Dilara

Res. Assist.

Conciliation is one of the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms having specifically regulated in the ICSID Convention for the settlement of investment disputes. The number of applied negotiations aiming to solve via the conciliation process is gradually becoming preferred. The essence of the conciliation procedure based on an impartial third party’s support to reach a mutual agreement of the parties. The concept of conciliation in terms of investment disputes is defined in the ICSID Convention as an amicable dispute resolution method that the cooperation lies in the foreground. The historical background of the conciliation has lied back to the 1899 and 1907 dated Hague Conferences. The bodies we can call query committees in this field have carried out activities similar to the conciliation mechanism. The Convention preferred to use the term conciliation to define the concept of mediation. According to National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, the concept of mediation, in contrast to the concept of conciliation, is simply a procedure facilitating the resolution of the dispute whereas the concept of conciliation is a unified process involving the authorizing authority of the conciliator to facilitate the conciliation procedure. In our opinion, both of the terms can be used interchangeably. In addition to this, the conciliation process has three main characteristics. The initial feauture is that both parties are willing to initiate the mediation procedure in order to resolve the dispute through mediation. Secondly, the principle of equality between the parties is in the foreground substantially. Finally as a third feauture, the principle of confidentiality is dominant at the conciliation process in order to ensure the commercial reputation of the parties. According to the Article 1 of the ICSID Convention, “The purpose of the Centre shall be to provide facilities for con- ciliation and arbitration of investment disputes between Contracting States and nationals of other Contracting States in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.” The ICSID arbitration and conciliation rules envisaged in the convention as an arrangements structured in line with the successive and almost identical regulations. In this respect, it is argued that there is the same idea on the basis of the rules of arbitration and conciliation. However, conciliation does not reflect the same process as arbitration. In contrast to the arbitration proceedings, conciliation is not a trial, but involves a process of alternative dispute resolution system beginning with a conciliation request where the process is flexible and based on the free will of the parties and ends with the decision of the mediator. Beside the two main alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, conciliationarbitration (med-arb) method, has began to become popular for both of the commercial and investment disputes. Conciliation-arbitration (med-arb) is a mixed alternative dispute resolution method that includes both conciliation and arbitration. Substantially, the willingness of the parties to choose the most optimal solution for their disputes quickly and with less cost has led parties to prefer hybrid procedures in the international area. The med-arb method applies in different ways. The initial one relates to conciliation activities during the arbitration proceedings. The second form of the related method is about the selected arbitrators undertaking the conciliatorn function over the same dispute. The third form of the same method is called “medarb” method. In this method, the parties who cannot reach an agreement on the conciliation process, accept the conciliator’s binding decision-making power by the signing a voluntary agreement and turn the conciliation process into an arbitral proceeding. Investment disputes arise from large-scale and long-term projects between the host government and the foreign investor. Compared to commercial disputes, investment disputes tend to be a more complex investment relationship. Hence, applications to ICSID for the resolution of foreign investments disputes are largely related through arbitration proceedings. However, in order to resolve the disputes without having to enter into a judicial process and to ensure the commercial reputation of the parties is not compromised, the settlement of the investment disputes by following the conciliation mechanism has become an increasingly preferred method. Resolution of Investment Disputes Referring to the ICSID Conciliation Rules﻿The non-binding decision of the conciliator in the conciliation process is one of the distinctive characteristics of arbitration proceedings. The decisions made at the end of the conciliation process are advisory recommendations. However, the parties should adhere to the Commission’s proposal to the extent possible. In order not to shake the trust in the conciliation process, it is also important for the parties to act in line with the decision. On the other hand in our opinion, acknowledging the nonbinding characteristic of the conciliation process can lead the process being seen as a waste of time and money. However, the fact that the conciliator advisory decisions are not binding, does not mean that the parties will not be bound by the conciliator report at the end of the process. This situation is also incompatible with the provision of Article 32 of the ICSID Mediation Rules. At the same time, it is not possible to mention the effectiveness of the conciliation process where the conciliator report carrying the signatures of the Commission members.

