Cemre Çise KADIOĞLU

5122

ÇEVRİMİÇİ UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜM YÖNTEMLERİ VE SINIR ÖTESİ İŞLETMEDEN TÜKETİCİYE ELEKTRONİK TİCARET UYUŞMAZLIKLARINDA ÇEVRİMİÇİ TAHKİMİN TÜRKİYE’DE UYGULANMASI

Tarafların başvurabilecekleri etkili hukuki yolun bulunmaması, işletmeden tüketiciye elektronik ticaretin gelişmesine engel olmaktadır. Çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözüm yolları tüketicilerin sınır ötesi elektronik ticarete olan güvenlerini artırarak daha güvenilir bir pazar oluşturmak adına seçenek sunmaktadır. Çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözüm yollarının benimsenmesi, dünyada en çok internet kullanıcısının olduğu ülkelerden biri olan Türkiye’nin daha çok işletme ve tüketiciyi çekmesini sağlayabilecektir. Diğer çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözüm yollarına kıyasla Türkiye’de çevrimiçi tahkimin uygulanması tahkim kanunlarının uluslararası standartlara uygun olması; diğer yöntemlerin benimsenmesini zorlaştıran kültürel ve teknolojik engellerin olması nedeniyle daha kolay olacaktır. Çevrimiçi tahkimin önünde de tahkime elverişlilik, tenfiz ve tahkim yerinin belirlenmesi gibi sorunlar bulunmaktadır. Bu sorunlar mahkemelerin kanunları tüketici yararına yorumlamaya çalışmalarından kaynaklanmaktadır. Çevrimiçi tahkim, tüketici yanlısı bir yöntem olduğundan Türk mahkemelerinin yorumlarını ve bakış açılarını değiştirmelerini gerektirmektedir. Bu uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemini teşvik etmek için tahkim kuruluşları kendi kuralları uyarınca çevrimiçi tahkimi destekleyebilirler. Sınır ötesinde bulunan tüketicilerin bu kurumlara erişimini artırmak için Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’nin sağladığı çevrimiçi uyuşmazlık çözüm platformuna katılımını sağlamak yönünde müzakerelerin ilerletilmesi gerekmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Çevrimiçi Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yöntemleri, Çevrimiçi Tahkim, İşletmeden Tüketiciye, Elektronik Ticaret, Sınır Ötesi

BRICKS AND CLICKS: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE ARBITRATION IN TURKEY FOR CROSS-BORDER BUSINESS TO CONSUMER E-COMMERCE DISPUTES

The lack of effective legal remedies builds barriers before business to consumer (hereinafter B2C) electronic commerce. In this regard, online dispute resolution (hereinafter ODR) mechanisms remedy this need through offering alternative ways to craft a more reliable market by increasing the confidence of consumers to enter into cross-border electronic commerce. With this feature, ODR mechanisms accord Turkey valuable opportunities to attract more businesses and consumers. Particularly, within the ambit of arbitration, online arbitration may be more easily implemented in Turkey because the current arbitration regulations of the country satisfy the necessity international standards that are sought for efficient and efficacious arbitration procedure. There are, of course, some challenges to online arbitration, such as arbitrability, enforceability, and determining a lex arbitri. These issues mainly arise out of courts’ efforts to interpret laws in a way most favorable to consumers. As an initial step to promote online arbitration, arbitral institutions may incentivize this mechanism via their rules. Further, to broaden the scope of Turkish institutions’ availability to cross-border users, negotiations for Turkey’s accession to ODR platform provided within the European Union should be furthered.
Keywords:

Online Dispute Resolution, Online Arbitration, Business to Consumer, Electronic Commerce, Cross-Border,

