Muhammet

Assist. Prof. Dr.

Hasan

&nbsp;The idea of the establishment of a permanent international criminal court has been encountered by hesitations and even objections by many States. Nevertheless, in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) began to operate when the 60th State party lodged its ratification documents as prescribed by the Rome Statute. As a turning point in international criminal law, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the Rome Statute) aimed to end impunity for crimes of international concern. States that hesitated or raised objections to protect State sovereignty have not become a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the ICC has developed a tool to assert jurisdiction over the nationals of non-State parties, circumventing the need for a United Nations Security Council referral. This was established with the jurisdictional ruling in the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation in 2018. The Rohingya, an ethnic and religious minority also known as Arakan Muslims, in the Rakhine State of Myanmar have endured various forms of violence, discrimination and persecution for decades. In 2017, the military government of Myanmar started a brutal campaign against the Rohingya that significantly escalated the level of violence. The Rohingya people have become open targets for both the Myanmar armed forces and other armed groups, as well as civilians acting in concert. The attacks against the Rohingya, involving deliberate killings, sexual assaults, enforced disappearances, destruction of homes and villages, looting, and destruction of livelihoods, have reached such dimensions that numerous sources have described the Rohingya people as “the most persecuted people in the world.” Their experiences have been cited as “a textbook example of the crime of ethnic cleansing.” Only in August 2017, at least 750,000 Rohingya were driven from their homes to seek refuge in Bangladesh. Taking into account previous forced displacement movements, it is estimated that nearly 1 million Rohingya are now refugees in Bangladesh. Cox’s Bazar, a Bengal city on the Myanmar border, swiftly became the host of the world’s largest refugee camp. The Security Council has failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the atrocities committed against the Rohingya because of the veto power exercised by the permanent members. Against this backdrop, the ICC has taken a step that has come as a surprise to many. 2 Bangladesh is a party to the Rome Statute but Myanmar is not. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) declared its intention to investigate the issue on the basis that the events constituted the crime of deportation, prescribed in Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity. In April 2018, the OTP requested a preliminary ruling from a Pre-Trial Chamber to resolve doubts regarding the Court’s jurisdiction since Myanmar is not a party to the Rome Statute. In September 2018, the Pre-Trial Chamber I ruled that the crime of deportation inherently requires crossing an international border. Therefore, the commission of this crime is only possible with the involvement of at least two different countries. While the conduct of the crime of deportation began in Myanmar, a non-State Party to the Rome Statute, it was nevertheless completed in Bangladesh, a State Party. Noting that part of the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party, the Pre-Trial Chamber concluded that the investigation of the crimes committed in Bangladesh falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. This meant that the ICC could prosecute Myanmar’s nationals who committed crimes that started in Myanmar but were completed in Bangladesh. This novel interpretation created an immense debate among international law circles from the legal and political aspects. Through some interpretation techniques, the Court has shown its willingness to intervene in matters beyond its jurisdictional powers explicitly granted by the Rome Statute. This approach has been hailed by some as a step closer to achieving the objectives of the Court, such as ending impunity for international crimes or achieving universal jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court can extend its territorial jurisdiction to a great extent through the crime against humanity of deportation because almost all States share a border with a State Party to the Rome Statute. Applying the same logic to additional crimes, such as persecution, the war crime of deportation, forcing protected persons or prisoners of war into the territory of a State Party, or other inhumane acts causing great suffering, particularly the prevention of the right to return, the Court may further expand its jurisdiction over nationals of non-State Parties. Moreover, if the Court wishes to add an extra layer to its jurisdiction, it can further adopt the doctrine of ongoing violation. This would enable the Court to extend its ratione temporis jurisdiction on matters that occurred before the Rome Statute’s entry into force but continue to have a persistent nature. The nationals of non-State Parties would then fall under the jurisdiction of the Court even for the matters that were carried out before the creation of the Rome Statute. This potential expansion, on the other hand, has raised some concerns as the ruling seemingly goes against fundamental principles of international law such as the sovereignty of states and the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt (a treaty only binds parties; it does not create obligations for a third state). Sceptics have further criticised the decision for practical and political reasons. Such an expansionist&nbsp;approach opens the Pandorra’s Box while the Court is not capable of coping with a large volume of increased burden. Previous cases show that the Court has not achieved significant progress when a State does not cooperate. Therefore, a potential gain at the expense of the fundamental principles of international law might serve no purpose but to undermine the legitimacy of the Court. The Court already faces legitimacy challenges by criticism of both developed and developing states for various reasons. Adding an extra layer to the legitimacy problem is not a policy that would strengthen the international criminal justice system. Overall, this article analyses the legal implications of the jurisdictional ruling of the ICC in the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation while addressing some risks and opportunities it poses for the development of the international criminal justice system.

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Yargı Yetkisi: Bangladeş/Myanmar  Kararı Sonrası Hukuki Manzara

Ceren

Rumeysa

&nbsp;The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which contains concrete provisions for persons in need of international protection, defines refugee status and sets the basic standards for obtaining this status, is the first source to be used against gender-based persecution. Although the provision of the Convention limits the sources of fear of persecution to certain grounds and gender, which constitutes one of the largest groups in the face of such persecution, is not listed among the grounds that may give rise to the fear of persecution, it is widely accepted that gender has a determining effect on the form and causes of treatment constituting persecution, and in this context, it is foreseen that the correct interpretation of the article will not exclude the concept of gender. Therefore, the refugee status remains the main instrument offering international protection to individuals against gender-based persecution. However, the fact that the criteria stipulated in the Geneva Convention of 1951 have not been expanded on a normative basis and that human rights treaties guaranteeing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals do not ultimately provide for a special protection status necessitates the existence of statuses called complementary protection/subsidiary protection, especially for individuals who fall outside the definition of refugee in the face of gender-based persecution. The so-called complementary protection/subsidiary protection statuses extend the protection granted to the individual by both stretching the concept of persecution/(reducing it to the level of serious harm) and not limiting it to certain grounds. However, it should be noted that the emergence of complementary/ subsidiary forms of protection as a result of the need to offer protection to persons who are not refugees leads to the conclusion that the refugee status acts as a threshold in the assessment of this protection. If, because of assessment, the person has not been able to obtain refugee status, it is accepted that only then should an assessment be made in terms of complementary/subsidiary protection. This acceptance is not only a consequence of the nature of the complementary/subsidiary protection status but also a requirement of the state party to the Geneva Convention of 1951 to fulfil its international obligations. This is because complementary/subsidiary protection statuses are largely based on national legal regulations. The existence of complementary/ subsidiary protection statuses on a national basis not only weakens the protection provided to the individual but also causes the boundaries of the envisaged protection to diverge, thus making state practises in this direction less uniform. This situation raises the need to regulate complementary/subsidiary protection statuses by an international convention. This is because an international convention granting protection status to an individual significantly affects/expands the scope of the rights and freedoms granted to these individuals and ultimately offers a stronger protection as it puts states under an international obligation in the light of the independent nature of human rights treaties from the principle of reciprocity. At this point, the Istanbul Convention comes to the 2 fore in terms of emphasising the protection offered against gender-based persecution.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Istanbul Convention implicitly extends the protection provided by the 1951 Geneva Convention and complements the protection provided by the 1951 Geneva Convention by facilitating access to international status despite gender-based persecution. The Istanbul Convention gives a normative character to the complementary protection against gender-based persecution on an international basis and serves to transform protection into an international obligation for states. As a party to the Geneva Convention of 1951, Turkey’s legislation on foreigners’ law is regulated in line with the provisions of the Convention. The refugee status under Article 61 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (No. 6458) is defined within the scope of the Geneva Convention of 1951. The international protection statuses regulated in Article 62 (conditional refugee status) and Article 63 (subsidiary protection status) are based entirely on Turkey’s domestic legislation and are not covered by the Convention. Under Article 63, before a person can be examined for subsidiary protection status, an examination under Articles 61 and 62 must have been conducted. However, in practise, applications are evaluated without following this order. This is a clear violation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (No. 6458) and the Geneva Convention of 1951. Asylum applications must first be examined in terms of (conditional) refugee status. As a result of the lack of detailed explanations of the concepts of “serious harm” and “persecution” in the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (No. 6458), the issue of who will be granted subsidiary protection status in practise and under what standards and principles becomes unclear. Further clarification of the content of these concepts in the law would contribute to the situation.&nbsp;The study also examines the cases of individuals fleeing the armed conflict in Ukraine, especially those who have experienced sexual violence. These individuals, particularly women, may qualify for asylum under the Geneva Convention on the grounds of membership in a particular social group. However, one of the critical challenges in the asylum process is the difficulty refugees face in articulating their experiences during interviews. This can result in their inability to demonstrate the fear of persecution necessary to obtain refugee status. The study emphasises that fear should be assessed objectively, recognising that even if an individual’s fear appears less intense than average, it does not negate the existence of persecution or a credible risk thereof. Decisions on whether gender-based violence falls within one of the five grounds under the Geneva Convention of 1951 are examined in relation to applications based on domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual orientation, certain surgical interventions on genitalia and forced marriage. It is concluded that in these applications based on sexual violence, whether the applicants have been persecuted on account of their membership of a particular social group should be addressed as a matter of priority. Cases where people seek asylum in Turkey not individually but through a mass migration movement are discussed separately in the study. In this regard, there are persons who should be granted temporary protection status in &nbsp;accordance with the Temporary Protection Regulation. Under Provisional Article 1 of the Temporary Protection Regulation, temporary protection status is granted to persons who came to Turkey “asof 28.04.2011 due to the events that occurred in the Syrian Arab Republic”. Therefore, persons covered by the Regulation cannot be included in the individual application process, even if they are victims of sexual violence. However, in our opinion, it is right to criticise the fact that the Regulation, rather than the law, stipulates this issue.

