Publication: ARABULUCULUK SONUCUNDA YAPILAN
MİLLETLERARASI SULH ANLAŞMALARI HAKKINDA
BİRLEŞMİŞ MİLLETLER KONVANSİYONU
(SİNGAPUR KONVANSİYONU)*
Abstract
Arabuluculuk sonucunda yapılan sulh anlaşmalarının icrası konusunda ulusal hukuklarda farklı sistemler bulunmaktadır. Bu sistemlerarasında sulh anlaşmalarının, sözleşmelere ilişkin genel hükümler çerçevesinde icrası, mahkemece tescili ve noterde tasdiki yer almaktadır. Arabuluculuk sonucunda yapılan sulh anlaşmalarının icrası konusunda ulusal hukuklarda mevcut olan farklı sistemler, bu anlaşmaların sınıraşanetkisi açısından önem taşımakta; anlaşmanın yapıldığı ülke dışındakidiğer ülkelerde tenfizinde karşılaşılacak engeller arabuluculuğa başvurulmasında tereddüde yol açmaktadır. Arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulhanlaşmalarının sınıraşan etkisini düzenleyen bir milletlerarası antlaşmayla oluşturulacak yeknesak düzenlemenin, uluslararası ticari uyuşmazlıklarda arabuluculuğun teşvik edilmesinde ve ulusal hukuklardaki farklı sistemlerden kaynaklanan tenfiz engellerinin aşılmasında önemli rol oynayacağı düşünülmüştür. Bu düşünceyle Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu tarafından 20 Aralık 2018 tarihinde kısaca “Singapur Konvansiyonu”olarak anılan Arabuluculuk Sonucunda Yapılan Milletlerarası Sulh Anlaşmaları Hakkında Birleşmiş Milletler Konvansiyonu hazırlanmıştır.Singapur Konvansiyonu, arabuluculuk usulünü değil arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulh anlaşmalarının sınıraşan etkilerini düzenleyen bir Konvansiyon’dur. Singapur Konvansiyonu’nun kapsamına, yalnızca milletlerarası ticari nitelikli uyuşmazlıklara ilişkin arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulh anlaşmaları girmektedir. Bununla beraber milletlerarası ticareteilişkin olsa bile mahkeme içi sulh anlaşmaları, mahkeme kararı gibi yerine getirilecek sulh anlaşmaları, hakem kararı gibi tenfiz edilecek sulhanlaşmaları Singapur Konvansiyonu’nun uygulama alanı dışında bırakılmıştır. Singapur Konvansiyonu, Konvansiyona taraf olan bir ülkedegerçekleşen arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulh anlaşmalarının diğer üyedevletlerde nasıl sonuç doğuracağını düzenlemektedir. Singapur Konvansiyonu’nda, Yabancı Hakem Kararlarının Tanınması ve Tenfizineİlişkin New York Konvansiyonu’nda yer alan sisteme benzer bir sistemoluşturulmuştur. Konvansiyonda aleyhine sulh anlaşmasına istinadenhukuki yollara başvurulan tarafın istemi üzerine mahkemenin veya yetkili merciin başvuruyu reddetme sebepleri düzenlenmiştir. Ayrıca mahkemenin veya yetkili merciin başvuruyu resen reddedebileceği iki sebepöngörülmüştür. Bu sebepler sulh anlaşmasının kamu düzenine aykırıolması ve sulh anlaşmasının konusunu teşkil eden uyuşmazlığın arabulucululuk yoluyla çözüme elverişli olmamasıdır. Konvansiyonda, sulh sözleşmesinin diğer bir akit devlette sonuç doğurması için başvurulan hukuki yolda izlenmesi gereken usul düzenlenmediğinden her âkit devletusuli mekanizmaları kendisi belirleyecektir. Çalışmamızda önceliklearabuluculuk ve arabuluculuk türleri hakkında genel bilgi verildiktensonra, Türk hukukunda arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulh anlaşmalarınınicrası ve yabancı ülkelerde yapılan sulh anlaşmalarının Türkiye’dekisonuçları üzerinde durulacaktır. Daha sonra Singapur Konvansiyonu’nunhazırlık çalışmaları, amacı, âkit devletlerin yasal düzenlemelerinin yanısıra diğer konvansiyonlarla ilişkisi açıklanacaktır. Çalışmamızın sonkısmında Singapur Konvansiyonu uyarınca bir akit devlette yapılan sulhanlaşmasının diğer akit devlette sonuç doğurması için gerekli şartlar ayrıntılı olarak incelenecektir. Singapur Konvansiyonu’nda bir üye devletteyapılan sulh anlaşmasının diğer üye devlette “tenfizinden” söz edilmemiştir. Konvansiyon’da kullanılan ifade, diğer bir üye devlette “yasalyollara başvurulmasıdır”. O halde bir ülkede yapılan sulh anlaşmasınaistinaden Konvansiyona üye diğer ülkelerde tenfiz de dahil hangi yasalyollara başvurulabileceğinin de belirlenmesi gerekmektedir. Çalışmamızda ele alınan konular arasında taraflardan birinin bir üye ülkede gerçekleşen arabuluculuk sonucu yapılan sulh anlaşmasına diğer üye ülkelerde hangi şartlarla dayanacağı; hangi taleplerde bulunulabileceği ve butaleplerin reddi sebepleri de yer almaktadır. Singapur Konvansiyonu’naiki konuda çekince konulabilir. Birincisi, devletler, arabuluculuk sonucunda yapılan ve kendilerinin taraf olduğu sulh anlaşmalarına; çekincedebelirttikleri devlet kurumlarının veya devletin yetkili kişilerinin tarafolduğu sulh anlaşmalarına Konvansiyon’un uygulanmaması için çekincekoyabilirler. İkincisi, devletler, sulh anlaşmasının taraflarının Konvansiyon’un uygulanmasını kararlaştırdıkları hallerle sınırlı olarak Konvansiyonu uygulayacaklarını beyan edebilirler. Çalışmamızda ayrıca SingapurKonvansiyonu’nu yaygın bir şekilde uygulanmasını engelleyeceği düşünülen söz konusu çekincelere de yer verilecektir.
