Introduction
Arbitration has become an increasingly prominent method of dispute resolution in Türkiye, underpinned by a legal framework that reflects both domestic and international standards. Türkiye is a party to major international instruments such as the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("NYC")1, the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration2, and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States ("ICSID Convention")3, all of which have played a central role in shaping its arbitration practice. Türkiye has also signed 140 bilateral investment treaties ("BITs"), 84 of which are currently in force4, and is a party to several multilateral investment treaties ("MITs"), including the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT")5. These commitments underscore Türkiye's investor-oriented policy and support arbitration as a preferred route for resolving international investment disputes.
At the national level, arbitration is governed primarily by the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 ("CCP") for domestic disputes and the Turkish International Arbitration Law No. 4686 ("IAL") for international ones, both of which were heavily inspired by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") Model Law. This alignment allows Türkiye to offer arbitration procedures that meet international standards and offer efficient outcomes, particularly in cross-border commercial matters. The establishment and growth of key institutions like the Istanbul Arbitration Centre ("ISTAC") and the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Arbitration and Mediation Center ("ITOTAM") highlight Türkiye's strong institutional commitment to advancing arbitration as a credible and accessible dispute resolution mechanism.
Taken together, these developments point to Türkiye's steady evolution into an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, increasingly regarded by foreign investors and commercial actors for its legal framework, international engagement, and expanding institutional capacity. This arbitration roundup provides an overview of Türkiye's arbitration landscape, highlighting key legislative frameworks, governing principles, and institutional developments along with notable case law, and recent statistics. It offers a guide through Türkiye's evolving arbitration practices, from legislative foundations to emerging trends and institutional activity.
1 TÜRKİYE'S ARBITRATION REGIME: LEGAL BACKGROUND
This section looks at the main laws that shape arbitration in Türkiye. It highlights the rules and standards that guide how disputes are resolved and enforced, providing a picture of the legal framework that supports arbitration across the country.
1.1. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The legal framework governing arbitration in Türkiye is divided into two main categories: domestic arbitration, regulated under the CCP, and international arbitration, primarily governed by the IAL. This dual structure is designed to address the differing needs and characteristics of disputes with and without foreign elements. While both regimes draw inspiration from the UNCITRAL Model Law, they differ in certain procedural aspects.
1.1.1. DOMESTIC ARBITR ATION
Matters related to domestic arbitration are governed by Articles 407 to 444 of the CCP. These provisions, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, apply to disputes without a foreign element and where the seat of arbitration is in Türkiye. Whether a dispute contains a foreign element is determined the IAL6.
The CCP covers key aspects such as arbitration agreement, procedural rules, the issuance of arbitral awards, the annulment of awards, and the appointment of arbitrators. As an important note, pursuant to Article 439/4 of the CCP, initiating an annulment action does not suspend enforcement of the award, unlike under the IAL, where annulment action suspends enforcement. This reflects the legislator's intention that arbitral awards under the CCP become enforceable immediately.
1.1.2. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
1.1.2.1. International Arbitration Law No. 4686
The IAL, inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, serves as the primary legislation regulating international arbitration in Türkiye and sets out the procedures and principles governing it. According to its first article, the IAL applies to disputes that contain a foreign element, where the seat of arbitration is in Türkiye, or where the parties, arbitrators, or arbitral tribunal have chosen to apply its provisions.
The conditions under which a dispute is considered to have a foreign element are outlined in Article 2. Foreign elements arise:
- When the parties to the arbitration agreement have their domiciles, habitual residences, or places of business in different states;
- When the place of arbitration, as determined in or pursuant to the arbitration agreement, is situated outside the state in which the parties have their domiciles, habitual residences, or places of business;
- When a substantial part of the obligations arising from the underlying contract is performed outside the state in which the parties have their domiciles, habitual residences, or places of business;
- When the dispute is most closely connected to another jurisdiction;
- When at least one shareholder in the company that is a party to the main contract introduces foreign capital in accordance with foreign investment promotion laws;
- When a loan and/or a guarantee agreements are established to secure financing from abroad for the implementation of this contract;
- When the underlying contract or legal relationship involves the transfer of capital or goods across national borders.
However, disputes related to rights in rem over immovable properties located in Türkiye and disputes that are not within the disposal of the parties are excluded from the scope of the IAL.
Pursuant to the IAL7 , arbitral awards are not automatically enforceable; instead, a certificate of enforceability from the civil court of first instance is required, differently from the CCP where awards under domestic arbitration are enforceable immediately. In practice, the courts also examine ex officio whether the dispute is arbitrable and whether there is any violation of public policy before giving the certificate of enforceability.
Similarly, initiating an annulment action automatically suspends enforcement of the award8, again differently from the CCP regime, where enforcement continues despite annulment proceedings.
1.1.2.2. Law No. 4501 - Arbitration in Public Concessions
This legal framework governs the principles to be followed when arbitration agreements are made in relation to concession contracts containing a foreign element. Notably, Article 5 of Law No. 3996, which regulates the BuildOperate and Build-Operate-Transfer models, provides that such contracts are subject to private law provisions, thereby departing from the traditional view of concession agreements as purely administrative contracts.
