Determination of the Knowledge Level of the Technical Staff about Arbitration

Yıl 2024, , 237 - 245, 15.03.2024

Hasan Bakırcı , Ayten Canbal

https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1394781

Öz

Türkiye has become one of the world's leading countries in the construction sector in the international arena. Today, the use of FIDIC and similar standard contracts is increasing in Turkish contractor companies. In parallel with this situation, it also becomes more common to prefer arbitration in the settlement of disputes in the international construction sector. In the literature, there is no actual publication about the knowledge level of technical staff on arbitration. By taking this deficiency into consideration, the purpose of this study is to measure the awareness of the groups working in the construction sector about the possibility of applying to arbitration as a result of the disputes that they encounter, by measuring the arbitration knowledge level of the technical staff. Accordingly, an empirical field work was conducted with a total of 100 (one hundred) technical staff working in the public and private sector transportation projects in Istanbul. The data collection tool that was used in the research is a questionnaire developed by the researchers and consisting of 25 questions. In the survey analysis, the data were analyzed with the SPSS 28 package program. In the study, a reliability test was conducted for each statement and the Mann-Whitney U test was used. As a result of the analysis, it has been determined that 84.4% of the participants do not follow up the actual developments in the field of arbitration in the world and in Türkiye, and do not have sufficient knowledge about arbitration. However, it has been determined that the arbitration knowledge level of the participants, who follow up the actual developments in the world and in Türkiye and have sufficient knowledge about arbitration, is high. In addition, it has been determined that 93.8% of the participants would like to participate an information training to be held on arbitration. To increase awareness about arbitration, it is necessary to introduce undergraduate-level arbitration courses for technical staff in engineering and architecture faculties at universities, and to organize periodic in-service training programs by the arbitration centers in our country.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Arbitration, Construction law, Alternative dispute resolution ways, Knowledge level, Contract management

Etik Beyan

Ethics Committee Approval was obtained for the survey study included in this article with the decision No: 2022/193 in the session held at 13.30 on the date: 21.10.2022 of the Ethics Committee of Social Sciences and Humanities of Harran University.

Kaynakça

• Akıncı Z. 2013. Neden İstanbul tahkim merkezi? Why center for arbitration in İstanbul?. Yaşar Üniv E-Derg, 8: 79-96.
• Alpkökin P. 2017. Türk inşaat sektöründe uyuşmazlık çözüm kurulu uygulamaları. Karaelmas Fen Müh Derg, 7(2), 674-683.
• Arcadis. 2022. Global construction disputes report. URL: https://www.arcadis.com/en-gb/knowledge-hub/perspectives/global/global-construction-disputes-report (erişim tarihi: 25 Eylül 2023).
• Arıcı Y. 2012. İnşaat sektöründe ADR (alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm yolları) kullanımı ve seçim kriterlerinin kamu ve özel sektör açısından incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 137.
• Baştürk R. 2010. Nonparametrik istatistiksel yöntemler. Anı Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 240.
• Çevikbaş M. Köksal A. 2018. An investigation of litigation process in construction industry in Turkey. Teknik Derg, 29(6): 8715-8729.
• Dalmaz Ç. 2012. Uluslararası fidic sözleşmelerinde tahkim hususunun incelenmesi ve bir kavramsal model önerisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya, Türkiye, pp: 114.
• Daşdelen A. 2006. Yapım yönetimi eğitiminde inşaat hukuku. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 132.
• Delgado Rico E, Carrctero Dios H, Ruch W. 2012. Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. Int J Clinic Health Psych, 12: 449-459.
• Gebken RJ, Gibson GE, Groton JP. 2005. Dispute resolution transactional cost quantification: what does resolving a construction dispute really cost? Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, April 5-7, California, US, pp: 1-10.
• George D, Mallery P. 2019. IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference, 16th ed. Routledge, New York, US, pp: 402.
• Gürbüz A. 2023. Spor tahkim mahkemesi’nin (cas) isminde yer alan “tahkim” ve “mahkeme” kavramlarının incelenmesi ve spor tahkim mahkemesi’nde uygulanan tahkim ile geleneksel tahkimin karşılaştırılması. İstanbul Ticaret Üniv Sos Bil Derg, 22(48): 921-941.
• ICC. 2020. ICC dispute resolution statistics. URL: https://library.iccwbo.org/content/dr/STATISTICAL_REPORTS/SR_0042.htm?l1=Statistical+Reports (erişim tarihi: 20 Eylül 2023).
• İlter D, Dikbaş A. 2011. Uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemi seçimi için bir karar verme yaklaşım, İTÜ Derg/A Mimarlık, 10(1): 165-176.
• Kalaycı Ş. 2006. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 426.
• Karagöz Y. 2016. İstatistiksel analizler. Nobel Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 1336.
• Kirsh L. 1965. Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons, New York, US, pp: 664.
• Mistelis L. 2004. International arbitration-corporate attitudes and practices-12 perceptions tested: Myths, data and analysis research report. American Rev Int Arbitrat, 15: 525.
• Müngen U, Kuruoğlu M. 2000. İnşaat mühendisliğinde yapı işletmesi meslek içi eğitim ihtiyacı ve bir uygulama program örneği, 2.Yapı İşletmesi Kongresi, 15-17 Haziran, İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 259-270.
• Ossman G, Bayraktar ME, Cui Q. 2010. Consistency and reliability of construction arbitration decisions: empirical study. J Manag Eng, 26(2): 56-64.
• Pamuklu T. 2015. İnşaat projeleri ile ilgili tahkim yargılamalarında çapraz sorgu. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 143.
• Pekcanıtez H, Korkmaz HT, Akkan M, Özekes M. 2017. Medeni usul hukuku. On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 689.
• Pekcanıtez H. 2010. İstanbul tahkim merkezi kanun taslağı, Dokuz Eylül Üniv Hukuk Fak Derg, 12: 635-655.
• Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. 2007. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health, 30(4): 459-467.
• Purselim HS, 2021. Milletlerarası tahkim kanunu çerçevesinde kira sözleşmelerinin tahkime elverişliliği. Marmara Üniv Hukuk Fak Hukuk Araş Derg, 27(1): 496-512.
• Yılmazsoy E. 2020. Tahkim ve hakem sözleşmeleri. Türkiye Adalet Akad Derg, 1(41): 389-426.