THE EVOLUTIONARY STRUCTURE OF THE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT LAW OF TURKEY

THE EVOLUTIONARY STRUCTURE OF THE FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT LAW OF TURKEY Introduction: The concept of foreign direct investment (FDI) was introduced in Turkey as of the year 2003 with the FDI Law no. 4875 even though there had been a former legislation to promote and encourage foreign capital since the end of 1950s. The legal concept that the new FDI Law has brought, is the result of the increasing need of encouraging foreign investments taking into account of global requirements and changing role of Turkey in global economy. Through this paper, evolutionary structure of Turkish legislative acts concerning foreign investments is to be analyzed from the Law Concerning the Encouragement of Foreign Capital dated 1954 until the Foreign Direct Investment Law dated 2003. The motivations that influenced Turkish laws as well as difficulties behind this evolutionary process will be laid down taking into account of domestic and global conditions during their preparation. Then, a detailed legal comparison between the old and new legislation is to be made so as to demonstrate the sharp level of liberalization in Turkey regarding foreign direct investment policy in the last 50 years. Furthermore, the special problems and challenges regarding this Law will also be laid down. Additionally, by referring to some theoretical works on the role of law in fostering foreign investment, the role of the new Foreign Direct Investment Law as well as BITs signed by Turkey in its attraction of FDI in the last decade is to be analyzed. Lastly, this paper examines the possible lessons that the Turkish experience has for other countries. A) The Global and Local Motivations Behind the Liberalization in FDI Legislations In order to examine the global and local motivations as well as the conditions that led to Turkey’s liberalization in the FDI area, it would be reasonable to consider these developments in three periods: 1-) First period from 1950s to 1980. 2-) Second Period from 1980 to 2001. 3-) Third Period from 2001 until today. The beginning and the end of these periods are also reflecting the milestones of Turkey’s integration with the global economy. A.1. First period from 1950s to 1980 As of the beginning of 1950s, the political liberalization in Turkey started with the Democrat Party when it came into power. Briefly, the Party had shifted from state interventionist and protectionist economic policies, which had been followed from the foundation of the country since 1923, to a free market economy, which was completely based on promoting foreign aid, credits, loans and foreign capital. In line with these policies, outward-looking foreign trade policies were accepted. Furthermore, private entrepreneurship at all levels was supported. Public investment at industry were diminished dramatically and the public sources were only allocated to prioritized areas such as agriculture, mechanization, public infrastructural investments (road transportation, energy etc.) In line with these liberal policies, the Law Concerning the Encouragement of Foreign Capital No. 6224 entered into force in 18 January 1954 which was accepted as an highly liberal legislation for attracting FDIs considering the economic conservatism of that period. In fact, through this Law, the expectations of Turkey from foreign investment were also limited. Turkey was mainly aiming to provide economic development by increasing its production and national income. Democrat Party was deeply supporting that foreign capital inflow would enable Turkey to take a necessity step for competitive market situation. The Law no. 6224 stayed into force until 2003, subject to certain amendments and supplements. However, the contemporary approach to foreign investments, which is subscribed to globally has not been achieved through these changes. Although Turkey started to receive foreign investments after the 1950s, these investments were not enough to support economic growth of the country as a result of instability and high bureaucracy level as well as missing essential regulation. A.2. Second Period from 1980 to 2001 The first radical changes in the area of foreign investments in Turkey came about after 1980 since new commercial improvements appeared both in the world and in Turkey. Especially Turkey entered a new economic period with a new program prepared by Turgut Ozal called “Decisions of the January 24th”. In this period, the share of government investment decreased and foreign trade became free. Government stimulated foreign investments, profit transfers, and external contractor services. Import activities were liberalized gradually, and export activities was encouraged with tax decrease, low interest credits, custom dispensation to manufacturer exporters and encouragement systems. Therefore, Turkish economy completely transformed from closed economy to an open and market based liberal economy. After 1980, Turkey shifted its industry strategies from import- based industrialization to the export-based one. This export oriented growth model not only led to increase in Turkey’s credit in world trade market but also motivated FDI since global structure begins to base on commercial relations and both trade and trade-related investments has become the most important concept in the world as of 1980s. These global facts led to the creation of “Free Trade External Zones” in Turkey, which has still been playing significant role in the development of Turkish economy. Through the Law of “Free Trade Zones” no. 3218 enacted in 1985, these zones became the foreign investor attraction centers of Turkey since it has brought special incentives to foreign investors. As a result, after 1980s, there was a relative increase in foreign capital inflow in the country due to the market openness, regulations and reducing the bureaucracy. In addition to the economic reforms as of 1980s, there existed other developments that accelerated Turkey’s economic integration with the world. One of them was the conclusion of Customs Union Agreement with the EU in 1995, which enables the free movement of industrial goods with zero tariffs between European Customs Area and Turkey. The other overlapping development was Turkey’s membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and decreasing its bound tariff rates substantially, which paved the way to increase its exports and integration to the global economy. However, both of these major developments did not prevent the fact that FDI started to flow in Turkish economy lately in comparison to other developing countries attracting substantial amount of FDIs during this era such as S. Korea or China. Even the Customs Union, which unified both markets in terms of trade in goods, could not bring the FDI to Turkey. Turkey’s belatedness and failure to attract FDI was obvious until the end of 1990s. Main economic reasons behind the failure until the end of 1990s were a) excessive bureucracy and prevailing corruption, b) high costs of the entry and functioning procedures for foreign investors, c) chronic high inflation, increasing economic instability, d) inadaptable international accounting standards, e) lack of intellectual property rights, f) the failures in privitizations g) inadequate legal structure as well as insufficiency of communication, transporation and energy systems. (Izmen &Yilmaz, 2009) On the other side, the non-economic reasons behind the failure were conflicts in the country, political instability, and attitude toward economic relations between foreigners what might be explained by historical conflicts in the era of Ottoman Empire. (Erdilek, 2001) A.3. Third Period from 2001 to today In fact, this period reflects how a developing country, like Turkey, both struggling with economic and political instabilities and trying to integrate itself with the global economy at the same time, can overturn most of the threats into opportunities. During this period, Turkey has witnessed variety of developments such as two economic crisis, one was internal 2001 