Reconsidering the Issues Regarding Validity of Arbitration Agreements Referring to Non-Existing Arbitral Institutions or Including Uncertain References to Arbitral Institutions and the Turkish Experience

Öz

Arbitration agreements referring to non-existing arbitral institutions or including undefined references to arbitral institutions are significantly observed in international arbitration practice. Validity of such arbitration agreements becomes debatable due to the pathological intent thereof. If the pathology may be resolved by way of interpretation in the manner that leaves no room for doubt, the ideal solution is resolution of such problems by way of interpretation by means of supporting parties’ common intent towards arbitration and of protecting legitimate expectations of parties in compliance with bona fides principle. However, if interpretation of an undefined reference in an arbitration agreement leads to uncertainty about competence of certain arbitral institutions, such agreement aimed at institutional arbitration either may be accepted to be turned into an agreement aimed at ad hoc arbitration or may be held null-and-void, depending on position of law of seat of arbitration. If seat of arbitration is also undefined or non-existing, arbitration agreement shall be held incapable of being performed and null-and-void. Attitude of Turkish courts seems in conformity with the three approaches to a large extent and may be qualified as satisfactory but determining validity of such arbitration agreements without reference to any law applicable and disregarding the right of access to justice should be criticized.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arbitration agreement
• pathological arbitration agreement
• reference to non-existing arbitral institutions
• undefined references to arbitral institutions
• institutional arbitration
• ad hoc arbitration
• seat of arbitration
• interpretation of arbitration agreement

Destekleyen Kurum

The author received no grant support for this work.

Kaynakça

1. Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim [International Arbitration] (4th edn, Vedat 2016)
2. Born G, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2014)
3. Çelikel A and Erdem BB, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk [Private International Law] (14th edn, Beta 2016)
4. Ekşi N, Türk Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi [International Jurisdiction of Turkish Courts] (2nd edn, Beta 2000)
5. Ekşi N, Milletlerarası Deniz Ticareti Alanında ‘Incorporation’ Yoluyla Yapılan Tahkim Anlaşmaları [Arbitration Agreements Concluded by Incorporation in International Maritime Commerce] (Beta 2004)
6. Ekşi N, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda Tahkim [Arbitration under the Code of Civil Procedure] (Beta 2013)
7. Esen E, Uluslararası Ticarî Tahkimde Tahkim Anlaşmasının Üçüncü Kişilere Teşmili [Extension of Arbitration Agreements to Non-Signatories in International Commercial Arbitration] (Beta 2008)
8. Davis BG, ‘Pathological Clauses: Eisemann’s Still Vital Criteria’ 7(4) (1991) Arbitration International 365-388

9. Eisemann F, ‘La clause d’arbitrage pathologique’ in Eugenio Minoli (ed), Commercial Arbitration Essays in Memoriam 129 ff (1974)
10. Fouchard P, Gaillard E and Goldman B, ‘International Commercial Arbitration’, in Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage (eds) (Kluwer Law International 1999)
11. Gözübüyük Ş and Gölcüklü F, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması [European Convention on Human Rights and Its Application](10th edn, Turhan 2013)
12. İnceoğlu S, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararlarında Adil Yargılanma Hakkı [The Right to a Fair Trial in Decisions of European Court of Human Rights] (4th edn., Beta 2013)
13. Karadaş İ, Ulusal (İç) Tahkim [National (Domestic) Arbitration] (Adalet 2013)
14. Karrer PA, ‘Pathological Arbitration Clauses - Malpractice, Diagnosis and Theraphy’ The International Practice of Law, Liber Amicorum for Thomas Bar and Robert Karrer (1997) 110 ff
15. Kuru B, Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usulü [Law of Civil Procedure](6th edn, Yetkin 2001)
16. Molfa M, ‘Pathological Arbitration Clauses and the Conflict of Laws’ 37 (2007) Hong Kong Law Journal 161-184
17. Nomer E, Ekşi N and Öztekin-Gelgel G , Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku [Law of International Arbitration](3rd edn, Beta 2008)
18. Nomer E, Devletler Hususî Hukuku [Private International Law] (21st edn, Beta 2015)
19. Özbek M, ‘Sosyal Devletin Gereği, Adalete Erişim [Requirement of Social State, Access to Justice]’ (2006) (1) Legal Medeni Usul, İcra ve İflas Hukuku Dergisi [Legal Journal of Law of Civil Procedure, Execution and Bankruptcy]
20. Pekcanıtez H Atalay O and Özekes M, Medeni Usul Hukuku [Law of Civil Procedure] (14th edn, On İki Levha 2013)
21. Poudret JF and Besson S, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007)
22. Şanlı C, Esen E and Ataman-Figanmeşe İ, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk [Private International Law] (5th edn, Vedat 2016)
23. Şanlı C, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları [Drafting International Commercial Agreements and Settlement of Disputes] (6th edn. Beta 2016)
24. Van Den Berg AJ, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation (Wolters Kluwer 1981)