Publications

The Asymmetric Pendulum Between National Security and the Free Market Energy (electricity, natural gas, petroleum, and LPG) is not merely a commercial commodity bought and sold for modern states; it is the cornerstone of economic independence, public order, and national security. The process of liberalizing energy markets and opening them up to the private sector does not mean the market is left unregulated; on the contrary, it has necessitated the construction of a massive “regulation and audit” network through supreme boards such as the Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA/EPDK). Energy companies establishing power plants with billions of dollars in investments, constructing distribution networks, or engaging in fuel trade find themselves caught between profitability targets and EMRA’s mission of ensuring a “cheap, uninterrupted, and secure energy supply.” The supreme board’s authority to suddenly intervene in market dynamics, alter tariffs, or impose ceiling prices constitutes the highest “regulatory risk” item of unpredictability for investors.

One of the greatest breaking points the history of law has ever encountered is the placement of self-learning, initiative-taking, and decision-producing Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems at the center of life. In the event that a vehicle with an autonomous driving system is involved in a fatal accident, a medical diagnostic algorithm recommends an incorrect treatment to a patient, or an HR algorithm engages in discrimination (bias) during hiring, to whom do the civil or criminal liabilities belong? To the programmer, the company providing the data, the individual using the system, or to the AI itself? This “Black Box” problem, where how algorithms reach a decision by processing millions of datasets is often unexplainable even by their programmers, fundamentally shakes classical law, which is based on fault liability.

Tax law is the legal discipline where the tension between the state’s “taxation power,” used to finance public expenditures, and the individual’s property right under constitutional protection is experienced in its harshest and most ruthless form. Although the principle of “legality in taxation” theoretically appears to protect the taxpayer, in practice, the unilateral dispositions of the tax administration, base increases, sudden tax audits, and massive penalties can turn commercial enterprises into financial wreckage overnight. Trapped between books and documents and trying to find a way through the labyrinth of complex communiqués and circulars against the state’s unlimited financial power, the taxpayer finds themselves in the middle of an asymmetric tax war.

Universities are autonomous academic spaces that should serve as the most fundamental bastions of universal knowledge production, critical reasoning, and free thought. However, the mechanism of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) and the centralist reflexes of university administrations frequently leave this autonomy merely on paper, transforming them into the epicenter of administrative decisions, disciplinary investigations, and staff allocation blockages that replace merit with loyalty. Disputes arising between university management and academic personnel or students go beyond a classical administrative action; they represent a deep conflict between the freedom of science and bureaucratic tutelage. Arbitrary dispositions executed by the administration under the guise of “public interest” poison the academic basin and render the individual’s freedom to seek rights an absolute necessity.

The exchange of goods, services, and capital across geographical borders in the global economy is not merely a physical logistics operation, but also the inevitable clash of completely different legal systems, judicial sovereignties, and local commercial reflexes. In import and export processes, the effort of parties to impose their own national legislation (domestic laws) on each other leads to a chaos of “applicable law” (lex causae) in commercial disputes. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), constructed to eliminate this deep chaos and bring uniform rationality to international trade, is accepted as the constitution of global trade. When risk passes from seller to buyer (integration with Incoterms rules), the boundaries of the delivery obligation, and cases of fundamental breach of contract must be subjected to judicial review not through the narrow and local vision of local courts, but entirely by this body of universal rules dedicated to the dynamics of international trade.

The digitalization of the global economy and the routing of financial transactions through dominant currencies such as the US Dollar or Euro have carried the economic sanctions of nation-states or international organizations (United Nations, European Union, US Department of the Treasury – OFAC) far beyond geographical borders. Pursuant to the principle of “extraterritoriality,” even a Turkish company operating in Turkey, even if it is not a direct US or EU citizen, can become the target of OFAC or EU sanctions lists overnight because it uses the international financial system or trades products containing US-origin components. Sanctions law is a niche area where international politics and trade are at their most ruthless, unpredictable, and where legal mechanisms operate most severely.

Consumer law is the most fundamental social law field enacted to protect the rights of the “individual in a weak position” (the consumer) who struggles alone against massive capital powers, mass production giants, and banking systems. Pre-prepared, microscopic-font “standard contracts” (general transaction conditions) that are virtually impossible to read are the greatest trap locking the asymmetric structure of the market against the consumer. From shopping malls to e-commerce sites, from housing projects to bank loans, the ignoring of consumers’ legitimate demands by companies to protect their profit margins or prolonging the process with stalling tactics is one of the most widespread injustices of modern commerce.

Neighborhood law is the area of property law that generates the most hostility while appearing the most innocent from the outside. “Right of Way” lawsuits, which begin with the mandatory request for a passage way from a neighbor’s parcel in the event that a piece of real estate has no exit to the main road (general road) (remains locked), can turn into blood feuds between neighbors in rural areas or neighborhoods outside of urban transformation. While the law absolutely protects the right to property, out of fairness, it imposes an obligation of tolerance on the neighbor through the principle of “balancing of sacrifice.” However, calculations regarding which route will be chosen, how much the value of the property will drop, and the “fee” (compensation) to be paid become the scene of fierce property wars conducted with expert reports in courtroom halls.

The speed of modern commerce, the complexity of multi-billion-dollar massive projects, and the need to protect trade secrets cause the traditional state judiciary (due to the workload of courts and lengthy trial periods) to fail to keep up with commercial dynamics. Arbitration is the highest-level alternative dispute resolution (ADR) path that enables parties to resolve disputes between them through expert arbitrators of their own choosing, secretly, impartially, and swiftly, instead of state courts. In the rational flow of commercial life, resolving disputes before an arbitral tribunal consisting of expert engineers, economists, and lawyers, rather than lingering for years in state corridors, is not a luxury, but a necessity.

Internal Power Struggles and Corporate Governance Crises Partnerships established in commercial life are strategic structures where capital and vision unite; however, in times of crises marked by conflicts of interest, divergences in vision, and loss of trust, the corporate entity of the company transforms into an unrelenting legal battlefield. Disputes, particularly those occurring in family businesses or multi-partner joint-stock/limited liability companies, cease to be merely commercial law matters and turn into an existential crisis that fundamentally threatens the commercial existence (going concern) of the company. The use of power by those holding the majority shares (dominant partners) not in line with the company’s interests but for their own personal benefits, and their locking down of decision-making mechanisms, is a structural injustice that requires direct intervention by the law.