Melis

Res. Assist.

The US company and the German company, both operating in the field of telecommunications, decided in their contract that any disputes arising from the contract would be heard exclusively in the Bonn courts. However, as a result of a contractual dispute, the US company filed a lawsuit against the German company in the District Court of Washington. In this case, the US court gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case for this reason. Thereupon, in the lawsuit filed in the Bonn court, a compensation for the damages arising from the litigation costs (the American rule of cost) and attorney fees due to the lawsuit filed in the US was requested. In the 2019 German Federal Court (BGH) decision, the claim for compensation for the damages arising from the breach of the choice of the court agreement was accepted within the framework of the German Civil Code (BGB) § 280.&nbsp;The 2019 BGH decision is quite innovative in terms of accepting the breach of the choice of court agreement, and leads to compensation liability in the field of substantive law (obligations law). The decision has the impact of setting a precedent both in terms of the legal systems in Continental Europe and Turkey. In addition, a clear jurisprudence was presented in the decision in terms of the legal nature of the choice of court agreement, the law applicable to the choice of court agreement and the interpretation of the choice of court agreement. The legal nature of the choice of court agreement was accepted as a substantive law contract in terms of the obligation not to file a lawsuit in the non-chosen court. Furthermore, regardless of the legal nature of the choice of court agreement, if the interpretation of the party wills indicates that the parties enter into an obligation of not to file a lawsuit against each other in a nonchosen court, the liability must arise.The court accepted that the liability for compensation would be subject to the BGB § 280, that regulates liability for compensation in the case of the breach of contract. In Turkish law, this issue is regulated in article 112 of the Turkish Code of Obligation (TCO). Therefore, the examination of the applicability of the legal grounds in the 2019 BGH decision in terms of Turkish law should be examined within the framework of this article. According to the conditions provided in article 112 of the TCO, the act of filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court will constitute a breach of contract.&nbsp;The second condition provided by this article is the occurrence of damage. If the non-chosen court where the lawsuit was filed gives a decision of lack of jurisdiction, the litigation costs and attorney fees incurred must be calculated. However, if the non-chosen court, where the lawsuit was filed, found itself having jurisdiction and making decisions on the merits, revealing the occurrence of damage would be quite difficult. In accordance with the international comity, in this case, finding that damage has occurred and may constitute an interference with the sovereignty of the states. The third condition sought in article 112 of the TCO is the existence of a fault. The plaintiff will be liable for the damage incurred unless he can prove that he was not at fault in filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court. The plaintiff cannot prove that he is not at fault by claiming that his lawyer recommended filing a lawsuit in the nonchosen court. The last condition sought in TCO article 112 is that there should be a causal link between the damage and the act of the breach of the contract.The compensation claim arising from the breach of the choice of court agreement is subject to a ten-year limitation period stipulated in article 146 of the TCO. This period will begin to run from the date of filing a lawsuit in the non-chosen court.&nbsp;&nbsp;

An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach  of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal  Court Decision of 17.10.2019

Gaye

Assoc. Prof.

Erdem

In 2017, the Turkish Constitutional Court settled a decision involving collective labor agreement autonomy. Due to the splintered nature of the state personnel regime, many different rules apply to some that do not apply to others. According to the law ruling on the rights of the personnel of the Mesleki Yeterlilik Kurumu [Professional Competency Board], increasing these personnel’s wages beyond that of personnel in the Ministry of Labor and Social Security is forbidden. However, due to autonomy of collective labor agreement being prescribed in Article 53 of the Turkish Constitution, social parties are entitled to conclude the improvement of wages on their own. The problem of nuisance value was brought to Court of Accounts due to the wages being paid as concluded in the Collective Labor Agreement,. The authorities from the Professional Competency Board upheld the principle and constitutional right of autonomy of collective labor agreement and brought the problem before the Constitutional Court to determine if social parties have the right to breach a provision in a code under the pretext of the autonomy of collective labor agreement. The Supreme Court decided with a majority vote to limit this autonomy! The Court implemented the same principles, but concluded with a distractive solution in which social parties may not increase wages that are limited by a code and found this not to go against either Article 53 or 51 in the Constitution.The current article examines and critiques each principle of constitutionality, because limiting the autonomy of collective labor agreement is not permitted, even by codes. The Supreme Court appears to be trying to preserve public income, while stretching its own audit principles. This article first explains the right to collective labor agreement and autonomy of collective labor bargaining, because while the Constitution does not prescribe autonomy of collective labor agreement, Article 53 accepted its doctrine by giving social parties the right to conclude collective labor agreement and according them the right to autonomy of collective labor agreement. The decision this article has made its subject concerns when the Supreme Court first broadened the limitations on the right to collective labor agreement as prescribed in Article 53. Article 51 entitles citizens to establish and join a union, albeit with some limitations such as maintaining public order. Article 53, however, has no limitations.The Court stated in its decision that the limitations prescribed in Article 51 may be accepted as limitations on the right to conclude collective labor agreement and therefore on the right to autonomy itself. The current article must first criticize this broadened commentary due to the comment regarding the ruling on limiting fundamental rights. In addition, the Court also lowered the requirements for limiting fundamental rights in a democratic society. The Court stated that protecting public income and sources is important, that lawmakers as a result have the right to limit the autonomy of collective labor agreement in order to protect public resources, and that this is an acceptable requirement in a democratic society. Protecting public resources by only limiting the wages of one group of state personnel must be stated as being unnecessary in a democratic society while so many other more effective ways exist to protect it. Therefore, this limitation in code is not proportional to the aim because lawmakers have no right to limit the autonomy of collective labor agreement as prescribed in the Constitution in order to preserve public resources while so many more effective and legal ways can be found to do this than limiting the wages of a single group. This is why this article decided to examine this issue in order to criticize and analyze the Constitutional Court’s audit principles as well as the constitutionality of the right of voluntary collective bargaining and, as a result. autonomy. However, the problem is not caused by the Constitutional Court but the state personnel regime that rules over personnel in various groups. Therefore, changing the entire state personnel regime would be really extreme in order to prevent unconstitutionality and inequality and to provide labor, peace and public order.&nbsp;

May The Constitutional Court Limit Collective Labor Agreement Autonomy

Abdurrahman

Protection of minority shareholders is one of the fundamental issues in corporate law. In this regard, three questions are of critical significance. First, whom exactly does corporate law protect as “minority shareholders?” Second, why does corporate law protect minority shareholders? Third, how does corporate law protect minority shareholders? This paper seeks to answer these questions by analyzing the protection afforded to minority shareholders under the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC).Part I of the paper explains the scope of this analysis and lays out the assumptions that the analysis will be based on. Corporate law protects minority shareholders vis-àvis two agency problems. The first agency problem is the managerial agency problem and the second one is the controlling shareholder agency problem, which arises in corporations with a controlling shareholder (CSH). Since most Turkish corporations are private corporations shares of which are not listed on a stock exchange, the latter of the two is the more important one when it comes to minority protection in Turkish corporate law. Therefore, this paper analyzes minority protection in corporations: (i) which are close and non-listed; (ii) which have a CSH; (iii) in which there is a personal relationship between the CSH and minority shareholders; (iv) in which minority shareholders are not protected by non-TCC means (i.e., the charter or a shareholders’ agreement); and (v) in which it is difficult for the minority shareholder to sell their shares for fair value.&nbsp;Part II focuses on the concept of “minority.” The TCC refers to shareholders representing 10% (5% for public corporations) of the share capital as minority shareholders in several provisions. These shareholders are considered as minority shareholders in provisions where a right is bestowed upon the shareholders meeting that threshold. However, a thorough analysis shows that this use of the word minority is not consistent within the TCC, as there are instances where the term is used without there being a threshold or where the term is not mentioned despite there being a threshold of 10% of the share capital. Nevertheless, most scholars define minority shareholders as shareholders who satisfy the aforementioned threshold(s). Notably, defining minority shareholders as such excludes shareholders with a stake less than 10%. Therefore, this definition fails to accurately reflect the type of shareholders protected by the TCC protects as the minority. This paper argues for a more functional definition and offers a definition based on the minority’s positions vis-à-vis the CSH.&nbsp;Part III seeks to answer these two questions: Why do minority shareholders need protection and why does this protection need to be in the form of mandatory norms? The first question is answered through examples that demonstrate how minority shareholders are vulnerable to several legal and financial risks. The paper then explains why minority protection should mostly be afforded through mandatory norms instead of default ones. It answers the second question in two parts. First, during the stage of investment in a minority stake, informational deficiencies as well as the fact that there is, as assumed by this paper, a personal relationship between the CSH and minority shareholders can result in investors waiving their statutory rights. Second, the majority principle, which allows the CSH to amend the charter in the general assembly, implies that any protective mechanism that is not mandatory can be wiped out by the CSH at the post-investment stage. This explains why norms that aim at protecting investors should, in principle, be mandatory.In the final part, this paper offers a new taxonomy of the TCC’s minority protection mechanisms. It classifies the mechanisms into five categories, building upon the voice and exit taxonomies already prevailing in the US literature. The first category is voice, which refers to mechanisms that allow minority shareholders to influence corporate decisions and transactions. The second category, exit rights, enables minority shareholders to exit the corporation through a free or safe exit. The right to a free exit means that shares are freely transferable without any restrictions. Since a free exit is unlikely due to legal and financial restrictions, a safe exit allows minority shareholders to sell their shares to the corporation or CSH at fair value. The other three categories, which are concepts first developed in this paper, supplement the first two. Foundational rights are mechanisms such as informational rights and antidilution norms that ensure proper exercise of voice and exit rights, while gap-filling principles are abstract norms that supplement the more concrete rules in previous categories. Finally, protective walls are legal mechanisms that aim at protecting the very system that protects minority shareholders, such as the doctrines of nonwaivable and acquired rights as well as the principle of mandatory norms regarding charter provisions.&nbsp;

Minority Shareholder Protection in Corporations: Protection for Whom, Why, and How?

Şirin

Assist. Prof.

