COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION RULES

Öz

In the framework of voluntary arbitration, parties could apply to institutional (permanent)

arbitration or ad-hoc (temporary) arbitration in order to solve the disputes arisen

from a contract between them. In a successful arbitration, the choice of institution or the

choice of arbitration rules constitute the second most important element after the choice

of arbitration place. The parties who entered into an arbitration agreement with regard to an international contract between them, should explicitly state whether the arbitration

procedure is to be followed-up by an institution and if so, the choice of institution should

also be explicitly stated. Currently, parties who enter into an international contract, tend

to opt for institutional arbitration. Most institutions agree that if they are commissioned

for an arbitration, it shall be administered according to their own rules. However, this

approach has been changing recently. If the parties agree on a different set of rules, then

the institution will determine whether to apply them or not. In recent years, the leading

arbitration rules were revised. In this article, the differences between the revised arbitration

rules are highlighted following a brief study on the most renowned arbitration institutions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International arbitration institutions,international arbitration rules,institutional arbitration,ad-hoc arbitration

MİLLETLERARASI KURUMSAL TAHKİM MERKEZLERİNİN BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMASI

Öz

Taraflar, aralarındaki bir anlaşmadan kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıkların çözümü için ihtiyari

tahkim kapsamında kurumsal (daimi) tahkim yoluna veya ad-hoc (geçici) tahkime başvurabilirler.

Başarılı bir tahkimde kurum seçimi veya tahkim kurallarının seçimi tahkim yerinin

seçiminden sonra en önemli unsurdur. Aralarındaki milletlerarası nitelikli bir sözleşmeye

ilişkin olarak tahkim anlaşması yapan taraflar, tahkim prosedürünün bir kurum tarafından

yürütülüp yürütülmeyeceğini ve kurumsal tahkime gidilecekse bunun hangi kurum olduğunu

tahkim anlaşmasında açıkça belirtmelidirler. Günümüzde milletlerarası nitelikli bir

sözleşme yapmış olan taraflarca genellikle kurumsal tahkim tercih edilmektedir. Birçok

kurum, seçilmesi halinde tahkimin idaresinin kendi tahkim kurallarına göre yapılacağını

öngörmektedir. Halbuki, bu anlayış değişmeye başlamıştır. Tarafların aksini kararlaştırması

halinde kurum, farklı kurallar uygulayabilmektedir. Son yıllarda tahkim kurallarının en

başta gelenleri tekrar gözden geçirilmiştir. Söz konusu çalışmada, başlıca milletlerarası

tahkim kurumları hakkında genel bilgi verildikten sonra revize edilmiş halleriyle başlıca

milletlerarası tahkim kuralları arasındaki farklılıklar vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Milletlerarası tahkim kurumları,milletlerarası tahkim kuralları,kurumsal tahkim,ad-hoc tahkim

Kaynakça

1. Kaynakça BEAL, Ned; London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), GOLA, Pascale/GOTZ STAEHELIN, Claudia/GRAF, Karin (Ed.); Institutional Arbitration: Tasks and Powers of Different Arbitration Institutions, Zurich Basel Geneva: Schulthess, 2009, s. 141-167.
2. CREMADES, Bernardo M.; Settlement of Disputes in Cross-Border Mergers&Acquisitions, HORN, Norbert (Ed.), Crossborder Mergers and Acquisitions and the Law, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001.
3. COLIN, Ong Y. C.; LCIA, Arbitration 2011 – in 55 Jurisdictions Worldwide, London: Law Business Research Ltd., 2011, http://port.academia.edu/ MunirManiruzzaman/Teaching/26783/INTERNATIONAL_ARBITRATION_ LAW_-_55_JURISDICTIONS, s. 23-25 (04.09.2012).
4. COLLIER, John/LOWE, Vaughan; The Settlement of Disputes in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
5. DAYINLARLI, Kemal; UNCITRAL Kurallarına Göre Uzlaşma ve Tahkim, Ankara: Dayınlarlı Hukuk Yayınları, 2012.
6. DRAETTA, Ugo; Behind the Scenes in International Arbitration, New York: JurisNet LLC, 2011.
7. ERDOĞAN, Feyiz; Uluslararası Hukuk ve Tahkim, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2004.
8. ESİN, İsmail/LEW, Julien/WEGEN, Gerhard; Materials on International Arbitration, İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2007.

