INTRODUCTION
At present, there are wide range of well-developed dispute resolution mechanisms to settle disputes stemming from relationships/transactions between two or among more parties[1]. If a dispute arises between two parties belonging to the same country, these are entitled to submit their dispute to the local courts established by the law in that country. For a good while, litigation is deemed as the most common and well-established dispute resolution mechanism applied by the citizens of a country for the resolution of their disputes with fellow citizens[2]. Nonetheless, it is crucial to bear in mind that, applying local courts shall not usually be deemed as the best possible option, if the dispute in question includes foreign elements such as workplace, nationality etc.
Considering the aforesaid explanations, one might quite possibly recommend for parties of a dispute to consider applying alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (hereinafter referred to as “ADR”) which suits best for their dispute at stake. Instead of adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms such as litigation or arbitration, main purpose of the ADR mechanism is to preserve the flexibility of the dispute resolution process and provide considerably more amicable settlement forum to maintain good and long-lasting relationship between the parties of a dispute[3].
Application of the ADR mechanisms are mainly based on contractual agreement between parties. This situation is termed as party autonomy. However, under specific circumstances, parties’ autonomy is limited, thus, parties cannot directly apply their desired dispute resolution mechanism. In these cases, parties of the dispute should apply and exhaust the dispute resolution mechanism which is determined by relevant law or regulation on their behalf and then they can apply their desired dispute resolution mechanism to settle their dispute at stake.
As an additional note, the legal frame of ADR mechanisms for the disputes within European Union (hereinafter referred to as “EU”) is settled by: European Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes; European Commission Recommendation 2010/310/E.C. of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes; Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008[4] on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters[5].
Before opting into the definition of ADR, it is significant to indicate the author’s approach regarding the classification of arbitration. Arbitration should be deemed as an integral part of ADR or considered as an independent dispute resolution mechanism? As of the beginning, there is an ever-increasing debate among practitioners and academicians as to whether arbitration should be deemed as an ADR mechanism or not. Even though there are distinctive approaches and explanations regarding the classification of arbitration, the author firmly believes that arbitration should be deemed as a separate dispute resolution mechanism[6].
- WHAT IS THE NOTION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- DEFINITION
There are distinctive definitions available for ADR[7]. However, European Commission (hereinafter referred to as “EC”) indicates a crystal-clear definition regarding to the ADR in its Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law (hereinafter referred to as “Green Paper 2002”):
“ADRs are flexible, that is, in principle the parties are free to have recourse to ADRs, to decide which organisation or person will be in charge of the proceedings, to determine the procedure that will be followed, to decide whether to take part in the proceedings in person or to be represented and, finally, to decide on the outcome of the proceedings[8].”
Considering all of the foregoing explanations and main features of ADR mechanisms, one might indicate main features for all ADR mechanisms, among others, (i) always less formal than that of adversarial dispute resolution mechanisms; (ii) provide a quick, relatively less expensive alternative to litigation; (iii) promote negotiated settlement (main purpose is to reach win- win resolution) rather than adjudicative decision; (iv) strictly confidential compared to litigation; (v) has flexible nature so that can be adapted on a case-by-case basis, because ADR processes shall not be subjected to the strict procedural rules and red tapes; (vi) typically provided by private practitioners for a fee, rather than by judges and lawyers[9].
It appears to that each ADR mechanism includes unique features, thus, differentiated from each other. Main differences among ADR mechanisms are mainly based on the (i) formality levels, (ii) presence of lawyers and other parties, (iii) participation level of the third party (it may vary, for instance, in mediation and conciliation participation level of the third party is different) and (iv) the legal status of any agreement reached[10].
