Abstract
This study analyses the setting aside of arbitral awards for contradicting public policy according to the Turkish International Arbitration Act. In a setting aside action, the arbitral award is not scrutinized on its merits; rather, only certain grounds are taken into consideration. One ground that judges evaluate on their own motion is being against public policy. We believe that a more international public policy understanding that is in harmony with the needs and requirements of international arbitration should be adopted.
References
Abedian, H. 2011. “Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards in International Arbitration- A Case for an Efficient System of Judicial Review.” Journal of International Arbitration 28 (6): 553–90.10.54648/JOIA2011044Search in Google Scholar
Akıncı, Z. 1996. “Gerekçesiz Hakem Kararları Türkiye’de Tenfiz Edilebilir mi?” İBD 70 (1–3): 7–16.Search in Google Scholar
Akıncı, Z. 2013. Milletlerarası Tahkim. İstanbul: Vedat.Search in Google Scholar
Aygül, M. 2014. Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Tahkim Usulüne Uygulanacak Hukuk ve Deliller. İstanbul: On İki Levha.Search in Google Scholar
Baron, P. M., and S. Liniger. 2003. “A Second Lokk at Arbitrability.” Arbitration International 19 (1): 27–54, https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/19.1.27.Search in Google Scholar
Bayata Canyaş, A. 2016. UNCITRAL Model Kanunu Temelinde Uluslararası Ticari Hakem Kararların Karşı Başvuru Yolu. Ankara: Adalet.Search in Google Scholar
Born, G. 2014. International Commercial Arbitration. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Born, G. 2021. International Commercial Arbitration. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Burger, L. 2012. “For the First Time, the Supreme Court Sets Aside an Arbitral Award on Grounds of Substantive Public Policy.” ASA Bulletin 30 (3): 603–10.10.54648/ASAB2012053Search in Google Scholar
Curtin, K. M. 1997. “Redefining Public Policy in International Arbitration of Mandatory National Laws.” Defense Counsel Journal 64: 271–85.Search in Google Scholar
Demir Gökyayla, C. 2001. Yabancı Mahkeme Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizinde Kamu Düzeni. Ankara: Seçkin.Search in Google Scholar
Gaillard, E., and J. Savage. 1999. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. Hague: Kluwer Law International.Search in Google Scholar
Gaillard, E., and J. Savage. 2002. Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. Hague: Kluwer Law International.Search in Google Scholar
Heiskanen, V. 2010. “And/Or: The Problem of Qualification in International Arbitration.” Arbitration International 26 (4): 441–66, https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/26.4.441.Search in Google Scholar
Huysal, B. 2010. Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Tahkime Elverişlilik. İstanbul: Vedat.Search in Google Scholar
Kalpsüz, T. 2007. Türkiye’de Milletlerarası Tahkim. Ankara: Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü.Search in Google Scholar
Lalive, P. 2008. Absolute Finality of Arbitral Awards?, 1–20. http://www.lalive.ch/data/publications/pla_absolute_finality_arbitral_awards_2008.pdf (accessed February 09, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Lew, J. D. M., L. A. Mistelis, and S. M. Kröll. 2003. Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. Hague: Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Mantilla-Serrano, F. 2004. “Towards a Transnational Procedural Public Policy.” Arbitration International 20 (4): 333–54, https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/20.4.333.Search in Google Scholar
Nomer, E. 2015. Devletler Hususi Hukuku. İstanbul: Beta.Search in Google Scholar
Ökçün, A. G. 1997. Devletler Hususi Hukukunun Kaynakları ve Kamu Düzeni. Ankara: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu.Search in Google Scholar
Pryles, M. 2007. “Reflections on Transnational Public Policy.” Journal of International Arbitration 24 (1): 1–8.10.54648/JOIA2007002Search in Google Scholar
Redfern, A., M. Hunter, N. Blackaby, and C. Partasides. 2004. Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Search in Google Scholar
Rubino-Sammartano, M. 2001. International Arbitration Law and Practice. Hague: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Ruhi, A. C., and Y. Kaplan. 2002. “Yabancı Mahkeme ve Hakem Kararlarının Tenfizi Açısından Kamu Düzeni (Ordre Public).” MHB 22: 643–63.Search in Google Scholar
Şanlı, C., E. Esen, and İ. Ataman Figanmeşe. 2019. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk. İstanbul: Vedat.Search in Google Scholar
Şit, B. 2005. Kurumsal Tahkim ve Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizi. Ankara: İmaj.Search in Google Scholar
Süral, C. 2015. “Hakem Kararlarının İcrası ve İptal Davası.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 16: 1377–411.Search in Google Scholar
Tanrıver, S. 1997–1998. “Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Türkiye’de Tenfizi Bağlamında Kamu Düzeninin Etkisi.” MHB 17–18 (1–2): 476–92.Search in Google Scholar
Tiryakioğlu, B., and A. Bayata Canyaş. 2015. “Challenges to Arbitral Awards.” In Arbitration in Turkey, edited by İ. Esin, and A. Yeşilırmak, 183–211. Hague: Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Yeşilırmak, A. 2011. Türkiye’de Ticari Hayatın ve Yatırım Ortamının İyileştirilmesi İçin Uyuşmazlıkların Etkin Çözümünde Doğrudan Görüşme, Arabuluculuk, Hakem Bilirkişi ve Tahkim: Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri. İstanbul: XII Levha.Search in Google Scholar
www.kazanci.com . Search in Google Scholar
www.legalbank.net . Search in Google Scholar
www.lexpera.com . Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The Value of “Social” Reputation: The Protection of MNE Workers from the Consumer’s Perspective
- The Question of the Applicable Law in Cross-Border Claims on Product Liability: Reflections from India
- Implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on Combating Terrorism in a Sustainable Balance Between Efficiency, Security and Rights: The Case Study of the Participation to a Terrorist Group
- Does Ginsburg’s Judicial Voice Get the International Level?
- The Legal Characterization of Crypto-Exchange Platforms
- Setting Aside Arbitral Awards for Contradicting Public Policy According to the Turkish International Arbitration Act
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The Value of “Social” Reputation: The Protection of MNE Workers from the Consumer’s Perspective
- The Question of the Applicable Law in Cross-Border Claims on Product Liability: Reflections from India
- Implementing the EU Directive 2017/541 on Combating Terrorism in a Sustainable Balance Between Efficiency, Security and Rights: The Case Study of the Participation to a Terrorist Group
- Does Ginsburg’s Judicial Voice Get the International Level?
- The Legal Characterization of Crypto-Exchange Platforms
- Setting Aside Arbitral Awards for Contradicting Public Policy According to the Turkish International Arbitration Act