The relationship between genetic, social and legal paternity in family law is worth examining. As surrogacy and egg donation are not accepted in our law the distinction between genetic and legal maternity is not a feature in the establishment of parentage between mother and child. However, for historical reasons, the relationship between father and child, has always been controversial. As in many jurisdictions, the establishment of legal paternity between father and child under Turkish-Swiss law is not directly based on genetic ancestry.&nbsp;As the determination of genetic paternity was not possible when the Civil Code was initially adopted in Turkey, it was necessary to distinguish between genetic ancestry and legal paternity based on external factors. Although with today’s scientific advances, especially developments in DNA analysis techniques, the determination of genetic paternity has become very easy. Nevertheless, under Turkish law, as in many countries, genetic paternity alone is not enough to establish legal parentage, since presumptions accepted in law, for a number of reasons, are preserved. In particular the presumption of a husband’s paternity.As a result, within the framework of legal regulations, there are many situations where legal paternity is separated from genetic ancestry in the establishment of the paternal relationship between father and child. This separation is primarily due to the presumption that the husband to whom the mother was married at the time of birth is legally regarded as the father of a child, even if there is no genetic ancestry (TCC art. 285). As long as paternity, based on this legal presumption is not annulled the husband in the marriage remains the legal father, although he may not be the genetic father. It is accepted that in order to protect family unity the legislator has given priority to the moral/social paternal relationship over genetic ancestry.Legal paternity and genetic ancestry are also separated when establishing legal paternity through recognition. Therefore, it is possible to establish legal paternity between a child and a father through recognition without a genetic relationship to the child. However, if the recognition is challenged before the courts and it is proven&nbsp;that the recognizing person is not the genetic father, the legally established paternity can be annulled. Unless such recognition is annulled, the recognizing person is legally registered as the father even if he may not be the genetic father. In addition, in establishing a legal paternal relationship through court decision, the lawmaker has deemed it sufficient that the probability of the defendant being a genetic father is equal to another man (TCC art. 302/III)1 . In all these cases, there may be differences between genetic ancestry and legal paternity.Generally Turkish law allows a legal paternal relationship between the child and the genetic father to be established by marrying the mother, recognizing the child and/or by a court declaration. However, in cases where the establishment of such a legal paternal relationship is prevented despite the request of the genetic father, for example due to the fact that the child has a legal paternity with another male, the issue of establishing the legal paternity of the genetic father with the child is problematic under our law, as it is in many legal systems. In such cases, since the child can only establish a legal paternity with one single male, the existing legal paternal relationship must be annulled first in order to establish a legal paternity between the child and his genetic father.In this respect, the role of the genetic father should also be examined. Under Turkish law, it is generally accepted that the genetic father has the right to file a challenge of recognition (TCC art. 298). In addition to this, the genetic father is also granted the right to challenge the presumption of husband’s paternity. The Turkish legislator, following the modern trend, has given the genetic father the right to file a lawsuit for annulment of the paternity of the husband under certain conditions (TCC art. 291/I). There is no such regulation in Switzerland and thus, the Turkish legislator’s granting of such a right has been extremely innovative in terms of Turkish-Swiss law. Innovative because under Turkish-Swiss law, a third party’s claim that he is the father of a child born in wedlock was considered a violation of the personal rights of the mother and husband. However, it has been concluded that this newly introduced provision does not adequately protect the genetic father’s right to challenge legal paternity and also does not take into account the interests of the child and the family. For this reason, it needs to be revised.

The Position of Genetic Father under Turkish Paternity Law

Zeynep

Article 305/A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 6100) was enacted pursuant to the Law on Amending the Code of Civil Procedure and Other Laws (Law No. 7251). According to the article, “within one month from the notification of the judgment, each party may request a supplementary ruling from the court for matters left undecided partly or as a whole, even though they were asserted or ought to be resolved ex officio. Appellate remedies are available against these rulings.” This is, in fact, an adaptation of article 437/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows this procedure in arbitration.If a deficiency is found in the judgment, it can be eliminated through the completion of judgment. In other words, a supplementary ruling may be requested from the court to avert any omission in the judgment if a claim in accumulation was left unresolved or if such judicial costs as the attorney’s fee were not decided upon.This legislation serves the principle of procedural economy and the realization of more effective legal protection. However, because completion of judgments is a new institution in the civil judiciary with an ambiguous nature, several problems that arise in the finalization and enforcement of judgments must be addressed. They can be classified into two categories: the possibility of contradictory judgments due to separate appellate remedies for both rulings, and the question of whether these judgments may be executed separately and, if so, whether they may be joined in the enforcement procedure.Considering the identified problems, this study reaches the following conclusions:Because of the separate appellate remedies for both rulings, the first and the supplementary rulings are also finalized independent of each other. In this context, if separate appellate remedies are applied against both rulings, it would be appropriate to join them in the remedies procedure. If appellate remedies are not applied against the first ruling but they are applied against the supplementary ruling, the first ruling constitutes the final judgment for the supplementary ruling. In the opposite case, if appellate remedies are not applied against the supplementary ruling but the first ruling is reversed as a result of the appellate remedy review, the conclusion must be reached by making a binary distinction:On the one hand, if the supplementary ruling is independent of the first ruling, it is not possible for the judgments to affect each other, and there is no problem with the finalization of the judgment.On the other hand, if the first and the supplementary rulings affect each other, with the finalization of the supplementary ruling, a final judgment occurs in terms of the merits of the legal relationship. Therefore, in the appellate remedies against the first ruling, the first ruling cannot be reversed. However, if the first ruling is reversed by disregarding the final decision, and this ruling becomes final, there are two final judgments that contradict each other in terms of the merits of the legal relationship, and a retrial of the second final judgment should be resorted to. However, if the supplementary ruling is only about judicial costs or attorney’s fees, the appellate remedies against the first ruling also affect the supplementary ruling.In our opinion, it is possible for the first and the supplementary rulings to be executed separately. These judgments are separate final decisions, which are finalized separately and have separate appellate remedies. However, if the supplementary ruling is related to judicial costs or an accessory of the subject of the case that cannot be executed before it becomes final, enforcement is not possible before the first ruling is finalized.If both rulings are executed separately, the joinder of enforcement procedures might be requested. However, even if these enforcement procedures are joined, they are independent enforcements.The issues explained above must be clarified in the Turkish legislation.&nbsp;

Effect of Completion of Judgments on Finalization and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Procedure Law

Liability expresses the responsibility individuals have to fix the damage they have caused to others. This responsibility may arise from a contract or tort, as well as from the law. One of the crucial problems of determining a debtor’s liability is whether it should be assessed by evaluating only external factors or by also evaluating internal factors. When taking objective factors into account, the liability of the debtor is a strict liability. However, to consider subjective factors means that liability is based on fault.Different types of liability were practiced in Roman law, which lasted almost 1,300 years. Initially, the rule generally was strict liability. Afterwards, first in tort law and then in contractual law, fault liability occurred. In the period of Justinian I, however, fault liability became the rule.Beginning in the middle of the Regnum period, the evolution toward fault liability commenced by means of intent, as sought for in tort law. In the Laws of the Twelve Tables, only intent was sought for liability in murder. With the Lex Aquilia adopted toward the end of the 3rd century BC, negligence was also considered sufficient for the existence of liability in the field of wrongful acts resulting in damage to property.The idea of being careful and not harming others originated in Greek philosophy and was seen to be effective in the transition from strict liability to fault liability, which developed as a measure of responsibility. The owner and father of the family (pater familias) was considered responsible for the wrongful acts and damages caused by the slaves and members of the family (filius familia) as well as the pets owned.With Lex Aquilia, negligence being accepted as adequate for the existence of liability resulting in damage to property also affected liability as understood in contract law, and the transition to fault liability began.The rule of “Uti lingua nuncupassit ita ius esto (as he declares orally, be that law)” which emerged in the old legal period regarding giving loans and was present in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, states that strict liability also applies to contracts. With the pre-classical legal period, the concepts of dolus and culpa began to find places for themselves. However, the concept of strict liability did not come to an end and continued to be in practice. With regards to debts imposed upon parties,&nbsp;the differences contracts had in their structure prevented the application of a single liability criterion for all contract types. For this reason, different liability criteria were in put into practice together, as had been the case in the pre-classical legal period when the transition first commenced. One criterion of liability current in that period was custodia (supervisory) liability. After this, diligentia can be mentioned as the first milestone of fault liability and utilitas as a special application of diligentia. In the era of Justinian I, the prevailing principle was omnis culpa liability, which expresses responsibility for all faults.Custodia liability was usually practiced in contracts when the debtor held property belonging to the creditor for his own benefit. As the prevailing principle throughout the classical period, custodia liability included unexpected situations (casus fortuitus), and thus also calls to mind guarantee liability. As a rule, a debtor was not liable for force majeure (vis maior) except in cases of default where the debtor’s liability expanded to include vis maior.Starting in the post-classical period and based on slight negligence, diligentia liability was accepted by taking into consideration the care that a good head of household (pater familias) should show. Diligentia liability is the subjectivation of custodia, which expresses objective liability. Later in the post-classical period, the importance Christianity attached to will greatly impacted the acceptance of fault lability. Being based on culpa (negligence), diligentia liability was objectified by seeking out the attention and care (culpa in abstracto) that a good pater familias should show. This objective liability, in terms of some obligatio, could also be combined with subjective elements by seeking the attention and care that the debtor should show in his own affairs. This criterion was expressed as culpa in concreto and constituted the lightened version of diligentia. During the reign of Justinian I, culpa liability became properly clear. Failing to show the attention and care that anyone is able to show was expressed as culpa lata (gross negligence) and considered equal to intent. In this period, the benefit obtained from the contract was taken into account in order to determine the degree of liability of the debtor, and the attention and care a debtor should show increased if the debtor had more benefits. However, some relationships such as mandatum (mandate) and negotiorum gestio (acting without authority) placed the care and attention required by the debtor who had no interest at the highest level.Due to the changes that took place in technology and social life with the Industrial Revolution, fault liability has become insufficient for eliminating the damages individuals suffered. Increased employment rates and expansion of activities and businesses that pose grave dangers to the people and environment have led to a return to strict liability. In this context, certain persons such as those who employ others,&nbsp;who have animals and are the heads of households, or who are owners of building facilities are held responsible for the damages suffered by others under certain conditions, even if they are not at fault. To accept all these responsibilities, rules similar to those in Roman law have been accepted, and the principle of strict liability was put into practice once again as it had in the past.Some of these liabilities appear to be based on aggravated versions of diligentia liability, while others are based on hazard, and others still are just simply based on the causation principle.Fault liability also means responsibility arising from all kinds of fault, especially intent, just as it had been in late Roman law. Utilitas is also a principle of Roman law that is currently used to determine liability in today’s modern law. Modern law has deemed vis maior to be a reason that interrupts the causal link and accepts it as a case that prevents the emergence of liability. Concordantly, the debtor who is under the fault liability will also be accepted as liable for unexpected situations in case of default.&nbsp;