- ADVANTAGES OF ADR
ADR mechanisms offer significant benefits for its users. However, it is significant to bear in mind that, each case has its own characteristics, thus, professional consideration is required while determining the appropriate ADR mechanism for the dispute in question. Whether potential advantages are achieved will depend on the type of ADR selected and how the case is pursued[11]. In order to understand main reasons why parties add or refrain to add ADR mechanisms into their agreements by exercising their autonomy (party autonomy), it is important to examine advantages and disadvantages of ADR mechanisms before explaining the notion of party autonomy and its usage while opting into a contractual agreement. The potential benefits are enumerated hereinbelow:
- Efficiency on Time and Cost
Even though there are still numerous debates as to whether ADR mechanism are efficient on time and cost when compared to adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms such as litigation or arbitration. If the case in hand is resolved at the outset (before costs build up) by means of an inexpensive ADR mechanism such as negotiation, parties of the dispute reached a resolution without spending lots of money and time. However, this potential advantage will decrease if ADR is not attempted until a relatively late stage (as cost will already have accumulated)[12]. Efficiency of ADR mechanisms with respect to cost and time affords an opportunity for lower income party to access justice.
- Control of Process
Court case is essentially under the control of the local judge and judge should abide strict procedural rules designated in the relevant procedural regulations of the country in which the dispute is submitted. On the other hand, ADR mechanisms are mainly based on party autonomy. Party autonomy provides greater control to parties with respect to process of settlement. For example, in mediation the parties may decide how to resolve their dispute. This may include remedies not available in litigation (e.g. a change in the policy or practice of a business)[13].
- Choice of Forum
Even though the fact that local courts are differentiated for their expertise (such as commercial court, consumer court, execution court, labour court, criminal court etc.), there are still considerable number of procedural rules regarding the case management also appointment of the judge. It is not possible for the parties to amend procedural process of the courts and appoint the judge. Local courts operate in accordance with the procedural laws of the country and judges are randomly appointed to case. However, in a process such as mediation the parties are entitled to determine who should operate as a mediator by taking such persons’ expertise and experience into account.
- Wider Range of Issues to be Considered
Sometimes it is not possible for the parties to submit their case to local courts because local rules and regulations do not foresee any outcome for their dispute, or sometimes the relevant provisions are too complex and unclear to follow. In this scenario, it might be less meaningful for the parties to litigate while ADR mechanisms may provide a more practical alternative[14].
- Wider Range of Potential Outcomes
Even though each country stipulates its own procedural rules in their own laws and regulations, it might be possible to generalize that each procedural law foresees some sort of provisions that may prevent parties to file a lawsuit regarding their dispute in question. Furthermore, both in common law and civil law type of compensations to be rendered is very limited. Indeed, in common law countries, juries may award punitive damages and a wide range of compensatory damages such as for pain and suffering. In civil law systems damages are much more limited, normally excluding punitive damages and very significantly restricting noneconomic compensatory damages[15]. On the other hand, for instance, negotiation and mediation can result in any terms that suit the parties, and can be particularly useful to regulate a future relationship[16].
- Flexibility regarding Evidence
It is important to bear in mind that the admissibility of evidence in proceedings before a local court is governed by the law of evidence of the country in which local courts are located, and those rules may impose constraints on what can be admitted by courts. Therefore, parties usually face one of the most significant problems stemming from the question of what should be deemed as an admissible evidence before the local court.
Furthermore, almost in all country’s civil procedure rules contains restricted admissibility of evidence, thus, parties sometimes face distinctive sorts of problems while submitting their case to the court. On the other hand, an ADR process will normally be much more flexible as regards the use of information of evidence- indeed in negotiation and mediation it is essentially for each party to decide what to reveal[17].
- Confidentiality
Although each jurisdiction stipulates distinctive rules with respect to the confidentiality of court proceedings, these proceedings are usually open to public and media. Unlike the court system where everything is on the public record, ADR can remain confidential. This can be particularly useful, for example, for disputes over intellectual property which may demand confidentiality[18].
- Win- Win Nature of ADR Mechanisms
On the contrary of adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms, ADR mechanisms are non-adversarial. For companies to establish long- lasting commercial relationship, it is very important to solve dispute amicably and produce win- win outcome[19].
- Expert Review
The clear majority of ADR mechanisms afford an opportunity for disputants to apply an expert instead of an ordinary court judge who does not have any specific knowledge with regard to the dispute at stake[20].