Resolution of Investment Disputes Referring to the ICSID Conciliation Rules

Right of work is a fundamental right, which is defined in the constitution. However, foreigners’ right to work is limited with in the law. Especially International Labourforce Law, and also the other laws restrict the foreigners right of work. According to general regulation, a foreigner is obliged to get work permit if he/she would like to work. Still, there are some regulations, which are exceptions for work permit. Policies that are supported work of foreigners, induce different regulations for foreigners work. To illustrate, qualified labourforce employment is supported policy in Turkey therefore, the Turquois Card put into practice with a new regulation. The foreigners who can get Turquois Card defined as “In accordance with international labour policy, Turquoise Card is given to the foreigners whose application is approved according to their education, experience, contribution in science and technology, the impact of their activity or investment in Turkey on the economy and employment in the country as well as the recommendations of the International Labour Policy Advisory Board and procedures and principles determined by the Ministry” in article 11/1 of International LabourForce Law (UİK). In particularly, Turquois Card is given to qualified foreigners which is defined that “…who have internationally recognized studies in the academic area, and those distinguished in science, industry and technology, areas of which deemed strategic from the point of our country, or those whose export, employment or investment capacity make significant contribution to national economy or expected to make such contributions shall be assessed as qualified foreigners.” in article 11/5 of Interantional Labourforce Law. Employment of qualified foreigner labour is encouraged because of the belief of economic development influenced positively. To provide employment of qualified foreigner, some privileged rights are given to these foreigners. Except of right to elect and be elected, compulsory military service and right to restrict for only Turkish citizen; the owners of Turquois Card have equal rights with Turkish citizen. This means, qualified foreigners have lots of privileged rights compare to the other foreigners. The scope of qualified foreigners is determined in the International Labourforce Law and also Turquois Card Regulation. However the scope of Turquois Card Regulation is larger than scope of International Labourforce Law. Even if the statute Therefore we criticize that, the regulation exceed the limit because, the general rule says regulations are prepared accordance the statute. If there is not a given authority to executive organ, the regulations prepared by executive organ cannot exceed the limitation determined with statute. Before Turquois Card practice, there was also similar regulations to benefit from qualified foreigners. To increase foreign investment, the key personnel of companies in specific qualified could work without work permit. Moreover, in current situation, Turquois Card is not only way to support foreign workers. There are exceptions of work permit like exceptional work permit practice. This practice also enable to some foreigners get work permit easily than normal procedure. The application procedure of Turquois Card is determined in Turquois Card Regulation. Because it is an exceptional way, there are some limitations to get this card. One of the limitations of practice of Turquois Card is period of transition. The aim of period of transition is determination whether is the foreigner qualified or not. In this period, the applicant of Turquois Card is observed to confirm whether foreigner is suitable for qualified foreigner. Moreover, if the owner of Turquois Card continuously two years live abroad or does not work continuously one year, the Turquois Card is canceled. Not only the owner of Turquois Card, but also the family of owner benefit from rights provided by Turquois Card. The family members who can benefit from the rights are Turquoise Cards owner’s spouse and children who are dependent. The Turquois Card is not the first practice to encourage employment of qualified labourforce, there are also similar practices like Blue Card in EU and Green Card in USA. Blue Card is an EU practice to support qualified labourfoce work in EU countries. Council Directive of 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 regulates the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment. Which foreigners are counted as highly qualified is determined in the directive. There are similarities in scope of practices between Turquois Card and Blue Card. Green Card is an American practice provides easiness to get work permit. The scope of Green Card practice is wider than the other two practices. Qualified foreigners are privileged to get Green Card. In addition, there are different categories that people can get Green Card for example; mother or father of an American citizen can get this card. Moreover, there are lotteries distributes Green Card.

Practice of Turquois Card

Mustafa

Assoc. Prof.

The Turkish Citizenship Law (TCL) numbered 5901, in effect since 2009, has recently been subject to numerous changes through the Law numbered 7039 “Amending the Law on Population Services and Certain Laws”. Although said changes are of an important nature, they have not yet been subject to a detailed examination of the doctrine. In this study, we aim to address these changes from various angles. The changes made in the TCL through the Law numbered 7039 have been in the form of (i) making new additions, (ii) making amendments to certain existing provisions and (iii) repealing certain provisions. We are of the opinion that it would not be accurate to categorically classify the changes made to the TCL through the Law numbered 7039 as correct or incorrect, since different changes made through said Law have apparently been made for different reasons and therefore it is necessary to address them separately. For instance, the Law numbered 7039 brought an accurate amendment to Article 15/1 of the TCL, according to which the maximum duration a foreigner wishing to acquire Turkish citizenship by decision of the competent authority can spend abroad have been increased from six to twelve months. This amendment is in accordance with the problems encountered in practice and the criticisms of the doctrine. However, on the other hand, some of the reasoning given for said changes are, in our opinion, problematic. For instance, Article 10/2 of the TCL, one of the new additions introduced by the Law numbered 7039, stipulates that the main principles to be implemented in the acquisition of citizenship after birth are to be determined by the Ministry of Interior upon receiving opinions from the relevant public institutions and organizations. We are of the opinion that this provision contravenes the principle of legality, since it makes it possible for the administration to determine the main principles to be implemented in the acquisition of citizenship in lieu of the lawmaker. Furthermore, some of the changes brought by the Law number 7039, namely the amendment made to Article 39 and the new Additional Article 1, raise questions as to their practicality. In addition, the changes have also led to certain discrepancies between the articles within the TCL itself, such as between Additional Article 1 and Article 44 as well as between Article 43/1 and Article 43/2. With the Law Numbered 7039, a new paragraph has been added to Article 12 of the TCL. According to the new paragraph, the Ministry of Interior rejects the requests of those who are in a position to constitute an obstacle in terms of national security and public order. Article 12, paragraph 1 of the TCL, already has the condition of not having any obstacle in terms of national security and public order. While this is the case, the second paragraph added that the Ministry of the Interior will reject the applications of persons with a condition that would constitute an obstacle in terms of public order and national security. Citizenship is granted by the President to those who wish to acquire Turkish citizenship within the scope of Article 12. Therefore, whether these persons have acted contrary to public order and national security was evaluated by the President. When this new authority was granted to the Ministry of Interior, the workload of the President was reduced. In this case, the President will only be able to examine whether the applicants are among the groups of persons referred to in Article 12 of the TCL. One of the important amendments introduced by the Law numbered 7039 is to increase the residence period of persons who want to acquire Turkish citizenship from six months to twelve months. Retaining up to twelve months abroad for the last five years from the date of application for citizenship does not constitute an obstacle to the acquisition of Turkish citizenship. This change has been useful. The six-month period was short for “qualified” people who wanted to gain Turkish citizenship. Accordingly, in light of the principles of certainty and legal security, it is important that changes to laws in effect are not made in short time periods and that they are made pursuant to prior deliberation with the experts and practitioners in the field, in accordance with international law. Otherwise, the changes made by the law-maker will certainly be subject to further change at short notice. Furthermore, although the amendments were made almost two years ago, no amendment has yet been made to the Implementing Regulation. This situation creates a contradiction between the provisions of law and regulation in contradistinction to the principle of the hierarchy of norms and therefore, this is also a problem which needs to be urgently addressed.