Crisis while the other one is external 2008 Great Recession, first acceleration and then diminishing of its EU Accession aims, developing politic and economic relations with neighbor and periphery countries as well as macroeconomic and political stability that was mainly thanks to AK Party Government since 2003. All these developments except 2008 Global Crisis have contributed to the increase of FDIs in Turkey after 2001 as seen in the chart below: Source: Undersecretariat for Treasury, Turkish Economy Report prepared on 9 April 2012. Today’s Turkey’s economic success is thanks to the Transition to Stronger Economy Program after 2001 Crisis. The Program was based on tight monetary and fiscal policies, establishing flexible exchange rate policy, ensuring the independency of Central Bank by amending Law No. 4651, prohibition of Central Bank to print unsecured money and to grant loans to public institutions, non-intervention to the bankruptcies on banking sector due to the lack of their ability to borrow credits from Central Bank, decreasing inflation dramatically, acceleration of privatization in sectors such as energy, telecommunications and banking which triggered FDI attraction. Turkey succeeded all between 2002-2008. During the period, since Turkey’s EU Accession Talks began in 2005, the flow of FDI from the EU to Turkey increased sharply. However, both 2008 Global Financial Crisis spillover effects and weakening of Turkey’s EU Accession objective led to decrease in FDI between 2008-2010. On the other hand, since Turkey was able to diversify its FDI sources in line with its foreign policy based on developing strong relations with its neighbor and periphery countries as well as relative global recovery after 2008 Crisis, significant increase in FDI as of 2011 was experienced. According to UNCTAD 2012 Country Report, developed economies account for the bulk of Turkey’s inward FDI stock (87 per cent in 2010), with the EU still representing 75 per cent of that figure. The Netherlands was the largest investor in 2010 (21 per cent), followed by Germany (10 per cent) and the United States (8 per cent). Outward FDI stock mainly targets the EU (51 per cent in 2010) − the Netherlands in particular − and the transition economies (31 per cent), mostly Azerbaijan. (UNCTAD, 2012) The role of FDI has changed in Turkey after 2001 since economic crises in Turkey in the recent years have demonstrated that the performance of short-term portfolio investments has not been satisfactory. Short-term portfolio investments are not favored as they lead to hot money mobility in the market. Instead, it has been asserted that long-term investments reduced the resource deficit in developing countries to a great extent, hence making them the favored option. Furthermore, as a result of increasing exports, which is extremely based on intermediate goods and energy, high Current Account Deficit (CAD) has remained as the most fragile part of Turkish economy and does not seem to be solved in the short term since it is a structural problem. Thus, the quality and sustainability of financing instruments of CAD, which is high to GDP ratio (as of the year 2011 it is %10) is utmost importance and FDIs have been playing critical role in this manner for the sustainability of high CADs with minimum risks. Besides its being a safe tool for CAD financing, in this period Turkey’s expectations from FDI can be summarized as follows: - transfer of technology, management skills and know-how and increasing productivity, competitiveness and production specialization induced by FDI’s “discipline effect”, compensation of Turkey’s capital scarcity problem domestically which is a threat for its continuous growth in the long term and solving the problem of unemployment. Therefore, in order to create an appropriate environment for foreign investment and address the obstacles on the FDI inflow, Turkey prepared a new FDI Law no. 4875 and repealed the older one. Both the economic, political and legal stability climate in Turkey and the new FDI Law increased FDI dramatically. Therefore we may argue that legal regulations alone would not suffice to create an adequate environment for investments. B) Legal Comparison between Law Concerning the Encouragement of Foreign Capital No.6224 and Law No. 4875 on Foreign Direct Investments As mentioned in the previous section, FDI inflow in Turkey has increased considerably after 2003. An important reason for this growth is not only Turkey’s success in its integration with global economy but also its accelerated liberalization efforts to adapt its FDI law to its new economic policies particularly after 1980s. As the concrete result of these liberalization efforts, the new Foreign Direct Investment Law No. 4875 (hereafter Law No. 4875) was released in 2003 through repealing the former Law Concerning the Encouragement of Foreign Capital No. 6224 (hereafter Law No. 6224). Through this new FDI Law, the government aimed at offering a more suitable investment climate for foreign investors to develop the economic growth through a new transparent market, which is open to global trade and an efficiently operating government a supporter. In order to understand completely the liberalization effect of this new Law on the recent increase in FDIs in Turkey, it would be reasonable to lay down the major differences between these two legislation acts. B.1-The change in the FDI Regulating Authorities To begin with, one of the main changes under the new Law No. 4875 is that Undersecratariat for Treasury has become the sole authority to regulate foreign capital and FDI. According to the Article 4 of the new FDI Law, “the Undersecretariat is authorized to determine the general framework of policies concerning foreign direct investments, and for this purpose to participate in the activities of other organizations. The consent of the Undersecretariat shall be taken before any amendment or enactment of a regulation related with foreign direct investments.” On the other hand, under the former Law No. 6224, instead of a sole authority, “Encouragement of Foreign Capital Committee” was operating as the body which consisted of the representatives of Central Bank, Ministry of Finance, Undersecratariat for Treasury, Ministry of Industry and Trade as well as Chambers of Turkish Trade and Industries. According to Article 1 of former law, “…foreign capital to be imported from abroad and to foreign credit loans to be procured from abroad upon decision of the Committee for the Encouragement of Foreign Capital and the approval of the Council of Ministers and upon ratification by the Council of Ministers, provided that the subject of investment a) is useful for the economic development of the country, b) is in a field of activity open to Turkish private enterprise.” Since the new FDI Law aims to create a safe and less bureaucratic investment environment for foreign investors, the first priority might have been given to abandon the mechanism of the multiple decision making authorities embodied under the former Law, since all they had their own institutional concerns which might have easily been an obstacle for the free inflow of FDI to Turkey since they might not be able to see the “big picture” of FDI benefits for Turkey. In other words, the heterogenic structure of the “Encouragement of Foreign Capital Committee” (hereafter the Committee) was seen as an important obstacle for FDI promotion. Furthermore, since the top political decision maker in Undersecratariat for Treasury has also been the top political person in the Turkey’s economy management, it is reasonable to unify the authority under a sole regulating body. Thus, as a result of the shift in FDI management policy, foreign investors are now only responsible for its acts to the sole authority to some extent, which acts as a catalyzer for them to invest in Turkey. B.2. The change in the requirements for FDI Another significant change in the new FDI Law No. 4875 is that it has changed Turkey’s foreign investment policy from “screening system” to “monitoring system”. Thus as of 2003, all former FDI related screening and approval