9. ESİN, İsmail/LEW, Julien/WEGEN, Gerhard; Milletlerarası Tahkim Mevzuatı, İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2003.
10. GOLA, Pascale/GOTZ STAEHELIN, Claudia/GRAF, Karin; Comparison of Various Arbitration Institutions, GOLA, Pascale/GOTZ STAEHELIN, Claudia/GRAF, Karin (Ed.), Institutional Arbitration: Tasks and Powers of Different Arbitration Institutions, Zurich Basel Geneva: Schulthess, 2009, s. 1-27.
11. GRIERSON, Jacob/VAN HOOFT, Annet; Arbitrating Under the 2012 ICC Rules: An Introductory User’s Guide, Nguyen, Corinne (Ed.), Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2012.
12. GUSY, Martin F./HOSKING, James M./ SCHWARZ, Franz T.; A Guide to the ICDR International Arbitration Rules, Oxford&New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
13. HANESSIAN, Grant/HAYDEN, Donald J./DE PAIVA, Muniz; The New ICC and UNCITRAL Rules: Focus on Cost Effectiveness and Multiparty Disputes, The Arbitration Review of the Americas 2012, http://www. globalarbitrationreview.com/reviews/39/sections/137/chapters/1421/thenew- icc-uncitral-rules-focus-cost-effectiveness-and-multiparty-disputes/, (20.08.2012).
14. http://energyarbitratorslist.icdr.org/ (29.08.2012).
15. http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final. pdf (14.08.2012).
16. http://www.adr.org/cs/groups/marketing/documents/document/mdaw/ mday/~edisp/adrstg_002037.pdf (14.08.2012).
17. http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/arbitration/ icc-rules-of-arbitration/#article_6 (14.08.2012).
18. http://www.iccwbo.org/News/Articles/2012/2011-figures-show-steadygrowth- in-ICC-Arbitration/ (20.08.2012).
19. http://www.iccwbo.org/News/Articles/2012/ICC-to-open-office-of-the- Court-in-New-York/ (20.08.2012).
20. http://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/LCIA_Arbitration_Rules. aspx (14.08.2012).
21. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arbrules- revised-2010-e.pdf (14.08.2012).
22. HOBER, Kaj (Ed.) v.d.; Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke, New York: JurisNet LLC, 2010.
23. LORENZO, Richard C.; ICDR, Arbitration 2010 – in 50 Jurisdictions Worldwide, London: Law Business Research Ltd., 2011, s. 26-29.
24. LOWENFELD, Andreas F.; International Litigation and Arbitration: Selected Treaties, Statutes and Rules, 3rd ed., St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2005.
25. MCILWRATH, Michael/SAVAGE, John; International Arbitration and Mediation: A Practical Guide, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010.
26. NOMER, Ergin; Milletlerarası Usul Hukuku, İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2009.
27. NOMER, Ergin/EKŞİ, Nuray/ÖZTEKİN GELGEL, Günseli; Milletlerarası Tahkim Hukuku, İstanbul: Beta Basım, C. 1, 2008.
28. NOMER, Ergin/Ekşi, Nuray/ÖZTEKİN GELGEL, Günseli; Milletlerarası Tahkime İlişkin Mevzuat ve Antlaşmalar, C-2, İstanbul: Beta Basım, C. 1, 2008.
29. NOMER, Ergin/ŞANLI, Cemal; Devletler Hususi Hukuku, 19. bs., İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2011.
30. O’NEILL, Philip D.; International Commercial Arbitration: Case Studies and Materials Exploring Where Theory Meets Practice, St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters, 2012.
31. ÖZSUNAY, Ergun/CANDANER ELVER, Nazan/ÖZSUNAY, Murat R.; Uluslararası Ticari Uyuşmazlıklarda Kurumsal Tahkimin Güncel Sorunları, İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası Yayınları, 2004.
32. PAULSSON, Jan/RAWDING, Nigel/REED, Lucy; The Freshfields Guide To Arbitration Clauses In International Contracts, 3rd ed., Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011.
33. RASHDA, Rana/SANSON, Michelle; International Commercial Arbitration, Pyrmont: Thomson Reuters, 2011.
34. REED TRABAND, Stephanie; American Arbitration Association (AAA), GOLA, Pascale/GOTZ STAEHELIN, Claudia/GRAF, Karin (Ed.), Institutional Arbitration: Tasks and Powers of Different Arbitration Institutions, Zurich Basel Geneva: Schulthess, 2009, s. 27-37.
35. REED, Lucy/PAULSSON, Jan/BLACKABY, Nigel; Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 2nd ed., Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011.
36. ROSELL, Jose/BURGHETTO, Maria Beatriz; ICC, Arbitration 2011 – in 55 Jurisdictions Worldwide, London: Law Business Research Ltd., 2011, http://port.academia.edu/MunirManiruzzaman/Teaching/26783/ INTERNATIONAL_ARBITRATION_LAW_-_55_JURISDICTIONS, s. 19-22 (04.09.2012).
37. ROTH, Marianne/GEISTLINGER, Michael (Ed.); The Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Yearbook on International Arbitration, Vienna: European Academic Press, 2010, s. 19-28.
38. ŞANLI, Cemal; Uluslararası Ticarî Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları, 4. bs., İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2011.
39. ŞİT, Banu; Kurumsal Tahkim ve Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi, Ankara: İmaj Yayınevi, 2005.
40. TIEDER, John B., Jr.; Selecting an Arbitral Institution to Administer International Arbitration: Are National or Regional Centers a Viable Option?, Handbook on International Arbitration and ADR, New York: JurisNet LLC, 2010, Chapter 3, s. 27-34.
41. TURNER, Peter/MOSTASHAMI, Reza; A Guide to the LCIA Arbitration Rules, Oxford&New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
42. WEBSTER, Thomas H.; Handbook of UNCITRAL Arbitration: Commentary, Precedents&Models for UNCITRAL Based Arbitration Rules, London: Sweet & Maxwell&Thomson Reuters, 2010.
43. WEGEN, Gerhard/WILSKE, Stephan; Introduction, Arbitration 2011 – in 55 Jurisdictions Worldwide, London: Law Business Research Ltd., 2011, http://port.academia.edu/MunirManiruzzaman/Teaching/26783/ INTERNATIONAL_ARBITRATION_LAW_-_55_JURISDICTIONS, s.3-5 (04.09.2012).
44. YILMAZ, İlhan; Uluslararası Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümü ve ICSID, İstanbul: Beta Basım, 2004.