Cinsiyet Temelli Zulme Karşı Uluslararası Hukukta ve Türk  Hukukunda Sağlanan Koruma Statüleri

Prof. Dr.

Emre

Ahıska Türklerinin Ülkelerine Geri Dönme Hakkı

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Hatice

Despite originally emerging as an alternative to state courts, arbitration proceedings are increasingly becoming equivalent to state courts in dispute resolution due to the advantages they offer. The paramount expectation in arbitration proceedings is that the proceedings are conducted fairly, given that binding judgments are rendered on the merits of disputes. Ensuring a fair trial necessitates adherence to the right to a fair trial, although individual states may regulate the level of scrutiny of this right in arbitration proceedings differently. This study does not focus on the extent of violations of the right to a fair trial in arbitration proceedings but instead examines whether dissatisfied individuals, lacking adequate guarantees or remedies in their domestic legal systems for addressing such violations, may seek recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. The ongoing debate revolves around whether the right to a fair trial should be applicable in arbitration, as arbitration proceedings typically operate outside the purview of state courts. If applicable, the question arises whether parties can turn to the ECtHR in case of its violation.To apply to the ECtHR for violations of the right to a fair trial within arbitration proceedings, one must meet the admissibility criteria stipulated in Articles 33–35 of the ECHR. Among these conditions, only the ECtHR’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione loci necessitate distinct evaluation concerning arbitration. Regarding other conditions, assessments mirror those for state courts. As parties to arbitral proceedings are usually natural persons, legal entities, nongovernmental organizations, or groups of persons, the ECtHR’s jurisdiction in personam requirement is satisfied. At this point, what is peculiar is the determination of the state against which the application is made since arbitration proceedings are independent of the state judiciary. In this context, for an application to be directed against a contracting state, the event giving rise to the violation that is the subject of the application must have been committed&nbsp;by public authorities or officials of the Contracting States, and the event must have occurred within the jurisdiction of the contracting state.&nbsp;The determination of the country establishing the ECtHR’s personal jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings relies on which state’s courts apply the ECHR for review or assistance under the horizontal effect. Typically, this is the state agreed upon by parties as the seat of arbitration. Regarding territorial jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings, it is essential to ascertain the country where arbitration proceedings are considered within the jurisdiction. Arbitration proceedings are usually deemed within the jurisdiction of the country hosting the proceedings, as such countries facilitate the proceedings through their legal regulations, provide judicial assistance, and deliver judgments akin to state court rulings, which may be legally challenged through an action for annulment or other legal means.The second possibility for potential violations of the right to a fair trial pertains to the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards. Since these proceedings involve direct engagement by state courts and have ramifications in the enforcing country, violations may trigger the ECHR’s personal jurisdiction over the contracting state. In establishing jurisdiction in terms of venue in these cases, the focus is on judicial activities and their effects. This is because the ECtHR distinguishes the duty of the enforcement court from that of the court that performs supervision and assistance activities where arbitration is conducted. Consequently, the enforcing country usually holds jurisdiction. Accordingly, in enforcing or recognizing a foreign arbitral award in Turkish courts, Turkey may fall under the ECHR’s territorial jurisdiction due to violations of the right to a fair trial, both in assessing the award’s conformity and any violations occurring during enforcement proceedings.

Individual Applications to the ECtHR for Violations of the Right to a Fair Trial in Arbitration Proceedings