procedures have been abandoned for a business set up (company or branch) and share transfers. Foreign investors will no longer be required to obtain prior approvals for these transactions. Pre-approval requirements for certain transactions, capital increase and changes of field of activity of foreign investment companies have also been eliminated. Before that change, according to the former Law No. 6224 Article 1, “…foreign capital to be imported from abroad and to foreign credit loans to be procured from abroad upon decision of the Committee for the Encouragement of Foreign Capital and the approval of the Council of Ministers and upon ratification by the Council of Ministers, provided that the subject of investment : a) is useful for the economic development of the country, b) is in a field of activity open to Turkish private enterprise.” As seen, all FDI was subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers and the Committee, which was consisting of different bureaucratic institutions. This two-fold approval structure had been found deterrent by foreign direct investors to make investments in Turkey. In the former system, according to the Article 4 of the Foreign Capital Framework Decree (Decree No: 95/6990 dated on June 7,1995) which was enacted to establish the principles of promoting foreign capital into Turkey, Undersecretariat for Treasury had become responsible in granting permissions i.e. company and branch establishment pre-permits, foreign partner participation pre-permits, investment permits, permits regarding changes in field of activity of foreign companies, permits regarding capital increase or sale of shares of foreign companies, indirect participation permits, registration of license, know-how, technical assistance and similar agreements. As an additional requirement to all these, foreign investors were required to bring 50.000. USA Dollars at minimum per person to establish corporations, become partners in existing companies and opening branch offices. Foreign Capital Framework Decree (Decree No: 95/6990 dated on June 7, 1995, http://www.fdi.net/documents/WorldBank/databases/turkey/fdilaw_turkey.pdf (Last visited on 3 April 2012). All these permissions had been in contradiction with Turkey’s efforts for economic liberalization and integration to the global modern economy, which was accelerated after the beginning of 2000s. Considering the fact that rapid movement of capital in the today’s global market from one country to another, and the multinational structure of most of the companies involving into outsource production as well as increasing competitiveness among emerging markets for FDI attraction not only from capital-based economies but also knowledge base economies, all the required permissions had been no more than obstacles on FDI inflow into Turkey. Since this provision was seen as a bureaucratic obstacle for attracting FDI, through the new FDI Law no. 4875, it was repealed by Article 1, which states that “…to establish a notification-based system for foreign direct investments rather than screening and approval…” Thus, the system of approvals and permissions previously required for the entry of foreign capital was completely abolished. Instead, it provides for a system of notification. According to Article 4, foreign investors are only to be asked to provide some statistical information to the Undersecretariat of Treasury for the purpose of developing an information system about foreign investments in Turkey. On the other hand, since all foreign companies established or to be established in Turkey under Turkish Commercial Code are accepted as national companies, they are still responsible for obtaining local licenses required for a comparable Turkish company. Besides, Article 5 of the new FDI Law also guarantees the granted rights of the foreign capital based companies established under former FDI Law No. 6224. Thus, since these companies also subject to the new FDI Law with their granted rights previously, they are not required to obtain permissions any more. This provision is likely to have a triggering effect on the companies, which made their investments in Turkey under the former FDI Law No. 6224, in terms of strengthening and deepening their current investment ties with Turkey by transferring their more high value added production methods to Turkey or opening new branches as well as establishing more foreign partnerships related with their current FDIs in Turkey. As a result, the change in new FDI law enables investors to make investments without great barriers (less approval or capital requirement). All investments are handled equal as Turkish firms in legal structure independently its establishment with foreign capital. It became free to choose an FDI form included in Turkish Commercial Code and investors do not have the obligation to bring a minimum capital 50.000$ as before. (Arslan, 2009) The change in the definition of “foreign investor” In fact, even though the term “foreign investor” was not defined explicitly in the former FDI Law no. 6224, it was generally understood from the term that foreign investors are the real persons possessing foreign nationality or foreign legal entities established under the laws of foreign countries. Taking into consideration the increasing economic and financial power of international institutions as well as Turkish nationals resident abroad in the recent decade, the “foreign investor” term was not only defined explicitly but also widened in the new FDI Law No. 4875. According to the Article 2, “real persons who possess foreign nationality and Turkish nationals resident abroad and
foreign legal entities established under the laws of foreign countries and international institutions, who make foreign direct investment in Turkey” is accepted as foreign investors. It is understood that through this new foreign investor definition, the sources of FDI is aimed to be diversified instead of limiting it to only foreign real persons or legal entities. On the other hand, what is uncertain under this provision is that the legal status of Turkish nationals who are resident in Turkey but at the same time a partner of a legal entities established under the laws of foreign countries and international institutions. However, since the provision only states “legal entities established under the laws of foreign countries and international institutions” and does not put any requirement for the nationalities of their partners, it can be interpreted that Turkish nationals who are resident in Turkey but a partner of an foreign legal entities can be “foreign investor” under this provision. B.3. Re-definition of Foreign Direct Investment by abolishing the Committee According to the former Law no. 6224, under Article 2 “principal foreign capital” was limited to ‘capital funds in the form of foreign currency, machinery, equipment, tools and similar goods, machinery components, spare parts and materials and other necessary commodities to be approved by the Committee, services and rights over immaterial property such as patent rights, licenses and trademarks, portions of profit converted into and integrated with investment capital…’ Furthermore according to the former FDI Law no. 6224, both the values of the imported assets as well as their necessity and appropriateness were determined by experts to be appointed by the Committee. Furthermore it also states “the decision of the Committee concerning the evaluation of assets is final.” In other words, the Committee was the main authority to determine the scope of the FDI, which was quite deterrent for foreign investors. The power of the Committee in the determination of the FDI scope was not in line with the liberalization efforts in FDI as of 2000s. Through the new FDI Law no.4875, one of the main changes is that the abolishing the Committee with all its authorities to decide the availability of any assets that can be named under principal foreign capital. Thus, the definition of FDI was renewed and the scope of FDI has been expanded under Article 2/b. According to that both establishing a new company or branch of a foreign company