Examining of the Changes in the Turkish Citizenship Law Through Law Number 7039

Talat

Assist. Prof.

The assignment of receivables is the process of transferring the receivable arising from a debt relationship to a third party. In the early periods of Roman law and common law, the debt liability and the right to claim receivable arising from the debt relationship between the debtor and the creditor are considered to be inextricably linked to the personalities of the debtor and the creditor. Thus, assignment of receivables was not allowed. However, due to the necessities of commercial life, the opposite of this view has started to dominate over time and the assignment of the receivables has been recognized as an institution. In modern legal systems, assignment of receivables has been widely used for many purposes such as performance, collection, guarantee and donation. In addition to its domestic use, with the growth of international trade and finance, cross-border use of assignment of receivables has increased. Cross-border assignment of receivables is used specifically for international financing. In this context, the companies operating internationally use the assignment of receivables to meet their immediate cash needs, to provide collateral for obtaining credit and to finance the large scale projects. The main reason for funding through the cross-border assignment of receivables is that the cost of the financing obtained in this way is lower than that of the conventional financing instruments. Nonetheless, the cross-border use of assignments of receivables has raised the question of which country’s law should be applied to the tripartite relations, comprising the debtor-creditor, creditor (assignor)–assignee and assignee–debtor relations. The Turkish Private International Law and International Civil Law (PILA No. 5718) does not include a specific provision on the law applicable to the assignment of receivables. Thus, the law applicable to the assignment of the receivables should be determined within the framework of general provisions. Some guidance may also be drawn from the EU and the international practice. Indeed, the Rome Convention and its successor Rome I Regulation, which were specially considered in the preparation stage of the PILA No 5718, contain specific conflict of law provisions to be applied to the assignment of receivables. United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade (UNCITRAL Receivables Convention), though not entered into force, also provides conflicts of law rules to be applied to the assignment of receivables, arguably reflecting the international practice. In this regard, under the Turkish Law, the relationship between assignor and assignee under a voluntary assignment shall be governed by the law that applies to the contract between the assignor and assignee i.e. contract by which the receivable is assigned. Thus, in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract, it should be accepted that assignor and assignee may choose either explicitly or implicitly the law applicable to the relationship between them. If the parties do not choose a law, then the applicable law will have to be determined in accordance with the objective conflict of law rules. Concerning the relationship between assignee and debtor, the law governing the assigned receivable shall determine not only the relationship between the assignee and the debtor, but also the assignability of receivable, the conditions under which the assignment can be invoked against the debtor and whether the debtor’s obligations have been discharged. It is worth to mention that this approach is internationally accepted. Indeed since there is no voluntary relationship between the debtor and the assignee, the debtor’s situation should not be worsen because of the assignment. Finally, it is possible that assignment of the receivables may affect the third parties. Some third parties that may be affected by the assignment can be listed as follows: In case of bankruptcy of the assignor “the bankruptcy administration”, if the assignor assigns the same receivable to more than one assignee “the other assignees” and “creditors of the assignor”. In this context, whether or not the assignee acquires the receivable validly, priority of the assigned receivable over a right of another person, and effectiveness of the assignment against the third parties are the issues that need to be addressed in regard to third party effects of the assignment of receivables. Thus, determining applicable law to the third party effects of assignment of the receivables is the most complex and controversial subject in terms of the assignment of the receivables. Although there are three potential alternatives to the law applicable to the third party effects of assignment of the receivables i.e. the law governing contract for assignment, the law governing the assigned claim and law of habitual residence of the assignor, the most appropriate one is the law of habitual residence of the assignor. However, as accepted by the EU and the UNCITRAL Convention, law of the assigned claim should apply or at least the parties should be allowed to choose this law, to the cash credited to a bank account and assignment of claims arising from financial instruments under the Turkish Law as well.

Law Applicable to The Assignment of Receivables Involving Foreign Element

Sevda

The Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Family Maintenance is a contract between the States Parties that responds to the settlement of maitenance-related problems, is accessible, fast, low-cost, efficient, fair and effective to ensure the effective communication. In line with these objectives, it is a contract that regulates the recognition and enforcement of the maintenance decisions primarily by taking into consideration the best interests of the children. The 2007 Hague Recovery Convention aimed to establish an effective international administrative cooperation system in the recovery of maintenance under the convention. The 2007 Hague Recovery Convention is an administrative cooperation and an enforcement convention. According to the provisions of the Convention, implementation of reciprocity between the Contracting States shall apply. So this convention is not a loi uniforme / erga omnes quality convention. The Convention was established to replace the 1958 and 1973 dated Hague Convention both the 1956 New York Convention. With the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention from “sender” and “intermediary” authorities in the 1956 New York Convention were abandoned and the central authority system was adopted. Turkey has designated as the central authority was Ministry of Justice External Relations and the European Union General Directorate. The Convention also imposes an obligation to provide free legal assistance to children under the age of 21 in applications for child support. Unlike the other Hague convention, the system of enforcing maintenance decisions is regulated according to the law of the state which is requested for the first time. The convention firstly includes child support and spouses maintenance. The maintenance between the brothers, the maintenance demanded from the children of the parents and maintenance arising from kinship by marriage are excluded from the scope of the convention as a rule. In order for these types of maintenance to be covered by the Convention, States parties are required to make declarations in respect of the same maintenance obligations. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention will be applied on the disagreement arising between the 1956 New York Convention and the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention. Again, in accordance with Article 48 of the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention, in the cases covered by the 1973 Convention and the issues of the 2007 Hague Covention, the 1973 Hague Convention will be disabled. The same applies to the 1958 Hague Convention. Turkey has expanded the scope of the Convention about the maintenance for children up to the age of 25. Also in terms of all the Convention, Turkey has declared that include spouse maintenance, children with mental or physical disabilities and mother / father in need of nursing maintenance the scope of the convention. Turkey, while the State party, also declared that adopting Article 24 of the regulation as an alternative method of recognition and enforcement procedures in the convention.

