The compatibility of mandatory alternative dispute resolutions with the Constitutional principles

Having conflicts is a common occurrence in people's ordinary lives. States are responsible to resolve the disagreements and to ensure that the society lives in peace. Therefore, the principal places to be resorted to in the dispute resolution are resolved by the state by means of laws. Today however, the increasing number of disputes causes the courts to become very slow because of increasing workload. Lengthy and slow processes cause conflicting parties to resolve their dispute in a very long process and as a result parties do not maintain relations with each other in the future. For this reason, it should be encouraged to increase the application of alternative dispute resolution methods, which are peaceful methods, and to encourage the use of these disputes. These incentives can be provided by pre-condition or mandatory regulations of alternative methods. Parties will thus make it a habit to use alternative dispute resolution methods. In the trials and dispute resolutions, it is necessary to apply the principles set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Constitution. Therefore, compulsory alternative dispute resolution methods must comply with these principles. There are many compulsory alternative dispute resolution methods in comparative law and Turkish law. Both in terms of comparative law and Turkish law, these compulsory regulations are incompatible with constitutional principles; in this paper it will be discussed under which conditions these mandatory regulations will be compatible with the constitutional principles.