Sercan

One or more persons can commit a crime, and this notion is known as participation in criminal law. The provisions regarding participation should be regulated in a penal code for individuals who participate in the crime to be punished. In terms of participation, two basic systems have been adopted, namely, monist and dualist. In the first system, a person is treated as if he/she is the perpetrator. However, the second system is based on the distinction between the perpetrator and accessory, wherein direct, joint, and indirect perpetration within the scope of perpetration and instigation as well as aiding/abetting within the scope of complicity have been accepted as forms of participation in crime as in Turkish and German laws.The institution of participation is formed within the framework of the specific principles embodied in the statutes and case laws of international courts, such as the Rome Statute, which is a part of international criminal law and the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and it came into force on 01.07.2002. Moreover, it has regulated participation in genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes accepted within the jurisdiction of the ICC. International criminal law accepted the monist system until the adoption of the Rome Statute. However, after this statute came into force, a tendency emerged toward the dualist system.According to the Rome Statute, the person who commits a crime as an individual, jointly with others, or through another will be responsible; thus, direct, joint, and indirect perpetration have been adopted (Article 25(3)(a)). Although the Rome Statute does not regulate side-by-side perpetration, it can be evaluated within the scope of direct perpetration.The rule of accessory is accepted and is expressed as “committed or attempted crime” in the provision. Furthermore, instigating and aiding/abetting are accepted as forms of accessory. Meanwhile, ordering, which is a form of instigation, is regulated as an independent form of participation. For persons who participate in the crime as instigators or aiders to be punished, the main act must have reached at least the stage of attempt. The Rome Statute does not offer penalization for failed instigation due to the rule of accessory. However, direct and public incitement to the crime of genocide is regulated as an independent type of crime regardless of the aforementioned rule.International criminal law is a discipline that addresses the most severe of the aforementioned crimes of concern to the international community with a character separate from the criminal law of nations but inspired by national criminal law. Thus, regarding criminal responsibility, its principles have emerged through a historical process. Along with the requirements of international criminal law, the doctrine of the responsibility of superiors is accepted as another modality of responsibility (Article 28), while joint criminal enterprise (Article 25(3)(d)) is regulated as an institution similar to participation.To regulate Article 28, it is aimed to extend criminal responsibility to superiors for ensuring that persons under their command comply with the laws of war. The legal nature of superior criminal responsibility is controversial in the doctrine. The arguments indicate that it is an independent, sui generis, and mixed form of responsibility. In German law, however, the arguments focus on superior criminal responsibility as an independent factual negligence crime. Moreover, an opinion holds that the superior is responsible for helping the subordinate through negligence. According to the researchers, superior criminal responsibility should be evaluated in terms of the punishability of a negligence act committed by a subordinate despite its extending nature of personal criminal responsibility. In other words, the issue is only partially independent of participation.For the provision related to joint criminal enterprise, any contribution to committing or attempting to commit a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose can be considered a form of accessory. The doctrine has discussed the legal nature of the institution, and various opinions have been suggested. One opinion has claimed that the institution was considered a form of corporation form; however, as per another opinion, it is a form of accessorial liability. According to the second view, the provision is unnecessary and is an expanded form of aiding and abetting. However, in our opinion, a joint criminal enterprise carries the characteristics of perpetration and accessory. Therefore, individuals who participate in this organization as perpetrators and accessories should be held responsible. Thus, describing it as an institution similar to participation or a mixed institution is a more appropriate approach.Finally, the impact of the jurisprudence of international criminal courts on this issue should be considered. In this context, the joint criminal enterprise is an institution developed as an institution similar to participation with the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.This study’s primary objective is to examine participation in crime under criminal law from the perspective of Turkish and German criminal laws within the framework of the Rome Statute and the jurisprudence of the court instead of an in-depth revelation of the difference between the Rome Statute and the jurisprudence of the court and&nbsp;customary international law. Hence, using a comparative perspective, this study will identify differences between the national law and Rome Statute. Similarly, it will mention the regulations of various countries such as France, Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The study will first examine participation in crime in general, which will be subsequently evaluated in terms of international criminal law. After demonstrating the general appearance of participation in international criminal law, the subject will be examined within the framework of the Rome Statute with the intention of making deductions.

The Examination of the Rome Statute’s Provisions on Participation from the Perspective of Turkish and German Criminal Law

Zeynep Derya

The Private International Law and Procedural Law Code numbered 5718 (PIL Code) stipulates the rules that govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgements under Article 50 and so forth; whereas Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 (EBL) stipulates the requirements and procedures for the issuance of provisional attachment orders under Article 257 and so forth.&nbsp;Under Turkish law, for a foreign court judgement to be enforceable in Türkiye, the Turkish courts must grant an enforcement decision. Unless the foreign court judgement is enforced pursuant to Article 50 (1) of the PIL Code, it shall not be executed by Turkish courts or execution offices. Considering the volume of lawsuits and appeal mechanisms available under the Turkish legal system, enforcement can become a lengthy process. In this process, the creditor’s collection of receivables may be jeopardised because of the debtor’s abusive behaviour. At this point, the institution of provisional attachment, which restricts the debtor’s right of disposition on their property, becomes a significant tool.&nbsp;According to the established practise of the Court of Cassation, it is possible to obtain a provisional attachment order during proceedings initiated for the enforcement of a foreign court judgement. Nonetheless, it is debateable whether the receivable subject to the foreign court judgement which is yet to be enforced in Türkiye, should be considered a due receivable or an undue receivable. This classification is important because the conditions for issuing a provisional attachment order will differ and be subject to different rules. Accordingly, while Article 257/1 of EBL sets forth the conditions for receivables that are due, the second paragraph of the same provision (Article 257/2 of EBL) lists the conditions to be sought for receivables that are not due. The main difference here is that the creditor who wishes to rely on Article 257/2 must prove the bad faith of the debtor.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even if a provisional attachment order is obtained, problems arise in terms of complementary procedures and their time limits for the execution of this provisional order. According to paragraph 3 of Article 264 of the EBL, the creditor must apply for an executory proceeding within one month after the judgement is rendered regarding the case in which the provisional attachment order was obtained. Otherwise, the&nbsp;provisional attachment order will be annulled. The major problem stemming from the said provision is that under Article 57/2 of the PIL Code, an appeal to the enforcement of the foreign court judgement decision suspends execution. As the appeal suspends the execution of the enforcement of foreign court judgement, it shall not be possible to initiate executory proceedings within one month based on this decision. In such a case, the effect of the provisional attachment order will be discussed in this paper. Whether the ‘appeal’ under this provision means an appeal to the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) or an appeal to the Regional Courts of Justice (İstinaf Mahkemesi) is also a matter of debate and will be examined in this paper.Another issue to be further discussed in this paper concerns the security required to be deposited by the claimant. Under Article 259 of the EBL Code, a claimant requesting a provisional attachment order must provide a security payment. This security is requested to cover all damages incurred by the debtor if the claimant who seeks a provisional attachment order proves to act unfairly in the future. It is controversial whether foreigners who have already deposited a security when filing a lawsuit for the enforcement of a foreign court judgement according to Article 48 of the PIL Code should also deposit a security to obtain a provisional attachment order. The controversy arises from the fact that these two securities have the same objective of securing the debtor’s rights if the claimant will be wrong in his/her claims. However, these securities are different in terms of their scope. Security deposited according to Article 48 of the PIL Code protects against damages incurred in the event of an unfair claim in terms of the subject matter of the lawsuit. On the other hand, the security deposited under the EBL Code guarantees the damages to be incurred in the event of an unfair outcome in provisional attachment order proceedings. Therefore, if the judge deems it necessary, it is possible for him/her to request security for the issuance of a provisional attachment order, and it is within the discretion of the judge to determine the amount of the securities. The need for a second payment of securities is a highly debated issue.&nbsp;In this paper, initially, the conditions for issuance of provisional attachment orders will be examined. Next, the aforementioned issues will be examined with examples from the practise and the decisions of the Court of Cassation. Accordingly, this paper focuses on the solutions for the identified problems.&nbsp;

The Problem of Non-Execution of the Precautionary Attachment Decision Taken during the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions

Firdes

A Case Study on the Protection of Cultural Property Under the Law of Armed Conflict: Russia-Ukraine War

Zobayer

Lecturer

Mahmudul

Assist. Prof.

