BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

İNGİLİZ TAHKİM HUKUKUNDA GEÇİCİ HUKUKÎ KORUMA ÖNLEMLERİ

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 3, 539 - 578, 01.09.2009
https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001579

Öz

Hukuk düzenleri, tahkimde geçici hukukî koruma önlemleri hususunda değişik yaklaşımlar benimsemişlerdir. Bunlardan ikisi önem taşımaktadır. 1985 UNCITRAL Model Kanunun kabul ettiği serbest seçim modelinde, geçici hukukî koruma mahkemeden veya hakem kurulundan istenebilir. Serbest seçim modelinin karşısında, İngiliz hukukunda kabul edilen “court subsidiarity model” yer almaktadır. Bu modelde, geçici hukukî korumanın mahkemelerden talep edilebilmesi için belli bazı şartların gerçekleşmesi gerekmektedir. Son modelde, mahkemeler geçici hukukî koruma önlem kararlarının gerek verilmesinde ve gerek bu kararların icrasında son yetkili mercii kabul edilmektedir. Çalışmada, İngiliz Tahkim Kanunu 1996’ya göre, geçici hukukî koruma önlemleri konusunda yetkili makamlar, söz konusu makamların yetkisinin şartları, hakem kurulu tarafından verilen kararların icrası ve tahkim yerinin İngiltere dışında olduğu halde tahkime İngiliz mahkemelerinin yardımı konuları açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır

Kaynakça

  • ADHIPATHI, Sandeep: International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present and Future, LLM Theses: University of Georgia School of Law 2003.
  • BİLGE, N.: Hukuk Başlangıcı-Hukukun Temel İlkeleri, B. 6, Ankara: Turhan 1987.
  • BROWER, Charles N./TUPMAN, W. Michael: “Court-Ordered Provisional Measures under the New York Convention”, American Journal of International Law, 1986, Vol. 80, Issue 1, s. 24-42.
  • COLLINS, Lawrence: “Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, Recueil Des Cours, 1992 (234), III, s. 9- 238.
  • DEWAN, Nakul: “Interim Measures in Arbitration - A Comparative Analysis of Indian and English Arbitration Acts”, International Business Law Journal, 2003, No. 6, s. 667-695.
  • El-AHDAB, Abdul Hamid: Arbitration with the Arab Countries, Deventer: Kluwer 1990.
  • ERTEN, Rifat: “ABD Tahkim Hukukunda Mahkemelerin Tahkim Yargılamasına Yardımları: Hakem Kararı Öncesi Geçici Hukukî Koruma Önlemlerine İlişkin Yaklaşımlar”, Halûk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, C. I, Ankara: Yetkin 2009, s. 255-291.
  • FRASER, David: “Arbitration of International Commercial Disputes under English Law”, American Review of International Arbitration, 1997, Vol. 8, s. 1-19.
  • HADİMOĞLU, Nimet Ö.: Brüksel (I) Tüzüğü Işığında AB Hukukunda Geçici ve Koruyucu Tedbir Kararları, Ankara: Yetkin 2009.
  • HUNTER, Martin/LANDAU, Toby: The English Arbitration Act 1996: Text and Notes, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1998.
  • HUNTER, J. Martin H.: “Judicial Assistance for the Arbitrator”, Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (ed. Julian D. M. LEW), London: Martinus Nijhoff Pub. 1987, s. 195-206.
  • KOJOVIĆ, Tijana: “Court Enforcement of Arbitral Decisions on Provisional Relief, How Final is Provisional?”, Journal of International Arbitration, 2001, Vol. 18, Issue 5, s. 511-532.