There are different systems in the domestic laws regarding the enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from mediation. These systems include, among others, the enforcement of settlement agreements under general provisions governing contracts, the registration of the settlement agreements by the court and the notarization of such agreements. The different systems that exist in domestic laws regarding the enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements affect the cross-border enforcement of these agreements and barriers to enforcement in jurisdictions other than the one where the agreement was concluded lead to hesitation pursuing mediation. It has been considered that establishing a uniform system through an international convention in order to regulate the cross-border effect of the international mediated settlement agreements would play an important role in promoting mediation in international commercial disputes and overcoming enforcement barriers arising from different systems in domestic laws. To this end, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the “Singapore Convention”, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 2018 and opened to signature on 7 August 2019 in Singapore. The Singapore Convention is a Convention that regulates the cross-border effects of settlement agreements resulting from mediation, and not mediation per se. It covers only settlement agreements resulting from mediation in international commercial disputes. However, the Convention does not apply to settlement agreements that have been approved by a court, those that are concluded in the course of court proceedings and are enforceable as court decisions, or those that are enforceable as arbitral awards, even if such agreements concern international trade. The Singapore Convention sets forth the effects in other Member States of settlement agreements resulting from mediation signed in one Member State. The Singapore Convention contains a system similar to that of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Singapore Convention defines the grounds upon which a court or a relevant authority may refuse to grant relief at the request of the disputing party against whom a settlement agreement is invoked. In addition, it sets forth two grounds upon which the court or relevant authority may, on its own motion, refuse to grant relief. These are public policy and the fact that the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by mediation. Since the Convention does not prescribe the procedure to be followed in seeking the enforcement of settlement agreements in other Member States, it is for each Member State to adopt their own procedures in this regard. In this study, we first provide brief information about mediation and the types of mediation, then explain the enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from mediation under Turkish law as well as the effects in Turkey of settlement agreements concluded abroad. Thereafter, we will explain the negotiating history and object and purpose of the Singapore Convention as well as its linkages with national laws and other conventions. The last part of the study examines in detail the conditions to be met for a settlement agreement concluded in one Member State to have effect in other Member States. The Singapore Convention does not use the concept of “enforcement of a settlement agreement”, but rather the concept of “the request for relief”. Therefore, it is also necessary to clarify the legal avenues, including enforcement, available in other Member States. Among the issues discussed in this study are the requirements for a disputing party to rely on a settlement agreement, the reliefs he can seek and the grounds on which a competent authority may refuse such reliefs, in other Member States. The Singapore Convention allows reservations on two issues. First, a Member State may insert a reservation excluding the application of the Convention to settlement agreements to which that Member State is a party, or to those settlement agreements to which governmental agencies or officials of Member States, specified in the reservation, are parties. Second, a Member State may enter a reservation to declare that such Member State will apply the Convention only where the disputing parties have agreed to its application. Reservations that impede the widespread implementation of the Singapore Convention will also be assessed.
