Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Article 60 of the law number 30 Year 1999 on Arbitration and alternative dispute resolutin states that the arbitral award is final and binding over the parties. Contrariwise, article 70 of the law number 30 year 1999 along with the explanation implicates a possibility that the arbitral award is entitled be annuled and void by the districted court as long as the criminal elements therein shall be initially proven in court. This analysis uses normative legal research methods to examine two decisions : (1) Districts Court's Decision Number 528/PDT/G/ARB/2011/PN.JKT.PST annuling the decision of the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) Number 399/V/ARB-BANI/2011, and (2) District Court's Decision Number 513/PDT.G/ARB/2012/PN.JKT.PST annuling the arbitral award of BAPMI (Indonesian Capital Market Arbitration Board) Number 004/ARB-03/VIII/2011. There is noticeable in the decisions a tendency on the subjects of legal considerations that are not conformed to the provisions of articles 70 of Law number 30 Year 1999 and contradictory to the principle of “presumption of innocence. “Thus, as a disagreement, the arbitral awards of BANI and BAPMI shall not be null and void by the districts court. Under the rule of law, there shall be an amandement to the Law Number 30 Year 1999. Further legal proceeding to an arbitral award should be no longer part through by recovation mechanism in the districts court, but in the form of an amendment or ratified interpretation of an arbitral award that is referring to the UNCITRAL Rules."

"Tesis ini meneliti dan mengkaji kewenangan arbitrase dalam memeriksa dan memutus sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum, ditinjau dari peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan putusan-putusan pengadilan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian adalah bahwa berdasarkan UU No.30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa dan asas pacta sunt servanda yang terkandung dalam Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata, arbitrase berwenang dalam memeriksa dan memutus sengketa perdata termasuk sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum yang timbul dari kontrak yang mengandung klausul arbitrase atau perjanjian arbitrase. Namun pada beberapa putusan pengadilan, terdapat sikap dan pendapat hakim yang menyatakan Pengadilan Negeri berwenang memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum yang terjadi di antara para pihak yang terikat dengan kontrak yang mengandung klausul arbitrase atau perjanjian arbitrase, karena perbuatan melawan hukum dipandang sebagai perbuatan yang tidak terkait dengan klausul atau perjanjian arbitrase di antara para pihak. Penelitian ini menyarankan Pengadilan Negeri untuk konsisten menghormati klausul arbitrase dalam perjanjian dan menyatakan tidak berwenang mengadili suatu sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum di antara para pihak yang terikat dengan klausul atau perjanjian arbitrase. Berdasarkan asas pacta sunt servanda para pihak harus terikat dan mematuhi klausul arbitrase dalam perjanjian yang mereka setujui.

---

This thesis analyses the authority of arbitration to adjudicate a tort dispute, pursuant to the prevailing arbitration regulation and the current Indonesian court’s decisions. The method of research used in this thesis is normative-juridical method. The research found that based on Law No.30 Year 1999 Regarding The Arbitration and The Alternative Dispute Resolution and pacta sunt servanda principle contained in Article 1338 of The Indonesian Civil Code, arbitration shall have the authority to adjudicate private dispute including tort dispute raising from a contract that contains arbitration clause or arbitration agreement. To some extent, there are several Indonesian court’s decisions have decided District Court has the authority to adjudicate tort dispute raising from the related contract that parties who bound by arbitration clause or arbitration agreement with the reason that tort is categorized or qualified as a legal act that does not relate with arbitration clause or agreement between parties. The thesis suggests to the court to consistently respect the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement made and entered into by the parties, and declare have no legal authority to adjudicate tort dispute between parties who are bound by arbitration clause or arbitration agreement. Based on pacta sunt servanda principle, the parties are bound by and shall comply with the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement they made and entered into."