  • LEW, Julian D.M.: “English Arbitration Act 1975”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1975, Vol. 24, s. 870-878.
  • MERKIN, Robert: Arbitration Act 1996: An Annotated Guide, London/New York/Hong Kong: LLP 1996.
  • Oxford Dictionary of Law, B. 5, Oxford/New York: Oxford 2002.
  • ÖZEKES, Muhammet: İcra İflas Hukukunda İhtiyatî Haciz, Ankara: Seçkin 1999.
  • PEKCANITEZ, Hakan/ATALAY, Oğuz/ÖZEKES, Muhammet: Medeni Usûl Hukuku, B. 6, Ankara: Yetkin 2001.
  • PEKCANITEZ, Hakan: “Milletlerarası Tahkimde Geçici Koruma Önlemleri”, Milletlerarası Tahkim Semineri (10 Mart 2003), Ankara: ICC Türkiye Milli Komitesi 2003, s. 115-152.
  • REDFERN, D. Alan: “Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection - Is the Tide about to Turn”, Texas International Law Journal, 1995, Vol. 30, No. 1, s. 71-88.
  • REYMOND, Claude: “The Channel Tunnel Case and the Law of International Arbitration”, Law Quarterly Review, 1993, Vol. 109, s. 337-342.
  • RUBINO-SAMMARTANO, Mauro: “The Channel Tunnel and the Tronc Commun Doctrine”, Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, Vol. 10, No. 3, s. 59-66.
  • RUBINS, Noah: “In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash: Security for Costs in International Commercial Arbitration”, American Review of International Arbitration, 2000, Vol. 11, s. 307-378.
  • SCHAEFER, Jan K.: “New Solutions for Interim Measures of Protection in International Commercial Arbitration: English, German and Hong Kong Law Compared”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 2.2, 1998, <http://www.ejcl.org/22/abs22- 2.html>, (20.04.2009).
  • SHENTON, D.W.: “Attachments and other Interim Court Remedies in Support of Arbitration-The English Courts”, International Business Lawyer, 1989, Vol. 12, s. 101.
  • STEINBRÜCK, Ben: “German and English Court Orders in Support of Foreign Arbitrations”, European Business Organization Law Review, 2005, Vol. 6, s. 313-328.
  • THOMAS, David B.: “Interim Relief Pursuant to Institutional Rules under the English Arbitration Act 1996”, Arbitration International, 1997, Vol. 13, No. 4, s. 405-409.
  • VERBIST, Herman/IMHOOS, Christophe: “The New 1998 ICC Arbitration Rules”, <http://www.imhoos-law.ch/doc/ICCNew Rules.pdf>, (20.04.2009); aynı makale için bkz. International Business Law Journal, 1997, No. 8, 989-1022.
  • WANG, William: “International Arbitration: The Need for Uniform Interim Measures of Relief”, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2002–2003, Vol. 28, s. 1059–1099.
  • WERBICKI, Raymond J.: “Arbitral Interim Measures: Fact or Fiction?”, Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003, Vol. 57, s. 62-69.
  • YEŞİN, Erdoğan: “İngiliz Hukukunda Milletlerarası Tahkim”, Milletlerarası Tahkim Konusunda Yasal Bir Düzenleme Gerekir mi? (Sempozyum, Bildiriler-Tartışmalar, 11 Nisan 1997), Ankara: BTHAE 1997, s. 107-121.
  • YILMAZ, Ejder: Geçici Hukukî Himaye Tedbirleri, C. I, Ankara: Yetkin 2001.
  • ZICHERMAN, David L.: “Use of Pre-Judgment Attachments and Temporary Injunctions in International Commercial Arbitration Proceedings: A Comparative Analysis of the British and American Approaches”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1989, Vol. 50, Issue 2, s. 667–700.