From a private law perspective, concerns have long been raised regarding the fairness and legal security of resolving disputes involving foreign investors solely within the domestic courts of the host state. Recognizing this, a constitutional amendment to Article 125 of the Turkish Constitution introduced an explicit provision allowing disputes arising from public service concession agreements to be resolved through national or international arbitration, provided that the dispute contains a foreign element. To implement this constitutional change and to eliminate legal uncertainties, Law No. 4501, enacted on 21.01.2000, sets out the procedural and substantive rules applicable when concession agreements provide for arbitration. It offers a more predictable and neutral dispute resolution mechanism, especially in cases involving foreign investment. As a result, international arbitration has increasingly been embraced as a reliable and impartial alternative to domestic litigation in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects.
1.1.2.3. Investment Arbitration
Investment arbitration is a key mechanism for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host states, and Türkiye has developed a legal and institutional framework that supports this mechanism. As a country that actively promotes foreign investment, Türkiye has adopted international investment arbitration standards and practices, incorporating them into its international treaty commitments. Türkiye's arbitration-friendly approach is reflected in its adherence to international conventions, as well as the significant number of investment treaties it has concluded with other states to protect foreign investors and promote cross-border investments.
1.1.2.3.1.Bilateral & Multilateral Investment Treaties (BITs and MITs)
Türkiye is a party to several MITs, most notably the ECT. In addition, Türkiye is a party to the Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments Among Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, in force since February 1988, which offers arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism for investors from OIC member states9. Accordingly, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Arbitration Centre was established in İstanbul, Türkiye, as a dedicated platform for resolving commercial and investment disputes. These treaties reflect Türkiye's engagement in broader international efforts to protect and regulate foreign investment, supported by effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
Beyond MITs, Türkiye has signed 140 BITs, of which 84 are currently in force10. These BITs typically include core investor protections such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), full protection and security, protection against direct and indirect expropriation, national treatment, and most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses. In this context, international arbitration practices in Türkiye generally uphold fundamental principles such as the protection of legitimate expectations and due process, reflecting a commitment to internationally recognized standards. The BIT network supports Türkiye's aim of providing a promising legal environment for foreign investors.
1.1.2.3.2. ICSID Arbitration
Türkiye is a party to the ICSID Convention, entered into force on 02.04.198911. As a member state, Türkiye accepts the jurisdiction of the ICSID for resolving disputes arising between foreign investors and the host state, provided that the conditions set out in the ICSID Convention and the applicable BITs or MITs are met.
In terms of ICSID statistics, there are 35 cases involving Turkish investors as claimants; six are still pending, while the remaining 29 have been concluded. Additionally, there are 17 cases in which the Republic of Türkiye or Turkish state-owned companies were named as respondents, with three cases still pending and the others concluded12.
In practice and in line with Türkiye's implementation of the ICSID Convention, the Turkish Court of Cassation has clarified13 that ICSID awards cannot be enforced directly through execution offices in Türkiye. Instead, enforcement must first be sought through a competent court designated by the state, as required by Article 54(2) of the ICSID Convention. Türkiye officially designated the competent courts as commercial courts or civil courts of first instance14.
The role of the competent court should be limited to verifying whether the ICSID award satisfies the procedural requirements set out in the ICSID Convention; it is not authorized to reassess the merits of the case. This is in line with Article 53 of the ICSID Convention, which states that no appeal or other legal remedy may be pursued against an ICSID award beyond the mechanisms expressly provided therein. Thus, ICSID awards are binding and enforceable in Türkiye, but only after a formal application to the competent domestic court.
1.2. MAIN PRINCIPLES
The main principles governing arbitration in Türkiye are derived from both the applicable statutory provisions and the case law developed by the Turkish Court of Cassation. While the scope of procedural principles are broader, including equality of arms, confidentiality, and party autonomy, this section focuses on the core principles consistently recognized and applied by Turkish courts.
1.2.1. ARBITR ABILITY
Disputes related to rights in rem arising from immovable properties located in Türkiye, and/or disputes that are not within the free disposal of the parties, are not arbitrable15. Accordingly, family law, administrative law (except for disputes arising from concessions contracts), criminal law, consumer disputes, bankruptcy proceedings, employment disputes, ex parte proceedings (such as recourse for certificate of inheritance, change of name etc.) are principally excluded from arbitration.
1.2.2.NO REVISION AU FOND
The principle of no revision au fond is recognized in Türkiye. Turkish courts do not conduct a substantive review of the merits of arbitral awards; their examination in annulment and enforcement proceedings is strictly limited to the grounds for annulment or enforcement as provided by law.
This approach reflects the parties' express intention to resolve disputes before arbitrators and underscores that appellate review of arbitral awards is excluded under Turkish law.
