HAKEMLERİN SEÇİMİ: HAKEMLERİN UYRUKLARINA İLİŞKİN HERHANGİ BIR KISITLAMA VAR MI? NURDIN JIVRAJ V SADRUDDIN HASHWANI DAVASININ ELEŞTİREL BİR ANALİZİ

Yıl 2023, , 1 - 20, 01.07.2023

Ayşe Tuğba Özkarslıgil

https://doi.org/10.51562/nkuhukuk.2023411

Öz

Uluslararası tahkimin temel özü, tarafsızlık, bağımsızlık, ve nötrlük ile karakterize edilen bir tahkim mahkemesinin varlığında yatmaktadır. Hakemlerin tarafsızlığı ve bağımsızlığı, taraflardan herhangi birine karşı herhangi bir doğrudan ilişki veya ön yargıdan kaçınmakla ilişkilendirilirken, nötrlük hakemin uyruğuyla ilgilidir. Jivraj v Hashwani davasında temel soru, hakemlerin seçiminde tarafların özerkliğinin sınırlarını belirlemektir. Özellikle, Jivraj v Hashwani davası, bir hakemin belirli bir dini cemaatin üyesi olma şartının ayrımcılık ve dolayısıyla hukuka uygun olup olmadığı konusunu gündeme getirdi. Bu davada görüldüğü gibi, İngiliz Temyiz Mahkemesi, tahkim şartına dini bir koşul eklenmesinin hukuka aykırı olduğuna ve tahkim şartını hükümsüz kıldığına karar vermiştir. Birleşik Krallık Yüksek Mahkemesi, İngiliz Temyiz Mahkemesi’nin kararını bozarak tarafların hakemlerini seçme özgürlüğüne karar verdi. Yüksek Mahkeme kararı, İngiliz hukukuna tabii sözleşmeler için vatandaşlık, istihdam, ve yasaların geçmişe yürümesi gibi konularda bir miktar netlik sağlamıştır. Bu makale hakem seçiminde tarafların özerkliğini incelemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tahkim, Hakem Seçimi, Tahkim Sözleşmesi, Hakemlerin Uyruğu, Tahkim Şartı

CHOICE OF ARBITRATORS: ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE NATIONALITY OF ARBITRATORS? A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NURDIN JIVRAJ V SADRUDDIN HASHWANI CASE

Öz

The fundamental essence of international arbitration lies in the presence of an arbitral tribunal that is characterized by impartiality, independence, and neutrality. Impartiality and independence of arbitrators are associated with avoiding any t or bias towards either party, while neutrality pertains to the arbitrator’s nationality. The principal question in Jivraj v Hashwani case is to determine the limits on party autonomy in the selection of arbitrators. In particular, Jivraj v Hashwani case raised the issue of whether a requirement for an arbitrator to be a member of a particular religious community was discriminatory and thus unlawful. As is seen from this case, the English Court of Appeal ruled that including a religious requirement in an arbitration clause is unlawful and renders the clause null and void. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom overturned the English Court of Appeal’s decision and upheld the freedom of parties to specify their arbitrators. Supreme Court decision in Jivraj v Hashwani provided some clarity on issues such as employment, nationality, and retroactivity when contracts were governed by United Kingdom law. This article investigates boundaries of party autonomy in appointing arbitrators.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Arbitration, Choice of Arbitrator, Arbitration Agreement, The Nationality of Arbitrators, Arbitration Clause

