Özet
One of the controversial subjects which must be evaluated in conflict of laws is applicable law on torts. Turkish conflict of laws approach regards torts as non-contractual sources of obligation which is regulated between Article 34 and Article 38 in Turkish Code International Private and Civil Procedure. Thus, it can be referred that Turkish school of thought evaluates torts, as a assemble of legal institutions those cannot be identified as contractual or unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the Code, regulates applicable law on non-contractual obligations in two ways. First, Article 34 serves a general rule that can be applicable if the Code does not presuppose otherwise. Secondly, the provisions between Article 35 and Article 38, are considered as specific rules which regulates applicable law on specific torts such as infringement of the personality rights, product liability, unfair competition and acts restricting free competition. Moreover, in pursuant to comparative legal systems such as EU and Swiss law, Turkish conflict of law rules also give prominence to place of result on torts. Such rules can be exemplified as place of damage, the habitual residence of the person who sustained damage, affected marketplace or place of business of the damaged party. Nevertheless, in contrast to Regulation on the Applicable of Non-Contractual Obligations, Turkish law does not regulate how to determine lex cause in case of multiple places of damage. Some of the Turkish scholars, asserts the principle of the law which has the most significant connection shall be determined regarding the problem of multiple places of damage. This approach however does not consider the needs and events which created the concept of law which has the most significant relation. The mosaic approach is legal theory which was developed to determine applicable law on cross-border torts. In this master thesis, the position of the Turkish law regarding to cross border torts will be evaluated. After that, applicability of the mosaic approach in Turkish law regarding to the torts which created damages in multiple countries will be explained.
Künye
KAYNAKÇA
1. Ahern, John/ Binchy, William, The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
2. Akıncı, Ziya, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2020.
3. Algantürk Light, Didem, York Anvers Kuralları 2016 Revizyon Çalışmalarına İlişkin Değerlendirmeler, MÜHF-HAD, Y: 2016, C: 22 S: 3.
4. Andrews, Damon C./ Newman, John M., Personel Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in the Cloud, Maryland Law Review, V: 73, I: 1.
5. Atamer, Kerim, 1910 tarihli Brüksel Sözleşmesinde ve Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısında Çatma, PPIL, C: 24 S:1-2 Y: 2004.
6. Aybay, Rona/ Dardağan, Esra, Uluslararası Düzeyde Yasaların Çatışması ( Kanunlar İhtilafı), İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2008.
7. Bach, Ivo, Scope of Regulation, Rome II Regulation Pocket Commentary, Ed. Huber, Peter, European Law Publishers, Münih, 2011.
8. Bariattı, Stefania, Cases and Materials in EU Private International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2011.
9. Basedow, Jürgen, Rome II at Sea- General Aspects Of Maritime Torts, Rabels Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Privatrecht, Y: 2010, V: 74, I: 1.
10. Başoğlu, Başak, Çevre Zararlarından Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2016.
11. Bayram, Mehmet Hanifi, Avrupa Birliği Dersleri, 5. Baskı, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2020, s.146.
12. Berki, Osman Fazıl, Devletler Hususi Hukuku Cilt Kanunlar İhtilafı, Ankara, Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası, 1966.
13. Bogdan, Michael, The Treatment Of Enviromental Damage In Regulation Rome II, The Rome II Regulation On The Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligation: A New International Litigation Regime, Ahern J./ Binchy, W. (Eds), Leiden, 2009.
14. Borg-Barthet, Justin, The Brussels Ia Regulation as an Instrument for the Undermining of Press Freedoms and the Rule of Law: An Urgent Call for Reform, Center Of Private International Law Working Paper Series, 2020.
15. Briggs, Adrian, The Conflict of Laws, 3rd Edition, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford Universty Press, Oxford, 2013.
16. Byrer, F. Samuel, Conflict of Laws- An Alternative to Lex Loci Delicti In West Virginia, WVLR, Y: 1978, V: 80, I: 2.
17. Can, Hacı / Tuna, Ekin, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 4. Baskı, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi, 2019.
