The United States (“U.S.”) and the Republic of Türkiye (“Türkiye”) have maintained a strong economic relationship for more than a hundred years. Under the current socioeconomic environment, we see huge potential for growth. Overall bilateral trade between the nations has dramatically increased in the last decade and nearly reached $28 billion in 2021, with U.S. exports to Türkiye being approximately $11.9 billion and imports from Türkiye being approximately $15.9 billion.

The U.S. – Türkiye Market

Josh Rievman specializes in the litigation and arbitration
of commercial disputes. Josh has successfully represented clients in jury and
non-jury trials in New York State and federal courts, in state and federal
appellate proceedings and in arbitration locally and internationally. Josh also
counsels employees and employers with respect to separation, onboarding and
internal investigations, as well as claims for discrimination and retaliation.Josh represents clients on a broad range of issues,
including in actions arising out of domestic and international commercial
transactions, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition,
licensing, products liability, trademark, securities, partnerships, banking
transactions, transportation, technology, professional sports contracts, and
bankruptcy.Josh speaks, writes and presents continuing legal education
courses on issues related to the litigation and arbitration of international
and domestic commercial disputes, as well as law practice management. Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

Litigation

International
 and Domestic Arbitration

Commercial
 Transactions

&nbsp; 

Languages

English

&nbsp; 

Memberships

New
 York Bar

Connecticut
 Bar

U.S.
 District Court for the Southern District of New York 

U.S.
 District Court for the Eastern District of New York 

U.S.
 District Court for the Northern District of New York 

U.S.
 District Court for the District of Columbia

U.S.
 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

The
 Congress of Fellows of the Center for International Legal Studies

AV/Preeminent
 rating from Martindale-Hubbell

Selected
 to New York Metro Super Lawyers

Dunning Rievman &amp; MacDonald LLP is a New York-based
boutique firm of experienced litigation, international arbitration, corporate,
transactions, and tax lawyers.&nbsp; We focus
on providing high-quality and personal legal advice to businesses from around
the world.Our attorneys have decades of experience in large US firms
and have resolved disputes and conducted transactions worldwide. We understand
and have experience in a variety of legal systems and have three international
desks: Turkish, Spanish and French. With our native lawyers of Türkiye, we are well-equipped
to serve the legal needs of the Turkish-speaking clients, in the U.S. and at an
international level.Organizations and individuals come to us not only for
receiving complex legal advice but also because of our understanding of their
core businesses.

Dunning Rievman & MacDonald LLP

Partner

Damián Vallejo focuses his practice on international
investment arbitration, public international law, international commercial arbitration,
and commercial litigation. He represents companies, states and individuals in
investment treaty and international commercial arbitrations conducted under the
major international arbitration rules (ICSID, UNCITRAL, ICC, ICDR, LCIA, etc.)
and advises clients on public international law matters, including the
structuring of investments under bilateral and multilateral investment
treaties.Damián also represents clients on commercial disputes and
advises on arbitration-related litigation matters and the enforcement and
challenge of domestic and foreign arbitral awards. He also acts as due
diligence and transactional counsel in litigation finance and investments
arising out of legal and regulatory special situations.His experience spans a wide range of industries, including
maritime, transportation, insurance, energy, mining, electricity, construction,
infrastructure development, cross-border transactions, and general commercial
matters. He has experience in civil and common-law legal systems. Practice Areas &amp; Work Department

International
 Investment and Commercial Arbitration

Commercial
 Litigation

Public
 International Law

Litigation
 and Arbitration Funding (Third-Party Funding)

Commercial
 Transaction

&nbsp; 

Languages

English

Spanish

Catalan

&nbsp; 

Memberships

New
 York Bar 

U.S.
 District Court for the Southern District of New York 

U.S.
 District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Spanish
 Bar

The
 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) 

The
 European Chinese Arbitrators Association (ECCA)

Vice
 President of the New York and Washington, D.C. Chapter of the Spanish
 Arbitration Club (Club Español del Arbitraje)

The arbitral seat is the legal home of the arbitration.[1] Also referred to as the “place of arbitration,” the seat is the relevant connecting factor determining the lex arbitri.[2] The term must be understood in a legal sense and not in a geographical one,[3] since meetings and hearings can normally be held elsewhere.[4] The choice of the place of arbitration is typically made by the parties, either in the arbitration agreement or when a dispute has arisen. Otherwise, selection will be made by either the arbitral institution[5] or by the arbitral tribunal.[6] Some institutional rules contain provisions for establishing the arbitral seat by default when there is no agreement between the parties.[7]