Provisional Measures of Protection under English Arbitration Law

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 3, 539 - 578, 01.09.2009
https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001579

Öz

In various legal systems, different approaches exist regarding provisional measures of protection in arbitration. In this regard, two approaches deserve special attention. While in the “free choice model” that is provided under the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985, provisional measures of protection may be requested from the courts or from arbitral tribunals, while in the “court subsidiarity model,” which is provided under English law, some conditions have to be met in order to request provisional measures of protection from the courts. In the latter model, the courts are deemed as final resorts, not only in deciding on the provisional measures of protection but also for the enforcement of such decisions. In this regard, this article aims to explain some issues of the English Arbitration Act of 1996, such as the competent authorities for the provisional measures of protection, the conditions of their competence, enforcement of arbitral provisional measures of protection as well as the support of English courts in arbitral proceedings, where the seat of arbitration is outside England

Kaynakça

  • ADHIPATHI, Sandeep: International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present and Future, LLM Theses: University of Georgia School of Law 2003.
  • BİLGE, N.: Hukuk Başlangıcı-Hukukun Temel İlkeleri, B. 6, Ankara: Turhan 1987.
  • BROWER, Charles N./TUPMAN, W. Michael: “Court-Ordered Provisional Measures under the New York Convention”, American Journal of International Law, 1986, Vol. 80, Issue 1, s. 24-42.
  • COLLINS, Lawrence: “Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, Recueil Des Cours, 1992 (234), III, s. 9- 238.
  • DEWAN, Nakul: “Interim Measures in Arbitration - A Comparative Analysis of Indian and English Arbitration Acts”, International Business Law Journal, 2003, No. 6, s. 667-695.
  • El-AHDAB, Abdul Hamid: Arbitration with the Arab Countries, Deventer: Kluwer 1990.
  • ERTEN, Rifat: “ABD Tahkim Hukukunda Mahkemelerin Tahkim Yargılamasına Yardımları: Hakem Kararı Öncesi Geçici Hukukî Koruma Önlemlerine İlişkin Yaklaşımlar”, Halûk Konuralp Anısına Armağan, C. I, Ankara: Yetkin 2009, s. 255-291.
  • FRASER, David: “Arbitration of International Commercial Disputes under English Law”, American Review of International Arbitration, 1997, Vol. 8, s. 1-19.
  • HADİMOĞLU, Nimet Ö.: Brüksel (I) Tüzüğü Işığında AB Hukukunda Geçici ve Koruyucu Tedbir Kararları, Ankara: Yetkin 2009.
  • HUNTER, Martin/LANDAU, Toby: The English Arbitration Act 1996: Text and Notes, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1998.
  • HUNTER, J. Martin H.: “Judicial Assistance for the Arbitrator”, Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (ed. Julian D. M. LEW), London: Martinus Nijhoff Pub. 1987, s. 195-206.
  • KOJOVIĆ, Tijana: “Court Enforcement of Arbitral Decisions on Provisional Relief, How Final is Provisional?”, Journal of International Arbitration, 2001, Vol. 18, Issue 5, s. 511-532.
  • LEW, Julian D.M.: “English Arbitration Act 1975”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1975, Vol. 24, s. 870-878.
  • MERKIN, Robert: Arbitration Act 1996: An Annotated Guide, London/New York/Hong Kong: LLP 1996.
  • Oxford Dictionary of Law, B. 5, Oxford/New York: Oxford 2002.
  • ÖZEKES, Muhammet: İcra İflas Hukukunda İhtiyatî Haciz, Ankara: Seçkin 1999.
  • PEKCANITEZ, Hakan/ATALAY, Oğuz/ÖZEKES, Muhammet: Medeni Usûl Hukuku, B. 6, Ankara: Yetkin 2001.
  • PEKCANITEZ, Hakan: “Milletlerarası Tahkimde Geçici Koruma Önlemleri”, Milletlerarası Tahkim Semineri (10 Mart 2003), Ankara: ICC Türkiye Milli Komitesi 2003, s. 115-152.
  • REDFERN, D. Alan: “Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection - Is the Tide about to Turn”, Texas International Law Journal, 1995, Vol. 30, No. 1, s. 71-88.
  • REYMOND, Claude: “The Channel Tunnel Case and the Law of International Arbitration”, Law Quarterly Review, 1993, Vol. 109, s. 337-342.
  • RUBINO-SAMMARTANO, Mauro: “The Channel Tunnel and the Tronc Commun Doctrine”, Journal of International Arbitration, 1993, Vol. 10, No. 3, s. 59-66.
  • RUBINS, Noah: “In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash: Security for Costs in International Commercial Arbitration”, American Review of International Arbitration, 2000, Vol. 11, s. 307-378.
  • SCHAEFER, Jan K.: “New Solutions for Interim Measures of Protection in International Commercial Arbitration: English, German and Hong Kong Law Compared”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 2.2, 1998, <http://www.ejcl.org/22/abs22- 2.html>, (20.04.2009).
  • SHENTON, D.W.: “Attachments and other Interim Court Remedies in Support of Arbitration-The English Courts”, International Business Lawyer, 1989, Vol. 12, s. 101.
  • STEINBRÜCK, Ben: “German and English Court Orders in Support of Foreign Arbitrations”, European Business Organization Law Review, 2005, Vol. 6, s. 313-328.
  • THOMAS, David B.: “Interim Relief Pursuant to Institutional Rules under the English Arbitration Act 1996”, Arbitration International, 1997, Vol. 13, No. 4, s. 405-409.
  • VERBIST, Herman/IMHOOS, Christophe: “The New 1998 ICC Arbitration Rules”, <http://www.imhoos-law.ch/doc/ICCNew Rules.pdf>, (20.04.2009); aynı makale için bkz. International Business Law Journal, 1997, No. 8, 989-1022.
  • WANG, William: “International Arbitration: The Need for Uniform Interim Measures of Relief”, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 2002–2003, Vol. 28, s. 1059–1099.
  • WERBICKI, Raymond J.: “Arbitral Interim Measures: Fact or Fiction?”, Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov. 2002-Jan. 2003, Vol. 57, s. 62-69.
  • YEŞİN, Erdoğan: “İngiliz Hukukunda Milletlerarası Tahkim”, Milletlerarası Tahkim Konusunda Yasal Bir Düzenleme Gerekir mi? (Sempozyum, Bildiriler-Tartışmalar, 11 Nisan 1997), Ankara: BTHAE 1997, s. 107-121.
  • YILMAZ, Ejder: Geçici Hukukî Himaye Tedbirleri, C. I, Ankara: Yetkin 2001.
  • ZICHERMAN, David L.: “Use of Pre-Judgment Attachments and Temporary Injunctions in International Commercial Arbitration Proceedings: A Comparative Analysis of the British and American Approaches”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1989, Vol. 50, Issue 2, s. 667–700.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Diğer ID JA23DE73CE
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Rifat Erten Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Eylül 2009
Gönderilme Tarihi 1 Eylül 2009
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2009 Cilt: 58 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

Chicago Erten, Rifat. “İNGİLİZ TAHKİM HUKUKUNDA GEÇİCİ HUKUKÎ KORUMA ÖNLEMLERİ”. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 58, sy. 3 (Eylül 2009): 539-78. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001579.
.