Minhajul

Borrowing and Transplant in South Asian Constitutionalism: Comparative Analysis

Doğan

The UK Law Commission’s Reforms Proposed to the English Arbitration Act 1996: Bonum, Malum Et Turpe

Didem

In a surrogacy procedure, a woman consents to carry a pregnancy for another woman, intended mother, who for some reason cannot conceive. Surrogacy may be traditional or gestational. When the surrogate mother’s egg is used to produce the embryo, the method is called traditional surrogacy. In contrast, gestational surrogacy is performed by transferring embryos created via in vitro fertilisation using the eggs of a donor or the intended mother. In traditional surrogacy, since the surrogate mother’s egg is used, she is not only the biological mother but also the genetic mother. In gestational surrogacy, when the reproductive cells of a couple who wants to have a child are used, the intended mother will also be the genetic mother. In the case of egg donation, the genetic mother refers to a woman other than both the surrogate and intended mother.&nbsp;Although surrogacy is legally prohibited in many countries, due to the increasing infertility rate all over the world, those who want to have a child make agreements with surrogate mothers in countries where this method is permitted, which deepens legal problems. At this point, the first problem to be faced at the time of childbirth is the issue of legal parentage. It is a generally accepted principle in countries where surrogacy is prohibited that the woman who gives birth is the mother. Whether individuals who come from these countries and want to have a child in a foreign country where surrogacy is legal can attain legal parental status will affect many legal issues, such as citizenship, family life, establishing personal relationships, custody, maintenance, and inheritance, which are of great importance to the child. Therefore, in the case of international surrogacy, the legal framework under which legal parentage will be established is of utmost importance.Because of different regulations and approaches among countries regarding surrogacy, problems arising from international surrogacy have been the subject of European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgments over time. In the ECtHR judgments, the issue is generally evaluated within the scope of the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Besides, it is seen in the judgments that when determining whether this article has been violated, the right to respect for private life takes precedence over the right to family life. In this regard, it is observed that the violation&nbsp;is ruled in terms of the child’s right to respect for his/her private life rather than the prospective parents’ right.&nbsp;&nbsp;As a rule, the ECtHR leaves a wide margin of appreciation to States both in the regulation of surrogacy and in the recognition of a child-parent relationship established in another country. However, since the child-parent relationship constitutes an essential aspect of the child’s identity, the ECtHR narrows its margin of appreciation when assessing, on a case-by-case basis, the violation of the child’s rights under Article 8 due to the lack of formal recognition of family ties. When it comes to children, protecting their best interests is always a priority, and since genetic ancestry forms an important part of a child’s identity, it is particularly important to protect the best interests of the child when one of the prospective parents is also a genetic parent.It has been observed that some national courts in Spain, Germany and France, under the influence of ECtHR judgments, have begun to find solutions to legal parentage issues arising from surrogacy on a case-by-case basis, considering the principle of the best interests of the child. However, it is unclear whether courts in other countries where this practise is prohibited will adopt this approach. Therefore, recognising the increase in international surrogacy practises and the complexity of private international law problems arising from these practises, The Hague Conference on Private International Law began to work on a private international law instrument.Turkey is also a country in which surrogacy is expressly prohibited by law. However, the legality of surrogacy in neighbouring countries, especially in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as well as Greece, Ukraine, and Georgia, strengthens the possibility of problems arising in Turkey due to international surrogacy. The law applicable to the legal parentage of a child born through this method must be determined according to Article 16 of the Turkish International Private and Procedural Law (MÖHUK). However, since this provision reflects the approach in which the mother is always identifiable, it is highly ambiguous in terms of how well it can serve to protect the best interests of the child born through surrogacy. Because this article, which is regulated under the assumption that the egg belongs to the woman giving birth, and the sperm fertilising the egg belongs to the husband of the woman giving birth, does not have a structure that can ensure the establishment of parentage between the intended parents and the child. Therefore, considering that the Hague Conference’s work will take time to become finalised and applicable, and the prevention of the establishment of legal parentage between the child and the intended parents may result in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, it would be appropriate to resolve the issue of legal parentage arising from international surrogacy with a paragraph to be added to Article 16 of MÖHUK.

Applicable Law to the Legal Parentage of a Child Born Through International Surrogacy

Ahmet

Lack of Effective Control on Killer Acquisitions in the Big Tech Market under EU Framework: Rethinking of EUMR Rules?

Necdet

Res. Assist. Dr.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States carried out a “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation Programme”, which involved the capture, unlawful detention, and interrogation of persons suspected of involvement in the War on Terror. It is accepted by government officials and legal experts close to the administration that, İn the context of the “global war on terror”, the United States has resorted to many practices whose compliance with international law is highly controversial. At the heart of these practices has been the extraordinary rendition programme, which some trace back to the Clinton administration and others to the capture of the Lebanese hijacker Fawaz Younis in international waters during the Reagan administration. Regardless of when it began, scholars have agreed that it gained both momentum and diversity under George W. Bush administration. The Rendition, Detention, Interrogation Programme, of which extraordinary rendition is a significant part, was officially terminated by President Barack Obama in an executive order issued on January 22, 2009.&nbsp;The practice of extraordinary rendition has different manifestations and definitions. Because it is not possible to discuss each of these definitions in this study and because it is the first definition adopted by an international court, the definition adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the United Kingdom Intelligence and Security Committee is taken as the basis. According to this definition and as used in this study, extraordinary rendition is “the unlawful transfer of persons from one jurisdiction or state to another, where there is a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, for the purpose of detention and interrogation outside the ordinary legal system”.Although the programme officially ended in 2009, it continues to be a subject of ongoing scrutiny under international human rights law. One reason for this is that the effects of the Programme are still felt nearly 15 years after its official termination. The Guantanamo Bay detention centre, which has “housed” 779 detainees since 2002, a significant number of whom were subjected to the Programme, has not yet been evacuated. Moreover, numerous developments in the international political arena regarding the programme remain. For example, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism repeatedly referred to the practice of extraordinary rendition in his 2023 report on Guantanamo Bay detainees. International human rights organisations continue to mobilize international public opinion on this issue. Most importantly, the programme’s journey before international&nbsp;judicial and quasi-judicial bodies is far from complete. As of January 16, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that six different rights had been violated (and some rights in more than one respect) in a case brought by one of the victims of the Programme. Also on September 12, 2023, a shadow report on Guantanamo detainees was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.&nbsp;It is clear that the extraordinary rendition Programme, by its very nature, leads to human rights violations on many fronts. Furthermore, by nature, this programme requires cooperation between States. It is interesting that more than 50 states, some of which have very good human rights records, were partners in that programme. This study focuses on the reasons for this cooperation and aims to provide a theoretical description of the actions that facilitate or complicate joint violations of international human rights law.The first part of this study examines the practice of extraordinary rendition in terms of its main stages and explains why it is contrary to international law, particularly human rights law. The programme, inter alia, violates the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to a family life and the right to an effective remedy. The second part discusses why states might have participated in such a Programme. With this focus, the first section of the second part first maps cooperation and shows, on the basis of official data, which states have contributed to the Programme and what measures they have taken. This shows that states with excellent to very poor human rights records participated in the Programme. It then examines why different states have engaged in this cooperation. This section first presents the main factors that have been proposed to explain why states cooperate in general and then considers their possible manifestations in the practice of extraordinary rendition.None of the international relations theories of cooperation can fully explain the interstate cooperation in this programme. This paper argues that the fact that the extraordinary rendition programme entails gross violations of human rights provides a new dynamic to cooperation and that states participating in the extraordinary rendition programme have a greater tendency to trade off human rights for national security interests. Indeed, a comparison of states that participated in the rendition programme with those that did not shows that their votes on human rights issues in the UN General Assembly overlap significantly with those of the United States.

Interstate Cooperation in Violations of International Human Rights Law: The Case of Extraordinary Rendition

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: Examining the Legal Landscape Post Bangladesh/Myanmar Decision

Protection Statuses Provided Under International and Turkish Law Against Gender-Based  Persecution

The Right of Meskhetian Turks to Return to Their Country

Esen

Res. Assist.

