Introduction

International commercial transactions, especially when conducted between parties subject to different legal systems, often lead to complex and prolonged dispute resolution processes. As a result, parties increasingly prefer arbitration over traditional litigation. Arbitration offers a more flexible, swift, and predictable form of adjudication through a panel of neutral and expert arbitrators.

At this point, the New York Convention provides a unified legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. Adopted under the auspices of the United Nations on June 10, 1958, and entering into force on June 7, 1959, the Convention is formally known as the “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.” With over 170 contracting states, it stands as the most comprehensive and effective instrument in international arbitration law.

1. Scope of the Convention and Turkey’s Accession

Turkey acceded to the New York Convention in 1991, declaring two reservations: the reciprocity reservation and the commercial reservation. Accordingly:

  • Turkey recognizes and enforces only arbitral awards made in the territory of other contracting states.
  • Only arbitral awards arising from disputes considered commercial under Turkish law fall within the scope of the Convention.

Despite these reservations, the Convention is interpreted broadly in Turkey. Turkish courts apply the Convention with a pro-arbitration approach, avoiding restrictive interpretations when enforcing arbitral awards. In the absence of a clear violation of public policy, international arbitral awards are generally enforceable by Turkish courts.

Evaluation from Turkey’s Perspective

Turkey ratified the New York Convention on September 30, 1991, subject to two significant declarations:

  • Reciprocity Reservation: Only awards rendered in states that are parties to the Convention are recognized and enforced.
  • Commercial Reservation: The Convention applies solely to disputes of a commercial nature.

Nonetheless, Turkish judicial authorities adopt a liberal and arbitration-friendly interpretation. Courts refrain from restrictive approaches and generally uphold the enforceability of arbitral awards unless they manifestly contravene public policy. Most foreign arbitral awards presented under the Convention are recognized and enforced by Turkish courts.

2. Arbitral Institutions and Scope of Application

The New York Convention applies not only to ad hoc arbitral awards rendered by individual arbitrators but also to awards issued by institutional arbitrations. These include international and national arbitral bodies such as:

  • ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)
  • LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration)
  • ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)
  • SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre)
  • HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)
  • SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)
  • ISTAC (Istanbul Arbitration Centre)

These institutions operate globally with recognized expert panels and conduct arbitrations tailored to various industrial sectors. Arbitral awards rendered by these institutions are directly recognizable and enforceable in Convention member states, provided certain conditions are met.

For instance:

  • An arbitral award rendered by the ICC in Paris may be enforced in Turkey through a recognition and enforcement action filed before the Civil Courts of First Instance under the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law.
  • Awards rendered by ISTAC in Turkey are treated as domestic arbitral awards. However, if one party is foreign and the award is to be enforced abroad, such awards may also be recognized under the New York Convention.
  • ICSID arbitration, often used in investor-state disputes, is governed by the ICSID Convention (Washington Convention, 1965), yet operates in parallel with the New York Convention and provides a strong international safeguard for investors.

Arbitral institutions are preferred not only for the enforceability of their awards but also for their structural advantages—neutrality, speed, confidentiality, and expertise. In fields such as international trade, energy, construction, mergers and acquisitions, and finance, arbitral decisions contribute significantly to global legal certainty.

3. Enforcement Procedure of Arbitral Awards

In Turkey, enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is governed by Articles 60–63 of the International Private and Procedural Law (IPPL, Law No. 5718). The enforcement procedure includes:

  • Competent Court: The application must be filed with the Civil Court of First Instance where the award is to be enforced.
  • Required Documents:
    • The original or certified copy of the arbitral award
    • The original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement
    • Certified translations by a sworn translator
  • Court Review: The court will assess whether the award violates Turkish public policy, whether the arbitration clause is valid, and whether the right to a fair hearing was upheld. The court does not review the merits of the case.

Judicial Practice Examples:

  • Adana Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 21.04.2025, No. 2022/674 E., 2025/747 K.: “No violation of public policy was found. The respondent’s objections related to merits and party identity are inadmissible in an enforcement proceeding. The prohibition against revision au fond applies. Thus, objections on the merits were rightly dismissed.”
  • Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 23rd Civil Chamber, Decision dated 28.01.2025, No. 2024/1898 E., 2025/65 K.: “Given that both the Russian Federation and Turkey are parties to the Convention, the reciprocity condition is deemed satisfied. Therefore, refusal based on lack of reciprocity was found to be incorrect.”
  • Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, Decision dated 07.11.2024, No. 2023/6475 E., 2024/7846 K.: “The parties’ email correspondence showed that the respondent was aware of the arbitration. The arbitral clause was not contested during the proceedings. Written communication was sufficient to constitute an arbitration agreement under the Convention. Raising objections during enforcement is against the principle of good faith.”

Once enforcement is granted, the arbitral award has the same effect as a Turkish court judgment and may be enforced through compulsory execution.

4. Grounds for Refusal of Enforcement

Under Article V of the New York Convention and Article 62 of IPPL, enforcement may be refused if:

  • The arbitration agreement is invalid
  • One party was not duly notified of the proceedings
  • The arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority
  • The award is not binding under the law of the originating country
  • The award is contrary to Turkish public policy

Public policy remains the most frequently cited ground for refusal. For instance, an arbitral award resulting in a violation of Turkish criminal or tax law may not be enforceable.

5. Practical Importance and Impact on International Trade

One of the New York Convention’s most significant contributions is enabling the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in over 170 jurisdictions. This facilitates reliable and efficient dispute resolution across diverse legal systems, promoting international commerce.

Key advantages of arbitration under the Convention include:

  • Cross-border enforceability of awards
  • Neutral, independent tribunals
  • An adjudicative process independent of state courts

These factors make the Convention a vital legal instrument for securing global legal certainty in major commercial contracts.

From Turkey’s perspective, the Convention’s practical benefits have been significantly incorporated into domestic law. Turkish courts have developed a consistent and pro-arbitration jurisprudence, recognizing arbitral awards that meet formal requirements and do not violate public policy. This establishes Turkey both as a reliable venue for arbitration and as a jurisdiction offering legal predictability for enforcement.

Conclusion

The judicial precedents analyzed above demonstrate Turkey’s consistent alignment with the New York Convention in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Turkish courts do not review the merits of the award but only assess procedural validity and public policy compliance. Public policy exceptions are interpreted narrowly and applied only in cases of clear and substantial violations.

Another notable feature is the courts’ flexible and arbitration-friendly approach toward the validity of arbitration agreements. Elements such as party correspondence or actual participation in proceedings are deemed sufficient to uphold arbitration clauses, thereby reinforcing contractual freedom and legal certainty.

In sum, Turkish courts effectively apply both domestic legislation and international conventions regarding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, providing a predictable and stable legal framework for investors and commercial parties. Thus, Turkey continues to maintain a robust and arbitration-friendly judiciary, aligning with international standards under the New York Convention. These rulings reaffirm Turkey’s supportive stance on arbitration in international commerce.