- DISADVANTAGES OF ADR
Despite the numerous advantages of ADR mechanisms, these mechanisms also have considerable disadvantages. It is important for the parties to bear in mind that, the prospective disadvantages will not apply to every case and it is quite possible for the parties to avoid those disadvantages by evaluating each ADR mechanism and choose the one which suits best for their dispute. Even though parties may avoid from the disadvantages of using ADR mechanism, one might enumerate those disadvantages as:
- Increased Expense and Additional Delay
If parties are unable to reach a satisfactory outcome by using ADR mechanisms, they should apply adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration or litigation. Therefore, applied ADR mechanism causes significant delay for reaching a binding and compulsory outcome and increase volume of expenses.
- Disclosure of Information
Parties are usually not willing to expose all aspects of their case to other party. Therefore, ADR may not be effective if it is conducted before the parties of the dispute have adequate information and knowledge regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases.
- PARTY AUTONOMY IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- DEFINITION OF PARTY AUTONOMY
Upon the recent developments and in line with the party’s demands a new dispute resolution method was arisen to provide parties much more effective and flexible process compared to litigation while settling disputes. These methods are called as ADR mechanisms. Considering the surveys conducted by School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary College University of London together with PricewaterhouseCoopers or White & Case Law Firm and indicated important issues, among others, applying arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism for international commercial and non-commercial disputes. When the results of surveys conducted in 2006 and 2015 are taken into consideration, it is vital to indicate that in the year of 2006[21], 73% of participants determined international arbitration as their first choice of dispute resolution mechanism for their disputes- either on a standalone basis (29%), or in combination with ADR mechanisms as part of a multi-tiered, or escalating, dispute resolution process (44%). On the other hand, according to the survey conducted in 2015, the usage of arbitration has experienced a magnificent increase and reached its peak at 90 %[22] (on a standalone basis (56%), or in combination with ADR mechanisms as part of a multi-tiered, or escalating, dispute resolution process (34%)). Considering aforesaid survey numbers, as a recent trend, parties prefer to add ADR mechanisms or arbitration into their contractual agreements as a dispute resolution mechanism. At this point, the notion of party autonomy[23] comes into play and allows parties of a dispute to determine how they settle disputes stemming from their contractual agreement. Aforesaid surveys explicitly demonstrate that, while drafting a contractual agreement, parties of a dispute generally use their autonomy to choose one of the ADR mechanisms as their dispute resolution mechanism.
After aforesaid explanations regarding the party autonomy’s impact on choosing ADR mechanisms or arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism for contractual disputes, it would be better to move one step forward and indicate explicit definition of “party autonomy”. Despite the lack of commonly accepted definition with respect to party autonomy, one might define party autonomy as;
Party autonomy is the guiding principle in determining the procedure to be followed while settling the dispute stemming from parties’ contractual agreement. It is a principle that has been endorsed not only in national laws, but by relevant international institutions and organizations[24].
Party autonomy has been subjected to significant developments during the last decades. One of the most important example shows itself in Uniform Commercial Code. The Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter referred to as “UCC”) begins with a statement of respect for party autonomy, followed by limitations. The original UCC of 1956 contained section 1-105, which provided: When a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation, parties may agree that the law of either this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties. Failing such agreement, this Act applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state[25].
As a final note, it appears to be that in the ADR process party consent is crucial, for instance, in mediation and arbitration dispute resolution process will initiate in accordance with party’s intentions. In principle, applying ADR requires party’s explicit consent (party autonomy), otherwise, it is not possible for parties to pursue any of the ADR mechanisms or arbitration (mandatory application of ADR or arbitration is exempted). Party autonomy has a vital role for each dispute resolution mechanism, for instance, in arbitration parties are entitled to determine the place of arbitration, number and identity of arbitrators, procedural rules, governing law etc. Parties will draft dispute resolution clauses in their contractual agreement by solely using their party autonomy. However, as further explained hereinbelow, under some circumstances, one party or all parties of the transaction or contract deprive from their party autonomy as a result of mandatory local rules and regulations.
- PARTY AUTONOMY WHILE DETERMINING APPLICABLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
Considering the foregoing explanations, it is certain that party autonomy is main principle in ADR mechanisms, however, under some circumstances in some jurisdictions there can be some exceptions and parties of a dispute are obliged to exhaust some ADR mechanisms before applying the local court. In this scenario, party autonomy is restricted, and parties should follow the mandatory proceedings designated in the relevant law and regulation.