The Process of Transforming Strict Liability into Liability for Fault in Roman Law, and the Effect This  Transformation Has Had on Modern Law

Barış

This study describes the fiscal law order in Turkey during the period of the 1921 Constitution and analyzes the effects of the change in the constitutional order on the fiscal law rules. The main source for the study is the official minutes of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA), which is responsible for discussing fiscal law issues and creating rules. The data obtained from this source were generalized by induction, and the observed change was analyzed in comparison with the data in the previous and subsequent periods.The 1921 Constitution resulted from a republican political program against the Ottoman monarchy and the Istanbul government and from a nationalist political movement against both the Allied Powers and some ethnic groups in Turkey that supported their occupation. This program ultimately prevailed and manifested itself in the two constitutional concepts—national sovereignty and unity of forces (the supremacy of the assembly)—distilled in the text of the 1921 Constitution. Therefore, in the first part of this study, an answer is sought to the question of how the concept of national sovereignty was created with fiscal legislations in this period. The second part, however, focuses on the various effects and consequences of the change in the use of the budgetary authority, which embodies the concept of parliamentary supremacy.With respect to the first issue, the authority to impose fiscal burdens, given to the legislature under the 1876 Constitution, but not generally implemented at this time, was radically embraced by the TGNA during this period. The sharpest reaction here was directed at fiscal transactions in the form of decrees that were followed by the Ottoman government. Under the influence of the policy of national sovereignty, financial regulation was left solely to the law. Undoubtedly, legality is not just such a formal choice. It also functioned to replace Ottoman domination with the sovereignty of the TGNA and to provide a legal basis for de facto actions. Second, it became the basis for both the control of the executive and for the executive’s rejection of demands made against it. Thus, legality constitutes the basis of legal boundaries and the new regime for all power centers.Regarding the second issue, the effect of the period on the use of budgetary power reveals a more unusual picture. Despite the ongoing inability to make a regular budget that it inherited from the Ottoman legal order, the TGNA used its budget-making power through the Budget Commission that directed the ministries. Nevertheless, to judge by the performance of the budget and final account laws, the TGNA seems to have been relatively unsuccessful as a legislative body. One of the main reasons for this is the absence of a disciplined party structure. However, for the first time, the parliament decided that the ministers should pay compensation to the treasury on the grounds that they harmed the state, based on the legal responsibility of the ministers. At the same time, as an example of political accountability, ministers held responsible for acting arbitrarily or ignoring the will of the Assembly were dismissed through a vote of no confidence. Likewise, the 1921 budget was the first to be rejected by the TGNA.In sum, the period of the 1921 Constitution shows an extraordinary interim character in which the political structure, being incompatible with national sovereignty, was partially liquidated through the implementation of the constitutional fiscal rules. Fiscal conflicts played a role in shaping the government system, and some of those that were inherited from the previous period remained to be resolved in the next (1924) constitutional period. The 1921 Constitution, however, provides no automatic and instant formulas in this fiscal regime change. In fact, the Assembly’s ability to use its fiscal powers is a product of a political change, rather than legal change. In other words, the legal adoption of financial issues in this period resulted from the national sovereignty policy rather than from the adoption of the 1921 Constitution.&nbsp;

The Reflections of the 1921 Constitution on Turkey’s Fiscal Law Order

Erkan

As a rule in criminal law, each act that constitutes a crime is punished independently. In this context, the punishment of an act as a rule does not affect the criminal liability arising from another action the same offender performed prior to or after that act. In some cases, however, a very close relationship exists between more than one action committed consecutively by the same offender. This relationship becomes more visible when the offender in particular violates the same or similar legal values with acts that are committed in the same context and that become more and more serious. In such cases, legal doctrine states that the offender should be punished only for their posterior act, and this has given rise to the concept of unpunishable prior acts. Which legal basis this concept is based on is a highly controversial issue. The conclusions from this discussion aim to determine the conditions and scope of this concept.This study will approach the concept of unpunishable prior acts as well as its legal foundations, conditions, and consequences. In this context, the doctrine must first be said to consider this concept mostly within the scope of the principles of ideal concurrence of offenses (or improper joinder of offenses). However, under which principle of the ideal concurrence of offenses this concept should be addressed is controversial. While some authors have tried to explain the concept according to the principle of subsidiarity, others have attempted to explain it according to the principle of consumption. Some authors have also made a distinction and referred to both principles in terms of acceptable categories.Despite multiple acts being found under the concept of unpunishable previous acts, each of which gives rise to a different crime, close links exist among them. This is because these acts are committed under the same context, against the same victim, and on the same subject while violating the same (or another closely related) legal value. Thus, although multiple acts are found, each of which constitutes a crime, these acts are the subject of a single normative-social valuelessness judgment due to the connections among them. Within the framework of this valuelessness judgment, the offender is punished only for the more severe posterior act, and as such, punishment for prior acts becomes unnecessary. For this reason, the norm violated by the posterior offense exhausts the previous one. In this respect and according to this study’s opinion, unpunishable previous acts are based on the principle of consumption.This legal basis also establishes the circumstances under which previous actions cannot be punished: First, more than one crime must have occurred. The concept of impunity for previous acts will not need to be applied for the occurrence of a single act or crime. In addition, previous and posterior actions must be against the same victim, committed on the same subject, and violate the same (or another closely related) legal value. In addition, the previous and subsequent actions must be processed in the same context, and the posterior action must cause greater unjustness. Lastly, the posterior act must be punishable.Crimes that meet these conditions can be classified under various categories. The first category involves the offender committing another crime in preparation for or as a precursor to the posterior crime before it is committed. The production or purchase of instruments to be used in the crime of counterfeiting money prior to the act of counterfeiting money can be given as an example of this (Turkish Penal Code [TPC] Arts. 197 &amp; 200). The second category involves the offender first starting to commit a crime, whether intentionally or negligently, and then stopping it. However, within the framework of the offender’s new purpose that emerges immediately afterward, this time they commit a more severe crime. The case where the offender first injures a victim, whether intentionally (TPC Art. 86) or negligently (TPC Art. 89), and then intentionally kills the victim (TPC Art. 81) can be given as an example of this. In the third and last category, the offender commits a negligent crime. However, immediately afterwards, the offender commits a more severe negligent crime against the same victim. The case where the offender first injures the victim negligently (TPC Art. 89) and then kills the victim negligently (TPC Art. 85) is an example of this.In all these cases, the offender is punished only for their posterior act. The offender is not punished separately for their prior actions, and these prior actions are not taken into account while determining the penalty.&nbsp;

Unpunishable Prior Acts

Ümmühan Elçin

This paper proposes a paradigm shift in the international refugee regime. It defends that burden sharing must shift from state-centrism and security concerns to the human rights and international community perspective. Furthermore, it makes proposals to fill normative gaps regarding temporary protection and refugee burden-sharing.The right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries for a person who is faced with persecution is a human right. However, it does not constitute an international obligation for states. According to the present refugee regime, refugee admission is within the exclusive sovereignty and entirely at the discretion of the host states. States usually avoid admitting refugees due to various concerns regarding security, their social and economic situation, and the like. As a result, the refugee burden is placed on the shoulders of just a few states. In fact, it should be shared by all.We see some burden-sharing mechanisms proposed in theory or arising in practice. Offering compensation to the host state, providing safe havens for refugees, applying quotas, exercising the state of origin liability, and sharing responsibility among a certain region or group are possible examples. These solutions, however, clearly do not work in real life.The study is based on Friedmann’s thesis on the everchanging international community and, thus, on an understanding of international law.The paper advocates placing the burden of refugees, including the burden of temporary protection, on the international community as a whole. This argument concerns which refugee burden-sharing is a jus cogens from which the international community as a whole benefits. It argues that jus cogens entails erga omnes obligation for the entire international community. In fact, erga omnes obligations may arise even if refugee burden-sharing is not accepted as jus cogens under international law.While discussing refugee burden-sharing, the study uses the logic of collective action and prisoner’s dilemma. Olson’s theory of the logic of collective action can be&nbsp;summarized as follows: Groups of individuals with common interests are expected to act in their common interests; however, single individuals often act in their own interests. Although the international community as a whole will benefit from refugee burden-sharing, states prioritize their national interests and refrain from admitting refugees.Tucker’s prisoner dilemma theory is a zero-sum game theory based on cooperative behaviour. It concerns two persons, jointly charged with violating the law, who are held separately by the police. These persons fail to cooperate, which leads to the worst result for both of them. Failure to cooperate in sharing the burden of refugees leads the international community to the worst outcome for both refugees and states.This paper also contends that states that participate in refugee burden-sharing have special rights to claim from other states. This argument is inspired by Hart’s theory of “mutuality of restriction.” Hart expresses his theory as follows: “when a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission.” Accordingly, the refugee burden-sharing obligation for all states has its roots in international cooperation.Furthermore, this study notes the normative gaps in the international law on temporary protection and refugee burden-sharing from a human rights perspective and the insufficiency of institutions related to the subject matter such as the UNHCR. It focuses on normative gaps to start a discussion on the legal obligations of states. The article suggests the following: to make universal legal arrangements, which overlap with obligatory characteristics of the jus cogens norm and erga omnes obligation, increasing the effectiveness of international institutions, interstate cooperation, and spreading the responsibility to the international community as a whole.&nbsp;

Propositions to Fill for Normative Gaps on Temporary Protection and Refugee Burden Sharing