by foreign investor and share acquisitions of a company established in Turkey (any percentage of shares acquired outside the stock exchange or 10 percent or more of the shares or voting power of a company acquired through the stock exchange) are accepted as FDI. It is also stated that it might be by means of, but not limited to: “..assets acquired from abroad by the foreign investor: capital in cash in the form of convertible currency bought and sold by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, stocks and bonds of foreign companies (excluding government bonds), machinery and equipment, industrial and intellectual property rights; 2) Assets acquired from Turkey by foreign investor: - reinvested earnings, revenues, financial claims, or any other investment-related rights of financial value,- Commercial rights for the exploration and extraction of natural resources. Therefore, both the abolishment of the Committee and the expansion of the FDI have made this new FDI Law more powerful tool in terms of fostering FDI inflow to Turkey. B.4. The changes in the formation of partnership According to the former FDI Law no.6224, foreign investors were only allowed to form a joint stock company or a limited company. Article 2 states that “Real persons and legal entities residing abroad, shall apply to Undersecretariat of Treasury …for establishing a joint-stock or limited company, (the companies to be established with the purpose of carrying out Built -Operate-Transfer projects shall be in the status of joint- stock companies) and branch office in compliance with the Turkish Commercial Code for the purpose of making investments and carrying out commercial activities in Turkey. However limiting the formation of partnership to a joint stock company or a limited company was not in line with Turkey’s efforts on attracting more foreign investment. Thus, through the new FDI Law no. 4875, the formation of partnership was expanded and now, foreign entrepreneurs can choose any form of company allowed in the Turkish Commercial Code while setting up an enterprise in Turkey. Furthermore, through the FDI law %100 foreign ownership is permitted for the formation of new businesses and acquisition of existing businesses with the exception of a few specific sectors, which are subject to and regulated by separate/special laws. In fact, the new FDI Law reflects the “Freedom to Invest and Equal Treatment Principle” with its Article 3 (a) saying that “Foreign investors are free to make foreign direct investments in Turkey, and foreign investors shall be subject to equal treatment with domestic investors.” The new Law guarantees national treatment and comprehensive investor rights. All companies established with a foreign capital contribution and under the rules of the Turkish Commercial Code (existing and newly established foreign companies) are regarded as a Turkish company. Therefore equal treatment both in rights and responsibilities as stated in the Constitution and other laws is applicable to all such companies (including national treatment, a guarantee against expropriation without compensation, transfer of proceeds, access to real estate and to expatriate personnel, and international arbitration or any other means of dispute settlement). However, all foreign companies established or to be established in Turkey are still responsible for obtaining those local licenses required for a comparable Turkish company. Hence, the conditions for a business set up and a share transfer will be the same as for comparable local investors. Foreign capital companies will follow the same procedures as local companies to realize these transactions. On the contrary, there are some exceptions brought to these equal treatment principles. For instance, according to the Article 29 of the Law on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts Law No. 3984, “The share of foreign capital in one private radio or television enterprise may not exceed 25 percent of the capital paid up.” Or “a real or legal person of foreign nationality holding shares in a certain radio or television enterprise may not become a shareholder in another private radio or television enterprise.” To see the whole text of “Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts Law No. 3984” visit http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10734 (Last visited on 4 April 2012) On the other hand, with the law No.6112 announced on the Official Gazette on March 3, 2011, foreign investors can hold up to 50% of the shares in up to two broadcasting companies, which was 25%. Even though there exists an improvement in this limitation, there still exists a limitation set for a foreign investor in terms of owning majority shares of the company who wants to make investment in media sector. Another exception to the equal treatment principle is applied through the Turkish Civil Aviation Act no.2920. The right of cabotage is applied under Article 31 stating that “transportation of passengers, mail and freight by air for commercial purposes between tow points within the boundaries of the Republic of Turkey can be effected with Turkish registered aircraft.” To see the whole text of “Turkish Civil Aviation Act no.2920” visit http://web.shgm.gov.tr/doc2/law2920.pdf (Last visited on 4 April 2012) There also exist similar restrictions for direct activity rights of foreign investors for equitable treatment principle in Petroleum Law no. 6236, Mining Law no.3213 as well as Banking Law no. 5411. See Article 6 and Article 12 of Petroleum Law no.6236 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22369982/Turkish-Petroleum-Law , see Articles 6-9 of the Banking Law no.5411 www.tbb.org.tr/english/5411.doc See Article 6 of the Mining Law no. 3213 http://www.ongurergan.av.tr/en-EN/mevzuat/turkey_mining_law.pdf (All last visited on 4 April 2012) B.5. The change enabling to have the majority share of a monopolized company/sector One of the most debated changes in the new FDI Law no. 4875 is that it enables foreign investors to have the majority share of a monopolized company/sector through its Article 1. Considering the national economic policies during which the former FDI Law no.6224 was prepared, such liberalization for foreign investors would be perceived as an infringement of national sovereignty. As matter of fact, according to the Law no. 6224 Law Article 1. “… foreign capital to be imported to Turkey cannot acquire majority share of institutions performing activities consisting of monopoly within the Country”. However, as Turkey had left its state interventionist economic policies behind as of 1980s, and as it became an emerging market that needs to allocate its scarce sources to other sectors, privatization of previously owned state companies became an inevitable policy especially after 2001 Crisis deriving from high government deficits. Thus, during 1990s and 2000s, the idea of privatization was applied into practice and most of the state-owned enterprises were privatized. This trend has also paved the way for foreign investors to make investments in the sectors that were previously owned by the state as a monopoly. As a result of this background, the restriction on having a majority share in monopoly sector has been removed by the new FDI Law and it is stated under Article 1 of the new FDI Law no. 4875, “The objective of this Law is to regulate the principles to encourage foreign direct investments; to protect the rights of foreign investors; to define investment and investor in line with international standards; to establish a notification-based system for foreign direct investments rather than screening and approval; and to increase foreign direct investments through established policies. This Law establishes the treatment to be applied to foreign direct investments.” Through this provision, it is allowed that a foreign investor might acquire the majority share of institutions performing activities consisting of monopoly. This provision can be defined as a fundamental change in Turkey’s approach towards foreign investment and created domestic concerns that some strategic sectors might