MİLLETLERARASI KURUMSAL TAHKİM MERKEZLERİNİN BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMASI = COMPARATİVE INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION RULES

Taraflar aralarindaki bir anlasmadan kaynaklanan uyusmazliklarin cozumu icin ihtiyari tahkim kapsaminda kurumsal (daimi) tahkim yoluna veya ad-hoc (gecici) tahkime basvuralabilirler. Basarili bir tahkimde kurum secimi veya tahkim kurallarinin secimi tahkim yerinin seciminden sonra en onemli unsurdur. Aralarindaki milletlerarasi nitelikli bir sozlesmeye iliskin olarak tahkim anlasmasi yapan taraflar, tahkim prosedurunun bir kurum tarafindan yurutulup yurutulmeyecegini ve kurumsal tahkime gidilecekse bunun hangi kurum oldugunu tahkim anlasmasinda acikca belirtmelidirler. Gunumuzde milletlerarasi nitelikli bir sozlesme yapmis olan taraflarca genellikle kurumsal tahkim tercih edilmektedir. Bir cok kurum, secilmesi halinde tahkiminin idaresinin kendi tahkim kurallarina gore yapilacagini ongormektedir. Halbuki, bu anlayis degismeye baslamistir. Taraflarin aksini kararlastirmasi haline kurum, farkli kurallar uygulayabilmektedir. Son yillarda tahkim kurallarinin en basta gelenleri tekrar gozden gecirilmistir. Soz konusu calismada, baslica milletlerarasi tahkim kurumlari hakkinda genel bilgi verildikten sonra revize edilmis halleriyle baslica milletlerarasi tahkim kurallari arasindaki farkliliklar vurgulanmistir. Anahtar Kelimeler : Milletlerarasi tahkim kurumlari, milletlerarasi tahkim kurallari, kurumsal tahkim, ad-hoc tahkim, ihtiyari tahkim. COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION RULES Abstract In the framework of voluntary arbitration, parties could apply to institutional (permament) arbitration or ad-hoc (temporary) arbitration in order to solve the disputes arisen from a contract between them. In a successful arbitration, the choice of institution or the choice of arbitration rules constitute the second most important element after the choice of arbitration place. THe parties who entered into an arbitraiton agreement with regard to an international contract between them, should explicitly state whether the arbitration procedure is to be followed-up by an institution and if so, the choice of institution should also be explicitly stated. Currently, parties who enter into an international contract, tend to opt for institutional arbitration. Most institutions agree that if they are commissioned for an arbitration, it shall be administered according to their own rules. However, this approach has been changing recently. If the parties agree on a different set of rules, then the institution will determine whether to apply them or not. In recent years, the leading arbitration rules were revised. In this article, the differences between the revised arbitration rules are highlighted following a brief study on the most renowned arbitration institutions. Keywords : International arbitration institutions, international arbitration rules institutional arbitration, ad-hoc arbitration, voluntary arbitration.