The Importance of the Arbitral Seat In International Commercial Arbitration

&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">After discussing the U.S. – Türkiye market and
how to expand in the U.S. in &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://turkishlawblog.com/insights/detail/the-us-turkiye-market" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">our first blog post&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">, we now proceed to
analyze the international arbitration landscape in the U.S.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">The initial choice for a dispute resolution method
is between arbitration and litigation.&nbsp;The consequences of choosing effectively are important.&nbsp;The decision will impact the time and money
spent on the resolution of the dispute, the procedural rules governing such dispute,
and the enforcement procedures and possibilities of a future decision. Procedural flexibility, efficiency, privacy
and confidentiality, and expertise of the decision-makers in the subject matter
of the dispute are some of the oft-repeated advantages that arbitration offers
over litigation.&nbsp;A particularly
important advantage of arbitration, primarily within the context of cross-border
transactions, is the perceived neutrality of arbitral proceedings vis-à-vis
domestic courts—particularly from the foreign party’s perspective.&nbsp;The fact that all parties involved in the
dispute have the opportunity to tailor the procedure provides them with a trustworthy
framework with which both parties can feel comfortable. In this regard, the U.S. has a desirable arbitration
landscape for cross-border transactions and is considered a pro-arbitration
forum.&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Given our focus on the U.S. – Türkiye market,
it is important to start by mentioning three specific international treaties in
place between these two countries. Two
of the treaties relate to the importance of foreign direct investment between
the two countries: the 1985 Treaty between the U.S. and Türkiye concerning the
Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments (commonly known as the U.S.-Türkiye
Bilateral Investment Treaty) &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[1]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
and the 1966 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID—International Center for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes—Convention).&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[2]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> The third treaty is aimed at commercial
relations and provides for the recognition and enforcement of both commercial
arbitration agreements entered into and arbitral awards issued in either
country.&nbsp;This is the 1958 New York
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New
York Convention”).&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[3]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;This set of treaties is of the utmost
importance for businesspeople in either jurisdiction as it provides them with
certain guarantees regarding their investments and commercial relations with
the other country and their businesspeople.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">In terms of legislation
governing arbitration, the U.S. has both federal and state laws. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”)
is the primary legislation governing arbitrations, including those related to the
maritime transaction, contracts involving interstate and foreign commerce.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[4]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
The FAA states that a written arbitration
agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[5]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
The FAA also provides very limited
grounds to vacate an arbitration award, namely: &lt;/span>&lt;strong>(i)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> corruption, fraud, or undue
means in the procurement of the award; &lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> evident partiality or corruption in
the arbitrators; &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(iii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> the arbitrators’ misconduct by which the rights of any
party have been prejudiced; or &lt;/span>&lt;strong>(iv)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> the arbitrators’ excess of their powers.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[6]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
Importantly, Chapter 2 of the FAA
ensures the application of the New York Convention in the U.S.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[7]&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">As recognized by the U.S.
Supreme Court, the FAA evidences “a national policy favoring arbitration.”&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[8]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
There are also state laws that regulate
arbitrations related to commercial transactions within a single U.S. state. The FAA, however, overrides any state law that
conflicts with it or undermines its policies. Some state schemes predate the FAA, including
Article 75 of New York Civil Practice and Rules (“CPLR Article 75”),
which served as the model for the FAA.



&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The involvement of the courts,
and the scope of such involvement, in the arbitration proceedings, has an
important effect on the dispute resolution process. The U.S. is widely regarded as having
independent, experienced and neutral courts. A U.S. court must stay the trial of action if any
suit or proceeding is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration, under an
existing arbitration agreement, after it is satisfied that the issue at stake is
in fact referable to arbitration.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[9]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
The domestic application of the NY
Convention provides for a similar outcome.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[10]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;U.S. courts will also direct the parties to
proceed to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[11]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">
Although the FAA is silent regarding preliminary
injunctions, many state statutes recognize the courts’ power to order preliminary
injunctions. For instance, New York’s
arbitration statute, CPLR Article 75, empowers its courts to grant orders of
attachment or preliminary injunction in aid of such arbitration both
before the arbitration is commenced and while the arbitration is pending.&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px;">[12]&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;There is also an ample array of court
decisions enforcing interim awards or orders for interim relief issued by
arbitral tribunals or emergency arbitrators.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Freedom of contract is an
established and well-recognized principle in the U.S.&nbsp;Because the FAA does not provide extensive
procedural rules governing arbitrations, the contracting parties are free to
choose the procedures and/or refer to the arbitration rules of recognized arbitral
institutions. This choice will impact
how is the arbitration administered and how, from a procedural standpoint, will
it be conducted; parties entering into arbitration agreements should pay close
attention to this point.&nbsp; In the U.S.,
there are plenty of well-regarded arbitral institutions with the capability and
experience to administer international arbitrations. This group of institutions includes the
International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR)—which is the international
division of the American Arbitration Association (AAA); the New York International
Arbitration Center (NYIAC); the International Institute for Conflict
Prevention and Resolution (CPR); the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC);
JAMS; and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), which was
the latest global international arbitration institution to open a branch office
in New York in 2020.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">From a communication
standpoint, an added benefit of having an arbitration proceeding in the U.S. is
the possibility of protecting a document or communication from disclosure
pursuant to two different types of privileges under U.S. law: &lt;/span>&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">(i)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> the attorney-client
privilege and &lt;/span>&lt;strong>(ii)&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> the work product protection.&nbsp;The attorney-client privilege aims to encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys (both in-house and external counsel) and their
clients, protecting communications between them that are made for the purpose
of seeking or obtaining legal advice or assistance. The work product privilege aims to protect documents
prepared in anticipation of a dispute or for trial. It encompasses factual materials gathered by
the attorney as well as the attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions,
opinions, or legal theories.&nbsp;It also
expands to expert work products.&nbsp;From a
strategic perspective, we note that foreign parties with U.S. counsel will have
access to these privileges, which are more developed in the U.S. than in many other
jurisdictions, especially civil law jurisdictions like Türkiye.&nbsp;We also note that there might be
circumstances in which foreign entities advised by non-U.S. counsel might have
access to these protections.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">A key feature of arbitration
is the selection of the seat of the arbitration.&nbsp;We will dive into the concept and importance
of the arbitral seat in our next blog post.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The
articles published by Dunning Rievman &amp; MacDonald LLP are for reference
purposes only.&nbsp;They do not constitute
legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.&nbsp;Specific legal advice should always be sought
separately before taking any action.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;hr>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">