go under the control of foreign investors. B.6. The changes in transfer rules According to the Article 4/a of the former FDI Law no. 6224, the profits that are allowed to be transferred was defined in an exhaustive list i.e. net profits accruing in favor of the owner of the principal capital out of income and calculated in accordance with the tax laws in force, in case of a partial or total liquidation of an enterprise established under the present law, the share accruing in favor of the owners of the principal foreign capital at reasonable prices, the proceeds obtained from the sales, at a reasonable price and whether in whole or in part, of the principal foreign capital invested in a business founded or working under the terms of the present law, repayment installments and interest payments, as they become due and payable in accordance with the respective foreign loan agreements. Additionally, under Article 4 (b) of the former FDI Law if deemed necessary Ministry of Finance or the Committee might have been able to order the examination of the accounting books and tax declarations of an enterprise established under the present law, in order to determine the amount available for transfer and order an inquiry in order to ascertain whether the sale of capital shares or of liquidation sale of assets, or credit loans are executed in genuine goodwill. Additionally, according to the Article 4/c, “Upon applications for the transfer of profit shares, sales proceeds, loan repayment installments and interest payments of the sorts classified as transferable in Paragraph (a) of this Article, the Ministry of Finance will grant permission for same.” Last but not least, profits and capital funds could only be transferred abroad in the national currency of the principal foreign capital at the current official exchange rate. Therefore, the former FDI Law was too restrictive to transfer the shares of foreign investors due to its exhaustive list on transferable profits as well as its delegation of authority to the Ministry of Finance and the Committee in order to determine the amount or to check foreign investor’s existence of “goodwill” through using its financial tools. Furthermore, the vagueness of some terms such as “goodwill” or “reasonable amount” made the system working more restrictive and creating too much policy space for the government side. Last but not least, the transfer of profits at foreign investor’s national currency at the current official exchange rate was also not in conformity with today’s global investment and production system. Any foreign investor might have had another investment in another country and thus might have been able to transfer its shares at the currency that it is willing to do so. Considering these facts in mind, through the new FDI Law no.4875, the authority of Ministry of Finance was abolished in terms of granting permission for the transfers in question as well as their national currency transfer conditions. In addition to that, both Ministry of Finance and Committee for the Encouragement of Foreign Capital’s authority to determine the amount of available for transfers and ordering an inquiry in order to ascertain whether the sale of capital shares or of liquidation sale of assets or credit loans are executed in genuine goodwill which was brought by Article 4/b of former Law no. 6224 was removed. According to the new FDI Law, free transfer of share principles has been brought under Article 3(b) “Foreign investors can freely transfer abroad: net profits, dividends, proceeds from the sale or liquidation of all or any part of an investment, compensation payments, amounts arising from license, management and similar agreements, and reimbursements and interest payments arising from foreign loans through banks or special financial institutions”. Through this legal change, Turkey seems to have created an “investment friendly environment” by recognizing the competitiveness of the global investment market particularly in emerging markets. B.7. Enabling the employment of expatriates In the former FDI Law no.6224, under Article 7(a) the Committee was responsible in determining the period of time, which is necessary for the establishment, expansion or operation of the business or for its being put again into activity. That was perceived a significant obstacle for the foreign investors since a national Committee would decide on behalf of those foreign investors without considering their own economic or financial realities since they were not participating to the decision making process of the Committee. In addition to that under Article 7 (c) of the former FDI Law, it was required that “The foreigners to be employed in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Article [are} subject to procurement of approval of the Ministry of Finance obtained in advance…” Here, almost all the decisions related with the foreign investment were bounded with the Ministry of Finance even though the decision in question is not directly related with the functioning area of the Ministry. In order to correct the asymmetry in the employment of expatriates, through the new FDI Law no. 4875, the authorities assigned to Ministry of Finance have been abolished and, with limitation to “key personnel” definition, these authorities have been transferred to the Undersecretariat of Treasury and Ministry of Labor and Social Security. According to the Article 3 (g) foreign investors can employ, provided that the work permits are obtained from Ministry of Labor in accordance with the Article 23 of the Law on Work Permits for Foreigners No. 4817 dated 27 February 2003. Article 23 on the employing foreigners in the foreign capital investments: The foreigners that are wanted to be employed in companies and enterprises established within the scope of the Law on Promotion of Foreign Capital number 6224 can be employed with the working permission given by the Ministry within the framework of the procedures and bases to be determined with the regulations to be issued jointly with the Undersecretariat of Treasury. (To see the whole text of the Law no.4817, visit http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/ankara/download/lawpermit.pdf , last visited on 7 April 2012) C) The new provisions that were brought by the new FDI Law No. 4875 C.1. International arbitration opportunity for dispute settlement The new FDI Law has granted foreign investors the opportunity to choose international arbitration for their dispute settlements. According to the Article 3 (g) of the Law, “…for the settlement of disputes arising from investment agreements subject to private law and investment disputes arising from public service concessions contracts and conditions which are concluded with foreign investors, foreign investors can apply either to the authorized local courts, or to national or international arbitration or other means of dispute settlement, provided that the conditions in the related regulations are fulfilled and the parties agree thereon.” Through this provision, the arbitration borders of Turkish Legislation System have been expanded for the first time in national legal history. Thus, national or international arbitration is allowed for disputes arising from contracts involving government concessions as well as for the disputes arising from agreements subject to private law, provided that the conditions in the related regulations are fulfilled. The inclusion of international arbitration for dispute settlement aims at addressing the confidence concerns of foreign investors. C.2. The prohibition of Expropriation and Nationalization Besides Turkey’s privatization initiatives particularly accelerated after 2001 Crisis, in order to strengthen the confidence of foreign investors who are allowed to have the majority share of a monopolized sector thanks to the new FDI Law, for the first time “the prohibition of expropriation and nationalization” principle has been included to Turkey’s new FDI Law. According to the Article 3(b) “Foreign direct investments shall not be expropriated or nationalized, except for public interest and upon compensation in