The subject of our study is an action brought to state courts regarding a dispute subject to arbitration and the determination of parties’ objections related to arbitration. The respondent may raise an arbitration objection in the case appearing before the state court and the claimant may plead that the arbitration agreement is invalid. On these claims, it is important to determine the scope of the review to be carried out by the court. Before going into the scope of the review, it’s important to address briefly the relevance of a foreign seat and its effects according to Turkish arbitration law. An important result of the determination of a foreign state as the seat of arbitration under Turkish law is that the dispute would fall outside of the scope of the Code on International Arbitration No. 4686. However, in cases where a foreign state is designated as the seat of arbitration, the International Arbitration Code art. 5 regulating the arbitration objection will be applied to the dispute. IAC art. 5 stipulates that if an action is brought before the court in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement, the respondent may object to the jurisdiction of the court. The acceptance or refusal of the objection and disputes concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement are subject to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the preliminary objections. If such objection is accepted, then the court shall dismiss the action on procedural grounds. Although it is accepted in the article that the court will dismiss the action in case of a valid arbitration agreement, detailed provisions regarding the standard of the review and the validity of the arbitration agreement are not included. Two main opposite views have been accepted in the doctrine regarding the scope of the review. According to the first group of authors the court should, determine the validity of the arbitration agreement after a full review and in case of a valid arbitration agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration. And according to the second view, the court should only look for an arbitration agreement, thus carry out a prima facie review and in case of the existence of an arbitration agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration. In this case, the arbitral tribunal shall have the competence to decide on its own jurisdiction according to the principle of Competence-Competence. It’s important to determine which standard of review should be adopted by Turkish courts when the seat of arbitration is in a foreign country. UNCITRAL Model Law art. 8, 1958 New York Convention art. II/3, Civil Procedure Law art. 422 all include the provision that unless the arbitration agreement is “null and void, inoperative and incapable of being performed” the dispute should be referred to arbitration. It can be deduced from the wording of these articles that the court should carry out a full review and determine the validity of the arbitration agreement. In the doctrine and in the jurisprudence of Swiss courts, it is agreed that the court should decide whether the arbitration agreement is valid in cases where the seat of arbitration is in a foreign state. It is emphasized that otherwise the principle of natural judge would be violated. After determining the scope of the review, the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement is examined in the second part of the study. According to the article 4 of the International Arbitration Code, “The validity of the arbitration agreement is subject to the law agreed by the parties, failing such agreement to Turkish Law.” This article provides for the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, however it cannot be applied where the seat of arbitration is in a foreign country. As there is no other rule or provision regulating the applicable law when the seat is in a foreign country, there is a legal gap in Turkish law regarding this matter. Several views and methods have been put forward in the doctrine on how to fill the gap regarding the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. According to the first view, Article 4 of the International Arbitration Code should be applied by analogy and Turkish law should be applied to the arbitration agreement. The second view also applies Article 4 by analogy however the authors consider that the underlying principle of this article is the “seat of arbitration” and state that the law applicable should be the law of the seat. It is also argued that the applicable law can be determined by application by analogy of the article V/1/a of the New York Convention. And finally, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement can be determined according to the conflict of law rules on the law applicable to the contracts, thus article 24 of the Code on Private International Law and International Procedure Law. In our opinion, it is possible to fill this gap with the application of the provisions of the Code on Private International Law and International Procedure Law, which contains general rules regarding the disputes including a foreign element. In cases where there is no provision in the lex specialis, namely the Code on International Arbitration, it is possible to refer to the aforementioned Code. Article 62/f of the Code on PIL which regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards can be applied by analogy. According to this article, the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement is subject to the law designated by the parties, or in the absence thereof, to the law of the place where the arbitral award is rendered. Thus, in the absence of any choice of law by the parties, the law of the seat of arbitration should apply

Review of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreements by Turkish Courts in Cases Where the Seat of Arbitration is in a Foreign Country and the Applicable Law

Today’s commercial and economic life has a character that transcends the borders of countries. Knowledge and expertise gain importance in this economic structure. Therefore, in many fields such as consultancy, banking, the medical sector, education, law, architecture, which require expertise, the contract of mandate has a wide application area. As a matter of fact, the contract of mandate manifests itself in many cases together with the representative authority or, more precisely, requires the representative authority raising the question of which regulations will be subject to the contract status and which law to be applied to the representative authority. Due to the similarity between the contract of mandate and the representative authority, the resolution of the qualification dispute is very important in the determination of the applicable law to the contract of mandate. Since, according to the qualification methods (lex causae method or lex fori method), gray areas can be evaluated within the scope of the representative authority or contract of mandate. In the determination of the subject, it is necessary to evaluate the areas touching the representative authority as a whole and to be subject to the same law. At the beginning of these areas, sub-power of attorney, substitution of mandate and the cases required special representative authority come together. These institutions should be considered within the concept of representative authority and subject to the law of the state in which the agent has his place of business according to Article 30, paragraph 2 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Law (Act No. 5718) that regulates the representative authority. This is because these institutions dispose the conditions under which acts of the agent bind the principal in relation to third parties. Therefore, possible legal conflicts that may arise as a result of subjecting gray areas to different legal systems will be prevented. On the other hand, the case that several persons conclude a contract of mandate as agents according to the substantive law and those of agents do not act together as a representative, cause an agency without authority. In the same way, when the substitution of mandate is available, the lack of authority to delegate the power of representation to another person as a representative or the authorization that is not given in cases where special representation is required lead to the agency without authority. Since the conditions required to be accountable the principal to third parties for the acts of agents are deficient in these cases, this deficiency falls into the application area of the Article 30, paragraph 2 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Law. The law to be applied to the indirect representation is always connected with the basic legal relationship with the substantive law and should be considered as its integral part. Therefore, the indirect representation should be subject to the law applied to the basic legal relationship. Outside of the grey areas, the applicable law to the contract of mandate shows parallelism with the general “contract status”, in other words “the law applicable to contractual obligations”. In the absence of a choice of law, the applicable law to the mandate will be governed by the most connected and closest law to the contract of mandate in accordance with the objective connecting factor that should be specified according to the characteristic obligation of mandate. In the contract of mandate, it is accepted that the characteristic obligation is the service obligation of the agent. This objective connecting factor is the habitual resident of the agent or if the contract of mandate was concluded in the exercise of a professional or commercial activity, where the agent has his place of business. Having regard to the complexity of today’s economic relations, the possibility of a more closely related law will be strengthened. Considering the state of all affairs, if there is a law more tightly related to the contract of mandate, that particular law shall govern the relationship between the parties in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 4 of the International Private and Civil Procedure Law. The exceptional application of the exception clause will be more important than the expected situation of this disposition in the present case. It should be noted that doctors, engineers, architects, lawyers, counselors, notaries, dentists, veterinarians and banks who have the capacity to act as agent in the contract of mandate will often perform their obligation of service on their own place of business. Accordingly, in the absence of a choice of law in these professional activities, the law which the objective connecting factor determines, will often be considered as the more closely related law with the contract of mandate.