There are different systems in the domestic laws regarding the enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from mediation. These systems include, among others, the enforcement of settlement agreements under general provisions governing contracts, the registration of the settlement agreements by the court and the notarization of such agreements. The different systems that exist in domestic laws regarding the enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements affect the cross-border enforcement of these agreements and barriers to enforcement in jurisdictions other than the one where the agreement was concluded lead to hesitation pursuing mediation. It has been considered that establishing a uniform system through an international convention in order to regulate the cross-border effect of the international mediated settlement agreements would play an important role in promoting mediation in international commercial disputes and overcoming enforcement barriers arising from different systems in domestic laws. To this end, the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the “Singapore Convention”, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 2018 and opened to signature on 7 August 2019 in Singapore. The Singapore Convention is a Convention that regulates the cross-border effects of settlement agreements resulting from mediation, and not mediation per se. It covers only settlement agreements resulting from mediation in international commercial disputes. However, the Convention does not apply to settlement agreements that have been approved by a court, those that are concluded in the course of court proceedings and are enforceable as court decisions, or those that are enforceable as arbitral awards, even if such agreements concern international trade. The Singapore Convention sets forth the effects in other Member States of settlement agreements resulting from mediation signed in one Member State. The Singapore Convention contains a system similar to that of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Singapore Convention defines the grounds upon which a court or a relevant authority may refuse to grant relief at the request of the disputing party against whom a settlement agreement is invoked. In addition, it sets forth two grounds upon which the court or relevant authority may, on its own motion, refuse to grant relief. These are public policy and the fact that the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by mediation. Since the Convention does not prescribe the procedure to be followed in seeking the enforcement of settlement agreements in other Member States, it is for each Member State to adopt their own procedures in this regard. In this study, we first provide brief information about mediation and the types of mediation, then explain the enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from mediation under Turkish law as well as the effects in Turkey of settlement agreements concluded abroad. Thereafter, we will explain the negotiating history and object and purpose of the Singapore Convention as well as its linkages with national laws and other conventions. The last part of the study examines in detail the conditions to be met for a settlement agreement concluded in one Member State to have effect in other Member States. The Singapore Convention does not use the concept of “enforcement of a settlement agreement”, but rather the concept of “the request for relief”. Therefore, it is also necessary to clarify the legal avenues, including enforcement, available in other Member States. Among the issues discussed in this study are the requirements for a disputing party to rely on a settlement agreement, the reliefs he can seek and the grounds on which a competent authority may refuse such reliefs, in other Member States. The Singapore Convention allows reservations on two issues. First, a Member State may insert a reservation excluding the application of the Convention to settlement agreements to which that Member State is a party, or to those settlement agreements to which governmental agencies or officials of Member States, specified in the reservation, are parties. Second, a Member State may enter a reservation to declare that such Member State will apply the Convention only where the disputing parties have agreed to its application. Reservations that impede the widespread implementation of the Singapore Convention will also be assessed.