18. Caster, Geert van, European Private International Law, Hart Publishing, 2. Baskı, Londra, 2016.
19. Cin, Halil/ Akyılmaz, Gül, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Sayram Yayınları, Ankara, 2015.
20. Colliers, J. G., Conflict of Laws, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
21. Çörtoğlu Koca, Sema, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuka Göre Açık Denizlerde Meydana Gelen Çevre zararları ne Uygulanacak Hukuk, DEÜHFD, C: 9, Özel Sayı, 2007.
22. Çelikel, Aysel/ Erdem, Bahadır, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 16. Baskı, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2020.
23. Davis, Gary, John Pfeiffer Pty. Ltd. v. Rogerson - Choice of Law in Tort At The
Dawning Of The 21st Century., Melbourne University Law Review, V: 24, I: 3, Y:2000.
24. De Boer, Theodorus Martinus, The Purpose of Uniform Choice of Law Rules: The Rome II Regulation, Netherlands International Law Review, V: 56, I: 3, Y: 2009.
25. De Sousa Gonçalves, Anabela Susana, The Application Of The General Rule Of
The Rome II Regulation To Internet Torts, Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Y: 2014, V: 8, I: 1.
26. Dickinson, Andrew, The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, Oxford Publishing, London, 2012.
27. Doğan, Vahit, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 6. Baskı, Savaş Yayınları, Ankara, 2020.
28. Erdil, Engin, Haksız Rekabet Hukuku, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2020.
29. Eren, Fikret, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 18. Baskı, Ankara, 2015.
30. Esenyel Hanaz, Fatma, Kişilik Haklarının İhlalinde Sorumluluk ve Uygulanacak Hukuk (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul, 2018.
31. Fawcett, James J., Policy Considerations in Tort Choice of Law, Model Law Review, Y: 1986, V: 47, I: 6.
32. Fentiman, Richard, Significance of Close Connection, , The Rome II Regulation On The Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligation: A New International Litigation Regime, Ahern J./ Binchy, W. (Eds), Leiden, 2009.
33. Gahlen, Sarah Fiona, Civil Liability for Accidents at Sea, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2015.
34. Garcia-Castillon, Carmen Otero, International Litigation Trends in Environmental Liability: A European Union- United States Perspective, Journal of Private International Law, V: 7 No: 3 Y: 2011.
35. Göğer, Erdoğan, Haksız Fiilden Doğan Borçların Tabi Olduğu Kanun, AÜHFD, Y: 1966, C: 22-23, S: 1-4, s. 451-506.
36. Göğer, Erdoğan, Devletler Hususi Hukuku (Kanunlar İhtilafı), Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara, 1975.
37. Graziano, Thomas Kadner, Freedom To Choose The Applicable Law In Tort, Art:14 And 4/3 Of The Rome II Regulation, The Rome II Regulation On The Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligation: A New International Litigation Regime, Ahern J./ Binchy, W. (Eds), Leiden, 2009, s.113-132.
38. Greene, Janey, Choice of Law in Tort- The Song That Never Ends, Federal Law Review, Y: 1998 C:26 S: 2, s. 352.
39. Güner, Cemil, Yapay Zekanın Verdiği Zararlardan Doğan Sözleşme Dışı Sorumluluğa Uygulanacak Hukuk, UMD, Y: 2020, C: 8, S: 15, s. 229-272.
40. Güngör, Gülin, Türk Milletlerarası Özel Hukuku, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021.
41. Güneysu, Gülin, İngiliz Hukukunda Haksız Fiilden Kaynaklanan Kanunlar İhtilafı, AÜHFD, Y: 1992, V: 42, I: 1, s. 181-200.
42. Hartley, Trevor C., The Choice of Law for Non- Contractual Liability: Selected Problems Under Rome II Regulation, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Y: 2008, C: 57, S: 4, s.899-908.
43. Hern, William Tong Su, Warnings for A New Beginning: Torts(Choice of Law) Bill, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, Y: 2005.
44. Ilmer, Martin, Introduction Rome II, Rome II Regulation Pocket Commentary, Ed. Huber, Peter, Sellier European Law Publishers, 2009.
45. Jaffey, A.J.E, Choice of Law in Tort: A Justice Based Approach, Legal Studies, Y: 1982, V: 2, I: 1.
46. James, Elizabeth/ Pfeiffer ,John, Pty Ltd v. Rogerson: The Certainty Of Federal Choice Of Law Rules For Intranational torts: Limitations, Implications And Few Complications. Sydney Law Review, Y: 2001, V: 23 I: 1.