The International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Maintanence Claims According to The 2007 Hague Convention

Ömer Faruk

GATT Article XXI, the Continuous Quest for Clarifying its Material Scope, and the WTO Panel Report on Russia - Measures concerning Traffic in Transit

Zeynep Rana

According to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the performance is the natural result of a contract. Therefore, the first claim to be demanded is the realization of this natural result, in other words, the specific performance. With the coming into force of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) in 2011, certain international sale contracts became subject to its provisions. Thus, not only the general and special provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, but also the CISG provisions shall be applied to the sale contracts. Therefore, it is necessary to reveal the similarities and differences between these two systems. Within the framework of the general provisions, the cases of non-performance of the obligation are divided into two as the impossibility of the obligation and the improper performance. Late performance is a specific case of improper performance and called default. The three different results are linked to these situations which fall into the concept of non-performance of the obligation: specific performance (action for specific performance and enforcement), action for damages and withdrawal from the contract. The first of these sanctions is important for our subject. If the debtor has not fulfilled his obligation, the creditor shall file a lawsuit for specific performance and compel the debtor to perform. If the debtor insists on failing to obey the court order, the creditor can apply for enforcement of this order. In Turkish law, as long as the performance of the obligation is possible, the creditor can in principle only demand specific performance. If it becomes impossible, it is no longer useful to demand specific performance. Therefore, in general provisions, the performance is the primary and prior sanction. This claim is sometimes completed with other claims (e.g. compensation for damage) and sometimes replaced by other claims (e.g. withdrawal from the contract as per article 125 of Turkish Code of Obligations). This violation of the contract system remains valid basically also in the special provisions related to the sale contract. However, at some points, a separation from general rules exists. First of all, the TCO art. 212 /par. 2 brings a different rule for the seller in default in commercial sale contracts where the parties determine a period of time for the transfer of possession of the goods sold. According to this provision, it is assumed that the buyer claims compensation for the damage arising out of non-performance instead of specific performance. However, in accordance with art. 125 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, the creditor shall, as a rule, demand specific performance and other claims, he should immediately notify that he renounces specific performance. Thus, the specific performance which is the primary sanction in simple sales, is replaced by compensation in commercial sales. Also, the defect and the eviction are separately regulated. As to the other cases of improper performance (e.g. violation of some ancillary obligations), the seller shall be liable to pay indemnity under art. 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, since there are no specific provisions. For the sale contracts subject to the CISG; arts. 45, 46 and 28 apply. According to art. 46, there are two requirements for the specific performance. They are as follows: The seller must violate his obligations and the buyer must not have benefited from a legal opportunity which is incompatible with the claim of specific performance. Art. 45 clarify the obligations that must be violated in order for the the right of specific performance to arise. Violation of any of the obligations arising from the contract or the Convention is sufficient for the exercise of the rights provided in certain articles of Convention, pursuant to the first paragraph of the said article. However, in case of non-conforming performance to the contract, the claim for delivery of substitute goods and repair (m. 46/ f. 2 and 3) applies. The boundary is not always clear and especially aliud, the partial performance and the claim for superior rights of third parties are controversial. In contrast to Turkish law, the CISG considers aliud like defective performance. Partial performance is regulated by art. 51/ para. 1 and according to it articles 46 to 50 apply in respect of the part which is missing or which does not conform. Eviction is not included in the concept of delivery of goods non-conforming to the contract and interpreted within art. 46/ para. 1. As to the second requirement for specific performance, the doctrine illustrated the legal opportunities which are incompatible with this claim such as avoidance of the contract (art. 49), the reduction of the price (art. 50) and the demand for compensation based on non-performance (m. 74 ff). Apart from these two requirements, there are other cases that prevent this claim. These restrictions are sometimes included in the articles of Convention but sometimes accepted by the doctrine (e.g. impossibility of performance, hardship). There are also some rules whose effect on specific performance is very controversial. The principle of good faith (art. 7), the usage (art. 9) and the obligation to mitigate the loss (art. 77) are the main ones. But the most strongly criticized restriction is art. 28 of the CISG which regulates that If, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to require performance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgement for specific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contracts of sale not governed by this Convention. This has provoked a lot of discussion about its application. The statements “under its own law”, “similar contracts”, “the court” and “would do so” are in need of clarification. The biggest criticism among all these discussions is that it breaks the uniformity that the CISG aims to reach. Although it is not commonly seen in practice, in order to overcome this uniformity problem, the adoption of a close interpretation in accordance with the principles of art. 7 is proposed.