The Applicable Law to the Contract of Mandate

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Şafak

Surrogate motherhood has become one of the most interesting and complicated issues of family law in domestic laws as well as in private international law. The wellaccepted certainty of the ‘mater semper certa est’ principle of Roman law has started to lose potency with the development of new reproduction techniques. The different national legal provisions and applications have become the reason for the rise of international surrogacy tourism. It has been observed that the once rigid approach of European countries in this matter has become softer following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Mennesson and Labassee. The subject in Turkish law is partly regulated and the practice of surrogate motherhood is prohibited. In our study, we attempted to approach the subject from different perspectives in terms of comparative law and recent ECHR decisions. In this way, we wish to make a contribution to the discussion and potential legal framing and harmonization in Turkish law. Surrogate motherhood has recently turned into a global operation because couples who face legal prohibition of surrogacy in their own countries head towards those countries which allow the process. Nonetheless, this process does not function smoothly especially because of the associated legal and ethical problems. Moreover, the legal problems of transnational surrogate motherhood, issues such as the legal validity of the conditions of the surrogacy agreement, the parties to the agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties in case of breach of contract, the legal and ethical nature of the contract, and the parentage issues are the main topics for discussion. Cases regarding surrogate motherhood initially started to engage public attention in the 1980s. The legal cases ‘Baby Cotton’ (Britain) and ‘Baby M’ (USA) have had serious repercussions across the world and have brought forth the legal and ethical issues regarding the process. The current and famous international cases such as ‘Baby Donna’ (Belgium), ‘Baby Manji’ and ‘Balaz Twins’ (India), ‘Baby Gammy’ (Australia-Thailand) have followed these cases. National legislators are now faced with this new and interesting element in family law, confirming that the practice of surrogate motherhood is steadily increasing. In comparative law, countries may be divided into three categories according to their legal policies on surrogate motherhood: 1. Those countries known as ‘import countries’ in the doctrine because that they do not currently allow surrogate motherhood in their domestic law. Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria, Italy, Spain and Turkey are in this first category. 2. Those countries where no legal regulations regarding surrogate motherhood exist or where the process is allowed in domestic law under strict conditions and supervision provided that the willing couples are entitled to nationality or permanent residence e.g. Belgium, Holland, New Zealand, Brazil. 3. The third group is referred to as export countries, including certain states in the United States (e.g. California), Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India and Greece. These countries accept both transnational and domestic surrogacy. Those countries belonging to categories I. and II. have long refused parental authority for willing couples of babies who were already born in countries which allow surrogate motherhood based on the grounds of ‘contradiction to public policy’, ‘fraud against law’ or incompleteness of other requirements. Nonetheless, it is possible to say that the rigid approach of European countries in this area has softened since the EHCR decisions in Mennesson and Labassee case. In Turkey, there was no specific legal regulation (in terms of ‘code’) for a long time regarding having a child by assisted reproductive technologies and surrogate motherhood – although the legal aspect of the subject was partly regulated by a by-law. Evaluating the legislation of the foreign countries that have prohibited the surrogacy, it was truthfully criticized in the doctrine that such a legal prohibition of surrogate motherhood should have been set forward rather by the will of legislator, but not the administration. Finally, there have been amendments to Law 2238 on the Harvesting, Storage, Grafting, and Transplantation of Organs and Tissues, by Law 7151 on the Amendment of Certain Laws and Decree Laws enacted in Official Gazette 30616 dated 05.12.2018. Accordingly, surrogate motherhood is legally prohibited by power of these amendments. (Non-commercial) Surrogate motherhood should also be accepted as a legal possibility de lege ferenda and should be the subject of an extensive and detailed legal arrangement and supervision as it is the case in Israel, in case there is no other medical choice left. It is possible that surrogacy can come to be a useful alternative solution, provided that the arrangements aiming at the protection of the child and the parties to the application are carried out under strict supervision. As evidenced by the increasing number of cases of surrogate motherhood, disregarding what the science of medicine provides and, moreover, legal prohibition of its practice is not a long-term solution. Since the surrogate motherhood agreement is a private law contract, it will be more appropriate to allow the implementation of this application in the event that no one can be forced to become a party to the contract. Furthermore, the application is considered as a last resort when the usefulness of the application is taken into consideration and the other means are officially depleted. Hence, we believe that the legal arrangements should be made to facilitate the establishment of paternity with the willing father and mother. In the face of medical developments in reproductive methods, the silence or prohibition of the law will violate the rights of individual/families to have children and their rights to reproduction. We would like to express that surrogacy has been prohibited not just because of the ethical aspects of the subject matter, but also the legislator may probably have thought of avoiding the problems to be occurred in the practice.

A Difficult Turning Point in Family Law: The Current Developments on Surrogate Motherhood with a Comparative Law Perspective

Burcu

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) in its Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct for Members, defines ethical rules as “a set of moral principles according to which one should conduct one’s affairs”. It is common for parties in international commercial arbitration cases to be represented by one or more party representatives registered with multiple bars or not registered with a bar at all or even by a layperson, when permitted. Moreover, often, the seat of arbitration can be where neither party’s representative is licensed. This brings up the question of which ethical rules shall be applicable to the parties’ representatives, who shall be the competent authority in case of breach, whether the arbitral tribunals have legitimate power to sanction the parties’ representatives and so on. Long before the current discussions on the necessity to adopt a Code of Ethics for parties’ representatives, Professor Michael Reisman affirmed in 1971 that parties’ representatives should be subject to regulation at an international level. The International Bar Association (IBA) published the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in its IBA Guidelines on 23rd May 2013 specifically regulating the conduct of party representatives in international arbitration proceedings. According to the Guidelines, it shall apply where and to the extent that the Parties have so agreed, or if the arbitral tribunal, after consultation with the Parties, wishes to rely upon them after having determined that it has the authority to rule on matters of Party representation to ensure the integrity and fairness of the arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules came into force on 1st October 2014 with an Annex entitled General Guidelines for the Parties’ Legal Representatives (LCIA Rules). Contrary to the IBA Guidelines, the LCIA Rules apply to all arbitration conducted under the auspices of the LCIA commenced on or after 1st October 2014. Finally, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb) published Guidelines on Party-Representative Ethics (SIArb Guidelines) on 26th April 2018 and the American Arbitration Association (AAA) together with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) published Standards of Conduct for Parties and Representatives (AAA Standards). Uncertainty regarding the ethical rules applicable to party representatives as well as the differences in the application and appreciation of the above-mentioned regulations lead to two concerns: the use of guerrilla tactics by party representatives in an attempt to derail arbitral proceedings and the absence of a level playing field for parties and their counsel in international arbitration. Existing guidelines and rules deal with common areas of concern, including the party representative’s duty to ensure the integrity and fairness of the arbitral proceedings, duty of candour or honesty owed to the arbitral tribunal, the promotion of the good and equal conduct, limitation of the communication with witnesses, the other party and arbitrators. However, it is clear that existing regulations do not provide a solution for all the existing ethical problems, such as contingent fees, third party funders, lawyer-client privilege, and confidentiality of settlement negotiations. Some scholars called for the creation of a Global Code of Ethics, a uniform set of rules applicable to all party representatives at an international level. However, other scholars expressed concerns that the super production of rules and guidelines may bring more harm than the benefit it is supposed to bring and is a threat to one of the biggest advantages of international arbitration which is the procedural flexibility. One of the biggest problems regarding the application of ethical rules to party representatives in international arbitration is the absence of a competent authority who is able to enforce the said rules in case of a breach. The IBA Guidelines as well as the LCIA Rules give arbitral tribunals the power and duty to sanction breaching party representatives. It is understandable knowing that the arbitral tribunals are vested with wide powers and in the best position to supervise and prevent unethical behaviour. An alternative would be to give the power to sanction party representatives to arbitral institutions - as did the AAA in its Standards of Conduct - by recording party representatives that do not conduct themselves in an appropriate manner in the Institute’s black lists. Finally, the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) suggested the creation of a Global Arbitration Ethics Council, a transnational body charged with the enforcement of ethical principles. In November 2015, an informal working group was chaired by the ASA in which several known arbitration associations and institutions participated. After reviewing empirical data collected from bar councils all over Europe and the US, the group held a second meeting and reached the conclusion that the “time has not yet come” to form an international body charged with the enforcement of ethical standards. This article suggests that, before calling for radical changes such as the implementation of a Global Code of Ethics or the creation of a transnational body charged with the enforcement of ethical principles, it should be deeply analysed whether arbitral tribunals are able to deal with ethical issues under current regulations.