Kaynakça

• Advocate General Maduro in Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (case C-54/07) [2008] I.C.R. 1390
• Allenby v Accrington and Rossendale College, Case C-256/01
• Bolivar, O E G, ‘Comparing Arbitrator Standards of Conduct in International Commercial, Trade and Investment Disputes’ (Nov 2005-Jan 2006) Dispute Resolution Journal 76,80
• Charles P and Micheal D R, ‘UK Supreme Court Exempts Arbitrator Selection Criteria from Anti-Discrimination Legislation’, (Lexology, July 2011) < https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94bfebd6-4d77-4561-884a-23b3f1345b91 > accessed 14 March 2023
• Cowan P, ‘Are Arbitrators Employees?’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 25 May 2011) < https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/author/paulcowan/ > accessed 13 March 2023
• Gearing M, ‘Jivraj v Hashwani: A Pro-Choice, Corrective Ruling from the Supreme Court’, (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 22 September 2011) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/09/22/jivraj-v-hashwani-a-pro-choice-corrective-ruling-from-the-supreme-court/ > accessed 13 March 2023
• Gearing, M and Angeline W, ‘The Relationship Between Arbitrators And Parties: Is The Pure Status Theory Dead And Buried’ (Kluwer Law International, 17 June 2011) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2011/06/17/the-relationship-between-arbitrators-and-parties-is-the-pure-status-theory-dead-and-buried/ > accessed 14 March 2023
• Herbert S F, ‘Court of Appeal Holds Religious Criteria for Appointment of Arbitrators Unlawful (Herbert, Smith, Freehills Arbitration Notes, 23 June 2010 <https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2010/06/23/court-of-appeal-holds-religious-criteria-for-appointment-of-arbitrators-unlawful/ > accessed 17 March 2023
• Human Right Act 1998, < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents > accessed 13.03.2023 Kenton M, ‘UK: Freedom to Choose’ (Mondaq, 16 August 2011) < https://www.mondaq.com/uk/arbitration-dispute-resolution/142068/freedom-to-choose> accessed 13 March 2023
• Lee I, ‘Practice and Predicament: The Nationality of the International Arbitrator (With Survey Results)’ (2007) 31 Fordham International Law Journal 603
• Lindberg V, Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code (O’ReillyMedia Inc., 2008) 144
• Mustill J M and Boyd S C., Commercial Arbitration, (2nd edn., LexisNexis Butterworths 1989) 223
• Nurdin Jivraj v Sadruddin Hashwani [2010] EWCA Civ 712
• Park W W, ‘Arbitrator Integrity: The Transient and the Permanent’ (2009) 46 San Diego Law Review 629, 639
• Rabinowitz L, ‘Arbitration and Equality: Jivraj v Hashwani’ (2011) 12 Business Law International 119,126
• Reisman W M et. al., International Commercial Arbitration Cases, Materials and Notes on the Resolution of the International Business Disputes (1st edn, Foundation Press 1997) 665,666
• The American Arbitration Association International Rules, Nationality of Arbitrator, last reached 10.03.2023. < https://adr.org/sites/default/files/Commercial_Rules_Web.pdf > accessed 10 March 2023
• The International Arbitration Rules of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Appointment of Arbitrators, < http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=33994 > accessed 10 March 2023
• The International Chamber of Commerce Rules, Appointment and Confirmation of the Arbitrators, <https://library.iccwbo.org/content/dr/RULES/RULE_ARB_EN_9.htm?l1=Rules&l2=Arbitration+Rules > accessed 9 March 2023
• The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Section 2 Constitution of the Tribunal, < http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/icsid/staticfiles/basicdoc/parta-chap04.htm> accessed 9 March 2023
• The London Court of International Arbitration Rules, Nationality of Arbitrators and Parties, < https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2020.aspx#Article%206 > accessed 9 March 2023
• The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrators, <http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration.html > accessed 9 March 2023
• The World intellectual Property Organization Arbitration Rules, Nationality of Arbitrators, <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/rules/index.html#comp2 > accessed 12 March 2023
• Tirado J and Thomas J, ‘Jivraj v Hashwani? Discrimination Law Applied to the Appointment of Arbitrator’ (2011) 16 IBA Arbitration News 72
• Zaiwalla S, ‘Are Arbitrators not human? Are they from Mars? Why Should Arbitrators Be A Separate Species?’ (2011) 28 Journal of International Arbitration 273, 282