Buyer’s Right to Require Specific Performance According to The United Nations Convention on Contracts for The International Sale of Goods (CISG) and Comparison with Turkish Law of Obligations

Ömer

The legal remedies against an award granted by an arbitral tribunal in international investment arbitration pursuant to Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID”) are regulated in the fifth section of the mentioned Convention. Other than those remedies prescribed by ICSID, an award granted by a tribunal cannot be subject to further legal review mechanisms by the courts of the member states. An annulment procedure against an award is stated as one of these legal remedies regulated in ICSID Convention. Pursuant to ICSID, there are five grounds, which are limited, for annulment of an award. However, that’s not to say the Committee, while granting its decision on annulment, will adopt a view in favor of annulment. The Committee will not adopt a view in favor of or against annulment. The first ground for annulment is the improper constitution of arbitral tribunal. The constitution of arbitral tribunal will primarily take place according to the will of the parties to the dispute. At certain points where there is no rule agreed to by the parties, the supplementary rules of ICSID and the Arbitration Rules will be applicable. A violation of these rules about the constitution of the tribunal, whether agreed to by the parties or set forth by ICSID or the Arbitration Rules, may result in the annulment of the decision. However, a party applying for annulment on this ground should raise an objection before the tribunal as soon as it becomes aware of such situation. Otherwise, it will be deemed to waive its right to apply for annulment on the same ground. That the tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers is stated as the second ground for annulment. While finding out whether this ground for annulment exists, it should be kept in mind that a mere excess of powers does not suffice. For the annulment of the award, the excess of powers should also be manifest, which, in the light of case law and commentaries by scholars, refers to being evident and obvious, namely perceptible without the need for a detailed examination. It is well-founded that excess of powers is manifest in the cases where the tribunal fails to apply the proper law, i.e. applying another law than the true applicable law, where the tribunal wrongfully declines its jurisdiction on a matter falling within its scope of jurisdiction and where the tribunal grants an award beyond the requests of the parties. A mere erroneous application or interpretation of the applicable law, however, is not accepted as a manifest excess of powers. The third ground for annulment is corruption on the part of a member of the tribunal. Corruption will be at issue when a member of the tribunal is provided with illegal benefits and thus adopts biased behavior. However, a mere inference is not sufficient and therefore, the party relying on this ground should support its claim with other relevant evidences. It is noteworthy to state that corruption on the part of any other person other than the members of the tribunal, as it is not regulated as one of the grounds for annulment, does not lead to annulment of the award. Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure is the fourth ground for the annulment. As for this ground, the rule must be a fundamental rule and the departure should be serious. Fundamental rules of procedures are described as the rules closely linked with the fairness and legitimacy of the arbitral proceedings such as the right to be heard, the right to fair trial, the right to be treated equally and the impartiality of the members of the tribunal. A departure from a procedural rule is serious if such departure is likely to have an effect on the award. However, in some of the annulment decisions, for the departure to be accepted as serious, the Committee requires “a substantial effect” on the award and that such effect is established by the applicant. In spite of this view, there are decisions adopting an adverse approach in terms of the need to prove such a substantial effect. The last ground for annulment is failure to state reasons. This ground will be at issue if the reasoning is partly or wholly absent or if it is contradictory. One should be aware that the reasoning does not have to include a reply for all the questions and issues raised by the parties. An award will not be subject to annulment provided that its reasoning contains the grounds required for the award. In other words, the scope of the reasoning for the award does not need to be vast, and is set as minimum. As for corollaries of an application for annulment, even if a ground for annulment is detected, the Committee has the discretionary power about the necessity of annulment. It is noteworthy that such a discretionary power cannot be used arbitrarily by the Committee. If the Committee is to annul the award, it may do so either partially or wholly.

Annulment of Awards in ICSID Convention

Faruk Kerem

In this paper, three issues regarding the enforcement of foreign court decisions are examined in detail. When considering enforcement, the Turkish Code on Private International Law (MOHUK) does not consider whether foreign judgments are delivered by a state of rule of law or not. Whereas the rule of law of a state may be challenged due to public policy consideration in enforcement cases. The rule of law is guaranteed by art 2 of the Turkish Constitution. Therefore, taking this principle into account is necessary, when a foreign court decision is recognized or enforced, since its effects and consequences will be the same as the civil judgements rendered by a Turkish court. According to MOHUK, the awards rendered by foreign courts pertaining to civil suits are subject to recognition (art.58) and enforcement (art.50). So, it is important that the judgement of the foreign court does not to infringe the right to a fair trial. The legal system in which the court functions must have some essential elements rather than its name and power of judgement. Otherwise, the court’s judgement will not be considered as an award due to not being given through a process of state of law. In this regard, independence of the judicial authority is a key element. Also, sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrariness must be in place. Transparency is also an important issue for substantive justice. Moreover, the timeliness of the delivery of substantive justice is a factor that must be taken care of. So, in recognition and enforcement requests, a foreign decision has to be given by a Court of a State of law. Otherwise, it will be against public policy of Turkish State and will cause the rejection of enforcement request. The second issue regarding enforcement and recognition concerns mediation. In our opinion, foreign settlement agreements which were reached by mediation are not subject to recognition and enforcement in Turkish law, because article 58 and article 50 of MOHUK only regulate foreign courts’ judgements. So, registering for the execution of a settlement agreement given by a foreign court will not change the mediation nature of that agreement. This settlement agreement is still given due to mediation. Therefore, the decision of the mediator will not be considered as a Court order. Finally, payment orders given by foreign courts are not enforced in Turkey due to not being final. Specifically, payment orders rendered from Italian Court’s are not considered eligible for recognition and enforcement. Although a payment order notified to the debtor indicates that it will become final if it is not paid within 60 days, Turkish courts do not take this notification into account for enforcement. But payment orders are considered as a ‘document instituting the proceedings or equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 27/2 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Court of the Justice of European Union. The Court considered these documents as a judgement due to being duly and timeously served on the defendant in order to enable him to assert his rights before an enforceable judgment is given in the State of origin. In “Hengst Import BV v. Anna Maria Campese” judgement, Court of Justice ordered that, “decreto ingiuntivo” within the meaning of Book IV of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 633 to 656), must be regarded as ‘the document which instituted proceedings or an equivalent document’ within the meaning of art 27/2, due to their joint service starts the time for the defendant to oppose the order and the plaintiff cannot obtain an enforceable order before the expiry of that time-limit. It is our conviction that, in enforcement cases, Turkish courts must consider the decisions of the Court of Justice’, while qualifying a judgement whether it is final or not.