47. Juenger, Friedrich K., The Complex Litigation Project’s Tort Choice-of-Law Rules, Loisiana Law Review, Y: 1994, V: 54, I: 4.
48. Kadner Graziano, Thomas, Zur Reformbedürftigkeit des Schuldrechts im schweizerischen IPRG, insbesondere der Regelungen zur außervertraglichen Haftung, Die Schweizerische Vereinigung für Internationales Recht (SVIR) Zeitschrift für Internationales und Europäisches Recht, Y: 2015, I: 1.
49. Kara, Hacı, Deniz Ticareti Hukuku, On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2020.
50. Karbanova, Lenka, Lex Loci Damni Infecti- Applicability To Non Contractual Obligations In Cyberspace In The Jurisprudence Of French Courts, Masaryk University Journal Of Law And Technology, Y: 2011, V: 5, I: 1.
51. Kavşat, Fatma Candan, Kanunlar İhtilafı Hukukunda Haksız Fiilden Doğan Borç İlişkilerinde İrade Muhtariyeti Prensibi: MÖHUK ve Roma II Tüzüğü (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara, 2017.
52. Kayış, Bengül, Haksız Rekabet Hukukundan Doğan Kanunlar İhtilafı, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2012.
53. Kılıçoğlu, Ahmet M. , Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 24. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, Ankara, 2020.
54. Kiggundu, John, Choice of Law in Delict: the Rise and Rise of the lex loci delicti comissi, South African Mercantile Law Journal, Y: 2007, V: 18 I: 1.
55. Kincaid, Peter, Justice in Tort Choice of Law, Adeleine Law Review, Y: 1996, C: 18, S: 2,
56. Koşar, Günhan Gönül, Haksız Fiil Hukukunun Amacı, AÜHFD, Y: 2020, C: 69, S: 3.
57. Kozyris, Phadeon John, Rome II: Tort Conflicts on the Right Track! A Postscript to Symeon Symeonides ‘Missed Opportunity’, AJCL, Y: 2008, V: 56, I: 2, s. 471-497.
58. Kren Kostkiewicz, Jolanta, Schweizerisches Internationales Privatrecht, 2 Baskı, Stampfli Yayınları, Zürih, 2019.
59. Kreuzer, Karl, Die Vollendung der Kodifikation des Deutchen Internationalen Privatrechts durch das Gesetz zum Internationalen Privatrecht der Außervertraglichen Schuldverhaltnisse und Sachen vom 21.05.1999, The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law, Y: 2001, V: 65, I:3, s. 383-462.
60. Krüger, Hilmar, Türk Devletler Hususi Hukukunda Lex Loci Delicti Comissi Kuralı Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler, İstanbul Üniversitesi Mukayeseli Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, V: 1 I: 2, Y: 1986.
61. Krüger, Christian/Pförtner, Frederike, Die Mosaiktherioe- (k)ein Ende in Sicht?, Juristische Arbeitsblätter, Y: 2018, I: 6.
62. Krvavac, Marija, Tortious Liability and Conflict of Laws, Acta Universitatis Danubius Juridica, Y: 2010 I: 2.
63. Kuipers, Jan-Jaap, Towards a European Approach in the Cross‐Border
Infringement of Personality Rights, German Law Journal, Y: 2011, V: 12, I: 8.
64. Kyslelovska, Tereza, Critical Analysis of the “Mosaic Principle” Under the Art. 7 Para 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation for Dispute Arisingout of Non-Contractual Obligations On the Internet, PME, Y: 2019, I: 1.
65. Lehmann, Mathias, Where Does Economic Loss Occur?, Journal Of Private International Law, Y: 2011, V: 7, I: 3.
66. Looschelders, Dirk, Internationales Privatrecht- Art 3-46 EGBGB, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
67. Lutzi, Tobias, Internet Cases In EU Private International Law-Developing A Coherent Approach, International And Comparative Law Quarterly, Y: 2017, V: 66, I: 4.