accordance with due process of law.” However, it might also be interpreted, as it is likely to expropriation and nationalization of FDIs as long as these FDIs are found to the detriment of public interest. However, there is an ambiguity of defining public interest phenomenon. C.3. Valuation of Non-Cash Capital Another important provision that the new FDI law has brought is regarding the valuation of non-cash capital, which is subject to be valued within the regulations of Turkish Commercial Law. Under Article 3 (f) it is laid down that in case that stocks and bonds of companies established abroad are used as foreign capital share of foreign investors, the values determined by the relevant authorities in the home country, or by the experts designated by the courts of the home country, or any other international institutions performing valuations will be accepted. C.4. Annulled Provision Regarding Land Acquisition One of the most debated provisions of the new FDI Law no. 4875 was the land acquisition and acquiring real estate rights recognized to foreign investors, which was annulled as of 2008. According to the Article 3 (d) of the new FDI Law, foreign capital companies established in Turkey would have the same rights to acquire a real estate as domestic investors. Foreign real persons would be able to own a real estate according to the principle of “reciprocity.” However, on April 16, 2008, the Constitutional Court has annulled subparagraph (d) of Article 3 of the Foreign Direct Investment Law passed in 2003, regarding the acquisition of real estate and limited rights in rem by companies with foreign capital. In order to avoid the loophole caused by this annulment, a law has been passed on July 3, 2008 in order to amend articles 35 and 36 of the Land Registry Law. The mentioned law provided to obtain permit for the acquisition of real estate in certain areas defined as military security zones and strategic zones. In order to regulate the transactions to be executed in this respect, the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement has issued a regulation on November 12, 2008. The fact, that the related regulation provides a procedure for obtaining permits with regard to the mentioned zones applicable only to the companies with foreign capital, creates controversy with “foreign investors are subject to equal treatment with the Turkish investors” principle of the Foreign Direct Investment Law and causes unfair competition against the companies with foreign capital since all the companies established in Turkey are accepted as legal persons that are subject to Turkish laws and they should not be subject to any discriminating treatment depending whether they are companies with domestic or foreign capital. Moreover, while the Law requires permit only with regard to the mentioned zones, the Regulation of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement has brought practically, the requisite of obtaining permit for all real estate acquisition requests whether they fall in those zones or not. Therefore, in practice, acquisitions of real estate in all zones rather than in defined zones have been subjected to permission. Another issue that has been criticized is that the Regulation brings along prolonged permission procedures, which are incompatible with the dynamics of commercial life, as well as ambiguities and it is likely to cause obstructions at many stages. The regulation prescribes for durations up to 30 days, which may also be subject to extensions due to bureaucratic applications. No sanctions have been stipulated in the regulation in this respect. These developments have created unfair competition against companies with foreign capital in acquisition of real estate due to the permission process and ambiguities caused in privatizations and mergers and acquisitions. In addition to the prolonged procedures, the evaluation of whether acquiring real estate is appropriate for the field of activity of a company shall also lead to discretionary practices and interpretations. In fact, the commentary of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in connection with the banking field by exceeding its authority is an example as such. Due to the increasing critics towards this implementation, on October 6, 2010, a new Regulation amending the one dated November 8, 2008, has been published by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. The new Regulation did not change the scheme radically since it is not changing the requirement for applying for permissions for all areas. It only decreases durations of the procedures regarding the applications and favors the companies in case the related authorities did not reply within the specified time limits. However, the legal force of these clauses is questionable since they are introduced by a Regulation rather than by a Law. There are ongoing talks among and with the related public institutions to solve the legislative problems. The Role of Law in terms of FDI fostering for Turkey case In this section, the role of new FDI Law and other supporting legislative acts as well as Turkey’s Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) is to be discussed to the extent they contribute to Turkey’s FDI Attraction. In this regard, first some theoretical approaches regarding the impact of law on developing countries are to be evaluated considering Turkey’s realities. Then, other supporting legal acts as well as BITs will be discussed. D.1. Examining the role of Turkey’s FDI and supporting legislation under Theoretical Approach The role of the law on fostering FDI to a developing host country can be analyzed by its contribution to the concepts of “risk” and “return” balance of home country’s investment decisions. Naturally, investors make investment “when the project will yield a satisfactory return at an acceptable level of risk. Thus, laws may have either positive or negative impact on investor’s evaluation of risks and returns of a potential investment in a developing country.” (Salacuse, ICSID Review, 2000) While some burdens such as bureaucratic long procedures or high taxes that are brought by the laws of a developing country might deter a foreign investor, tax exemptions or abandoning approval procedures for FDI might lead to attract foreign investors. In other words, the FDI and related law acts like a “traffic light” for foreign investors. Considering the importance of the law in fostering FDI, in the last two decades, most of the developing countries including Turkey have been in the process of reforming their foreign investment law so as to reduce risks and costs for foreign investors. Additionally, most of them have also been engaged in international legal initiatives such as BITs, international arbitration conventions or the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). (Salacuse, ICSID Review, 2000) Besides liberalizing their national FDI legislations, through being a part of international investment law system, developing countries seem to send stronger signals to the foreign investors so as to emphasize to some extent that they are ready to bind themselves legally at international level since national legislations might be subject to change by future governments while international commitments might live longer. As a developing country, Turkey also followed the same pathway as its counterparts did after 1980s and the new FDI Law is the final outcome of its liberalization process. Through this Law, Turkey seems to reduce the risks substantially for foreign investors comparing to the former legislation on FDI. According to Salacuse (2000), the main risks are categorized under six basic points: (a) restrictions on foreign investment entry in to the country; (b) licensing requirements and administrative approvals; (c) limits of foreign exchange transfers; (d) operational requirements; limitation on the use and ownership of the land; and (f) onerous taxation requirements. (Salacuse, ICSID Review, 2000) Considering these risk criteria, in terms of restrictions, even though Turkey has some sectoral restrictions particularly in banking or mining