1.2.3. COMPETENCE-COMPETENCE
In Türkiye, arbitral tribunals are empowered to decide on their own jurisdiction, including any objections related to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement16. While the tribunal's jurisdictional decision may ultimately be challenged together with the final award through a setting aside application or in proceedings for recognition and enforcement, courts in Türkiye also respect the arbitration agreement when a party initiates proceedings despite its existence. In such cases, the party relying on the arbitration agreement may raise a preliminary arbitration plea before the national court. The court then conducts a limited review of the arbitration agreement's validity17. Unless the agreement is null, void, or unenforceable, the court must uphold the jurisdictional objection and dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Failure to raise a timely objection is deemed as acceptance of the court's jurisdiction.
1.2.4. SEPARABILITY
The principle of separability is recognized in Türkiye. An arbitration agreement may be concluded either as a separate contract or as an arbitration clause incorporated into the main contract. Regardless of how it is executed, the arbitration agreement is treated as independent from the main contract18. Pursuant to this principle, if a dispute arises concerning the invalidity of the main contract, the arbitration clause retains its autonomy, allowing recourse to arbitration to resolve the dispute.
1.2.5. EXTENSION TO THIRD PARTIES
The principle that arbitration agreements may extend to third parties is recognized in specific instances as established in Turkish jurisprudence, although such agreements primarily create rights and obligations between the contracting parties. Their effects may be extended to third parties where there is a clear intention to arbitrate.
The Turkish Court of Cassation has ruled that beneficiaries who are aware of their rights under a contract cannot be deemed to have implicitly consented to an arbitration clause contained therein. Due to the exceptional nature of arbitration, the intention to submit to arbitration must be expressed clearly and explicitly, or at least implied in a manner that leaves no room for doubt19.
Moreover, the principle of good faith may support extending arbitration rights to third parties in certain circumstances. For example, a person who behaves as if they are a party to the arbitration, despite not being formally involved, and thereby acts inconsistently with the prohibition against contradictory behavior, may be subject to such extension.
In the context of succession, such as the assignment of receivables, subrogation by an insurer, or the death or bankruptcy of a party, the rights associated with an arbitration clause can be transferred without requiring the successor's explicit consent. These rights are transferred in full, encompassing both substantive and procedural law rights. The Court of Cassation's decision indicates that this includes the right to pursue arbitration, supporting the conclusion that extension is possible20.
As a general rule, a successor can be considered to have consented to arbitration without additional approval. However, in proceedings under the IAL, a clear intention confirming the successor's willingness to arbitrate must be sought21. If one party loses capacity to be a party to the arbitration, the tribunal must suspend the proceedings and notify the relevant parties. If no response is received within six months, or if the notified parties do not clearly indicate their intention to continue, the arbitration proceedings shall be terminated.
To view the full article, click here.
Footnotes
1. Türkiye ratified the NYC on 02.07.1992.
2. Türkiye signed the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration on 21.04.1961 and ratified it on 24.01.1992.
3. Türkiye signed the ICSID Convention on 24.06.1987, ratified it on 03.03.1989, and ICSID Convention entered into force for Türkiye on 02.04.1989.
4. "Türkiye." International Investment Agreements – UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/ countries / 214 /t-rkiye (last visited 16.09.2025).5 Signed on 17.12.1994, ratified on 13.02.2001, deposited on 05.04.2001, and thereby bringing it into force for Türkiye on 04.07.2001. Energy Charter Secretariat. "Türkiye." Energy Charter, https://www.energycharter.org/who-we-are/members-observers/countries/tuerkiye/ (last visited 02.09.2025).
6. See Article 2 of the IAL.
7. See Article 15 / B of the IAL.
8. See Article 15 / A(2)(b) of the IAL.
10. R"Türkiye." International Investment Agreements – UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/ countries/214/t-rkiye (last visited 16.09.2025).1
1. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Member States. ICSID, https://icsid.worldbank.org/about/member-states. (last visited 02.09.2025).
12. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Database of ICSID Cases. ICSID, World Bank Group, https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/case-database. (last visited 05.09.2025)
13. Turkish Court of Cassation Decision, 12th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2021/875, Decision No: 2021/4586, Date: 28.4.2021
14. The competent authority notified by Türkiye to ICSID on 01.02.2017 is as follows: "The commercial court of first instance ("asliye ticaret mahkemesi") belonging to the subject place, as designated in the written agreement between the parties, and in case of absence of such agreement, the commercial court of first instance having the jurisdiction over the place of the losing party's domicile, if not, residence, or, in the absence of both, over the place of the subject property of the claim, or in places where a commercial court of first instance does not exist, the civil court of first instance ("asliye hukuk mahkemesi") of the subject place. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Turkey. ICSID, https://icsid.worldbank.org/about/ member-states/database-of-member-states/member-state-details?state=ST144 (last visited 01.09.2025).
15. See Article 1/4 of the IAL; Article 408 of the CCP.
16. See Article 7/h of the IAL; Article 422 of the CCP.
17. See Article 5 of the IAL; Article 413 of the CCP.
18. See Article 4/4 of the IAL; Article 412/4 of the CCP.
19. Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2014/9538, Decision No. 2015/8707, Date: 25.06.2015
20. Turkish Court of Cassation, 6th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2024/159, Decision No. 2025/1431, Date: 10.04.2025
21. See Article 11/B of the IAL.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
