The pursuit of justice should be free from compulsion.
Justice is best served through a “FREE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT”.
Settlement is the best form of justice; it embodies the true sense of justice.
Those seeking justice should not be forced into mandatory legal procedures.
One should not be told: You must file a lawsuit, you must resort to arbitration, you must go through mediation, or you must follow the procedure set forth in Article 35/A of the Attorneyship Law.
Natural and legal persons must be free to choose—or create—the means by which they seek justice.
THERE CAN BE NO MANDATORY INSTITUTION IN THE PURSUIT OF RIGHTS. If such compulsion exists, that institution will become eroded, leading to the search for alternatives.
It is the duty of lawyers and jurists to develop and propose the pathways and methods individuals and entities may use to defend their rights.
We must speak more about this. One of the emerging avenues for dispute resolution worldwide is “INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURTS”.
This initiative stems from the search for an alternative to international arbitration, and as a response to its shortcomings. Following Brexit, efforts have been made in countries such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands to establish such courts as an alternative to London. Similarly, countries like China, Singapore, and Qatar, as well as jurisdictions such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Astana, have established International Commercial or Financial Courts.
At the same time, a European Commercial Court is on the agenda—an initiative expected to be particularly beneficial for SMEs.
Admittedly, these courts face a significant disadvantage compared to international arbitration: the limited enforceability of their decisions. However, they are likely to remain and continue developing as a viable alternative.
This is because the prospect of substantial revenues from legal services, the growth of international trade and finance processes, and the criticism of existing institutions make intense competition in legal services inevitable.
In this context, the time has come to discuss the establishment of a “TURKISH INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT.”
Of course, without an interstate agreement, establishing an international court is not fully possible. Yet, these international commercial courts are not traditional courts.
Though not homogeneous, their features—language of proceedings, procedural flexibility, shorter timelines, the involvement of foreign judges, lawyers, and experts, and the absence of appeal—make them attractive.
Ultimately, when viewed against the backdrop of global developments, a “Turkish International Commercial Court” is an idea worth serious consideration.
Furthermore, it would complement our country’s already strong arbitration and mediation centers, enhance Türkiye’s attractiveness for diverse legal services, and provide benefits to all related institutions.
Nedim Korhan Şengün