sectors, through the new FDI Law it has enabled foreign investors to decide the type of their entity formation, abolished performance criteria and provide them to have to majority shares of a formerly monopolized sector. Furthermore, all licenses and administrative approvals are completely abolished so as to diminish the regulatory burden on foreign investor. Additionally, the new FDI Law does not set any limits for foreign exchange transfers and foreign investors can freely transfer their profits. In terms of taxation, since foreign companies are established in Turkey under Turkish Commercial Code, they are subject to the taxes that national companies are. However, in the last five years, AK Party Government has been reducing firm taxes so as to foster both internal and external investments. In terms of operational requirements Turkey has facilitated most of the requirements such as allowing the employment of expatriates and key personnel to work by facilitating the procedure. However, in terms of land acquisition, as it was described in the previous section, Turkey has not been able to clarified its prohibitive approach of non-acquisition of land in “strategic zones” for foreign investors due to its conflicting and uncertain regulations. Besides a brief risk analysis, it is reasonable to state that the implementing authorities of the law are as significant as the law itself. Government institutions and investment agencies in developing countries have a reputation with their slow and costly works while functioning their “screening” task. However, since both Undersecretariat for Treasury and Turkish Investment Promotion Agency do not have such a “screening” function after the new FDI Law, they seem to act harmoniously to form a “one-stop-shop” for foreign investors. The capacity of national courts is also critical determinant of FDI– especially high-value FDI destined for export markets which can go anywhere and which need a reliable and hassle-free environment. Lengthy and non-transparent procedures combined with unpredictable outcomes, in both the executive branch of the government and in the courts, are among the main problems in this area. Turkey has taken significant steps to reform its judicial system and enhance its predictability as a component of its EU Accession Program. (Dutz et. al, 2004) The role of FDI Law has changed in fostering FDIs due to Turkey’s transition from a state interventionist, closed and highly regulated economy (Development Model I) to a free market based, open and deregulated economy (Development Model II) after 1980s. As Salacuse (2000) argues that shifting from Development Model I to Development Model II have important implications since their new FDI legislation employs incentives rather than coercive pressure to affect actors’ behavior, enables the them a legal freedom to arrange their transactions through their own contracts rather than governmental plans or regulations, leads to develop a private law system to sustain those business and market transactions and requires to revise their commercial codes, company laws, land laws as well as to develop legislation on secured transactions, bankruptcy, stock exchanges, competition, and taxation domestically while to participate in international legal arrangements. As Salacuse argues that Development Model I is based on: State Planning and Public Ordering, Reliance on public enterprises, pervasive regulation and closed economies. Development Model II is based on: Markets and private ordering, privatization, deregulation and opening economies. (Salacuse, 2000) Besides all these market based economy arrangements, in parallel with fostering its FDI Law, Turkey has also revised its investment-supporting legislation, which act as a catalyst role in FDI attraction. The first revision was made through Privatization Law No. 4971 in which the involvement and participation of foreign investors is highly encouraged by preventing the discrimination between local and foreign investors who participate in privatizations. Another revision has been made in investment incentives and grants legislation based on equal treatment principle such as incentives on investment, export, free trade zones, technology parks, R&D and less-developed regions. Furthermore, all these incentives are strengthened with a new incentive program announced on April 6th 2012 by the AK Party Government, featuring strong investment incentives for less-developed regions including social security employment premium subsidies for seven to 10 years, land allocation and tax exemptions for new investments from the beginning of 2012 through the end of 2013. For further information, visit http://turkisheconomynews.com/a-new-investment-incentive-scheme-for-turkey.html (last accessed on 14 April 2012) Additionally, Turkey harmonized its Competition Law as well as its IPR Law with that of the EU as parts of its Customs Union and EU Accession harmonization process to the EU regulations. Turkey’s transition from Development Model I to Development Model II has brought about not only all these domestic changes, but also international initiatives such as conclusion of BITs, Double Taxation Prevention Treaties, Social Security Agreements and Customs Union and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) as well as being a member of international arbitration organs such as ICSID, which Turkey has been reaping the benefit of them all today due to their contribution to fostering FDI in Turkey in the last decade. D.2. The role of Turkey’s Engagement with International Investment Legislation in fostering its FDI In order to foster its FDIs, Turkey has not only accelerated its legislation reforms domestically but also taken initiatives at international level and thus bind itself with international law which is the most important positive signal to foreign investors in terms of diminishing their risks. While FDI Law might be subject to change one day for political reasons, the international commitments under BITs or Double Taxation Agreements are to survive and still be binding for Turkey even they would conflict with a new FDI Law. According to the Turkish Constitution Article 90 (5), as long as they are put into effect pursuant to Article 90 (1) “…No appeal to the Constitutional Court shall be made with regard to these agreements, on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. In the case of a conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms duly put into effect and the domestic laws due to differences in provisions on the same matter, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail.” Article 90 on Ratification of International Treaties, The Constitution of Republic of Turkey dated 1982, http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf (last visited on 14 April 2012) As having one of the most liberal FDI regime in its region, Turkey has signed BITs with 82 countries having strong investment relations with Turkey or carrying a potential in this direction or with which the development of bilateral economic relations are considered promising. To see the whole list of Turkey’s BITs, visit http://www.economy.gov.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=tradeagreements&bolum=bilateral (last visited on 14 April 2012) 
