Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas praktik Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia dan hambatannya Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat praktik ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia berupa Arbitrase dalam kerangka MAP dalam P3B Indonesia ndash Meksiko dan Pembahasan dengan Tim Quality Assurance Pemeriksaan Tim QAP Hambatan dalam praktik arbitrase yaitu sifatnya yang optional posisinya dalam MAP biaya yang timbul dan tidak adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut Hambatan dalam pembahasan dengan Tim QAP yaitu konflik peran yang mempengaruhi impartiality dan neutrality Hasil penelitian menyarankan adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai arbitrase penambahan klausul arbitrase dalam P3B Indonesia dengan negara lainnya pergantian sumber daya Tim QAP perubahan dalam Undang undang KUP serta pengadopsian Accelerated Issue Resolution AIR dan Dispute Resolution Panel DRP sebagai ADR di Indonesia

---

This study discusses practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR and its issues in Indonesia rsquo s tax dispute resolution system The approach used is qualitative decsriptive method The result indicates arbitration in MAP framework contained in Indonesia ndash Mexico Tax Treaty and the Discussion with Examination Quality Assurance Team QAP Team as pratice of ADR in Indonesia Issues relating arbitration are its optional nature its position in MAP costs arised and lack of further regulation Issue in QAP Team is its lack of impartiality and neutrality The researcher suggests that further regulation of arbitration should be made additional arbitration clause in other Indonesia Tax Treaties is needed change of QAP Team should be considered change in General Tax Provision and Procedure Law should be made and AIR and DRP should be adopted as ADR in Indonesia "

"Tulisan ini menganalisis efektivitas pemilihan penyelesaian sengketa Arbitrase dalam Kontrak Baku Elektronik dan bagaimana implementasi Arbitrase Online sebagai bentuk dari Online Dispute Resolution di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan di Singapura dalam menyelesaikan sengketa bisnis e-commerce. Penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal yang bersifat normatif kualitatif. Perkembangan teknologi yang berdampak kepada kegiatan transaksi jual-beli menjadi hal yang tidak terlepaskan dari kebutuhan masa kini. Kehadiran penyelesaian sengketa dengan media online menjadi suatu urgensi untuk menjamin kepastian dan perlindungan hukum dalam menjawab sengketa yang berpotensi timbul di kemudian hari. Peneliti berfokus pada penyelesaian sengketa arbitrase online karena umumnya e-commerce menuangkan Klausula Arbitrase sebagai pilihan penyelesaian sengketa di dalam kontrak baku elektronik yang sudah mereka standarisasi. Dalam praktiknya keabsahan Klausula Arbitrase dalam Kontrak Baku Elektronik dapat dipertanggungjawabkan karena sudah selaras dengan peraturan perundang-undangan serta asas-asas hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia. Terkait implementasi Arbitrase Online di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan Singapura sudah dapat terlihat jelas melalui regulasi terkait prosedur pelaksanaan arbitrase online yang terdapat dalam lembaga-lembaga arbitrase yang ada di kedua negara. Melalui perbandingan antara kebijakan yang berlaku di kedua negara tersebut tulisan ini dapat memberikan gambaran bagaimana bentuk pelaksanaan arbitrase online yang dapat menjamin keefektifan dalam menyelesaikan sengketa bisnis e-commerce.

---

This paper analyzes the effectiveness of Arbitration dispute resolution selection in Electronic Standard Contracts and how the implementation of Online Arbitration as a form of Online Dispute Resolution in Indonesia compared to Singapore in resolving e-commerce business disputes. This research is prepared by using a normative qualitative doctrinal research method. The development of technology that has an impact on buying and selling transaction activities is something that cannot be separated from today's needs. The presence of dispute resolution with online media is an urgency to ensure legal certainty and protection in answering disputes that could potentially arise in the future. Researchers focus on online arbitration dispute resolution because e- commerce generally includes the Arbitration Clause as an option for dispute resolution in the electronic standard contract that they have standardized. In practice, the validity of the Arbitration Clause in the Electronic Standard Contract can be accounted for because it is in line with the laws and regulations and legal principles applicable in Indonesia. Regarding the anticipation of Online Arbitration in Indonesia compared to Singapore, it can be clearly seen through regulations related to the procedures for implementing online arbitration contained in arbitration institutions in both countries. Through a comparison between the policies that apply in the two countries, this paper can provide an overview of how the form of implementation of online arbitration can guarantee effectiveness in resolving e-commerce business disputes."