Ethical Rules Applicable to Party Representatives in International Commercial Arbitration and Difficulties Encountered in Practice

Berk Hasan

The Path of Eastern Arbitration to Take Islamic Finance Disputes from the Hands of English Litigation

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL), which is regularly being published by Istanbul University Faculty of Law Research Center of International Law and International Relations since 1981, targets national and international audience. Articles submitted to Public and Private International Law (PPIL) are subject to a double-blind peer-review evaluation system. Public and Private International Law (PPIL) is published twice a year, in June and December. The academic papers requested to be published in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL) have to be submitted by the latest March 31st for June issue and September 30th for December issue. Disciplinary and interdisciplinary academic papers focused on the diverse faces of public and private international law in connection with the basis of justice are being published in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL). Therefore, while following public and private international law and international relations issues and publishing related academic papers this journal aims to help academicians studying or making researches in the same field. Besides academic articles on public international law and private international law, book reviews regarding the same subjects and evaluations of related court decisions are published in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL).

İnci

Assoc. Prof.

Galip

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

Gale Cengage

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Public and Private International Law Bulletin

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Managing Editor

Section Editor

Ethics Editor

Publicity Manager

Language Editor

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL), which is regularly being published by Istanbul University Faculty of Law Research Center of International Law and International Relations since 1981, targets national and international audience. Articles submitted to Public and Private International Law (PPIL) are subject to a double-blind peer-review evaluation system. Public and Private International Law (PPIL) is published twice a year, in June and December. The academic papers requested to be published in Public and Private International Law (PPIL) have to be submitted by the latest March 31st for June issue and September 30th for December issue.Disciplinary and interdisciplinary academic papers focused on the diverse faces of public and private international law in connection with the basis of justice are being published in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL). Therefore, while following public and private international law and international relations issues and publishing related academic papers this journal aims to help academicians studying or making researches in the same field.Besides academic articles on public international law and private international law, book reviews regarding the same subjects and evaluations of related court decisions are published in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL).Mainly preferred topics of (a) public international law and (b) private international law in Public and Private International Law Bulletin (PPIL) are listed below.(a) Public International Law<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;">1.    International Law (in general, i.e., History, Philosophy, Theory, Sources, Subjects of International Law; The Relations of International and National laws)</div></div><div style="text-align: left;">2.    International Law Personality, Recognition of States and Governments</div><div style="text-align: left;">3.    Territorial Sovereignty and State Jurisdiction </div><div style="text-align: left;">4.    International Transactions: Unilateral Acts and The Law of Treaties</div><div style="text-align: left;">5.    International Peace and Security Law and Use of Force</div><div style="text-align: left;">6.    International Human Rights Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">7.    International Environmental Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">8.    International Humanitarian Law ( Armed Conflicts Law)</div><div style="text-align: left;">9.    International Organizations Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">10.  International Law of the Sea</div><div style="text-align: left;">11.  International Economic Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">12.  State Responsibility</div><div style="text-align: left;">13.  International Criminal Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">14.  International Refugees Law</div><div style="text-align: left;">15.  Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (Diplomatic and Judicial Means)</div><div style="text-align: left;">16.  International Air and Space law</div><div style="text-align: left;">17.  Transboundary Waters and Aquifer (groundwaters) Law</div>(b) Private International Law:<div>1.    General Principles of Private International Law 2.    International Procedure Law 3.    Conflict of Laws Rules 4.    International Investment Law 5.    Law on Aliens (i.e., Social Rights, Property Rights, Right to Education) 6.    Citizenship Law 7.    International Jurisdiction 8.    Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgements and Foreign Arbitration Awards 9.    International Family and Child Law 10.  International Contracts Law 11.  Alternative Dispute Resolutions 12.  International Commercial Arbitration 13.  Migration LawIntersecting topics of these two areas such as immigration and refugee law, investment law are also being subject to interdisciplinary legal reviews.  </div>

Aim and Scope

Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) TUBITAK-ULAKBIM TR DizinDOAJERIH PLUSEBSCO Central &amp; Eastern European Academic SourceEBSCO Legal SourceSOBİADGale Cengage

Indexing and Abstracting

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. PlagiarismSubmitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 15 or 20%. Double Blind Peer-ReviewAfter plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Policies

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" target="_blank">BOAI</a> definition of open access.The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) license.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</a>) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Editor should consider publishing correction if minor errors that do not effect the results, interpretations and conclusions of the published paper are detected. Editor should consider retraction if major errors and/or misconduction that invalidate results and conclusions are detected.Editor should consider issuing an expression of concern if there is evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; there is evidence that the findings are not reliable and institutions of the authors do not investigate the case or the possible investigation seems to be unfair or nonconclusive. The guidelines of <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> and <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> are taken into consideration regarding correction, retractions or expression of concern.RetractionJournal follows <a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf" target="_blank">COPE’s Retraction Guidelines</a> in case of retraction. The editor has the right to retract an article if: <ul><li>There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable; either as a result of a major error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g. of data) or falsification (e.g. image manipulation).</li><li>It contains plagiarised content. </li><li>It has been published elsewhere without proper attribution. </li><li>It contains material or data without authorisation for use.</li><li>There is copyright infringement or there is some other serious legal issue.</li><li>It reports unethical research. </li><li>There is evidence that the peer-review process is compromised or manipulated.</li><li>The author(s) failed to disclose a significant competing interest (also known as a conflict of interest) that, in the opinion of the editor, would have unduly influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of the editors and peer reviewers.</li></ul>In case of retraction the following steps are followed:<ul><li>Retraction notice including article title is published in a subsequent issue of the journal. The retraction notice is paginated and listed in the table of contents. </li><li>A link is provided between the retraction notice and the original article in the electronic version. </li><li>The online article is preceded by a page containing the retraction notice; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.</li><li>The original article remains unchanged, except for a watermark on the .pdf on each page stating that it has been &#34;retracted”.</li></ul>Article Removal for Legal ReasonsIn the following circumstances, except the metadata (title and authors), the text of the article is removed and a page informing that the article has been removed for legal reasons replaces the article. <ul><li>The article is found to be defamatory or to infringe the legal rights of others, and retraction is not deemed to be an adequate solution.</li><li>The article has been, or is reasonably likely to be the subject of a court order.</li><li>There is a significant risk to public health. </li></ul>

To guarantee that all papers published in the journal are maintained and permanently accessible, articles are stored in Dergipark which serves as a  national archival web site and at the same time permits LOCKSS to  collect, preserve, and serve the content.Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their articles in open electronic archives with  that conform to standards of Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>). Authors should provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of IUPress journal website.

Public and Private International Law Bulletin is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a>All parties involved in the publishing process (Editors, Reviewers, Authors and Publishers) are expected to agree on the following ethical principles.All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Each manuscript is reviewed by one of the editors and at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors.All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing. The journal will act according to the COPE guidelines and flowcharts when faced with cases of suspected misconduct, complaints and appeals.

