KANADA VE TÜRK HUKUKUNDA MİLLETLERARASI TAHKİME İLİŞKİN BAZI HÜKÜMLERİN MUKAYESELİ İNCELENMESİ = (A COMPARATIVE RESEARCH on SOME INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PROVISIONS of CANADIAN and TURKISH LAW)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ÖZTahkim bir ihtilafın, tarafların anlaşmasıyla, devlet yargısı dışında üçüncü kişiler tarafından çözülmesidir. Milletlerarası ticari uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde tahkim sıklıkla tercih edilir. Uluslararası ticaret sistemini destekleyen ve bundan yararlanan devletler arasında uluslararası tahkime uygulanacak genel ilkeler ve kuralları düzenlemek üzere UNCITRAL (Birleşmiş Milletler Uluslararası Ticaret Kanunu Komisyonu) tarafından uluslararası tahkimin geliştirilmesi ve uyumlaştırılması gayesiyle 21.06.1985 tarihinde Model bir Kanun çıkarılmıştır.Kanada 1986 yılında milletlerarası tahkime ilişkin mevzuatını Model Kanunu esas almak suretiyle oluşturmuş ve uygulamaya koymuş ilk devlettir. Model Kanunla ilgili olarak yirmi yıldan fazla tecrübeye sahiptir ve UNCITRAL tarafından kabul edilen metinden nadiren sapmış tahkim dostu bir ülkedir.1985 yılında kabul edilen Model Kanun, Türkiye’de 2001 yılında kabul edilen 4686 sayılı Milletlerarası Tahkim Kanunu’nda (MTK) esas alınan kaynaklardan biridir; ancak MTK’da Kanada’daki gibi Model Kanuna bağlılıktan söz edilemez. Çalışmamızda, Türkiye ve Kanada milletlerarası tahkim hukuku hükümlerinin bazıları karşılaştırmalı olarak irdelenecektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kanada, Türkiye, Uluslararası Tahkim Hukuku, UNCITRAL Model Kanunu ABSTRACTArbitration is solving a dispute via the agreement of the parties by the third people that are apart from state judgement. Arbitration is widely preferred in solving international commercial disputes. In order to apply the general principles and rules between the states supporting and benefiting from the system of international commerce, UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) enacted a model law on 21.06.1985 with the aim of improving and harmonizing international arbitration.Canada was the first state which formed its international commerce regulation based on the model law and put it into practice in 1986. It has more than twenty years of experience regarding the model act and it had barely deviate from the corpus that was accepted by UNCITRAL. Canada is an arbitration friendly state.The model law, that was accepted in 1985, is one of the sources taken as a basis in International Arbitration Regulation Act numbered 4686 that was accepted in 2001 in Turkey; however it doesn’t show a wide fidelty to the model law as in Canada’s regulation. In our research, some of the provisions in international arbitration law of Turkey and Canada will be examined comparatively. Keywords: Canada, Turkey, International Arbitration Law, UNCITRAL Model Law
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".