&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[1]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Treaty
Between The United States Of America And The Republic Of Turkey Concerning The
Reciprocal Encouragement And Protection Of Investments, signed on December 3, 1985 and entered into force on May 18, 1990, available at &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/43365.htm" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty (state.gov)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[2]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes
Between States and Nationals of Other States, available at &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID_Convention_EN.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">ICSID_Convention_EN.pdf(worldbank.org)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[3] &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Convention
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, available at
&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Conventionon the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)(the "New York Convention") | United Nations Commission On InternationalTrade Law&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[4] &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">The Federal
Arbitration Act, available at &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">U.S. Code: Title 9 | U.S. Code| US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[5] &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">9 U.S.C. § 2&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[6]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;9 U.S.C. § 10&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[7]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> 9 U.S.C. § 201-208&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[8] &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">Jon O. Shimabukuro and Jennifer A.
Staman, Mandatory Arbitration and Federal Arbitration Act, Congressional
Research Service, September 2017, available at &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44960.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Mandatory Arbitration and theFederal Arbitration Act (fas.org)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[9]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> 9 U.S.C. § 3&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[10]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> 1958 New
York Convention, Article 2.&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong>[11]&lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;"> 9 U.S.C. § 4&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;">&lt;span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;strong style="font-size: 14px;">[12] &lt;/strong>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">CPLR § 7502,
available at &lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/7502" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Legislation| NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&lt;a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/7502" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(11, 83, 148);">Legislation| NY State Senate (nysenate.gov)&lt;/a>&lt;/span>&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&lt;span style="font-size: 14px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/span>&lt;/p>

After discussing the U.S. – Türkiye market and how to expand in the U.S. in our first blog post, we now proceed to analyze the international arbitration landscape in the U.S. The initial choice for a dispute resolution method is between arbitration and litigation. The consequences of choosing effectively are important. The decision will impact the time and money spent on the resolution of the dispute, the procedural rules governing such dispute, and the enforcement procedures and possibilities of a future decision.

International Arbitration Landscape in the U.S.

In an economically strained climate, be it with the aftermath of the Covid-19 Pandemic or the rising inflation rates causing price increases and economic hardship, the cost of arbitration is a factor that has become ever more prevalent.

ICC - Partial Award on Costs Where a Party Defaults in Paying its Share of the Advance Payment

It is time to take a look back at the first months of 2023 and digest the recent updates and developments happening in the world of international arbitration. Recent court decisions present the new trends and shed light to the future of international arbitration.

Esin Arbitration Quarterly

A party must disclose all evidence that it intends to rely on. A party is not required to disclose all relevant documents in its possession but must only provide documents that it deems appropriate. Parties must act in good faith and state the truth (Article 29, CPC).

Litigation and Enforcement 2023 in Turkey - 2

The main and most commonly used method for resolving large commercial disputes in Turkey is litigation. Civil litigation is based on the principle that the parties to the dispute prepare their case. The judge is bound to hear claims, defences and evidence brought by the parties.

Litigation and Enforcement 2023 in Turkey - 1

Both the International Arbitration Code and Civil Procedural Code contain default procedural rules. However, the majority of these rules are not mandatory, and the parties are free to determine procedural rules in their arbitration agreement or after the arbitration begins. In practice, the parties often agree to apply institutional arbitration rules with their sets of default procedural rules.

Arbitration Procedures and Practice 2023 in Turkey - 2

The U.S. – Türkiye Market

Popular Articles on Dispute Resolution

Latest Insights from Dunning Rievman & MacDonald LLP

The U.S. – Türkiye Market

Popular Articles on Dispute Resolution

Latest Insights from Dunning Rievman & MacDonald LLP

Subscribe to our newsletter