68. Mayss, Abla, Principles of Conflict of Laws, 3rd Edition, Cavendish Publishing Limited, Londra, 1999.
69. McGreal, Paul E., Conflict Of Laws, SMU Law Review Annual Survey Of Texas Law, Y: 1994, V: 47, I: 4.
70. McLauglin, James Audley, Conflict of Law: The Choice Of Law Lex Loci Doctrine The Beguiling Appeal Of A Dead Tradition Part One, West University Law Review, Y: 1991, V: 93, I: 4.
71. Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Usul Kanunu Öntasarı Sempozyumu, 22-24 Kasım 1976, İstanbul, Fakülteler Matbaası, 1978.
72. Miller, Leigh Anne, Choice Of Law Approaches In Tort Actions, American Journal Of Trial Advocacy, Y: 1993, V: 16, I: 3.
73. Mills, Alex, The Application Of Multiple Laws Under The Rome II Regulation, The Rome II Regulation On The Law Applicable To Non-Contractual Obligation: A New International Litigation Regime, Ahern J./ Binchy, W. (Eds), 2012.
74. Münchener Kommentar zur ROM-II (2021), 8. Baskı, Münih, C.H. Beck Yayınevi (MüKo&Yazar)
75. Münchener Kommentar zum ZPO (2022), V: 3, Münih (MüKo- Brüssel-Ia/Gottwald)
76. Ng, Edward K H, Revisiting International Tort Actions in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Journal Of Legal Studies, Y: 2019, I: 13.
77. Nishitani, Yuko, The Rome II Regulation From A Japanese Point Of View, Yearbook of Private International Law, Y: 2007 V: 9.
78. Nomer, Ergin/ Şanlı, Cemal, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, İstanbul, Beta Yayınları, 2006.
79. Nomer, Ergin, Devletler Hususi Hukuku, 22. Baskı, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, 2017.
80. Önal, Ali, Amerikan, Avrupa Birliği ve Türk Hukuku Kapsamında Haksız Fiillere Uygulanacak Hukuka Dair Genel Kural, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2021.
81. Özel, Çağlar/ Özdemir, Semih Sırrı, Türk Hukukunda Haksız Rekabete İlişkin Düzenlemeler, DEÜHFD, C: 19, Özel Sayı, Y: 2017.
82. Özel, Sibel, Haksız Fiillere Uygulanacak Hukukun “Daha Sıkı İlişkili Hukuk” Temelinde Belirlenmesi, Public and Private International Law Bulletin, C: 41, S: 2 Yıl:2021.
83. Öztekin Gelgel, Günseli, Akit Dışı Borç İlişkilerine Uygulanacak Hukuk Hakkındaki Avrupa Birliği Düzenlemesi, 1.Bası, İstanbul, Beta Yayıncılık 2006.
84. Partalcı, Rümeysa, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Çevre Zararlarından Doğan Sorumluluğa Uygulanacak Hukuk, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2021.
85. Pinherio, Luis de Lima, Choice of Law on Non-Contractual Obligations between Communitarization and Globalization – A First Assessment of EC Regulation Rome II, Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, Y: 2017, I: 44.
86. Pitel, Stephan G.A, Choice Of Law For Tort In Canada: Reasons For Change, Journal Of Private International Law, V: 9, I: 2, Y: 2013.
87. Plender, Richard/ Wilderspin, Michael, The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3. Baskı, Thomson Reuters, Londra, 2009.
88. Reed, Alan, The Anglo-American Revolution in Tort Choice of Law Principles: Paradigm Shift or Pandora's Box, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, V: 18, I: 3, Y: 2001.
89. Rogerson, Pipa, Collier’s Conflict Of Laws, 4th Edition, Cambridge University Press, Londra, 2013.
90. Rohova, Iveta/Sehnalek, David, Determining Jurisdiction and the Applicable Law in CrossBorder Unfair Competition and Unfair Commercial Practices Cases, Lexonomica Journal of Law And Economics, Y: 2017 V: 9, I: 1.
91. Rynagaert, Cedric, Tort Litigation in Respect of Overseas Violations of Environmental Law Committed by Corporations: Lessons from the Akpan v Shell Litigation in the Netherlands, McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, V: 8 I: 2, Y: 2013.