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has caused a pandemic and is a zoonotic virus that has spread from animals to humans. Studies show that the virus most likely emerged from a wet market in China where wild animals are kept and traded under poor conditions. SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as a bat-derived virus in the coronavirus family. Scientific research has indicated that an intermediate host should have occurred for the virus to have transferred from bats to humans. Pangolin is a species unique to Asia and has been identified as the probable link in this process. The species is highly demanded and illegally traded at a large scale. The pangolin species has been listed as a species of concern by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and its international trade is subject to strict rules.CITES is a comprehensive global convention regulating wildlife trade regarding endangered species. The convention was first enacted in 1975 and now has 182 parties. The convention’s aim is to regulate the trade of endangered species in order to limit their exploitation. In this process three appendices have been established. Appendix I specifically restricts the trade of endangered species. Appendix II protects species that may be threatened with extinction by requiring their trade to be controlled. Appendix III prevents species that may be facing excessive consumption at the request of a party already involved in the trade of said species that need assistance in preventing other countries from exploiting them. The implementation of the convention depends on the cooperation of the Convention Secretariat, the parties, and international organizations such as INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization. The convention works through a licensing system across borders to identify illegal trade. The exporting and importing states parties in this structure have different obligations regarding the monitoring of trade.The possible link between SARS-CoV-2 and endangered species (i.e., the pangolin) has raised several questions regarding CITES. If the illegal trade of endangered species plays a role in a zoonotic disease, is this because of CITES being insufficiently implemented? If so, can CITES or its mechanisms be strengthened to tackle this problem? Lastly, can CITES help prevent future global zoonotic diseases such as SARS-CoV-2? This article aims to answer these questions.Since the establishment of CITES, various reforms and proposals for amendments to it have been suggested by NGOs and scholars. The most assertive approaches involve banning wildlife trade altogether and developing CITES to intervene in domestic trade. However, these approaches might actually harm CITES. Keeping in mind developing countries’ inability regarding controlling and monitoring wildlife trade, any strict regulations or prohibitions may move the trade to the black market.A recent proposal from Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime is an amendment to CITES that will establish a new list (Appendix IV) containing the species that pose a threat to public and/or animal health. However, creating a new list may take years and might not provide the intended results, because CITES lacks the funding mechanism to implement new regulations like these.Another issue of debate involves considering illegal wildlife trade as a serious international crime. The Global Initiative to End Wildlife Crime suggests regulating illegal wildlife trade under organized crime through new protocol within the framework of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). However, this would leave personal offenses out of the structure. States’ willingness to add a new binding protocol may additionally be another challenge.Illegal wildlife trade is a threat to both public and animal health. To tackle this problem, scholars propose regulations for protecting species that are transported and providing standard care for captured species and rules for breeding. These suggestions may help deal with zoonotic diseases. Having the CITES system adopt standards would be easier and is achievable through decisions made at a Conference of the Parties.The overall main purpose of CITES is to regulate and protect endangered wild species. Statistics show that CITES as one of the oldest environmental protection conventions has actually been successful in combating illegal trade. The long-term observations of wildlife show that, once a species is listed in CITES, their population tends to increase in numbers. For this reason, all suggestions for amendments and revisions should be made by taking into account the achievements of the Convention.&nbsp;

CITES as an International Instrument Against Pandemics that Threaten Human Life

Ömer

Prof.

Hakkı

Instructor

Personal rights entail the absolute rights a person has over their body and property that make up their personality. Personality rights recognize individuals as physical and spiritual beings and allow them to enjoy their sense of existence; these rights are protected to various degrees in different countries. The human-oriented nature of laws makes the regulations regarding personal rights and legal status even more important. The impact of this importance reveals itself not only in private law but also in all other legal areas. The first and most important feature of personality rights are that they are absolute rights. Other features of personality rights are that they involve the rights of personal property and are closely dependent on the individual. The principle of limited independent variety does not apply to personal rights, and things such as a person’s life, health, bodily integrity, title, visage, photograph, honor and dignity, voice, and living space are considered within the scope of personality rights. With regard to German Law, the presence of a general personality right can be mentioned that covers all aspects of personality and can be accepted as a source from which concrete, private personality rights arise spontaneously. The general personality right guaranteed by Grundgesetz [Basic Law/GG] § 1 is regulated in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Civil Law Book/BGB] § 823/1 as a fundamental norm in tort law. Basic norms regarding the protection of personality in Swiss privacy law appear in the Zivilgesetzbuch [Swiss Civil Codes/ZGB] Articles 27 and 28 These appear as general articles that should be specified in terms of personal rights andprotections. The concept of general personality rights cannot be mentioned with regard to English Law, whose legal system was largely developed on the basis of individual cases and case law. In terms of English Law, personal rights and their violations and protections are evaluated within the scope of tort law. Titles and honorifics are the general name given to all the forms parties use to address one another during mutual conversations and generally show a sign of respect. Honorifics are obligatorily used among people of a certain status and are extremely important for the development and smooth progress of social relations. However, as the degree of status inequality between people changes and familiarity increases, honorifics and any other titles are seen to be avoided. The honorifics that are used also reveal an effect in terms of establishing the connection to the language society uses with regard to social events. An individual’s reputation can be considered as an aspect of personality rights. Reputation arises from the fact that a person is just a human being and involves the values that embody that person in society in terms of moral value judgments. In addition, everyone has equal dignity and respectability. In this regard, a connection can be established between an individual’s reputation and the honorific used to address them. Based on all of these facts, this study believes that evaluating and linking honorifics to the social personality rights that are considered alongside an individual’s dignity and reputation to be appropriate. However, despite this relationship between honorifics and personality rights, points are also found where these things differ from each other. To abstain from using the honorifics that are generally used as a sign of respect in a society or to use slang or mockery to address an individual may constitute a violation of personal rights. However, while making this determination, each situation needs to be evaluated internally as well as through its dynamics. Inother words, things should be taken into account such as an individual’s position, social status, and the surrounding order of events. If some of the titles or honorifics used involve slangs or sarcasm, a violation of personal rights may occur here as well due to the ability this can have to damage a person’s social reputation.

Are Honorifics a Personal Right?

Deniz

Settlement procedures in competition law involve a method based on the principle of obtaining reduced fines and reaching an agreement regarding specific measures in return for accepting liability that they have committed the violation under investigation and giving up certain rights granted to them, thus allowing for the early termination of the investigation. The settlement mechanism was adopted in Turkish law through the amendments made to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition through Law No. 7246 After these amendments, the Settlement Regulation entered into force by being published in the Official Gazette on July 15, 2021 in order to determine the procedures and principles of the settlement mechanism. Shortly after, the Turkish Competition Board and parties to the proceedings provided the first examples. The settlement mechanism is primarily related to the enforcement policy and has an expanding effect on the competencies of the Turkish Competition Board. Therefore, the mechanism deserves to be examined in detail. Based on this matter’s importance, the current article will discuss the settlement mechanism, which is a new institution in Turkish competition law. While doing so, the article will examine the Settlement Regulation comparatively with two other sets of regulations. The first is the Draft Settlement Regulation, which was opened to public opinion prior to the final version of the Settlement Regulation. The article will assess the change in provisions between the two regulations, as well as the legal consequences that may result. The second comparison occurs with the regulations in the European Union competition law, which were taken as a general example when creating the regulations in the Turkish competition law. Even though these regulations are broadly similar, they have some fundamental differences, and the article will reveal its findings and opinions in this regard. The article consists of five sections. The first heading under Section 1 will explain the meaning of settlement in competition law. The second heading will present the concept of hybrid settlements and the relevant main procedural and legal problems. The article will discuss in this context whether hybrid settlements violate the presumption of innocence of the non-settling parties in light of the decisions made in the European Union. Section 2 will explain how the settlement mechanism has been designed in Turkish law through all its phases. This same section will also discuss the constitutionality of the Settlement Regulation regarding closing the right to seek legal remedy as a result of the settlement. The article considers this provision to possibly contradict the principle of the rule of law in Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (1982), as well as the right to legal remedies in Article 36 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the article will also mention what changes occurred between the DraftSettlement Regulation that had been opened to public opinion prior to the Settlement Regulation and the final version of the Settlement Regulation. This study finds that some important legal assumptions can be made from this assessment. For example, the article holds the opinion that the parties to the proceedings can be argued to be able to seek legal remedies in terms of the elements removed from the content of the settlement submission. Section 2 will additionally examine all the settlement decisions the Turkish Competition Board have given.Section 3 will examine settlement procedure in the European Union, with the first heading under Section 3 discussing the purpose of introducing settlement procedure in the European Union and comparing this to the purpose in Turkish law. The second heading under Section 3 will analyze settlement practices in the European Union. In this context, the article will first assess whether settlement procedure is widely used in the European Union in light of statistical data. This same heading will also examine the cooperation procedure used for violations other than cartels in the European Union. The third heading under Section 3 will explain settlement procedure in the European Union through all its phases. While doing so, the articlewill mention the differences the European Union’s settlement procedure have with Türkiye’s Settlement Regulation. One of the most important differences is seen to be that the European Union allows legal remedies to be sought against a given settlement decision. Therefore, this article will also examine examples where settlement decisions had been appealed in the European Union. Section 4 discusses the relationship between the settling and non-settling parties. In this context, it will examine whether a settlement violates the principle of equaltreatment for the non-settling parties by referring to precedents in the European Union. Section 5 finishes by evaluating the consequences of the settlement mechanism from the perspective of private law.