Is it necessary for the recognition of a foreign decision being given from a state where the rule of law is present? Is it possible to enforce settlement agreement as a result of mediation? Is it possible to enforce the decision of the payment order from the foreign court?

M. Talha

Collective Arbitration

Ümmühan Elçin

Preliminary Objections of the M/V Norstar Case

China’s International Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy

Ayşe

Prof.

Bahattin

Ceren

Assist. Prof. Dr.

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.

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

Prof. Dr.

Emre

The Right of Meskhetian Turks to Return to Their Country

Muhammet

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.

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

Banu

Determining the law applicable to an arbitration agreement is a controversial issue in various aspects. The increase in problems regarding the extension of arbitration agreements to third parties in practice has revealed the importance of determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. Essentially, it has become important whether the arbitration agreement is valid for the third parties subject to the extension request. However, in cases where there is no request to extend the arbitration agreement to third parties; it should not be overlooked that there are also invalidity claims among the existing parties.The invalidity claims of arbitration agreements can be raised before arbitrators, as well as before state courts. Both in cases of annulment of arbitral awards and cases of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the validity of arbitration agreements and the determination of the law to be applied to arbitration agreements are handled by state courts. However, as will be seen below, the lack of a uniform regulation and/or practice regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements has led to different decisions by the courts of various states on this issue. Particularly in cases of annulment of arbitral awards and/or requests for recognition and enforcement, decisions are made by the relevant state courts. These decisions are rendered according to the trends that dominate the issue of extension in the relevant legal systems. In this context, first of all, emphasis should be placed on determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement depending on the intent of the parties. It is generally accepted that the law applicable to the arbitration agreement can be determined by the parties.In other words, the parties can determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement as well as the law applicable to the main contract. However, it is a fact that the parties generally do not include a separate choice of law clause to be applied to the arbitration agreement. In fact, the law applicable to the main contract is generally chosen but, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement has not been determined by the parties expressly. For this reason, the implied choice of law and the role of the law applicable to the main contract are mostly discussed.&nbsp;Recently, high courts in various legal systems have demonstrated different tendencies regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements, and contradicting evaluations have been made, especially regarding the extension of the arbitration agreement to third parties. While some higher courts consider the choice of law applicable to the main contract by the parties as an implied choice of law, others consider the determination of the seat of arbitration as an implied choice of law. In addition, where there is no choice of law, assessments have been made based on the most closely connected law, especially by the English courts.A recent decision rendered by the German Federal Court on March 9, 2023, is noteworthy in this regard. The decision examines whether the arbitral award may&nbsp;be enforced in the event that the arbitration agreement is extended to companies within a group of companies. The Federal Court upheld the rejection of the request for enforcement of the arbitral award after examining various issues. On appeal to the Federal Court, the Koblenz Regional High Court ruled that the arbitration agreement could not be extended to a third party. Although there are no detailed evaluations regarding the extension of the arbitration agreement to the companies in the group, it can be said that the decision reflects the perspective of German law. The Federal Court determined the applicable law to the arbitration agreement on the basis that the extension of the arbitration agreement to third parties is a matter of the law applicable to the substance of the arbitration agreement. The applicable law to the arbitration agreement was determined as German law, despite the seat of arbitration being Russia. Because the contract contained a choice of law clause indicating that the contract is subject to German law. The Court interpreted that the law applicable to the arbitration agreement was impliedly determined by the parties and concluded that the extension of the arbitration agreement to third parties under German law was not appropriate. Similarly, in some recent decisions of the English Supreme Court and the French Supreme Court on the requests for enforcement and annulment of arbitral awards, especially in some cases where the issue of extension to third parties is discussed, different principles are applied on the applicable law to the arbitration agreement and different conclusions are reached in parallel cases. Legal certainty and predictability have been undermined as a result of these different approaches. In this respect, the English Law Commission has recently proposed an amendment to the English Arbitration Act, which, if enacted, will eliminate the implied choice of law in determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in English law.&nbsp;In this study, firstly, the dispute subject to the decision of the German Federal Court and the discussions regarding the determination of the applicable law to the arbitration agreement on the basis of this decision are discussed. For this purpose, firstly, information on the dispute subject to the decision is provided, and then the approach of some other legal systems and recent judicial decisions on the determination of the applicable law to the arbitration agreement are analyzed. In particular, taking into account the developments regarding the implied choice of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement by the parties, the appropriateness of the interpretations regarding the implied choice of the applicable law is discussed. Finally, the views on the determination of the applicable law in Turkish international arbitration law are evaluated.&nbsp;It should also be noted that this study addresses the question of determination of the applicable law to the arbitration agreement in cases where the issue is discussed before the state courts, upon the first objection to arbitration, and upon requests for annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards.&nbsp;

The Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements in Light of the Decision of the German Federal Court Dated 9 March 2023 on the Refusal to Enforce A Foreign Arbitral Award Against Third Parties and Recent Developments

Özlem

There are various theories about the legal, economic, and political status of the North and South Poles. Furthermore, theorists reach different scientific conclusions when comparing the North Pole and the South Pole. Both the Arctic and Antarctic harbor many natural resources, including oil and natural gas, and are home to biodiversity. However, the laws of the two poles are subject to different regimes. The Arctic is the scene of a struggle for sovereignty between the resident and associated countries. The Arctic Five (Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark), as well as Iceland, Sweden, and Finland, three states that aim to obtain exclusive status even though they have no direct borders with the ocean, are in competition with each other. In contrast, in Antarctica, the sovereignty claims of seven states (Argentina, Australia, France, Chile, Norway, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand) are frozen by the Antarctic Treaty system. In fact, the legal regime of Antarctica, which lies outside the sovereignty of all countries, is still open to debate. Antarctic law is characterised by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which entered into force in 1961, and its extension, the Antarctic Treaty system. Within this system, mining is prohibited except for scientific purposes.&nbsp;In Antarctic law, instead of res nullius, the principle of res communis humanitatis and the motto of the common heritage of humanity are adopted because belonging to no one means openness to occupation, which can lead to the submission of the weak to the strong. In contrast, common belonging can produce peace, abundance, and prosperity. The social science literature dealing with the poles explains res communis in terms of collectivism and its ideal requirements. International law, on the other hand, defines the sine qua non of such a fictitious commonality in terms of pluralism and solidarity. The doctrine of the common heritage of humanity is skillfully projected onto the Antarctic through multidisciplinary discourse, yet the collectivist Antarctic discourse in academia is not clearly reflected in the treaty system.&nbsp;The Antarctic Treaty was first ratified by twelve states, and forty-four others have become members to date. Twenty-nine of these fifty-six states have decision-making power, while twenty-seven can only attend meetings as observers. In other words, of the fifty-six states nominally associated with the Antarctic Treaty, only twenty-nine have decision-making authority. According to UN data, there are two hundred six states in the world and one hundred seventy-seven of those do not participate in governance&nbsp;in Antarctica. Considering that only fifty-six of the world’s states are associated with the Antarctic Treaty, at least one hundred fifty states currently have no conventional connection with the legal regime of the glacial continent. Thus, Antarctica is the common heritage of only %15 of the planet, to the exclusion of the remaining %85. It is obvious that the Antarctic Treaty system, which represents the will of roughly one-seventh of the world, is not global and does not meet the requirements of the doctrine of the common heritage of humanity. This introverted and elitist treaty, whose legal bindingness depends on the fate of international law, does not reflect a global consensus. The legal regime that confines Antarctica to only twenty-nine elite states is not a compromise but rather the collusion of a closed group.It is only to be hoped that the states will collectively refrain from asserting sovereignty in Antarctica out of concern for the common heritage of humanity. The present study supports this hope with the basic terminology of civil law. If there is hope that sovereign nations will come together to establish a new Antarctic Treaty system, this project could be clarified by the ancient civil law infrastructure. This is because the concepts of res nullius and res communis, known in philosophy and law, have their antecedents in Christian theology and their origins in Roman civil law. In fact, the idea of the common heritage of humanity being passed down from generation to generation comes from Roman law.&nbsp;The historical details of res communis humanitatis can be useful when envisioning the ideal governance of Antarctica. Here, an attempt to idealise the concept of the common heritage of humanity with the basic terminology of Roman civil law is undertaken, which may offer a new perspective on the doctrine of the poles. The idea of the Antarctic law protecting future generations is only possible with the acceptance of communis humanitatis and collective property. The following terms and principles can be considered as a conceptual infrastructure for a more efficient application of res communis humanitatis in Antarctica: co-ownership, co-ownership for or as undivided shares, the absence of designated shares of co-owners, unanimous decision-making (at least in extraordinary administrative matters), the extension of each co-owner’s property to the whole of the communal property, authorising each co-owner to protect the common interests of the co-ownership, not authorising co-owners to file partition action, filling the legal gaps with the rules of co-ownership as divided, the impediment to partition arising from being allocated to a permanent and common purpose, and the implicit agreement to maintain co-ownership.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Roman jurist Ulpian thought as follows: The benefits produced or transformed from res communis are res nullius. However, in Antarctica, the rule that what is on/in res communis is considered res nullius should be applied with caution and sensitivity because this continent, which resembles a Pandora’s box, contains unimaginable riches. The fact that what is on/in Antarctica is considered res nullius and that those who&nbsp;labor to obtain these fruits are rewarded with propriety may lead to the exploitation of developing countries by developed ones. It is unacceptable that the precious minerals and biodiversity of Antarctica should be reserved for certain powerful countries simply because they have labored to acquire them. In terms of the South Pole res communis humanitatis requires the equitable sharing and use of resources. After all, the freedom to claim the benefits of humanity’s common heritage is limited by the principles of equitable sharing and passing it on to future generations.&nbsp;

An Attempt to Idealise Antarctic Law with Res Communis and Other Basic Concepts of Roman Civil Law

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Esen

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

Doğan

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

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.