92. Saatcıoğlu, Onur Can, Kanunlar İhtilâfı Hukukunda Ticari Sırların İhlali, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, 2020.
93. Saatcıoğlu, Onur Can, 5718 sayılı MÖHUK m. 37/2 Hükmünde Yer Verilen Münhasıran Kavramı İle Söz Konusu İşletmenin İşyeri İfadesi Hakkında Değerlendirmeler, HÜHFD, Y:2017, C: 7, S: 1.
94. Saatcıoğlu, Onur Can, Haksız Fiilden Doğan Talep Hakkın Uygulanacak Hukukun Tespitinde Fer’i Bağlanma Yöntemi, AHBVÜHFD, Y: 2021, C:25, S:1.
95. Sarıöz, Ayşe İpek, Haksız Rekabetten Doğan Uyuşmazlıklarda Uygulanacak Hukuk ve Yetkili Mahkeme, On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2012.
96. Schwander, Ivo, Überlegungen zur Rom II- Verordnung aus der Sicht des schweizerischen Internationalen Privatrechts (IPR), Have Haftung und Versicherung, Y: 2009.
97. Sedler, Robert, Choice Of Law In Conflicts Torts Cases: A Third Restatement Or Rules Of Choice Of Law ?, Indiana Law Journal, V: 75, I: 2, Y: 2000, s. 615-633.
98. Sooksripaisarnkit, Poomintr/ Lee, Daryl, Identifying Choice Of Law In The Context Of Maritime Torts Yet Still Challenge For Courts in Hong Kong, University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, V: 26, I: 2, Y: 2013.
99. Stone, Peter, EU Private International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltentam, 2011.
100. Süzel, Cüneyt, Çatmadan Kaynaklanan Uyuşmazlıklarda Uygulanacak Hukuk, PPIL, Y: 28, S: 1-2, 2008.
101. Süzen, Begüm, Yansıma Zarar Taleplerinin Tazmini Taleplerine Uygulanacak Hukukun Belirlenmesi Bakımından Zarar Yerinin Tespiti, İMÜHFD, Y: 2021, C: 8 S: 1.
102. Symeonides, Symeon C., Problems And Dilemmas In Codifying Choice Of Law For Torts, The Louisiana Experience In Comparative Perspective, AJCL, Y: 1990, V: 38, I: 3.
103. Symeonides, Symeon C., Exception Clauses in American Conflicts Law, American Journal of Comparative Law, V: 42, Y: 1994, s. 813-825.
104. Symeonides, Symeon C., Tort Conflicts and Rome II: A View from Across, In Festchriftt Für Erik Jayme (Eds: H.P Mansel ve diğerleri), 2004.
105. Symeonides, Symeon C., Rome II and The Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity, American Journal of Comparative Law, V: 56 Y: 2008, s. 1-46.
106. Symeonides, Symeon C, Issue by Issue Analysis And Depeçage In Choice Of Law: Cause And Effect, University Of Toledo Law Review, Y: 2014, V: 45, I: 1.
107. Symeonides, Symeon C., Choice of Law, Oxford University Press, New York, 2016.
108. Şanlı, Cemal/Esen, Emre/Ataman Figanmeşe, İnci, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk, 9. Baskı, Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2021.
109. Tanrıbilir, Feriha Bilge, 5718 sayılı Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun’un Genel Hükümlerinde Yapılan Değişiklikler Üzerine, TBB Dergisi, Y: 2010, S: 87.
110. Tanrıbilir, Feriha Bilge, Akit Dışı Borçlara Uygulanacak Hukuka İlişkin (Roma II) Tüzükte Ürün Sorumluluğu, GÜHFD, Y: 2010, C: 19, S: 2.
111. Tanrıbilir, Feriha, Bilge, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Ürün Sorumluluğu, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara, 2004.
112. Tarman, Zeynep Derya, Akit Dışı Borç İlişkilerine Uygulanacak Hukuk Hakkındaki Avrupa Birliği Tüzüğü, AÜHFD, C: 57, S: 2, Y: 2009, s. 193-221.