As a natural consequence of these exceptions prevent disputing parties to apply local court before exhausting mandatory ADR mechanism or arbitration, volume of the usage of ADR mechanisms and arbitration dramatically increased day after day. By doing so, governments try to achieve specific goals such as (i) reducing the work load of judges serves in local courts[26]; (ii) reducing the cost burden over the disputants’ shoulder. However, one should always bear in mind that there is always possibility of disagreement during ADR process and this situation may cause more money and time loss for parties of a dispute.
Considering the aforesaid explanations, it appears to be that ADR mechanisms are mainly based on party autonomy. Parties are usually entitled to determine as to whether they add ADR mechanism into their contractual agreement as a dispute resolution mechanism or apply arbitration or litigation instead. This freedom is termed as party autonomy. However, under specific circumstances, relevant laws and regulations, which parties of the dispute are subjected to, oblige parties of the dispute to follow and exhaust specific dispute resolution mechanism prior to apply desired one. These specific circumstances usually deemed as a restriction for party autonomy. For instance, in accordance with the brand-new provision of Turkish Labour Law No.4857, parties (employer(s) and employee(s)) of an employment dispute regarding employment receivables stemming from employment relationship (such as overtime payment, annual leave, severance payment etc.) are obliged to apply mediation and exhaust said process prior to apply desired dispute resolution mechanism. Main reason of the said amendment is to decrease volume of the dockets in Labour Courts. Prior to the said amendment parties of an employment dispute has complete autonomy over the resolution process of their dispute and can directly apply local courts. Even long time before the adoption of the said amendment, there are numerous debates among practitioners and academicians as to whether such limitation over party autonomy is beneficial or not. The mainstay of the academicians and practitioners, who do not support limitation of the party autonomy, based on the idea that this obligatory mediation process may cause a considerable delay for parties especially for employee who is weak and needs immediate resolution regarding his/her employment receivables. Because delayed reimbursement usually remains inadequate for healing the wounds of the injured party. On the other hand, opposing party indicates that mediation shall allow parties to reach an outcome faster than any other dispute resolution mechanism. When the author takes each mainstay of the parties and our experience into consideration, the author firmly believes that limitation of the party autonomy regarding dispute stemming from employment receivables has more drawbacks than that of its benefits.
Another example of the limitation of party autonomy under Turkish Law would be planned to be realized on dispute resolution mechanism of government tandems. In accordance with the planned amendment, Istanbul Arbitration Centre (hereinafter referred to as “ISTAC”) shall be deemed as one and only dispute resolution mechanism for disputes stemming from the government tandems. In that case, parties of the government tandem (one party is usually Turkish Government or its relevant institution another party is private company) are obliged to apply ISTAC for their disputes stemming from the said government tandem. The main idea of this amendment is to increase application and reputation of ISTAC (Turkey’s brand-new arbitration institution). The author firmly believes that, if the relevant body accepts this prospective amendment, it may increase the reputation and application of ISTAC, but it also decreases party autonomy and may refrain parties right to reach decision by using ADR mechanisms which are usually less expensive (if the dispute resolved in short time as of the beginning of ADR) than that of ISTAC arbitration.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article was to examine (i) ADR mechanisms (definition, background and advantages/disadvantages of ADR mechanisms), (ii) the notion of party autonomy (definition and background) and (iii) application and restrictions of party autonomy while determining applicable dispute resolution mechanism for contractual agreement between parties.
At the introduction chapter of this paper the author mainly focused on the theoretical approaches and general information as to the ADR mechanisms and party autonomy in contractual agreements.
The first chapter dealt with the notion of the ADR mechanism. In that chapter, the author mainly explained the definition and background of the ADR mechanisms. While doing so, the author also gave detailed information with respect to prospective pros and cons of ADR mechanism. In order to prepare readers for the upcoming chapters and arrange a smooth transition to party autonomy, ADR mechanisms were examined in detail.