"[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini membahas proses penyelesaian sengketa tahapan Pemilihan Umum yang terpengaruh oleh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 41 PHPU D VI 2008 yang berimplikasi dikesampingkannya aspek kepastian hukum dan kemanfaatan karena terdapat beberapa lembaga negara yang memiliki kewenangan untuk menangani sengketa dalam tahapan Pemilu seperti Bawaslu DKPP Peradilan Umum Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Mahkamah Agung serta Mahkamah Konstitusi Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan menghasilkan penelitian deskriptif analitis Hasil penelitian menyarankan pembentuk undang undang membuat suatu peraturan perundang undangan mengenai proses penyelesaian sengketa Pemilu yang mengharmonisasi kewenangan lembaga lembaga yang memiliki kewenangan untuk menangani sengketa dalam tahapan Pemilu dengan memberikan jangka waktu dalam penyelesaiannya serta menjadikan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai peradilan Pemilu terakhir dimana tidak ada upaya hukum maupun badan peradilan lain yang menangani perkara Pemilu setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi kecuali perkara yang berkaitan dengan pelanggaran etik maupun tindak pidana.

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this study is the dispute resolution of stages of general election is affected by Constitutional Court Judgment No 41 PHPU D VI 2008 which has implication for ruled out legal certainty and expediency principle because there are state agencies what have the authority to adjudicate for dispute resolution of stages of general election like election supervisory board honorary of election executor board criminal court administrative court supreme court and constitutional court This study is a qualitative research for generate descriptive analytical The researcher suggest that the legislator form a regulation about dispute resolution general election process which harmonization an authority of state agencies which have an authority for adjudicate for dispute resolution of general election and the regulation gives a period of time for the resolution and constitutional court be a last court of general election which there is no other remedy or other bodies to adjudicate after constitutional court judgment except violations of ethics or criminal of general election. , The focus of this study is the dispute resolution of stages of general election is affected by Constitutional Court Judgment No 41 PHPU D VI 2008 which has implication for ruled out legal certainty and expediency principle because there are state agencies what have the authority to adjudicate for dispute resolution of stages of general election like election supervisory board honorary of election executor board criminal court administrative court supreme court and constitutional court This study is a qualitative research for generate descriptive analytical The researcher suggest that the legislator form a regulation about dispute resolution general election process which harmonization an authority of state agencies which have an authority for adjudicate for dispute resolution of general election and the regulation gives a period of time for the resolution and constitutional court be a last court of general election which there is no other remedy or other bodies to adjudicate after constitutional court judgment except violations of ethics or criminal of general election. ]"

"Penerapan ketentuan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (?UU Arbitrase?) telah menimbulkan kontroversi akibat ketentuan tersebut tidak konsisten dan tidak ada aturan yang tegas. Penelitian ini bermaksud untuk mencari korelasi yang tepat terhadap penerapan Pasal 70 dihubungkan dengan penjelasan pasal itu sendiri dan penjelasan pada bagian umum UU Arbitrase sehingga dapat menjamin tercapainya kepastian hukum keadilan bagi para pihak bersengketa. Permasalahan mendasar adalah apakah alasan untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase bersifat limitatif atau non-limitatif, dan bagaimana pembuktian alasan-alasan tersebut apakah diperlukan keputusan Pengadilan terlebih dahulu atau tidak. Bagaimana sikap Mahkamah Agung terhadap pembatalan putusan arbitrase ini, apakah telah memenuhi asas kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi para pihak. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Penulis menemukan bahwa ternyata ketentuan Pasal 70 dan putusan Mahkamah Agung tentang permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase ini sangat beragam dan tidak konsisten sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan keadilan. Dilain pihak, aturan tentang upaya hukum untuk pembatalan putusan arbitrase juga tidak bisa dihapuskan sama sekali karena bisa terjadi putusan arbitrase diambil dalam keadaan yang salah sehingga dapat menimbulkan ketidakadilan apabila putusan tersebut tetap dipertahankan. Oleh karenanya perlu dilakukan perbaikan atas aturan arbitrase yang mengatur tentang upaya hukum pembatalan putusan sehingga dapat tercapainya kepastian hukum dan memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat.

---

The application of the provisions of Article 70 of Law No. 30 Year 1999 Regarding Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (?Arbitration Act?) has caused controvercy due to such article are inconsistent and there is no strict rule. This research intends to find out the correlation of the application of Article 70 associated with its elucidation and the general description of the Arbitration Act, to ensure the achievement of legal certainty and justice for disputing parties. The fundamental issues in respect of the annulment of arbitral award is whether the reasons of annulment is qualified limitative or non-limitative and whether is required prior final court decision or not. What is the opinion of the Supreme Court on such annulment of the arbitral award which has fulfilled the principle of legal certainty and justice for disputing parties. This research was conducted with juridical normative research methods. Authors found that the Article 70 and Supreme Court?s decision regarding the annulment of the arbitral award has caused legal uncertainty and injustice due to being indistinct and inconsistent. On the other hand, the rule of law remedy for the annulment of the arbitral award could not be eliminated completely because there are still any conditions where the arbitral award was taken in the wrong circumstances that can lead to uncertainty and injustice when the award is retained. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the arbitration rules which regulates legal remedy of application of the annulment of the award to ensure the legal certainty and justice in society."