The Artificial Intelligence Policy, prepared in light of developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and practices in scholarly publishing, sets out the editorial and ethical principles that authors, reviewers, and editors should follow when using such technologies. The following sources have been considered in the preparation of the AI policy:Committee on Publication Ethics <a href="https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools" target="_blank">(COPE) - Authorship and AI tools</a>; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four" target="_blank">(ICMJE) - Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology; World Association of Medical Editors  (WAME) Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts</a><a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four"></a>AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models [LLMs], chatbots, or image generators) can develop and produce a wide variety of content, including text, images, audio, and synthetic data. When used ethically and safely, these capabilities can increase productivity and foster innovation, but when used without human guidance, they pose risks such as inaccurate and biased results, omissions and errors in citations, deficiencies in protecting privacy and intellectual property rights, and potential violations of authors' and publishers' rights. IUPress adopts the following core principles to avoid these risks in the use of AI:  <ul><li>Details of any AI used in the production of content (including but not limited to text, figures, images, and code) must be declared and clearly explained in the appropriate section of the paper (as an acknowledgement and/or in the methods section). </li><li>No AI tool may be listed as an author in any scientific paper. </li><li>Authors are responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and originality of their work, even if AI is used in any way; they are responsible for the proper referencing and attribution of others' ideas, data, words, or other materials. </li><li>Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted work, in whole or in part, to any generative AI application.</li></ul>In the editorial processes of IUPress publications, tools are available to assist editors in identifying AI-generated content. On the other hand, it is common to use AI tools that provide suggestions for improving and enhancing readability, language, and grammar, and such AI tools can be used in IUPress publications under the supervision of editors and authors.

Artificial Intelligence Policy

<ul><li>Authors are required to declare if they have used AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models [LLMs], chatbots, or image generators) in the creation of their submitted work. </li><li>Authors should explain, both in the cover letter and in the appropriate section of the submitted paper (as a footnote and/or in the methods section), which AI tool and which version of it they have used and for what purpose. </li><li>Authors should also indicate how they used the AI tool and how they assessed the validity of the results obtained using this technology, and what aspects of the paper, manuscript content, data or supporting files were influenced by the use of the AI tool or were generated by AI.</li><li>It is the authors' responsibility to ensure the accuracy, validity and appropriateness of content and citations generated by AI-assisted technologies and to eliminate potential errors, inconsistencies and biased results. </li><li>Authors should always check the original sources to eliminate possible plagiarism, recognising that there is a potential for plagiarism in texts produced with AI-assisted technologies. They should confirm that they have checked and that the sources are original.  </li><li>AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are essential to authorship. Therefore, authors are responsible for all material involving the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should ensure that all statements in the article that state the hypotheses, interpretations, conclusions, limitations, and implications of the study represent their own opinions.  </li><li>Studies created by authors using AI tools in the following ways, which substitute for the basic researcher's and author's responsibilities, violate the principles of scientific publishing and publication ethics, and such studies are not eligible for inclusion in publications: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Generation of text or code without rigorous review, </li><li>Generation of synthetic data to replace missing data without a robust methodology, </li><li>Creation of any inaccurate, synthetic content, including abstracts or supplementary materials, </li><li>Creation and manipulation of images and figures (pictures, graphs, data tables, medical images, image snippets, computer codes and formulae) or original research data (enhancing, hiding, moving, removing or adding a particular feature within an image or figure) using AI.</li></ul></ul>

It is essential to maintain confidentiality in the peer review process and not to share or use the reviewed work in this process. <a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers</a>)<ul><li>Reviewers should not upload a manuscript or part of a manuscript submitted to them for review to generative AI tools or large language models to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process, as uploading content to such AI tools by reviewers violates the authors' privacy and property rights.  </li><li>Reviewing a scientific paper is a responsibility that can only be undertaken by human beings. The critical thinking and original evaluation required for peer review is beyond the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will produce inaccurate, incomplete or biased conclusions about the paper. The peer review report and decision letters should reflect the personal assessment of the reviewers and editors of the submitted content. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of his/her report. </li><li>AI tools may be used in a limited way to improve the quality of the language of the peer review report (for translation or language editing) in the context of peer review. If such use is made, the reviewer must declare the use when submitting the report. </li><li>Reviewers who suspect inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI in a submission should report their concerns to the editor.</li></ul>

Editors are obliged to ensure that the confidentiality of the manuscripts submitted to the journal is maintained during the evaluation process, and it is essential that the peer-reviewed work is not shared or used outside the parties involved in that process. (COPE - Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors) <a href="https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)</a>.<ul><li>Editors should not upload a submitted article, or any part of it, to generative Artificial Intelligence tools or Big Language Models to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process, as this may violate authors' privacy and property rights. </li><li>Managing the editorial review of a scientific article implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of an article, as the critical thinking and original evaluation required for this task is beyond the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will produce inaccurate, incomplete or biased conclusions about the article. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and its communication to the authors.</li><li>Editors should not use generative AI tools to compose decision letters or abstracts of unpublished research. </li><li>Editors may use generative AI tools to help find appropriate reviewers.</li><li>If editors suspect the use of generative AI in a submitted manuscript or a submitted referee report, they should conduct an editorial review of the matter and consider the policy.</li></ul>

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/JTA6CLJ8T5/26653963A37B4A08A2A23607009DF62D" 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/JTA6CLJ8T5/26653963A37B4A08A2A23607009DF62D" 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="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/26653963A37B4A08A2A23607009DF62D" 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/JTA6CLJ8T5/26653963A37B4A08A2A23607009DF62D" target="_blank">Title Page</a>

Issue Type	Regular
Editor(s)	Ayşe Nur Tütüncü, Bahattin Bahadır Erdem
Full Text (PDF)