Settlement Mechanism In Competition Law

Furkan

Turkish law has two types of co-authorship structures (i.e., authorship of a compound work and joint authorship) that are regulated in Articles 9 and 10 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (LIAW, 1951) No. 5846. Unlike works subject to joint authorship, a compound work can be divided into parts without deteriorating the work. Ordinary partnership provisions in the Turkish Code of Obligation (TCO, 2012) No. 6098 are applied analogously to both authorships of compound works and joint authorships in the matters not regulated under LIAW. 	Based on Paragraph 2 of Article 9 in LIAW, as long as the authorship of a compound work continues, authors may apply to the court against the one who objects to a transaction related to the compound work. If the objecting author cannot prove just cause, the court decision replaces the consent of the objector. From this perspective, termination of authorship of a compound work means that the authors can no longer be compelled to utilize their own contribution in the compound work. On the other hand, copyrights arising from authorship of a created and still existent compound work should be noted to continue, because the compound work is based on both the agreement of the authors and the de facto act, or Realakt in German. Therefore, in case of an infringement against an existent compound work, authors may still demand prevention or halting of the infringement, as well as claim compensation. With regard to making transactions related to a compound work, however, authors can no longer claim or force each other based on Article 9 in LIAW. 	As previously mentioned regarding termination, ordinary partnership provisions in the TCO are applied analogously. In this regard, if authors decide upon a fixed period of time or certain limitation (e.g., a one-time edition of a book) regarding a compound work, the compound authorship terminates upon completion. Prior to this, the compound authorship may be terminated by applying to the court on the basis of just cause. If the authors have not decided upon any limitation regarding the term of a compound work, one of the authors may give a notice of termination or apply to the court demanding immediate termination with just cause. According to Article 640 of the TCO, the termination of a compound authorship goes into effects after six months have passed since the notice of termination. 	In order to remove a section belonging to one of the authors of a compound work, all authors of the compound work must agree to this. Nevertheless, in some cases, the court may order the removal of a section belonging to one of authors upon the application of the other authors based on Article 9 of LIAW. For instance, when one of the authors objects to updating a book according to the new TCO or is unable to update the book, the other authors may apply to the court. If the objector cannot prove just cause, the court should order the section belonging to the objector to be removed, because the court cannot order the author to update that author’s section in the book. And also, one author may demand his part be removed by court order by relying on just cause. 	If one of the authors of a compound work dies, the financial rights respective to this section pass on to the deceased’s heirs. Heirs cannot be removed from the union. Furthermore, one of the authors may analogously waive the financial rights regarding that author’s section in accordance with Article 60 of LIAW, provided that this harms neither the compound work nor the other authors. Upon waiving this right, that author’s permission will no longer be required for utilizing financial rights related to that compound work. 	Joint authorship arises ipso jure with the creation of the work and ends with the expiration of the preservation period or the destruction of the work. Consequently, terminating a joint authorship is not possible by notice of termination or by court decision with just cause, as the provisions in the TCO regarding the termination of ordinary partnerships are not suited to the structure of a joint authorship. 	Paragraph 3 of Article 639 in the TCO, which is regarding termination of an ordinary partnership in the event of a partner’s share being liquidated through compulsory execution unless otherwise agreed, cannot be applied to joint authorship, as joint authorship cannot be liquidated due to the lack of any liquidation shares. The results concerning the death of one of the authors in a joint authorship are also specifically regulated in Article 64 of the LIAW. Additionally, one of the authors may waive financial rights in favor of the other author or authors. In this case, the rights of the others will be expanded.

Terminating and Leaving a Union in Co-Authorship

Halil

Basic knowledge about nomina transscripticia, among the literal contracts in the contractus system of Roman law, has been gathered from Gaius’ Institutiones and other literary works. Based on these texts, this article analyzes the main features and components of nomina transscripticia as a literal contract within its historical background as well as its process of emergence and disappearance. This literal contract was unable to achieve widespread usage because it had begun being used in the period when the verbal formalist structure of early law had started to cease due to the emergence of consensual contracts. Literal contracts have advantages over verbal contracts in some aspects, such as being able to be established at a distance, not being in need to be stated with words according to certain patterns and being able to be used to validate contracts for those with hearing and speech impediments. However, literal contracts have become useless compared to consensual contracts that can be formed through consensus only. Entries for the formation of nomina transscripticia were inscribed in a ledger called codex accepti et expensi. Whether the double-entry accounting technique was applied while keeping this ledger is a matter of controversy. In this regard, however, the prevailing view is that the ledger was filled out using two complementary entries, with the second one demonstrating that the previous debt had been eliminated. Nomina transscripticia is an institution of ius civile, and a contractus protected by actio that burdens one party with a monetary debt. Gaius mentioned two types of nomina transscripticia in his book Institutiones: nomina transscripticia are in personam and nomina transscripticia a persona in personam. When executing the nomina transscripticia a re in personam, a debt that had arisen from a consensual contract would be transformed into an obligation arising from a literal contract, thus resulting in a contract that has iudicia stricti iuris. Besides, when executing nomina transscripticia a persona in personam, the debtor changes, a new debtor goes into the debt and creditor has iudicia stricti iuris against new debtor. Within the contextof both types of this contract, the previous debt is hypothetically eliminated as if the payment had been made, but no actual payment has occurred. Monetary debt, arising from a legal ground such as a sale is deemed to be lent to the same person as

Nomina Transscripticia as a Literal Contract in Roman Law

Özge Ceren

Article 28 of the Law on Payment and Securities Settlement Systems, Payment Services, and Electronic Money Institutions (Law No. 6493, 2013) penalizes engagement in such activities as being an unauthorized system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution, as well as leaving the impression of being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without proper authorization. The legal value that is preserved by punishing these crimes is the stability and security of the financial system. Anyone who commits the act described in the law can be judged a perpetrator of these crimes, with the victim being every member of society. The crime regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 involves the act of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution or electronic money institution without obtaining the required permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493. The crime regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 28 involves the act of using words and/or phrases that leave the impression that they are engaged in activity as a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution in relation to trade names, any type of documentation, announcement, and/or advertisement, or public statement without having obtained the required permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493. The crimes regulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 can only be committed with direct intent, because particular emphasis about illegality is placed on the legal definition with the expression “without obtaining the necessary permissions in accordance with Law No. 6493,” with crimes committed by negligence not being regulated by Law No. 6493. Additionally, the permission clause mentioned in the definition of the crimes involve the principle of typicality. For this reason, the intention of the perpetrator must also involve the issue of permission, which also pertains to the principle of typicality. Therefore, any misuse regarding the obligation to obtain permission should be considered an elemental error. Therefore, such a situation should be stated as eliminating the intent of the perpetrator. In addition, a perpetrator cannot be punished should they have not taken the necessary attention and care and thus made an elemental error. This is due to Law No. 6493 not regulating crimes that are committed by negligence.The offense of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without proper authorization as regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of Law No. 6493 is an uninterrupted crime. For this reason, the provisions regarding an attempt at this crime may be applied up until the completion of the crime. Meanwhile, attempting to leave the impression of being an unauthorized system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution can be considered an offense if the act can be divided into parts. An implied primary-auxiliary norm relationship exists between the two crimes regulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 of Law No. 6493. Therefore, perpetrators who have committed the two crimes regulated in these paragraphs should only be punished for the crime in Paragraph 1. Otherwise, if the act constitutes one of the crimes regulated in the Turkish Penal Code as well as one of the crimes regulated in Law No. 6493, the provisions of Law No. 6493 as the special case law must be applied when the same legal value has been violated. Therefore, this situation also applies to Article 28 of Law No. 6493. In addition, the crimes regulated in Article 28 of Law No. 6493 are optional crimes. As a result, committing only one of the optional acts of these crimes will be sufficient for the completion of that crime. The offense of engaging in activities such as being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without the required authorization as regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 28 in Law No. 6493 calls for imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to 5,000 days, while the offence of leaving the impression of being a system operator, payment institution, or electronic money institution without the required authorization as regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 28 in Law No. 6493 calls for imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to 5,000 days. If either of these two crimes are committed within a workplace, the decision may be made to close this workplace for two to six months or, in the case of recurrence, to be shut down permanently.

The Offense of Unauthorized Engagement in Activities such as System Operator, Payment Institution, or Electronic Money Institution

Mustafa

The rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms as regulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution as amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017 has raised the question of whether or not presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing this rule. This question was analyzed by Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şentop in his article titled “The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System” which was published on March 2022 (Şentop, 2022). In that article, it has been put forth that the parliamentary period should not be taken into account while implementing Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution during the presidential system of government, departing from the meaning given to that paragraph according to the legal interpretation methods and also from the principles concerning the application ratione temporis to of statutes. On the other hand, a paper titled “On the Constitutional Rule of Being Elected as the President of the Republic for two terms at most”, which was published by Kemal Başak on September 2022 (Başak, 2022), criticized the assessments made in the previous article, arguing that presidential elections held during the term of the parliamentary system of government should be taken into account while implementing the same rule.The purpose of this article is to examine Başak’s (2022) paper, without making a fresh assessment of Article 101 of the Constitution and to seek an answer to the question of whether or not the objections put forward in Başak’s paper legally invalidate the findings of the previous article (Şentop, 2022) regarding the meaning, the scope and the manner of the application ratione temporis of Article 101 of the Constitution. In this regard, the reason for examining Başak’s paper here as a separate academic article on the same legal matter is the fact that Başak’s (2022) paper&nbsp;provides an extensive summary of the opinions of academicians as well as politicians who expressed the view that, regardless of the change in the governmental system, all presidential elections should be taken into consideration while applying Article 101 of the Constitution, which has been the focal point of the public debate on the matter.&nbsp;The views put forward in Başak’s (2022) paper are based on the presupposition that the constitutional rule regarding a person’s ability to be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms was not amended by Law No. 6771 in 2017. The current paper thus, firstly examines this presupposition and seeks to answer the question of whether two separate Constitutional Articles were entered into force at separate times regarding the matter, as previously argued in Şentop’s (2022) article or whether only one Constitutional Article has been in force, as argued by Başak (2022). It is expected that the answer to this question, by determining whether the provision contained in Law no. 6771 of 2017 has a separate legal existence from the provision established by Article 4 of Law no. 5678 amending the Constitution in 2007, will provide a better understanding of the legal characteristic of the rule stating that a person may only be elected as the President of the Republic for a maximum of two terms. Thereafter, this article examines the legal validity of Başak’s (2022) objections with regard to Şentop’s (2022) assessments concerning the application ratione temporis of statutes, as well as the application of the literal and historical interpretation methods for determining the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution.”&nbsp;

The Rule of ‘Being Elected as President of the Republic for Two Terms at Most’ in the Executive Presidential System - 2