The second chapter mainly dealt with party autonomy on contractual agreement with respect to determination of the applicable dispute resolution mechanism. At the outset, the author explained main features of party autonomy and then passed on the application of party autonomy while determining applicable dispute resolution mechanism for disputes stemming from the performance of the contract.
At present, as a nature of globalization, real or legal entities prefer to opt into an agreement for each transaction. Therefore, number and variety of disputes stemming from these agreements increase dramatically. High volume and variety of disputes encourages parties to reveal and apply new dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation or negotiation. Almost every agreement includes a provision which is termed as “Governing Law” and indicates the determined way of resolving disputes. Normally, parties of an agreement or transaction have complete discretion while determining applicable dispute resolution mechanism. However, sometimes under some jurisdictions, parties’ autonomy is restricted, thus, parties should first apply designated dispute resolution mechanism. The main idea of enacting these kind of provisions is to decrease docket numbers at local courts and increase the application of ADR mechanism. However, it is important to indicate that determining dispute resolution mechanism on parties’ behalf is simply called as two-edged sword. It might be beneficial, if parties are willing to settle their dispute via using these ADR mechanisms, or it might only cause more time and money loss for the disputants. The author firmly believes that governments or authorised bodies/institutions should not impose any dispute resolution mechanism for parties. Instead of imposing any dispute resolution mechanism, they may hold conferences so as to explain ADR mechanisms or arbitration and increase awareness of parties. Thus, parties’ awareness shall automatically increase and they become adequately competent to determine which dispute resolution mechanism might suit best for their dispute at stake.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES
İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu 2017
BOOKS
Cemal Şanlı, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (Fifth Edition, Beta, 2013)
Gülgün Ildır, Alternatif uyuşmazlık çözümü: Medeni Yargıya Alternatif Yöntemler (Seçkin, 2003)
Howard M. Rebach, Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2001)
Karl J. T. Wach and Frank Meckes, Tactics in M&A Arbitration (German Law Publishers, 2008)
Kerim Bölten, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Merger and Acquisition Transactions (Legal Kitapevi, 2016)
Mustafa Serdar Özbek, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin, 2009)
Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016)
Thomas D. Cavenagh and Lucille M. Ponte, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business, (Ohio: West Educational Publications,1999)
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Jay E. Grenig, ‘Evolution of The Role Of Alternative Dispute Resolution In Resolving Employment Disputes’ (2016), Dispute Resolution Journal. Vol. 71 Issue 2
Roxana Elena Topor and Ana-Maria Bejan, ‘Alternative Methods to Resolve Civil and Commercial Disputes’ (2017), Journal of Academic Research in Economics. Mar2017, Vol. 9 Issue 1
ONLINE JOURNALS
Carrie Menkel Meadow, ‘Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)’ (2015) < https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=799026031026005019085012093076100111109036021082090052093115017070026008097116111025049022043006054025039123127000102069066000005043060008021009078089089081025090103069038083104104084118121074075097115127107121025092096102112099098096094108082121072024&EXT=pdf
Elena Nosyreva, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in United States and Russia: A Comparative Evaluation’ (2001), Vol 7 Issue 1 < https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=annlsurvey>
International Finance Corporation, ‘World Bank Group and the World Bank, Alternative Dispute Resolution Guidelines’ (2011) < http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/15322_ADRG_Web.pdf>
J. Coben, ‘Gollum, Meet Smeagol: A Schizophrenic Rumination on Mediator Values Beyond Self Determination and Neutrality’, (2004) Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 5 < http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=facsch >
Melissa Lewis and McCrimmon Les, The Role of ADR Processes in the Criminal Justice System: A view from Australia (2005) < http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/2005uganda/ent_s3_mccrimmon.pdf >
Michael Pryles, ‘Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure’ < http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/4/48108242525153/media012223895489410limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf>
Sarah Rudolph Cole, ‘Managerial Litigants? The Overlooked Problem of Party Autonomy in Dispute Resolution’ 51 Hastings L.J. 1199 (2000) < http://0-heinonline.org.wam.city.ac.uk/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/hastlj51&page=1199&collection=journals >
