“Tahkim Yerinin, Müdahale Etmeme İlkesi Üzerindeki Rolü: Hakem Kararlarına Karşı Kanun Yoluna İlişkin 1996 tarihli İngiliz Tahkim Kanunu 67, 68 ve 69. Bölümler Londra’nın Cazip Bir Tahkim Merkezi Olmasını Sağlıyor Mu?”

Öz

Londra'yı tercih edilen bir tahkim yeri haline getiren çeşitli belirleyiciler söz konusudur. Bu bağlamda, hakem kararlarına karşı kanun yoluna başvuru sebeplerinin, Londra'nın tahkim yeri olarak belirlenmesinde bazı önemli etkileri vardır. Tahkim yerinin Londra olarak belirlendiği tahkimler İngiliz mahkemelerinin ‘denetleyici yetkisi’ ve 1996 tarihli Tahkim Kanunu’nun kapsamında icra edilmektedir. Yani, hakemlerin ara veya nihai kararlarına yönelik kanun yolu başvurularında tahkim yeri olarak belirlenen yer mahkemeleri yetkili olmaktadır. Uluslararası tahkimin rızaya dayalı doğası, taraf özerkliği, yargıya müdahale etmeme ve hakem kararlarının kesinliği gibi bazı temel ilkelere bağlıdır. Bununla birlikte, hakem kararının bağlayıcı yönü ve ulusal mahkemelerin nihai kararlarına benzer şekilde icra edilmeleri, “dengeli” bir şekilde uygulanacak bir yargı denetiminin varlığını gerektirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngiliz Tahkim Kanunu
• Tahkim yeri
• hakem kararına karşı kanun yoluna başvuru
• yargılamaya müdahale etmeme ilkesi
• kesinlik

The Impact of the Seat of Arbitration on Judicial-Interference: Do Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 regarding Challenges of Awards Make London An Attractive Hub?

Öz

There are various determinants that induce London to be the favourable seat. In this regard, the grounds for challenging an award have some severe implications on determining London as the arbitral seat. Arbitrations with a London seat are exercised under the ‘supervisory jurisdiction’ of the English courts and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). That is to say, any challenge to an interim or final award made by the arbitrators may be fulfilled in the courts of the location chosen as the arbitral seat. The consensual nature of international arbitration depends on certain core principles such as party autonomy, judicial non-intervention and finality of the arbitral awards. Nonetheless, the binding aspect of the arbitral award and its enforceability akin to that of final judgements of national courts necessitate some “balanced” degree of judicial supervision.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• English Arbitration Act
• Arbitral seat
• challenging an award
• judicial non-intervention
• finality

Kaynakça

1. Andrews N, The Modern Civil Process, Judicial and Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution in England (Mohr Siebeck 2008)
2. Belohlavek A J, ‘Seat of Arbitration and Supporting and Supervising Function of Courts’ in Alexander Belohlavek, Nadezda Rozehnalova (eds), Interaction of Arbitration and Courts, Czech Yearbook of Arbitration, vol 5 (2015, Juris)
3. Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter J M, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edn, OUP 2015)
4. Blake S, Browne J, Sime S, A Practical Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution (5th edn, OUP 2018)
5. Born G B, International Commercial Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2014)
6. Born G B, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, (3th edn, Wolters Kluwer International 2010)
7. Greenberg S, Kee C, Weeramantry R, International Commercial Arbitration: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (CUP 2011)
8. Heilbron H, A Practical Guide to International Arbitration in London (1st edn., Informa Law 2008)