"Tesis ini meneliti dan mengkaji kewenangan arbitrase dalam memeriksa dan memutus sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum, ditinjau dari peraturan perundang­ undangan yang berlaku dan putusan-putusan pengadilan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian adalah bahwa berdasarkan UU No.30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa dan asas pacta sunt servanda yang terkandung dalam Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata, arbitrase berwenang dalam memeriksa dan memutus sengketa perdata termasuk sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum yang timbul dari kontrak yang mengandung klausul arbitrase atau perjanjian arbitrase. Namun pada beberapa putusan pengadilan, terdapat sikap dan pendapat hakim yang menyatakan Pengadilan Negeri berwenang memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum yang terjadi di antara para pihak yang terikat dengan kontrak yang mengandung klausul arbitrase atau perjanjian arbitrase, karena perbuatan melawan hukum dipandang sebagai perbuatan yang tidak terkait dengan klausul atau perjanjian arbitrase di antara para pihak. Penelitian ini menyarankan Pengadilan Negeri untuk konsisten menghormati klilUsul arbitrase dalam perjanjian dan menyatakan tidak berwenang mengadili suatu sengketa perbuatan melawan hukum di antara para pihak yang terikat dengan klausul atau perjanjian arbitrase. Berdasarkan asas pacta sunt servanda para pihak harus terikat dan mematuhi klausul arbitrase dalam perjanjian yang mereka setujui.

---

This thesis analyses the authority of arbitration to adjudicate a tort dispute, pursuant to the prevailing arbitration regulation and the current Indonesian court's decisions. The method of research used in this thesis is normative-juridical method. The research found that based on Law No.30 Year 1999 Regarding The Arbitration and The Alternative Dispute Resolution and pacta sunt servanda principle contained in Article 1338 of The Indonesian Civil Code, arbitration shall have the authority to adjudicate private dispute including tort dispute raising from a contract that contains arbitration clause or arbitration agreement. To some extent, there are several Indonesian court's decisions have decided District Court has the authority to adjudicate tort dispute raising from the related contract that parties who bound by arbitration clause or arbitration agreement with the reason that tort is categorized or qualified as a legal act that does not relate with arbitration clause or agreement between parties. The thesis suggests to the court to consistently respect the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement made and entered into by the parties, and declare have no legal authority to adjudicate tort dispute between parties who are bound by arbitration clause or arbitration agreement. Based on pacta sunt servanda principle, the parties are bound by and shall comply with the arbitration clause or arbitration agreement they made and entered into."

"Salah satu akibat dari globalisasi pada dunia bisnis adalah timbulnya suatu kontrak bisnis internasional, yakni suatu kontrak yang melibatkan dua atau lebih warga negara atau badan hukum yang tunduk pada sistem hukum negara-negara yang berbeda. Berangkat dari hal ini, akan timbul problema hukum yakni masalah kompetensi lembaga hukum yang berwenang atau yurisdiksi yang disebabkan oleh perbedaan sistem hukum dari negara para pembuat kontrak bisnis internasional. Dalam pilihan forum penyelesaian sengketa terdapat beberapa pilihan yang dapat dipilih para pihak, misalnya arbitrase atau pengadilan asing. Berbeda halnya dengan arbitrase yang telah diatur secara jelas lewat Undang-undang Nomor 30 tahun 1999, belum ada pengaturan yang tegas mengenai kompetensi pengadilan asing dalam mengadili suatu sengketa bisnis internasional. Hal ini membuat keberadaan pengadilan asing sebagai salah satu pilihan penyelesaian sengketa transaksi bisnis internasional menjadi tidak dipandang dan tidak diakui eksistensinya. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dan empiris yang dilakukan dengan penelusuran terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan kompetensi pengadilan negeri serta keberadaan pengadilan asing sebagai salah satu pilihan forum yang dapat dipilih dalam suatu kontrak bisnis internasional.

---

One of the effects of a globalization era in the bussiness world is the birth of an International Business Contract, which is a contract that involves two or more citizens or corporations who or which comply to different legal systems. Depart from this subject, a legal problem will be arised namely jurisdiction or competency of a certain court which caused by legal system differences amongst business countries. In the choice of dispute settlements, there are several choices that could be chosen by the parties, such as arbitration or foreign court. In contrary to arbitration which has been regulated on the Law of the Republic Indonesia Number 30 of 1999, there is no firm regulation about the competence of the foreign court to resolve international business disputes. This makes the existence of foreign court as one of the choice of international business dispute settlement become not regarded and recognized. This study is a juridical normative and empirical research carried out by finding the governing legislation relating to the competency of the district court and the existence of the foreign court as one of the options in the choice of forum in an international business contract."