Vinod Agarwal, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods’ (2010) < http://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/725/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-and-Sub-Saharan-Africa.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y >
Yona Shamir and Ran Kutner, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Approaches and Their Application’ (Unesco, IHP, WWAP, IHP-VI, Technical Documents in Hydrology No 7, 2003) < http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001332/133287e.pdf>
LAW COMMISSION REPORTS
European Commission, Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law
Law Reform Commission, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation, (LRC 98- 2010)
Victorian Law Reform Commission, Civil Justice Review Report, “Improving Alternative Dispute Resolution
Victorian Law Report Commission, Civil Justice Review Report (2002)
WEBSITES
D. Becker, ‘The controversy over mediator neutrality: input from New Zealand mediators’ (2013) < https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/4488/BeckerDaniel2013LLM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y >
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Certain Aspects of Mediation In Civil And Commercial Matters < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0052&from=EN >
Gerry Lagerberg and Loukas Mistelis, ‘Queen Mary University of London School of International Arbitration & PricewaterhouseCoopers, Corporate Attitudes and Practices’ (2006) < http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/123295.pdf. >
Gönenç Gürkaynak and Can Güler, ‘Mandatory Mediation Under Turkish Labor Law’ (2017), <http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/564882/employment+litigation+tribunals/Mandatory+Mediation+Under+Turkish+Labor+Law
Robert H. Mnookin, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (1998) < http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.4741&rep=rep1&type=pdf >
Ronald A. Brand, ‘Party Autonomy and Access to Justice in the UNCITRAL Online Dispute Resolution Project’ (10 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 11, 19 2012) < https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=168089005022002066069123026079098108046069006038058066023091084111116008118098011123122025060038021096117066110112103114007094014008073002058079071064122100086073035075071078086125078093107097121005009118082096126069080004118002019102075065126005024&EXT=pdf >
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, <http://www.adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/istatistik_2015/HUKUK%20MAHKEMELER%C4%B0/1.pdf>
[1] For more information please see also Roxana Elena Topor and Ana-Maria Bejan, ‘Alternative Methods to Resolve Civil and Commercial Disputes’ (2017), Journal of Academic Research in Economics. Mar2017, Vol. 9 Issue 1, 108; see also International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group and the World Bank, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Guidelines’ (2011), 4, < http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/15322_ADRG_Web.pdf > accessed 18 December 2017; see also Robert H. Mnookin, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (1998) < http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.4741&rep=rep1&type=pdf > accessed 15 December 2017; see also Yona Shamir and Ran Kutner, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Approaches and Their Application’ (Unesco, IHP, WWAP, IHP-VI, Technical Documents in Hydrology No 7, 2003) < http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001332/133287e.pdf> accessed 18 December 2017
[2]Vinod Agarwal, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods’ (2010), < http://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/725/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-and-Sub-Saharan-Africa.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > accessed 12 December 2017, see also Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016) 3; Carrie Menkel Meadow, ‘Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)’ (2015) <https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=799026031026005019085012093076100111109036021082090052093115017070026008097116111025049022043006054025039123127000102069066000005043060008021009078089089081025090103069038083104104084118121074075097115127107121025092096102112099098096094108082121072024&EXT=pdf> accessed on 18 December 2017; see also Elena Nosyreva, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in United States and Russia: A Comparative Evaluation’ (2001), Vol 7 Issue 1 <https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1057&context=annlsurvey> accessed 18 December 2017
[3] See also Roxana Elena Topor and Ana-Maria Bejan, ‘Alternative Methods to Resolve Civil and Commercial Disputes’ (2017), Journal of Academic Research in Economics. Mar2017, Vol. 9 Issue 1
[4] For the full text of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Certain Aspects of Mediation In Civil And Commercial Matters < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0052&from=EN > accessed 15.12.2017
[5] Roxana Elena Topor and Ana-Maria Bejan, ‘Alternative Methods to Resolve Civil and Commercial Disputes’ (2017), Journal of Academic Research in Economics. Mar2017, Vol. 9 Issue 1, 108