Cüneyt

The Republic of Cyprus was actually established in 1960 as a state resulting from certain international treaties. The Republic of Cyprus was established based on the equal partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Another feature of the Republic of Cyprus was that it had limited powers. Additionally, the Republic of Cyprus was organized as a form of functional federalism. The treaties that established the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus were very important as they gave Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots the right to separate representation and quotas in the state administration. Unfortunately, this state only survived for three years. After 1963, the ethnic conflicts between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots began and continued until 1974, when Türkiye intervened in the island based on its right to function as a guarantor. After this intervention, the Turkish Cypriots first unilaterally declared the Turkish Cypriot Federated State. The efforts to bring the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots together on the island and the negotiations between the two communities were ongoing, but no conclusion was reached at the end of these negotiations. On November 15, 1983, the parliament of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus made the unanimous decision to declare their independence and establish the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. After 1974, the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus began governing only the southern part of Cyprus. Greek Cypriot authorities took the properties of the Turkish Cypriots that had been left behind under the control of foundations under the Guardianship Law. These properties continued to belong to Turkish Cypriots but were controlled by foundations. The new Greek Cypriot users of the related properties who’d migrated from the north were not given the ownership of these properties. Just because the property policy of the Greek Administration of Southern Cyprus is more appreciated by the international community does not mean their policy is perfect. Violations of the property rights of Turkish Cypriots are seen to have occurred regarding certain fundamental points, the first of these being the non-immediate payment of expropriated properties. Another violation involves the properties leased under the Guardianship Law not requiring the consent of the Turkish Cypriotowners for lease agreements. The rental income obtained from these properties also does not get paid to the Turkish Cypriot owners. Similar to the expropriation costs, the statement has been made that the rental costs will be paid upon reaching a comprehensive settlement regarding the island. Meanwhile, the fact that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus authorities has given ownership rights to those who left their properties in south Cyprus as well as to the immigrants who came to the island is one point where the international community has criticized Turkish Cypriots. After Turkish Armed Forces’ second military intervention for maintaining peace and security on the island, Varosha was declared a military zone and left closed to resettlement. Afterward, Varosha started to be known as a ghost city. Varosha is actually within the borders of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but its legal status is perceived to be unclear just because it has remained closed to settlement. Before the region was opened to visitors in 2020, only those with special permission, UN officials, and members of the Turkish Armed Forces were allowed to enter the region. The population of Varosha was stated to have been 34,700 people before 1974, of which 29,700 were Greek Cypriots and the remaining population was predominantly Armenian, Maronite, British, and other ethnic groups. Currently, the sovereignty in Varosha belongs to the Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus authorities, and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Türkiye are located in this region. The inhabitants of Varosha before being closed to settlement in 1974 are known to have been predominantly Greek Cypriots. Part of Varosha was opened to civilian visits 46 years later with consensus from Republic of Türkiye President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus President Ersin Tatar. Following this, President Erdoğan announced during his visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on July 19-20, 2021 that Varosha would be reopened to settlement, after which President Tatar stated that 3.5% of Varosha would be returned to its owners through the Immovable Property Commission and that the 3.5% of this area would lose its status as a military zone. This partial initiative regarding Varosha actually means that the Greek Cypriots who’d been residents of Varosha before 1974 can benefit from exchanges, compensations, or restitutions if they apply to the Immovable Property Commission. The international community expects that the initiatives regarding Varosha must involve the return of former residents, and clearly the Turkish Cypriots have no other goal than this. Having the Turkish Cypriots announce to the international communitymore strongly that the aims of this partial reopening do not exceed this goal would be appropriate. Varosha poses some other problems as well, especially in terms of the various property right claims of Cyprus Foundations Administration as the records dating from July 20, 1974 regarding Varosha indicate Greek Cypriots as property owners. The Cyprus Foundations Administration should prioritize its claims with evidence, both internationally and nationally.

The Varosha Dispute: The Partial Opening Initiative and the United Nations’ Approach and Evaluation of the Issue of Property

Çağla

French administrative law has had an impact on the organization of Turkish administrative law and its structure. Nonetheless, significant differences have arisen between the two legal systems due to regulations on the organization, duties, powers, and functioning of local authorities. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between local authorities and central government in French law and the evolution of decentralization with regards to the French centralization policy in terms of administrative law by taking into consideration the amendments adopted into the French constitution by Law No. 2022-217 (in force since February 2022). The study is limited to the principles guaranteed by the French Constitution of 1958 and the enacted laws. The study has omitted legislation on overseas and special-status territorial communities, including Corsica, from its scope as they include exceptional rules that do not reflect the main features of the relationship between local authorities and the central government. 	The study first focuses on the term collectivité territoriale [territorial communities], with territorial referring to the centralization policy, while the term administration is not used in any way. The change to concept of local community as a term into a territorial community with the French Constitutional Amendments of 2003 is seen to have been not a coincidence but a clear indication of the dominance of France’s tradition of centralization. 	The second part of the study analyzes the evolution of the decentralization policy in the shadow of centralization, particularly in light of Law No. 2022-217 enacted in February 2022. The decentralization policy hadn’t taken place in the French Constitution of 1958 until an amendment in 2003. Until then, the principle of territorial communities’ free administration assured the administrative autonomy by local authorities instead of the central government. 3 	Another principle supporting the administrative autonomy of local authorities in French law is the clause of general competence that takes its roots from the Municipal Code of 1884. Article 72/2 of the Constitution mentions that territorial communities may make decisions regarding all matters arising under powers that can best be exercised at their level. This disposition has been adopted to comply with the principle of subsidiarity in the next step of constitutionalizing decentralization that occurred in 2003. Within the context of the regulations adopted to empower local authorities in 1982, the general clause regarding the scope of application of competences was expanded to include district, departmental, and regional authorities. In the following years, only district authorities remained within this scope. The differentiation principle, being the greatest innovation of Law No. 2022-217, appears to have avoided the negative effects of excluding departmental and regional authorities from being able to take advantage of the general clause of competence. This law was prepared on the basis of the conclusions from the Great National Debate of 2019 following the intense social events known as the Yellow Vest Protests. 	The third part of this study focuses on the organization and functioning of local authorities regarding the relationship between local authorities and the central government. The decentralization policy has clearly gained power since 1982, especially by being constitutionalized in 2003. Nonetheless, local authorities have yet to prevail against the central government. Indeed, the elected communé [community] mayors still have a hierarchical relationship with the central government in certain areas. Because no minimum population condition exists for their establishment, nearly 35,000 commune authorities are found in France. Hence, they are in a situation where some of them cannot even give local public services due to a lack of resources. These services are instead provided by public establishments for cooperation between local authorities. Even though some regulations have been adopted to expand the competencies of departmental and regional authorities, their exclusion from the scope of the clause of general competency has continued to produce negative effects alongside the limited financial resources. Although Law No. 2022-217 had been adopted as a result of the debates arising from previous social events, scholars mention that has not brought as many changes as expected for strengthening decentralization. 	The fourth part of the study concerns the administrative control powers the central government has over local authorities. These powers are explained on the grounds of protecting general public interest in the face of local public interest or as the continuity of public services. Nevertheless, governors’ administrative supervisory competency over local authorities’ actions has been replaced by an institution of prefectural application for judicial review, which enables the governor to apply to the competent First Instance Court regarding any illegalities arising from the concerned administrative actions or contracts. Supervision as a term has been removed from the 4 	Constitution with the amendments of 2003, with the term of administrative control having taken its place. However, the regulations regarding the central government’s administrative supervision over local authorities still exist, as well as those concerning the power of substitution. Consequently, the central government still has significant powers over local authorities. The study has been unable to conclude the local authorities or the policy of decentralization in France to have built up a strong position over centralization, even after decentralization had been constitutionalized in 2003.

Local Authorities in French Law Regarding Their Relationship with Central Government

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Ayşe

One of the principles that Civil Procedure Law based on is the “dispositional control of the parties principle”. Under this principle, parties’ have the right solve private law disputes according to their dispositions. Under the principle, dispute parties are free to decide choose or not to choose litigation as way of resolution. Principle also covers to end the dispute by an settlement (in principle). One of the dispute ending options under the principle is the parties settlement agreement. Settlement agreement, generally, is an agreement in which parties agree to ending the dispute with mutual compromise. In other words, it can be also defined as an agreement in which parties completely or partially ending the dispute mutually. Settlement agreement, regulated as an stand alone regulation for the first time in the Article 313/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) numbered 6100. Under the Article, settlement agreement means that the parties agreement on to ending the dispute completely or partially in an outstanding case. This definition only covers the in-judicial settlement. Because the definition requires a settlement in front of the court. Out of judicial/court settlement is not regulated under the CCP. Because, this kind of settlement fall in the area of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement is an agreement out of the court in which the parties agreed to end the dispute completely or partially at mutual interest point they considered. There is no necessity of an outstanding ongoing case process at this point. Additionally, an ongoing trial process would not affect the out of judicial settlement. It is needed a transformation of the out of judicial settlement to an in-judicial settlement to affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Out of judicial settlement is an substantive law agreement. This agreement is fall in the provisions (General Provisions) of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Out of judicial settlement agreement is not be need to be made in written because of the “freedom as to form” principle of the Turkish Code of Obligations. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it could affect an ongoing trial at the same dispute. Parties convey the out of judicial settlement to the court and then court get in record the agreement. After that moment, out of judicial settlement is evaluated as an in-judicial settlement. It is not needed that the whole provisions of the out of judicial settlement to get in recorded in the trial documents. Article 315/1 of the CCP regulates the provisions on effects and solutions of settlement agreements. Under this provisions when the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same legal power and&nbsp;solutions of it. The first solution of this transformation is the ending of existing dispute, in other words ending of the existing court trial. The second important outcome of the in-judicial settlement agreement is that it would have the same legal effect of final court decision. In-judicial settlement has an important another legal effect that it would has the power of the final court decisions under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code Article 38. If the out of judicial settlement transformed to an in-judicial settlement it would has the same affect as well.

