Uluslararası Ticari Tahkimde Gizlilik Yükümlülüğü: Modern Dünyanın Hala Bu Konsepte İhtiyacı Var mı?

Günümüzde uluslararası ticari anlaşmazlıkların çözümünde tahkimin çok önemli bir rolü bulunmaktadır. Anılan önem, müessesenin olağan yargılamaya kıyasla sahip olduğu ayırt edici özelliklere dayanmakta olup, “gizlilik yükümlülüğü ” bahse konu özellikler arasında temel niteliği veya çekiciliği ile öne çıkmaktadır. Öte yandan tahkimde gizlilik talebinin her şartta kesin bir gizlilik sağlamadığı ve tahkim merkezlerinin benimsediği yaklaşıma göre gizlilik seviyesinin farklılaştığı da bilinmektedir. Bu durum ise gizlilik yükümlülüğü konseptinin geçerliliği ve modern dünyadaki yerinin sorgulanmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle gizlilik yükümlülüğü olası tanımlar, farklı yaklaşımlar ve mahremiyet ile karşılaştırma açısından incelenmiştir. Daha sonra, İngiliz yaklaşımı John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (“Emmott-MWP”) davası ve daha önceki dikkate değer davalar yardımıyla etraflıca izah edilmiştir. Ardından ilgili kararlar ve yasal düzenlemelere yer verilerek diğer farklı yaklaşımlar tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak, gizliliğe karşı ileri sürülen argümanlar ve çalışmanın önceki bölümlerindeki tespitler bağlamında uluslararası ticari tahkimdeki gizlilik yükümlülüğünün modern dünyadaki sürdürülebilirliği değerlendirilmiştir.

DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: DOES THE MODERN WORLD STILL NEED THIS CONCEPT?

In today’s world, arbitration plays a crucial role in resolving international commercial disputes. The aforementioned significance is based on the distinguishing features of the arbitration over ordinary court litigation, and the “duty of confidentiality” stands out among the mentioned features with its essential feature. On the other hand, it is also known that the request for confidentiality in arbitration does not provide absolute confidentiality under all circumstances and the level of confidentiality differs due to the approach adopted by the arbitration centers. This situation causes the validity of the concept of the duty of confidentiality and its place in the modern world to be questioned. In this study, firstly the duty of confidentiality was examined in terms of possible definitions, different approaches and comparing with the privacy. Then, the English approach was explicated with the help of remarkable former cases and the case of John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (“Emmott-MWP”), thoroughly. After that, the other different approaches were identified by analysing the related decisions and statutory regulations. Next, the arguments against confidentiality were scrutinised. Lastly, the sustainability of duty of confidentiality in international commercial arbitration in the modern world was discussed due to the sections of this article.

PDF

___

Primary Sources Cases
Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1999] 1 W.L.R. 314.
Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank Ltd v. A.I. Trade Finance Inc., NYH Juridiskt Arkiv [NJA] [Supreme Court] 2000 ref. T1881-99.
Dolling-Baker v Merrett and Another [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1205.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Honourable Sydney James Plowman [1995] 128 ALR 391.
Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Stuart J. Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.
John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] EWCA (Civ) 184.
Legislations
Arbitration Act, 17 June 1996
Singaporean Arbitration Act, 31 June 2002
Secondary Sources
Books
Moses M, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2008)
Noussia K, Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration a Comparative Analysis of the Position Under English, US, German and French Law (Springer-Verlag 2010)
Smeureanu I, Confidentiality In International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International BV 2011)
Journals
Baldwin C, ‘Protecting Confidential and Proprietary Commercial Information in International Arbitration’ [1996] 31 Tex. Int’l L. J. 451.
Brown A, ‘Presumption Meets Reality: An Exploration of The Confidentiality Obligation in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2001) 16 American University International Law Review 969.
Carmody M, ‘Overturning the Presumption of Confidentiality: Should the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency Be Applied to International Commercial Arbitration’ [2016] 19 Int’l Trade & Bus. L. Rev. 96
Cremades B, Cortes R, ‘The Principle of Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Necessary Crisis’ [2013] 23 J. Arb. Stud. 25.
Dundas H, ‘Confidentiality in English Arbitration: The Final Word? Emmott V Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd.’ [2008] 74(4) Arbitration 458.
Henkel C, ‘The Work-Product Doctrine as a Means Toward a Judicially Enforceable Duty of Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration’ [2012] 37 N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 1059.
Hwang MK Chung, ‘Defining the Indefinable: Practical Problems of Confidentiality in Arbitration’ [2009] 26 Journal of International Arbitration 609.
Poorooye A, Feehily R, ‘Confidentiality and Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration: Finding the Right Balance’ [2017] 22 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 275.
Reith C, ‘Enhancing Greater Transparency in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules - A Futile Attempt’ [2012] 2 Y.B. on Int’l Arb. 297.
Reuben R, ‘Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice’ [2000] 47 UCLA L. Rev. 949.
Ruscalla G, ‘Transparency in International Arbitration: Any (Concrete) Need to Codify the Standard?’ [2015] 3(1) GRONINGEN J. NT’L L. 1.
Tung S, Lin B, ‘More Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration: To Have or Not to Have’ [2018] 11 Contemp. Asia Arb. J. 21.
Weixia G, ‘Confidentiality Revisited: Blessing or Curse in International Commercial Arbitration?’ [2006] 15 American Review of International Arbitration 607.
Websites
‘Arbitration Act - Singapore Statutes Online’ (Sso.agc.gov.sg, 2002) accessed 5 January 2022
‘Arbitration Rules - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce’ (ICC - International Chamber of Commerce, 2017) accessed 3 January 2022
‘LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014)’ (Lcia.org, 2014) accessed 13 January 2022
‘UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules’ (Uncitral.org, 2019) accessed 5 February 2022k