113. Tarman, Zeynep Derya, Devletler Özel Hukuku Bakımından İmalatçının Hukuki Sorumluluğu, TBB Dergisi, Y: 2007, S: 73.
114. Tekin, Esra, Milletlerarası Özel Hukukta Kişilik Haklarının İnternet Yoluyla İhlâlinde Sorumluluk, On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2021.
115. Tekinalp, Gülören, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bağlama ve Usul Hukuku Kuralları, 13. Baskı, Vedat Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2020.
116. Tekinalp, Gülören/ Uyanık, Ayfer, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bağlama Kuralları, İstanbul, 12.Bası, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2016.
117. te Winkel, Gerjanne/van Heesch, Xandra, The Shell judgment – a bombShell in private
international law?, Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, Y: 2021, V: 39, I: 3.
118. Tiryakioğlu, Bilgin, Rekabet Hukukundan Doğan Kanunlar İhtilafı, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara,1997.
119. Thiede, Thomas, Die Anknüpfüng grenzüberschreitender Personlichkeitsrechtzverletzungen Das Konzept der Mosaikmethode im nationalen-supranationalen Kollisionsrecht, Haftung und Versicherung Zeitschrift, Y: 2005.
120. Toker, Ali Gümrah/ Ruhi, Ahmet Cemal, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usûl Hukuku Hakkında Kanun, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2019.
121. Tong, William, Singapore Private International Law on Torts: Inappropriate for Modern Times-Rickshaw Investment Ltd. v. Nicolai Baron von Uexkull, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies , V: 2007 I: 2, 2007.
122. Turhan, Turgut, Haksız Fiilden Doğan Kanunlar İhtilafı Alanında İka Yeri Kuralı, Ankara, Dayınlarlı Hukuk Yayınları,1989.
123. Tütüncübaşı, Uğur, Akit Dışı Borç İlişkilerinde Hukuk Seçme Serbestisi, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2018.
124. Uluocak, Nihal, Kanunlar İhtilafı Kuralları (Yasama ve Yargılama Yetkisi Kuralları), İstanbul, Fakülteler Matbaası, 1971.
125. Uzun-Şenol, Pınar, Haksız Rekabet ile Rekabetin Korunması Arasındaki İlişki (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul, 2022.
126. Ünal, Akın/ Kalkan, Arif, Türk Hukukunda Olan ve Olması Gereken Hukuka Göre Ürün Sorumluluğuna Dair Genel Düşünceler, TAAD, Y: 11, S: 39.
127. Ünal Özkorkut, Nevin, Kapitülasyonların Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yargı Yetkisine Getirdiği Kısıtlamalar, AÜHFD, Y: 2004, C: 53, S: 2.
128. Üstündağ, Bahar, Rekabet İhlallerinden Doğan Kanunlar İhtilâfı (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi) Ankara, 2022.
129. Vural Çelenk, Belkıs, Üçüncü Ülkenin Doğrudan Uygulanan Kurallarının Haksız Fiiller Alanında Uygulanmasının MÖHUK Madde 31 ile Değerlendirilmesi, Genç Milletlerarası Özel Hukukçular Konferansı II, (Ed. Doç. Dr. Zeynep Derya Tarman), On İki Levha Yayınları, İstanbul, 2018.
130. Yağcı, Mustafa Okan, Rekabet Kurulu’nun İnceleme ve Araştırma Usulü ve Kurul Kararlarının Yargısal Denetimi (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul, 2017.
131. Yasan Tepetaş, Candan, İmalatçının Sorumluluğu ve Uygulanacak Hukuk, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2021.
132. Yazıcıoğlu, Emine, Kender-Çetingil Deniz Ticareti Hukuku, Filiz Kitabevi, 16. Baskı, İstanbul 2020.
133. Wadlow, Christopher, State Of The Art The New Private International Law Of Unfair Competition, And The Rome II Regulation, JIPLP, Y: 2009, V: 4, I: 11.
134. Walker, Janet, Are We There Yet-Towards a New Rule for Choice of Law in Tort, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, V: 38, No. 2, 2000.
135. Weintraub, Russel J., “At Least, to Do No Harm” : Does The Second Restatement Of Conflicts Meet the Hippocratic Standard?, Maryland Law Review, Y: 1997, V: 56, I: 4.