Out of Judicial Settlement and Its Effect on Trial

Involvement of persons with disabilities in business life is extremely important – just as much as in their access to education and health services - and in their enjoyment of social protection because unemployment makes individuals becoming unemployed feel like they are useless. Involvement of persons with disabilities in business life, and pursuing the same eliminates the social effects caused by the risk of unemployment. In addition, working persons with disabilities benefit from social insurance protection based on their work, and thus a decrease occurs in the expenses made for persons with disabilities from the social security budget. While the policies relevant to persons with disabilities started with passive policies such as protecting persons with disabilities, today they have transformed into active policies such as ensuring the complete participation of persons with disabilities in employment. In Turkey, the number of persons with disabilities recorded on the National Database on Persons with Disabilities is 2.461.828 for the first half of the year 2019. And the rate of participation of persons with disabilities in employment is 22.1 percent. When compared with the data for the EU and OECD, this number is very low. Thus, increasing the participation in employment of persons with disabilities is also among the objectives relevant to business life. When the legal regulations in Turkey are examined, it can be observed that rules relevant to the protection of persons with disabilities have taken place in Constitutional Law for the first time. According to Article 17 of Constitutional Law, everyone has the right to live, and to preserve and improve their material and moral presence. And, according to Article 49 of Constitutional Law, working is everyone’s right and obligation. The government takes the required measures to increase the standard of living of employees, protect the unemployed, and support working. The government’s actualization of this obligation is especially important in terms of persons with disabilities who are experiencing many difficulties in involvement in business life. For this reason, it is required that the government should take special measures for persons with disabilities, and to provide the work environment for them. Hence, in Article 50 of Constitutional Law, it has been emphasized that no one could be employed in works not conforming to their strength, and the rule of “the ones having physical and psychological insufficiency are distinctively protected in terms of working conditions” has been established. And the most basic law regarding persons with disabilities is the Law on Persons with Disabilities no 5378. This law intends that persons with disabilities should benefit from fundamental rights and freedoms, and to ensure their participation in social life under equal conditions with other individuals. Article 30 of Labour Law no 4857 regulates the details relevant to the liability of employers to employ persons&nbsp;with disabilities. Article 30 was regulated again in 2008, and new principles were established regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. In accordance with this, employers employing fifty or more employees in the workplace have to employ a specific number of persons with disabilities. When Article 30 of Labour Law is examined, it is observed that the straightforward quota method has been adopted regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. The quota determined within this scope is three percent for workplaces in the private sector, and four percent for workplaces in the public sector. It is required that the following conditions are present for liability of the employer to employ persons with disabilities to arise : i) The workplace’s inclusion in the scope of Labour Law, or Maritime Labour Law, ii) Employment of fifty or more employees in the workplace. In case of the presence of these conditions, the employers are required to employ persons with disabilities whose rate of disability is at least 40 percent. Persons with disabilities should be employed through the Turkish Employment Agency. But the employer may also employ a person with disabilities through his own means. In this case, it is required to inform the Turkish Employment Agency, and to have the person with disabilities recorded at the Agency. An administrative fine is imposed on the employer acting against the liability of employing persons with disabilities. Another method regarding the employment of persons with disabilities is the concept of sheltered employment. Briefly, this method is ensuring the employment of persons with disabilities – for whom it is difficult to bring them in business life - within the frame of special conditions. In this system, there are sheltered workplaces where the working environment is specifically arranged in order to ensure the employment of persons with disabilities. In Turkish Law, the principles of this subject have been regulated in the Law on Persons with Disabilities, and in a certain regulation issued on this subject. That Regulation first came into force in 2006, and it was renewed in 2013. Persons with disabilities who will be employed at sheltered workplaces, are not only persons with physical disabilities but persons with mental and psychological disabilities. In terms of acquiring the status of a sheltered workplace, some conditions have been sought by the Regulation. Above all, it is required that the workplace is one which holds the qualifications determined by the Regulation, and where at least eight persons with disabilities are employed. In addition, the ratio of the number of persons with disabilities who will be employed at a sheltered workplace to the number of total employees shouldn’t be less than seventy five percent. In the Regulation, the physical conditions and equipment that the sheltered workplace has to have (safety, traffic safety, fire protection etc.) were also specified. A specific part of the remunerations&nbsp;of the persons with disabilities being employed at sheltered workplaces is paid by the government. In Turkish law, amendments made in time in Article 30 of Labour Law being the basis of the liability of employing persons with disabilities, and especially the increase in incentives for the employers in private sector are deemed as proper regulations. Again, allowing the employers to find workers who will be employed by their own means is also among those steps which would facilitate employment. Certainly, considering the measures ensuring employment as incentives rather than a quota and fine method would be a more constructive approach.

The Liability of the Employer to Employ Disabled Employee

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Night work has been the subject of many discussions due to its contradictory nature to the biological structure of the human body. This attribute of night work requires that night work and day work should not be handled in the same way in the legal order. The developments in the field of Occupational Health and Safety Law, and the researches regarding the effects of night work on the human health, constantly demand the review and improvement of the regulations regarding night work. In this regard, the most important protective provision regarding the workers working at night could be the limit on the night working time. In accordance with the Article 69 (I) of the Labour Law No. 4857, “night” is defined as the period starting at the latest at 20.00 in the evening, and lasting at the earliest until 06.00 in the morning, which in any case lasts maximum eleven hours. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 69 (III), night work shall not exceed seven and a half hours. However, significant exceptions have been recently adopted to this rule. The amendment, enacted in 2015, allows employers in some sectors (private security, tourism and jobs related to healthcare) to demand night work in excess of seven and a half hours by obtaining written approval from the worker. It should be noted that the regulations concerning night work are particularly important regarding the work carried out by shift work. Taking into consideration the need for governing special procedures and principles on this subject, a regulation specifically on shift work has been issued, and exceptions to the rule on the limit of the night working time are also included in this regulation. In my opinion, the propriety of this change amendment is highly debatable. It can be argued that the service should continue uninterruptedly in the sectors mentioned in the Article (private security, tourism and jobs related to healthcare). However, the employment of the workers for longer periods is not the only way to ensure the continuity of the service. Although written approval of the worker enabling the night work in excess of seven and a half hours is stipulated, the worker-protective approach of the Labour Law which protects the workers even from themselves, especially on the issues regarding occupational health and safety should not be disregarded. It should also be noted that the Regulation on shift work also includes a statement which is not included in the text of the Labour Law. In the Regulation; it is prescribed that the workers employed by the subcontractor in the workplaces, where private security, tourism and health services are carried out, also fall under this scope. If the letter of the statement is followed; it could be concluded that all workers employed by the subcontractor in the health, tourism and private security sectors may be employed at night for more than seven and a half hours. However, it is clear that such an interpretation would be incompatible with the exception regulated in the Labour&nbsp;Law. The provision of the regulation should be interpreted in a manner to cover subcontractor workers who are employed in the sectors referred to in the Labour Law, specifically in cases where subcontracted work is carried out with respect to these sectors. It has been concluded that the recent changes in the field of night work constitute a reversal in terms of workers’ rights. It is clear that the continuity of the services without disruption can be also maintained by increasing the number of shifts. Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the regulations regarding night work are quite disorganized. In this regard, it may be suggested that all the rules regarding night work should fall into a single regulation. As a result, it may be stated that there is a need for the review of the regulations on night work in our legislation.

Night Work and The Evaluation of the Amendments Regarding the Limit of Night Work Period

Cemile

This article deals with multi-tier dispute resolution clauses incorporating both mediation and arbitration together under Turkish Law. I use the terminology of “med-arb” not only for the situation where the mediator acts as an arbitrator, but rather in a general meaning covering all instances where the arbitration is commenced following an unsuccessful mediation. The purpose of this article is to discuss the validity of the med-arb agreements, the consequences of starting arbitration before the mediation fails, the effects of the mediation proceedings and of the mediator acting as an arbitrator on the arbitration that follows the mediation as well as the admissibility of the documents and factual evidence exchanged at the mediation. For the purpose of this article, the comparative laws, international ethics rules, international guidelines on the conflict of interest and admissibility of evidence are reviewed along with Turkish law. Turkish Code on Mediation in Civil Law Disputes stipulates some provisions related to the med-arb. These provisions shall apply equally to both domestic and international arbitrations where the place of arbitration is Turkey. Following the jurisprudence of the Turkish Supreme Court, a med-arb agreement is valid only if it reflects, without doubt, both parties’ consents to the arbitration following the failure of the mediation proceedings. Therefore, a multi-tier dispute resolution clause subject to Turkish law needs to be drawn carefully. In this respect IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses are of assistance. In cases where one of the parties commences arbitration without a recourse to mediation first, the arbitral tribunal should make a decision on the admissibility of the claim. There is no direct provision related to the question of admissibility under Turkish law. Under Turkish law, in parallel with the practice of international arbitration, the tribunal has to interpret the med-arb agreement to make a decision on the question of whether the recourse to mediation is a pre-condition of the arbitration. If the mediation is a pre-condition, then the tribunal should suspend the arbitral&nbsp;proceedings and direct the parties to the mediation. However, in the case that the mediation fails, the tribunal may resume the arbitral proceedings. There is nothing under Turkish law suggesting that a precondition of arbitration is a jurisdictional issue rather than an admissibility issue. The advantages of the med-arb are subject to heated debates among people holding different perspectives. Such advantages are controversial since when a dispute arises and the arbitration starts without a recourse to mediation, the respondent may object to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or to the admissibility of the claim relying on the fact that the pre-condition to try mediation first is not met. Such an objection may cause arbitration to be delayed and/or the costs of arbitration to increase. Therefore, before opting for a med-arb agreement the parties should evaluate the possibility of settling their dispute at the Med-arb. The parties who are able to consider their commercial interests do not need a med-arb agreement as they are able to settle the disputes without the assistance of a mediator. They first try to settle the dispute, in some cases for years, and to avoid adjudication by an arbitral tribunal. They only start arbitration when there is no possibility of settlement of their dispute and of saving their commercial alliance. In such cases, med-arb agreements become a tool to delay the proceedings and increase the costs for the claimant to force him or her to give up his or her claim. Having said that, for the parties who are unable to consider their commercial interest and unable to avoid adjudication, med-arb agreement may be the right dispute resolution clause. In a med-arb agreement, the parties may wish the mediator to act as their arbitrator if the mediation fails. Neither the Turkish Code of Mediation in Civil Disputes nor the Turkish International Arbitration Code prevents a mediator to act as an arbitrator. Turkish Ethics Rules for Mediators stipulate that a mediator may act as an arbitrator only if the parties have agreement in writing. Therefore, any mediator to act as arbitrator needs to have the parties’ written consent. In international mediation and arbitration practices, the scholars and practitioners widely accept that having an arbitrator who previously acted as a mediator generates a number of serious risks and concerns. First of all, the mediator-arbitrator may not protect his or her impartiality in the arbitration because of the facts that she or he became aware of during the mediation. Secondly, the mediator-arbitrator may rely on the confidential information exchanged in caucus while making the award. Thirdly, the mediator may be too willing to act as an arbitrator and as a result the mediation may prematurely fail. Finally, the mediator may abuse his or her powers and force the parties to settle their disputes as the mediator suggests. The parties may feel that if they are not able to settle their dispute and proceed to the arbitration, the mediator-arbitrator would make an arbitral award in parallel of the recommendations at the mediation phase. Considering the severity of the consequences, if the parties agree to have an arbitrator&nbsp;who previously acted as their mediator, they need to be aware of such consequences and they need to make an informed decision accordingly . The Turkish Code of Mediation in Civil Law Disputes restrains the ability of the mediator-arbitrator to rely on the documents produced during the mediation for the purpose of settlement and defines which documents are in this category. In the case where the mediator-arbitrator relies on these documents while making the award, depending on the extent the document or information has a bearing on the award, the arbitral award may be cancelled, or its enforcement may be refused. In November 2019, Istanbul Arbitration Center (ISTAC) introduced its Medarb Rules. ISTAC Med-arb Rules are the first published institutional Med-arb rules. ISTAC Med-arb Rules reflect the best practices in international mediation – arbitration. I believe that ISTAC Med-arb Rules will be welcomed in the field of international dispute resolution.

Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution Clauses Incorporating Both Mediation and Arbitration Together Under Turkish Law

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Istanbul Law Review is a publication of Istanbul University, Faculty of Law.  

Istanbul Law Review is a quarterly, academic, peer reviewed journal which publishes articles in Turkish and English. Istanbul Law Review publishes articles, judicial reviews, legislation analysis’, publication criticism, translations which involves in law and law related subjects, and are based on genuine theoretical and practical academic research and suitable for national and international scale.

Istanbul Law Review involves in publications which are (i) capable of expanding theory and enhancing theoretical basis, (ii) analyzing either academic or judicial methodology, (iii) scrutinizing legal theory, practice, process, symbols etc. effecting society on private or public levels, (iv) exploring the subject in legal, sociological, political, psychological, philosophical, ethical, geographical and historical manner.

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.

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Istanbul Law Review

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Language Editor

Editor

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Istanbul Law Review is a quarterly, academic, peer reviewed journal which publishes articles in Turkish and English. Istanbul Law Review publishes articles, judicial reviews, legislation analysis’, publication criticism, translations which involves in law and law related subjects, and are based on genuine theoretical and practical academic research and suitable for national and international scale.Istanbul Law Review involves in publications which are (i) capable of expanding theory and enhancing theoretical basis, (ii) analyzing either academic or judicial methodology, (iii) scrutinizing legal theory, practice, process, symbols etc. effecting society on private or public levels, (iv) exploring the subject in legal, sociological, political, psychological, philosophical, ethical, geographical and historical manner.In this frame, primary fields of interest are listed as follows:• Human rights law,• Criminal law,• Financial and fiscal law,• Civil law,• Commercial law,• Obligations law,• Execution and bankruptcy law

Aim and Scope

Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM TR Index EBSCO Central &amp; Eastern European Academic SourceEBSCO Legal SourceDOAJERIH PLUSSOBİAD

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. Plagiarism Submitted 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-Review After 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.

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.

Istanbul Law Review 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.

Ethics

<div>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.</div>

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/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" 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 editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for double-blind peer review evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

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 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.

1. Istanbul Law Review is a peer reviewed Journal that is published four times a year (in March, June, September and December) and indexed by ESCI and ULAKBİM.2. The articles sent to be published in our journal should not be published elsewhere, not be submitted to other journals simultaneously even with the purpose of evaluation. In this purpose, the authors shall also be reguired to sign a letter of undertaking. 3. Articles that are considered as unsuitable with the publication principles by the Editorial Board are sent back to the author without review. It is sufficient for the article to be rejected by the Editorial Board if the spelling errors are extraordinary, the domestic and foreign resources required for the subject being examined are not utilized, the scientific criteria academic ethical principles are not complied with, the article subject does not have an up-to-date significance in terms of theory and-or practice. 4. Before the article is sent to the referees, it is subjected to plagiarism examination withthe help of special computer programs. If the digital similarity rate is above 20%, it is sufficient for the rejection of the article within the scope of the editorial review of the related software report. 5. The article to be published in the journal must be written following the highest academic standards. In this context, intellectual background and effort at the level of doctoral or associate professorship thesis are expected from the authors. 6. Papers that are approved by the Editorial Board are submitted to reviewers in line with blind peer review principle. Authors are not informed about the identity of the referees. According to the assessments of the referees, the paper may be approved for publication, required to resubmission with amendments or rejected on the basis of inadequate quality. The referee phase does not have a minimum or maximum duration. The follow-up of this issue is a duty and authority exclusively belonging to the Editorial Board. 7. As a result of the referee reports, the final discretion and responsibility regarding whether the article will be finally published and if it will be published, in which issue of the Journal, the editorial board is responsible. The existence of a single rejectionnegative referee report is sufficient to prevent the article from being published. 8. The completion of the referee stage does not give authors the authority to request a private or official document indicating that the article will be published. The authors, with the awareness and responsibility of this issue, apply for their articles to be published in Istanbul Law Review and to be subjected to peer review. 9. Authors, must provide their titles, institutions, correspondence address, phone number and e-mail address. 10. The Review accepts and publishes articles written in Turkish and English. The articles must include Turkish and English abstracts consisting of at least 250 and at most 300 words and at least five and at most fifteen keywords must be added to the paper in Turkish and English languages. Following the abstracts, there must also be an extended summary of 600-800 words for all the articles both in English and Turkish. The article subject to the publication application must contain a maximum of 20,000 words, including footnotes. There is no minimum word limit. 11. The main text and footnotes must be written in Times New Roman. Font size for the main text should be 12 with 1,5 line spacing while footnotes are written in font size 10 with 1 line spacing. Footnotes are to be shown at the bottom of the page. Citations must be made based on the OSCOLA citation system. Otherwise, the article is sent back to the author to make corrections without a referee assignment. Abbreviations and other issues in Turkish articles must be made following the announced spelling rules. The mentioned citation rules can be accessed at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ihm. 12. Author’s name must be written bottom right of the Turkish and English title of the paper and should end with a star symbol. Star footnote should consists of title and institution of the author and correspondence address, phone number and e- mail address. 13. The article must consist of a bibliography at the end and references need to be arranged in alphabetical order.14. To be limited with the copies published by the Faculty; financial rights regarding reproduction, distribution, public performance, derivative works and translation of the papers which are approved for publication are to be transferred to the faculty to be used on the print, auditory, digital etc. media, nationwide and worldwide. Authors accept not to receive any royalty payment.15. Besides articles, also translations may be published in the accepted languages. These papers might be approved or rejected by the Editorial Board. Original text of the translation and consent of the rightful owner are also should be enclosed with the translation. Translations are also subject to the assessment of reviewers.16. Papers should be sent to iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr in Microsoft Word (*.doc, *.docx) file type.17. Only one article of an applicant in the same publication year (4 issues) could be subject to peer review.18. The Editorial Board determines the articles to be included in one issue of the journal by considering criteria such as the purpose of maintaining the balance of Private LawPublic Law, the date of submission of the article to the Journal, the date of completion of the referee stage, the timeliness of the article subject, and the proportional balance on whether the authors are members of Istanbul University.19. The Editorial Board makes the utmost effort to publish all issues with the same number of articles as possible. An article that has completed all the necessary steps for publication, including the layout stage, as of the date of publication of an issue, could not be published in the relevant issue in terms of the number of articles, however, after a certain period after the relevant issue, within the framework of the system called Online-First it is published digitally before the issue is released.

Author Guidelines

Before beginning the online submission process please read the Information for Authors and make sure you have the followings available:Article submissions should be submitted directly to the e-mail address <a href="mailto:iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr" target="_blank">iuhfdergiler@istanbul.edu.tr</a>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.</li> </ul> </ul><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" 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/JTA6CLJ8T5/6444C75BA6B344EBB1496510B0BAF8A3" 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 languge of the manuscript 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 both in the language of manuscript and in English</li> <li>Abstracts: 250-30 words</li> <li>Key words: 5-15 words </li> <li>Extended Abstract (600-1000 words) in English (for the articles which are not in English)</li> <li>Main article sections</li> <li>Grant Support (if exists)</li> <li>Conflict of Interest (if exists)</li> <li>Acknowledgement (if exits)</li> <li>References</li> <li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li> </ul> </ul>

Although references to review articles can be an efficient way to guide readers to a body of literature, review articles do not always reflect original work accurately. Readers should therefore be provided with direct references to original research sources whenever possible. On the other hand, extensive lists of references to original work on a topic can use excessive space on the printed page. Small numbers of references to key original papers often serve as well as more exhaustive lists, particularly since references can now be added to the electronic version of published papers, and since electronic literature searching allows readers to retrieve published literature efficiently. Papers accepted but not yet included in the issue are published online in the Early View section and they should be cited as “advance online publication”. Citing a “personal communication” should be avoided unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication must be obtained.Reference Style and FormatIstanbul Law Review offers referencing style OSCOLA. OSCOLA (Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities) is published by the University of Oxford and detail and examples about the style can be found at https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/publications/oscolaOSCOLA Reference ExamplesPrimary SourcesDo not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.CasesGive 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 instrumentsAct 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 casesConsolidated 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 RightsOmojudi 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 SourcesBooksGive 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 booksFrancis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds),Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006).EncyclopediasHalsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53.Journal articlesPaul 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 journalsGraham 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 reportsDepartment 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 blogsSarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009)&lt;www.nakedlaw.com/2009/05/index.html&gt; accessed 19 November 2009.Newspaper articlesJane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3.

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/2BB9074E09174E55BE3CA4941309A672" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F6FB8940C9B54CC08CDC740CCFC6B8F3" target="_blank">Title Page</a></div>

<div>Ensure that the following items are present:● Cover letter to the editor<ul><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</li></ul>● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/BD7F3551BBE543F7A0E7628427A827AE" 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/D4FC914AF17F43D6A40E18412A5E6731" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul><li>The category of the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript</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>● Main Manuscript Document<ul><li>The title of the manuscript</li><li>Abstract: 250-300 words</li><li>Extended Summary (600-1000 words) in English for the articles which are not in English </li><li>Key words: 5-15 words</li><li>Main article sections</li><li>Grant support (if exists)</li><li>Conflict of interest (if exists)</li><li>Acknowledgement (if exists)</li><li>References</li><li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)</li></ul>​</div>

Issue Type	Regular
Editor(s)	Ömer Ekmekçi, Ali Paslı
Cover (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)

Istanbul Law Review

VOLUME 80, ISSUE 2, 2022

An Examination of the Liability for Compensation for the Breach of Choice of Court Agreements: In the Light of the German Federal Court Decision of 17.10.2019