BITs are fundamental agreements to increase the bilateral flows of capital and technology, and protect investments of international investors in the framework of the legal system of Turkey. Main principles of Turkey’s BIT model, which is regularly updated to meet international standards in line with the lessons learned from international arbitration cases involving Turkey are as follows: 1) Promotion of Long-term and Productive Investments, 2) Fair and Equitable Treatment of and Full protection and security for investments 3) Most favored nation and national treatment principles 4) Protection against expropriation, 5) Compensation for losses 6) Guarantee for transfer of returns and profits 7) Access to international arbitration for foreign investors (including ICSID, Ad Hoc arbitration and other venues. No BITs BITs signed but not entered into force BITs in force Source: Ministry of Economy, October 2011. As seen on the map, Turkey’s BITs are not limited to developed countries. Since Turkey has turned into a capital exporter country in the last decade, BITs are increasingly concluded with developing countries. Turkey’s recent BITs show parallelism with Turkey’s new foreign policy based on diversification and enhancement of bilateral relations with Latin America, Africa and Middle East countries including Gulf Countries. Thus, signing BITs seems to be for not only economic but also political reasons. On the other hand, the role of BITs in fostering FDIs both in Turkey and abroad are low since only % 9,3 FDI in Turkey and %6.1 Turkish FDI abroad are covered by BITs. In order to complement its BITs, Turkey has also signed supplementary agreements with other countries. For instance, Turkey has signed double taxation prevention treaties with 75 countries. This enables tax paid in one of two countries to be offset against tax payable in the other, thus preventing double taxation. Most of these treaties are signed in parallel with conclusion of BITs. Additionally, in order to ease the movement of expatriates between the Parties, Turkey has signed Social Security Agreements with 22 countries so far. The number of these countries seems to increase in line with the increased sources of FDI. Lastly, thanks to its Customs Union relation with the EU, Turkey has been concluding Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the countries that had already signed FTAs with the EU and thus eliminating tariffs, quotas and preferences on most goods and services traded between them. Since the scope of the FTAs are widened by the EU after its “New Generation of FTAs” Strategy as of 2006 and due to its Customs Union obligations Turkey is obliged to conclude FTAs with the same scope of those of the EU, investment chapters are recently being added on Turkey’s FTAs. E. Lessons Learned from Turkey’s Experience Turkey has liberalized its FDI Law since 1954 and the new FDI Law enacted in 2003 has played key role in its recent success in FDI attraction in the last decade. In order to complement its liberalized FDI climate and send more positive signals to foreign investors, Turkey not only enhanced its investment climate domestically by granting incentives to investors on equal treatment basis but has also tied itself legally at international level by signing many BITs, Double Taxation Prevention Agreements or enabling international arbitration in settlements of disputes. This framework explains why many global companies are now using Turkey as a second supply source and manufacturing base, not only for the EU and rapidly growing Turkish markets, but also for the Middle East, Black Sea and North African markets, with the added advantage of a relatively low cost but well-educated labor force, coupled with cost-effective transportation. In fact, there exist some lessons that might be learned from Turkish experience. First of all, Turkey has been able to liberalize its investment climate through enacting an increasingly liberal and welcoming regulatory framework governing FDI at domestic level. Here, Turkey did not confine itself with enacting a liberal FDI legislation, it also made structural and legal reforms in terms of its financial system, privatization and labor market to facilitate the inflow of FDI. Secondly, at the international level, Turkey has been able to diversify its FDI sources by concluding BITs and other supportive agreements in order to spread the risk of lack of FDI inflow and to increase the quality of FDIs. Thus, even Turkey would be in difficulty to attract FDI from developed countries most of which are still struggling with the adverse effects of 2008 Crisis, thanks to its diversification of FDI sources, Turkey was able to attract FDI from its rising developing counterparts during the post-crisis period. Thirdly, Turkey has been successful in promoting its advantages for foreign investors by underlining on every occasion, its economic and political stability, geostrategic power, high prospect of growth with its large and growing domestic market, low labor costs relative to other EU countries, a relatively well developed and stable financial system, taxation and financial incentives, physical and technological infrastructure as well as its increasing foreign trade volume. The role of Investment Promotion Agency and Undersecretariat of Treasury is remarkable in terms of their efforts for facilitating and promoting Turkey’s advantages for foreign investors instead of creating unnecessary bureaucracy. As a result of all these policies, Turkey seems to close the gap with its developing counterparts and is on the way to progress further in the near future and turn out to be one of the top FDI destination not only for developed but also for developing countries. REFERENCES Serdar Arslan (2009), “Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey Reasons and Effects on the Country”, University of Vienna. Erdilek, A. (2001, November). Dimensions of Western Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey by Ekrem Tatoglu ; Keith W.Glaiser. International Journal of Middle East Studies , pp. pp.663-665. Mark Dutz, Melek Us and Kamil Yılmaz, (2004) Turkey’s Foreign Direct investment Challenges: Competition, The Rule of Law and EU Accession, Publication of Undersecretariat of Treasury. Jeswald W. Salacuse, (2000) From Developing Countries to Emerging Markets: A Changing Role for Law in the Third World, 33 the Int’l Lawyer 875–90. Jeswald Salacuse, (2000) Direct Foreign Investment & the Law of Developing Countries, 15 ICSID REVIEW – Foreign Investment Law Journal 382. Kula, F, (2003), Efficiency of International Capital Flows: Some Observations on Turkey”, Çukurova University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Vol: 4 / 2, Adana Izmen,Ü., & Yilmaz, K. (2009). Turkey's Recent Trade and Foreign Direct Investment Performance. Tüsiad-Koc University Economic Research Forum . Turkish Economy News on New Investment Scheme of Turkey announced April 6th 2012, http://turkisheconomynews.com/a-new-investment-incentive-scheme-for-turkey.html Undersecretariat for Treasury, Turkish Economy Report, April 2012. http://www.treasury.gov.tr/irj/go/km/docs/documents/Treasury%20Web/Reports/Sunumlar/Ekonomi_Sunumu_ENG_0_.pdf UNCTAD Investment Country Profiles Turkey, February 2012 http://www.unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaeia2012d6_en.pdf The list of Turkey’s BITs, visit http://www.economy.gov.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=tradeagreements&bolum=bilateral YOIKK Presentation Bilateral Investment Treaties as a tool to improve investment climate by Hasan Aslan AKPINAR Foreign Trade Expert on BITs http://www.yoikk.gov.tr/dosya/up/IDB/20111013_BilateralTreaties_HasanAslanAkpinar.pdf “Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts Law No. 3984” visit http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10734 “Turkish Civil Aviation Act no.2920” http://web.shgm.gov.tr/doc2/law2920.pdf Petroleum Law no.6236 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22369982/Turkish-Petroleum-Law Banking Law no.5411 www.tbb.org.tr/english/5411.doc Mining Law no. 3213 http://www.ongurergan.av.tr/en-EN/mevzuat/turkey_mining_law.pdf Law no. 4817, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/ankara/download/lawpermit.pdf , last visited on 7 April 2012) Article 90 on Ratification of International Treaties, The Constitution of Republic of Turkey dated 1982,http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf The List of Turkey’s BITs, visit http://www.economy.gov.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=tradeagreements&bolum=bilateral FDI Law no.4875 http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/publications/Documents/FDI%20Law%20in%20Turkey.pdf Former FDI Law no. 6224 http://www.fdi.net/documents/WorldBank/databases/turkey/fdilaw_turkey.pdf [Type text][Type text][Type text] Duygu Cecen Yaygir - MALD’12 Final Paper - ILO L 232 International Investment Law Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse 1