COMPARISON OF THE ARBITRATION RULES

Abstract

In almost all international agreements, in case of conflict, the par-ties resort to arbitration. Arbitration proceedings in Turkish Law are different, firstly the abolished 1086 \"Civil Procedure Law (HUMK)\", since 2011 the \"Civil Procedure Law (HMK)\" numbered 6100, and since 2001 4686 \"International Arbitration Law (MTK)\". It has been applied for compulsory and optional alternative solutions by law. In the recogni¬tion and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, 60 et al. of Law No. 5718 on International Private and Procedural Law. items are applied. In the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the provi¬sions of the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, to which Turkey is a party, shall apply. Types of arbitration can be classified in various ways. These can be classified as national and international arbitration, compulsory and discretionary arbitration, ad-hoc and institutional arbitration, or one-stage and two-tier arbitration. Ad hoc (Temporary) Arbitration is the type of arbitration in which the law is applied to the dispute, the place where the dispute will be resolved, and the arbitrators to resolve the dis¬pute are chosen by the parties. In the provision of Article 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) numbered 6100; “The parties may freely decide or determine the rules of procedure to be applied by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal, without prejudice to the mandatory provisions of this Section, or by reference to the arbitration rules. If there is no such agreement between the parties, the arbitrator or arbitral tribu¬nal shall conduct the arbitration in any manner it deems appropriate, observing the provisions of this Section.” is called. Pursuant to this regu¬lation, there is no legal objection to the parties' free determination of the rules to be applied to the dispute, except for the mandatory provisions of the law. Institutional Arbitration, on the other hand, is preferred for the resolution of disputes that have arisen or are likely to arise in the future with an international character, by complying with the detailed rules predetermined by the institution. Trust in the institution and predictabil¬ity of the process constitute the main factors in preferring institutional arbitration. Nationally, the Istanbul Arbitration Center (ISTAC) and the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Court (ITOTAM); Interna¬tional Center for Investment and Settlement of Disputes (ICSID), World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration Court (WIPO Arbitration Court), International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Court (ICC) and formerly Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institute (SCAI) ), institutions such as the Swiss Arbitration Center (SAC), with its new name, can be cited as examples of institutional arbitration centers. One of the reasons why ad hoc arbitration is preferred compared to Institutional arbitration is that it is cheaper in terms of not paying the organizing institution sepa¬rately. In this study, after examining the regulation on arbitration, the comparison of arbitration rules will be examined.