Ethics

The journal adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.- Principles of integrity, quality and transparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.- The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.- The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.- Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.- Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.- The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.- In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.- If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.- In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/848869224A0F46AF8A1AF364064CF007" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>. The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section.All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment.When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by editor-in-chief  upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed. Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective. Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Peer Review

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international external referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by Editor-in-Chief upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.- Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?- Is the problem significant and concisely stated?- Are the methods described comprehensively?- Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?- Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?- Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

LanguageArticles in Turkish and English are published. Submitted Turkish article must include an English abstract, keyword and an extended abstract. Extended abstract in English is not required for articles in English. Manuscript Organization and FormatAll correspondence will be sent to the first-named author unless otherwise specified. Manuscpript is to be submitted online via <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ppil" target="_blank">https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ppil</a> and it must be accompanied by a cover letter indicating that the manuscript is intended for publication, specifying the article category (i.e. research article, review etc.) and including information about the manuscript (see the Submission Checklist). Manuscripts should be prepared in Microsoft Word 2003 and upper versions. In addition, <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/848869224A0F46AF8A1AF364064CF007" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a> that has to be signed by all authors must be submitted. 1. The manuscripts should be in A4 paper standards: having 2.5 cm margins from right, left, bottom and top, Times New Roman font style in 12 font size, line spacing of 1.5 and “justify align” format. For indented paragraph, tab key should be used. One line spacing should be used for the tables and figures, which are included in the text. 2. The title of the text should be centered on the page, in lower-case letter, bold, Times New Roman font and 14 font size. 3. Information about the author is to be written on the left part of the page skipping one line space after the title, and it should be in Times New Roman font, 10 font size, with one line spacing. After indicating the name of the author in lower-case letter and surname in capital letter, the title, affiliation, and e-mail address should be included. 4. Before the introduction part, there should be an abstract of 200-250 words both in the language of the article and in English. An extended abstract in English between 800-1000 words, summarizing the scope, the purpose, the results of the study and the methodology used is to be included following the abstracts. If the manuscript is in English, extended abstract is not required. Underneath the abstracts, 5-15 keywords that inform the reader about the content of the study should be specified in the language of the article and in English. 6. The manuscripts should contain mainly these components: title, abstract and keywords; extended abstract (If the manuscript is in English, extended abstract is not required), sections, footnotes and references. 7. Tables, graphs and figures can be given with a number and a defining title if and only if it is necessary to follow the idea of the article. Otherwise features like demographic characteristics can be given within the text. 8. A <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/5BA20B6708CA44FAAF80776194D8FB31" target="_blank">title page</a> including author information must be submitted together with the manuscript. The title page is to include fully descriptive title of the manuscript and, affiliation, title, e-mail address, ORCID, postal address, phone and fax number of the author(s) (see The Submission Checklist). 9. The rights of the manuscripts submitted to our journal for publication, belongs to the author(s). 10. The author(s) can be asked to make some changes in their articles due to peer reviews. 11. A copy of the journal will be sent to each author of the accepted articles upon their request. 12. The studies that were sent to the journal will not be returned whether they are published or not.OSCOLA Reference ExamplesPrimary Sources Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon. Cases Give the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report. Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884. R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410. Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL). When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint after the court. Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45]. Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37]. R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31. If citing a particular judge: Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ). Statutes and statutory instruments Act of Supremacy 1558. Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b). Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166. EU legislation and cases Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13. Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5. Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48. European Court of Human Rights Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10. Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124. Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004). Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188. Secondary Sources Books Give the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268. Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet &amp; Maxwell 2009). K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998). Contributions to edited books Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006). Encyclopedias Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53. Journal articles Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440. When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint. JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’(2001) 117 LQR 42, 64. Online journals Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010) 1(1) EJLT &lt; http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 &gt; accessed 27 July 2010. Command papers and Law Commission reports Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5. Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17. Websites and blogs Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009) accessed 19 November 2009. Newspaper articles Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3.k/sites/files/oxlaw/oscola_2006_citing_international_law.pdf

Author Guidelines

Before beginning the online submission process please read the Information for Authors and make sure you have the followings available:Cover letter to the editor<ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The category of the manuscript</li> <li>Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.</li> <li>Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.</li> <li>Confirming that the statistical design of the research article is reviewed.</li> <li>Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.</li> <li>Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.</li> <li>Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with OSCOLA 4th Edition. </li> </ul> </ul><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/848869224A0F46AF8A1AF364064CF007" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/9463F19C103F4828B2E32AAFBDB13F53" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The category of the manuscript</li> <li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of the article and in English</li> <li>All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addresses</li> <li>Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax number</li> <li>ORCIDs of all authors.</li> </ul> </ul>Main Manuscript Document<ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The title of the manuscript Turkish and in English</li> <li>Abstracts (200-250 words) Turkish and in English</li> <li>Key words: 5-15 words Turkish and in English</li> <li>Extended Summary (800-1000 words) in English (only for articles which are Turkish)</li> <li>Grant Support (if exits)</li> <li>Conflict of interest (if exits) </li> <li>Acknowledgement (if exits)</li> <li>References</li> <li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li> </ul> </ul>Manuscript Submission<ul type="disc"> <li>Dergipark anuscript submission site of the journal is: <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ppil" target="_blank">https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ppil</a></li><li>While uploading Main Document, make sure that the main document has no information that clarify the author’s identity. Due to double blind peer review, Main Document must not include Title Page, the name of author or any other detail that can disclose the author identity. </li> <li>Additionaly, Supplemental File for Review must not include any detail that can disclose author identity as well.</li> </ul>Files to be uploaded separately<ul type="disc"> <li>Copyright Agreement Form</li> <li>Permissions obtained for previously published material if used in the present manuscript</li> <li>Title page</li> <li>Main Manuscript Document</li> </ul><ul type="disc"> <ul type="circle"> <li>The title of the manuscript Turkish and in English</li> <li>Abstracts (200-250 words) Turkish and in English</li> <li>Key words: 5-15 words Turkish and in English</li> <li>Extended summary (800-1000 words) in English (only for articles which are Turkish)</li> <li>Grant Support (if exits)</li> <li>Conflict of interest (if exits)</li> <li>Acknowledgement (if exists)</li> <li>References</li> <li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li> </ul> </ul><ul type="disc"> </ul>

<a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=03-oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf" target="_blank" style="font-size: 14px;">03-oscola_4th_edn_hart_2012.pdf</a>

Ensure that the following items are present:●    Cover letter to the editorü    The category of the manuscriptü    Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.ü    Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.ü    Confirming that the statistical design of the research article is reviewed.ü    Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.ü    Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.ü    Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with OSCOLA 4th Edition.●    <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/848869224A0F46AF8A1AF364064CF007" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>●    Permission of previously published copyrighted material if used in the present manuscript●    <a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=ppil_title-page_637057799040699150.docx" target="_blank">Title page</a>ü    The category of the manuscriptü    The title of the manuscriptü    All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addressesü    Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax numberü    ORCIDs of all authors.●    Main Manuscript Documentü    The title of the manuscriptü    Abstract (200-250 words)ü    Key words: 3 to 5 wordsü    Extended Summary (800-1000 words) in English for the articles which are not in Englishü    Grant support (if exists)ü    Conflict of interest (if exists)ü    Acknowledgement (if exists)ü    Referencesü    All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)

<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/848869224A0F46AF8A1AF364064CF007" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a> <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/5BA20B6708CA44FAAF80776194D8FB31" target="_blank">Title Page</a>

Public and Private International Law Bulletin

EARLY VIEW

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Yargı Yetkisi: Bangladeş/Myanmar Kararı Sonrası Hukuki Manzara

Cinsiyet Temelli Zulme Karşı Uluslararası Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda Sağlanan Koruma Statüleri

Ahıska Türklerinin Ülkelerine Geri Dönme Hakkı

SHARE