yang, Ling. “Recent Developments in Hong Kong Arbitration.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, October 17, 2023. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/recentdevelopments- in-hong-kong-arbitration/.