Globalization has changed not only the way business is done, but also the way disputes are born, litigated, and ultimately enforced. A single transaction can involve parties incorporated in different countries, performance split across jurisdictions, digital communications stored in foreign data centers, and assets located where enforcement is most convenient. In that environment, winning “on the merits” is only one part of the equation. The decisive questions are procedural: Which court has jurisdiction? How do you validly serve documents abroad? How do you access evidence located in another country? And can you recognize and enforce a foreign judgment in the forum where the debtor’s assets actually sit?
This article explains—through a Turkey-centered lens—how globalization reshapes the key pillars of international civil procedure and why procedural strategy is now a core part of dispute management.
1) Jurisdiction in a Global Economy: More Connections, More Conflict
Traditional connecting factors—defendant’s domicile, place of performance, place of contract—remain relevant, but globalization multiplies them. Remote services, platform-based transactions, cross-border supply chains, and multi-currency payment structures create overlapping forums. That overlap increases the risk of parallel proceedings and forum shopping.
As a result, jurisdiction clauses and dispute resolution clauses (especially arbitration) have become essential commercial tools. Yet globalization also highlights a counter-trend: in areas where one party is structurally weaker (employment, consumer matters, certain insurance disputes), legal systems often limit party autonomy to protect fundamental procedural fairness. The practical takeaway is clear: jurisdiction planning must be drafted with the “type” of relationship in mind, not only the commercial goal.
2) Service Abroad: Validity and Speed Become Litigation Assets
Cross-border litigation routinely fails not because the claim is weak, but because procedural steps are defective—especially service of process. Global business expects fast dispute resolution, but procedural legitimacy still depends on proper notice and the right to be heard.
Turkey’s participation in the 1965 Hague framework on service abroad is therefore a major operational factor for litigants dealing with foreign-resident parties. The Convention’s status table records Turkey’s ratification and entry-into-force details, which helps anchor predictable service channels in many country-to-country relationships.
Globalization’s practical effect is that service abroad is no longer “administrative paperwork.” It is a high-stakes compliance step: the wrong method, incomplete translation requirements, or an unprovable delivery trail can later trigger due process objections—especially when recognition/enforcement is pursued.
3) Evidence Located Abroad: From Letters Rogatory to Digital Evidence Management
Evidence is increasingly cross-border: emails hosted in another jurisdiction, bank records protected by foreign secrecy regimes, witnesses living abroad, or CCTV footage stored by global vendors. Globalization therefore forces civil procedure to develop structured cooperation tools.
Turkey’s ratification of the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention (with entry into force in 2004) is a key milestone in standardizing evidence-taking abroad in civil or commercial matters.
At the same time, digitization changes the “shape” of evidence:
- integrity and authenticity (metadata, logs, hashing),
- cross-border data transfers and confidentiality restrictions,
- third-party custodians (cloud providers, platforms),
- the need for forensic handling and chain-of-custody discipline.
In modern practice, international civil procedure is moving toward procedural data governance—not just traditional witness and document routines.
4) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: The Real Endgame
In a global market, the economic value of a judgment depends on whether it can travel to where assets are located. That is why recognition and enforcement (R&E) is the enforcement engine of globalization.
In Turkey, R&E is structured around statutory conditions such as finality, due process (including proper notice), public policy control, and—most notably for enforcement—reciprocity considerations. Turkish doctrine and court practice treat these procedural safeguards as the gatekeeping mechanism that balances global mobility of judgments with national constitutional principles.
Globally, there is also a push for broader multilateral uniformity. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention entered into force in 2023 and its Contracting Parties have expanded over time. However, Turkey does not appear among the Contracting Parties on the Convention’s status table (as updated on the HCCH website at the indicated date).
This matters in practice: for Turkey-related enforcement strategy, parties still primarily rely on domestic law rules, bilateral arrangements where available, and case-by-case reciprocity analyses rather than a universal “free circulation” regime for judgments.
5) Arbitration and Mediation: Globalization’s Procedural Alternatives
Global trade has also pushed dispute resolution beyond state courts. International arbitration offers specialized adjudication, procedural flexibility, and a transnational enforcement logic that many commercial actors prefer. Mediation—especially in commercial contexts—has grown as a cost-effective settlement mechanism and, in some systems, a procedural gateway to litigation.
The strategic impact is that “procedure” now includes a portfolio of options: court litigation, arbitration, mediation, and hybrid models. Globalization therefore expands the lawyer’s procedural role from litigation management to dispute system design.
6) Global Labor Mobility and Protective Procedure: A Turkish Example
Globalization intensifies cross-border employment relationships and posted-worker structures, which in turn elevates conflict-of-laws and procedural protection debates. A recent example is the Turkish Constitutional Court’s decision dated 05.11.2024 (E.2023/158, K.2024/187) regarding the conflict rule in MÖHUK Article 27/1, followed by legislative amendments discussed under the “10th Judicial Package / Law No. 7550” context.
Even for purely procedural planning, this signals a wider trend: globalization triggers not only liberalization (more autonomy, more cross-border freedom) but also stronger protective filters for fairness and weaker-party safeguards.
7) Practical Checklist: Reducing Procedural Risk in Global Disputes
Before a dispute arises, parties should map procedural risk:
- Is a jurisdiction clause valid for this relationship type?
- Should arbitration be preferred for enforceability and neutrality?
- Where will service abroad be required and what convention channels apply?
- Where is the evidence stored and how can it be lawfully obtained?
- Where are assets located and what will enforcement require there?
This approach turns international civil procedure into a proactive compliance tool rather than a reactive courtroom problem.
Conclusion
Globalization transforms international civil procedure from a niche technical field into a central strategic discipline. Jurisdiction, service abroad, evidence taking, and recognition/enforcement are now interconnected parts of a single chain. A single weak procedural link—improper service, evidence collected unlawfully, or an unenforceable forum clause—can undermine the entire dispute outcome. For globally exposed individuals and businesses, the most effective legal strategy is often built on procedural architecture as much as substantive claims.
Yanıt yok