9. Karrer P A, Introduction to International Arbitration Practice (Kluwer Law International 2014)
10. Lalive P, ‘On the Neutrality of the Arbitrator and of the Place of Arbitration’, Swiss Essays on International Arbitration (1984), 30, 31, https://www.lalive.law/data/publications/43
11. _On_the_Neutrality_of_the_Arbitrator_and_of_the_Place_of_Arbitration_Recueil_de_travaux_suisses_sur_l'arbitrage_international.pdf
12. Lew J, ‘London’ in Michael Ostrove, Cladia Salomon, Bette Shifman (eds), Choice of Venue in International Arbitration (OUP 2014)
13. Petrochilos G, Procedural Law in International Arbitration (OUP 2004)
14. Seriki H O, Judicial Involvement and Intervention in Arbitration Proceedings After the Arbitration Act 1996, PhD Thesis, (Wales Cardiff, 2002)
15. Sutton D S J, Gill J, Russell on Arbitration (24th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2015)
16. Turner P, Mohtashami R, A Guide to the LCIA Arbitration Rules (OUP 2009)
17. Waincymer J, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2012)
18. Wolfson D, Charlwood S, ‘Chapter 25: Challenges to Arbitration’ in Julian D M Lew, Harris Bor, et al (eds) Arbitration in England, with Chapters on Scotland and Ireland (Kluwer Law International 2013)
19. Abedian H, ‘Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards in International Arbitration-A Case for an Efficient System of Judicial Review’ (2011) 28 (6) Journal of International Arbitration 533
20. Carter J, Macpherson C, ‘Arbitral Awards-Challenging to Challenge’ (2016) 19 (4) International Arbitration Law Review 89
21. Gelander J L, ‘Judicial Review of International Arbitral Awards: Preserving Independence in International Commercial Arbitrations’ (1997) 80 Marquette Law Review 625
22. Giovannini T, ‘The Making and Enforcement of Arbitral Award: What are the Grounds on Which Awards Are Most Often Set Aside?’ (2001) 1 Business Law International 115
23. Harris B, ‘Report on the Arbitration Act 1996’ (2007) 23(3) Arbitration International 437
24. Hill J, ‘Determining the Seat of an International Arbitration: Party Autonomy and the Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements’ (2014) 63 Int Comp Law Q 517
25. Holmes R, O’Reilly M, ‘Appeals from Arbitral Awards: Should Section 69 be Repealed?’ (2003) 69(1) Arbitration 1
26. Liu R, ‘A Balancing Act: Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996’ (2018) 21 (1) International Arbitration Law Review 18
27. Mcllwrath M, ‘An Unamicable Separation: Brexit Consequences for London as a Premier Seat of International Dispute Resolution in Europe’ (2016) 33 (7) Journal of International Arbitration 451
28. Needham M, ‘Appeal on a Point of Law Arising out of an Award’ (1999) 65(3) Arbitration 205
29. Noussia K, ‘The Arbitration Act 1996: Time for Reform’ (2019) 2 Journal of Business Law 140
30. Paulsson J, ‘Arbitration-Friendliness: Promises of Principle and Realities of Practice’, (2007) 23/3 Arbitration International 477
31. Saville L, ‘The Denning Lecture 1995: Arbitration and the courts’ (1995) 61 Arbitration 157
32. Seriki H, ‘Enforcing Annulled Arbitral Awards: Can the Unruly Horse Be Tamed?’ (2018) 8 Journal of Business Law 679
33. The UK Departmental Advisory Committee, ‘DAC Report’, The 1996 DAC Report on the English Arbitration Bill: The Last Part, (1999) 15(4) Arbitration International 413
34. Vial G, ‘Influence of the Arbitral Seat in the Outcome of an International Commercial Arbitration’ (2017) 50(2) International Lawyer 329
35. Vial G, Blavi F, ‘New Ideas for the Old Expectation of Becoming an Attractive Arbitral Seat’ (2016) 25 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 279
36. Walker J, ‘The London Principles and Their Impact on Law Reform’ (2018) 84 (2) Arbitration 174
37. Zamir N, ‘Appeal in International Arbitration-An Efficient and Affordable Arbitral Appeal Mechanism’ (2019) 35(1) Arbitration International 79
38. Capper P, Sabharwal D, Connellan C, ‘When is the ‘Venue’ of an Arbitration its ‘Seat’?, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (November 25, 2009), http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2009/11/25/when-is-the-venue-of-an-arbitration-its-seat/
39. Farouki Z, ‘Section 69 of the English Arbitration Act: London’s discrete edge in its quest to become the top arbitration seat’ Jus Mundi Blog, May 17 2021,
40. Hesse D, ‘The Seat of Arbitration is Important. It’s That Simple.’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, (June 10, 2018), http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/06/10/seat-arbitration-important-simple/
41. Jain S, ‘UK: Why London Continues to be an Attractive Seat for International Arbitration Post-Brexit’ Mondaq, 23 June 2021, https://www.mondaq.com/uk/arbitration-dispute-resolution/1082072/why-london-continues-to-be-an-attractive-seat-for-international-arbitration-post-brexit
42. Kirtley W, The Importance of the Seat of Arbitration, International Arbitration Attorney Network (February 8, 2016),
43. Speller D, Feldner M, ‘The International Arbitration Review: United Kingdom-England and Wales’, edition 12, (July 2021)
44. Lord Thomas, ‘Developing Commercial Law Through the Courts: Rebalancing the Relationship Between the Courts and Arbitration’ Courts and Tribunals Judiciary 2016, paragraph 21, https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/lcj-speech-bailli-lecture-20160309.pdf
45. Williams J, Lal H, Hornshaw R, ‘Arbitration procedures and practice in the UK (England and Wales): overview’
46. 2018 Queen Mary University of London, White & Case International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration,
47. 2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world,
48. The Achilleas [2008] UKHL 48, [2009] 1 AC 61
49. Allianz SpA and Others v West Tankers Inc [2009] EUECJ C-185/07
50. AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWCA Civ 291
51. Bandwidth Shipping Corporation Intaari (the ‘Magdelena Oldendorff’) [2007] EWCA Civ 998, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1015, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7
52. Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Business Services Ltd [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 493
53. CMA CGM SA v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS ‘Northern Pioneer’ Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mBH & Co (The Northern Pioneer) [2002] EWCA Civ 1878
54. Essar Oilfields Services Ltd v Norscot Rig Management PVT Ltd [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm)
55. HC Trading Malta Ltd v Tradeland Commodities SL [2016] EWHC 1279 (Comm)
56. Itochu Corporation v Johann MK Blumenthal GMBH & Co KG &Anr [2012] EWCA Civ 996
57. La Société pour la Recherche La Production Le Transport La Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures SPA v Statoil Natural Gas LLC (Statoil) [2014] EWHC 875
58. Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (The Nema) (No 2) [1982] AC 724 (HL)
59. Shashoua and ors v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm)
60. Gerald Metals SA v The Trustees of the Timis Trust and others [2016] EWHC 2327
61. Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading LLC [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm)
62. Alegrow S.A. v Yayla Agro Gida San ve Nak AS [2020] EWHC 1845 (Comm)
63. CVLC Three Carrier Corp v Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Co [2021] EWHC 551 (Comm)