Arbitration is an increasingly popular alternative form of resolution for construction disputes. After the establishment of the Istanbul Arbitration Center, the question of whether international parties would prefer it instead of other popular venues has arisen. Previous studies have found that the reasons for preferring one seat of arbitration over others are strongly related to judicial attitudes toward arbitration and the legal infrastructure. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to compare the Turkish legal infrastructure and judicial attitudes with those of England and Singapore, the leading and most improved seats of arbitration, respectively. For this purpose, the relevant decisions of Turkish courts and legislative provisions were analyzed and a comparative study was carried out. It was found that by incorporating the Model Law and signing the New York Convention, Turkey has leaped forward. Moreover, Turkish courts have supported arbitration proceedings even if the arbitration seat was outside Turkey. However, Turkish courts are criticized in two respects: (1) finality of arbitral awards were sacrificed in return for procedural perfection; and (2) an appropriate balance was not struck between parties' right to have the award enforced and the public good. (C) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.