PDF

___

  • Albornoz, Maria Mercedes, and Martin, Nuria González. “Feasibility Analysis of Online Dispute Resolution in Developing Countries.” University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 44, no. 1 (2012): 39-61.
  • Asia-Pasific Economic Cooperation Economic Committee Project in Implementation, Workshop for Developing a Collaborative Framework for Online Dispute Resolution, EC 05 2018A, 2018.
  • Belohlavek, Alexander J. “Importance of Seat of Arbitration in International Arbitration: Delocalization and Denationalization of Arbitration as an Outdated Myth.” ASA Bulletin 31, no. 2 (2013): 262-292.
  • Benyekhlef, Karim. “Online Dispute Resolution.” Lex Electronica 10, no. 2 (2005), 1-129.
  • Cortés, Pablo. Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers, in Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. Mohammed Salahudine Abdel Wahab et al. eds. Eleven International Publishing, 2012.
  • Dasdeel, Jeffrey H. “Consumer Click Arbitration, A Review of Online Consumer Arbitration Agreements.” Arbitration Law Review 9 (2017): 1-19.
  • De Boisséson, Matthieu, and Thomas Clay. “Recent Developments in Arbitration in Civil Law Countries.” International Arbitration Law Review 1 (1998): 150.
  • E-Commerce Mediation Committee. Accessed November 3, 2018. https://www.ecmc.or.kr/ecmceng/subIndex/228.do.
  • European Commission. “Online Dispute Resolution.” Accessed November 11, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home2.show.
  • Goodman, Joseph W. “The Pros and Cons of Online Dispute Resolution: An Assessment of Cyber-Mediation Websites.” Duke Law and Technology Review 4 (2003): 1-16.
  • Haloush, Haitham A. “The Authenticity of Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceedings.” Journal of International Arbitration 25, no. 3 (2008): 355-364.
  • Haydock, R.S, and Henderson Jennifer D. “Arbitration and Civil Justice: An American Historical Review and Proposal for a Private/Arbitral and Public/Judicial Partnership.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 2, no. 2 (2002): 141-198.
  • Heiskanen, Veijo. “Dispute Resolution in International Electronic Commerce.” Journal of International Arbitration 16, no. 3 (1999): 29-44.
  • Hill, Jonathan. Cross-Border Consumer Contracts, Oxford Private International Law Series, 2008.
  • Yu, Hong-Lin, and Motassem Nasir. “Can Online Arbitration Exist Within the Traditional Arbitration Framework?” Journal of International Arbitration 20, no. 5 (2003): 455-473.
  • Kacker, Ujjwal, and Saluja Taran. “Online Arbitration For Resolving E- Commerce Disputes: Gateway To The Future.” Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 3, no.1 (2014): 31-44.
  • Katsh, Ethan, and Janet Rifkin. Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2001.
  • Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, and Thomas Schultz. Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004.
  • Kurtulan, Gokce. “Turk Hukukunda Tuketici Uyusmazliklarinin Tahkime Elverisliligi [Arbitrability of Consumer Disputes under Turkish Law].” Turkiye Barolar Birligi Dergisi 131 (2017): 239-260.
  • Lavi, Dafna. “Three Is Not a Crowd: Online Mediation-Arbitration in Business to Consumer Internet Disputes.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 37, no. 3 (2016): 871-941.
  • Lugo, Gustavo Alcocer, and Abraham Diaz Arceo. “Digital Business in Mexico: Overview.” Thomson Reuters Practical Law. Accessed November 3, 2018. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-012-0309?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1.
  • Organization of American States. “Draft Electronic Resolution of Cross-Border E-Commerce Consumer Disputes.” Accessed November 3, 2018. http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/CIDIPVII_proteccion_al_consumidor_united_states_guia_legislativa_anexo_A.pdf.
  • Rainey, Daniel. ODR and Culture, in Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution, eds., Mohammed Salahudine Abdel Wahab et al. eds. Eleven International Publishing, 2012.
  • Rule, Colin, Vikki Rogers, and Louis Del. Duca “Designing Global Consumer Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) System for Cross-Border Small Value-High Volume Claims – OAS Developments.” Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal 42 (2010): 221-264.
  • Russian Arbitration Association (RAA). Accessed November 3, 2018. https://arbitration.ru/en/.
  • Salter, Shannon. “Online Dispute Resolution and Justice System Integration: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 34 (2017): 112-129.
  • Schellekens, Maurice. “Online Arbitration and E-commerce.” Electronic Communication Law Review 9 (2002): 113-125.
  • Sela, Ayelet. “Can Computers Be Fair: How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 33, no. 1 (2018): 91-148.
  • Internet World Stats. “Usage and Population Statistics.” Accessed December 11, 2018. https://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm.
  • Vahrenwald, Arnold. “Joint Research Centre of the EC Report on Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement Systems for E-Commerce.” Report on Legal Issues: Part IV—Arbitration. Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement Systems for E-Commerce. Italy, 2000. accessed November 11, 2018. https://tbplaw.com/data/part4.pdf.
  • Wahab, Mohamad Salahudine Abdel. “The Global Information Society and Online Dispute Resolution: A New Dawn for Dispute Resolution.” Journal of International Arbitration 21, no. 2 (2004): 143-168.
  • Wahab, Mohammed Salahudine Abdel. ODR and E-arbitration, in Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. eds., Mohammed Salahudine Abdel Wahab et al. Eleven International Publishing, 2012.
  • Yesilova, Bilgehan. “6502 sayılı Yeni Tuketicinin Korunmasi Hakkinda Kanun’a Gore Tuketici Uyusmazliklarinin Çozumu Usulu ve Yargilama Kurallari [Resolution Procedure and Rules for Consumer Disputes under the Code of Protection of Consumer numbered 6502].” Terazi Hukuk Dergisi 9 (2014): 107-148.
  • Yuthayotin, Suatip. Access to Justice in Transnational B2C E-Commerce: A Multidimensional Analysis of Consumer Protection Mechanisms. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2019
  • Yayıncı: ASBÜ HUKUK FAKÜLTESİ DEKANLIĞI
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

ÇEVRİMİÇİ UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜM YÖNTEMLERİ VE SINIR ÖTESİ İŞLETMEDEN TÜKETİCİYE ELEKTRONİK TİCARET UYUŞMAZLIKLARINDA ÇEVRİMİÇİ TAHKİMİN TÜRKİYE’DE UYGULANMASI

Cemre Çise KADIOĞLU

MARKANIN ALAN ADI OLARAK KULLANILMASI: TÜRKİYE, ABD VE AVUSTRALYA ÖRNEKLERİ

Merve Ayşegül KULULAR İBRAHİM

TÜRK CEZA MUHAKEMESİ HUKUKUNDA İLETİŞİMİN DENETLENMESİ TEDBİRİ - AİHS 8. MADDESİ IŞIĞINDA

Çiler Damla BAYRAKTAR

BİLİŞİM SUÇLARINDA IP TESPİTİ İLE EKRAN GÖRÜNTÜLERİ ÇIKTILARININ İSPAT DEĞERİ

Doğan Gedik