[6] For similar approach please see Cemal Şanlı, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (Fifth Edition, Beta, 2013), 436; for adversarial approach please see Karl J. T. Wach and Frank Meckes, Tactics in M&A Arbitration (German Law Publishers, 2008), 8 and see also Mustafa Serdar Özbek, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin, 2009), 146; see also Jay E. Grenig, ‘Evolution Of The Role Of Alternative Dispute Resolution In Resolving Employment Disputes’ (2016), Dispute Resolution Journal. Vol. 71 Issue 2, 100
[7] See also Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 5; see also Howard M. Rebach, Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 2001), 197
[8] See European Commission, Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law;see also Gülgün Ildır, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü: Medeni Yargıya Alternatif Yöntemler (Seçkin, 2003), 23-26; see also Mustafa Serdar Özbek, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin, 2009), 127; see also Victorian Law Reform Commission, Civil Justice Review Report, ch 4 ‘’Improving Alternative Dispute Resolution’’, 212
[9] Thomas D. Cavenagh and Lucille M. Ponte, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Business, (Ohio: West Educitonal Publications, 1999), 28; see also Cemal Şanlı, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları, (Fifth Edition, Beta 2013),437; see also Karl J. T. Wach and Frank Meckes, Tactics in M&A Aritration (German Law Publishers, 2008), 8
[10] Melissa Lewis and McCrimmon Les, The Role of ADR Processes in the Criminal Justice System: A View From Australia (2005) < http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/2005uganda/ent_s3_mccrimmon.pdf > accessed 17 December 2017
[11] Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 15
[12] Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 15; see also Law Reform Commission, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation, (LRC 98- 2010), 2
[13] Victorian Law Report Commission, Civil Justice Review Report (2002), 214; see also Law Reform Commission, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation, (LRC 98-2010), 3; see also Sarah Rudolph Cole, ‘Managerial Litigants? The Overlooked Problem of Party Autonomy in Dispute Resolution’ 51 Hastings L.J. 1199 (2000) < http://0-heinonline.org.wam.city.ac.uk/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/hastlj51&page=1199&collection=journals > accessed 17 December 2017
[14] See also Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 15
[15] Kerim Bölten, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Merger and Acquisition Transactions (Legal Kitapevi, 2016), 42
[16] Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 15
[17] Susan Blake, Julie Browne and Stuart Sime, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2016), 16; see also Sarah Rudolph Cole, ‘Managerial Litigants? The Overlooked Problem of Party Autonomy in Dispute Resolution’ 51 Hastings L.J. 1199 (2000) < http://0-heinonline.org.wam.city.ac.uk/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/hastlj51&page=1199&collection=journals > accessed 17 December 2017
[18] Victorian Law Report Commission, Civil Justice Review Report (2002), 214; see also Mustafa Serdar Özbek, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yetkin, 2009), 435
[19] See also Cemal Şanlı, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkarın Çözüm Yolları (Fifth Edition, Beta, 2013), 436
[20] Kerim Bölten, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Merger and Acquisition Transactions (Legal Kitapevi, 2016), 49
[21] Gerry Lagerberg and Loukas Mistelis, ‘Queen Mary University of London School of International Arbitration & PricewaterhouseCoopers, Corporate Attitudes and Practices’ (2006) < http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/123295.pdf. > accessed 15 December 2017
[22] Especially sole usage of arbitration has been increased enormously beginning with 29% in 2006 and reached to peak in 2015 as 56%.
[23] Michael Pryles, ‘Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure’ < http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/4/48108242525153/media012223895489410limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf> accessed 15 December 2017
[24] For other definition of party autonomy see D. Becker, ‘The Controversy Over Mediator Neutrality: Input From New Zealand Mediators’ (2013) <https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/4488/BeckerDaniel2013LLM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > accessed 16 December 2017; see also J. Coben, ‘Gollum, Meet Smeagol: A Schizophrenic Rumination on Mediator Values Beyond Self Determination and Neutrality’, (2004) Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 5 < http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=facsch > accessed 18 December 2017
[25] Ronald A. Brand, ‘Party Autonomy and Access to Justice in the UNCITRAL Online Dispute Resolution Project’ (2012) 10 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 11, 19
[26] Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, <http://www.adlisicil.adalet.gov.tr/istatistik_2015/HUKUK%20MAHKEMELER%C4%B0/1.pdf> accessed 15 December 2017