Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Indonesia has been being a member of the 1958 New York Convention since 1981, namely upon issuance of the Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981. Priori to talkiing intó force of the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic Indonesìa No. 1 of .1990 on Procedures for EnforcemenL of Foreign Arbit awards, there were still constrâints lor the foreign Business plâyers in terìr enforcement of arbitral awards in lndonesia, The Supreme Court âs the higest judicial institution in lndonesia holds that internationâl arbitral awards can not be enforced ill lndonesja. After the Indonesian Supreme Court has issued such a regulation, enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia began to be enforceable, because the procedural law that governs the for execution of arbitral awards has been clear ln order to regulâte the international arbitral award problems in the hjerarchy of legislation, on October 12, 1999, the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution was promulgated. In that Law there is a special part discussing the International Arbitration. This study Examines the development of international arbitral award enforcement in lndonesia before Indonesia becoming member of the .1958 New York Convention, until nowâdays, by analyzing the international arbitral awards that were decìded by the Supreme Court of the Republic of lndonesia after the coming into effect of the Arbitration Law."

"Arbitrase merupakan lembaga penyelesaian sengketa yang sangat popular digunakan oleh kalangan pelaku bisnis. Namun, hal tersebut tidak menjamin bahwa suatu putusan dapat dilaksanakan pada suatu negara, karena terhalang oleh suatu ketertiban umum negara tersebut. Kemajuan pesat di bidang bisnis baik nasional maupun internasional seperti penanaman modal (investment), kontrak kerjasama investasi asing (joint venture agreement), maupun alih teknologi (transfer of technology), dll. Memerlukan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa hukum yang cepat dan tepat manakala terjadi perselisihan (misunderstanding) bahkan sengketa hukum (dispute). Permasalahan timbul ketika terjadi persengketaan dan memakai forum Arbitrase untuk penyelesaian sengketa tersebut. Persengketaan tersebut berkaitan dengan suatu putusan arbitrase yang akan dilaksanakan di Indonesia tidak dilakukan dengan itikad baik oleh pihak yang kalah. Hal ini tentu saja berkaitan langsung dengan apakah pengadilan negeri memiliki kewenangan terhadap suatu putusan arbitrase atau tidak. Kondisi dimana pihak yang bersengketa tentu menginginkan kepastian hukum, jika putusan tersebut ingin dilaksanakan namun terhalang oleh ketertiban umum dan hukum custom yang dimiliki oleh suatu negara. Maka dari itu terbentuklah 3 rumusan masalah yaitu: (1)Apakah Pengadilan Negeri memiliki kewenangan menolak dan melaksanakan putusan Arbitrase Internasional?; (2)Bagaimana kepastian hukum yang akan didapat oleh suatu pihak yang mempunyai sengketa di Indonesia dimana sengketa tersebut bersinggungan dengan  ketertiban umum?; (3) Haruskah ketertiban umum dirumuskan secara terperinci ?. Tipe penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil dari penelitan ini yakni kewenangan pengadilan ada pada sebelum dan sesudah proses arbitrase tersebut, namun dalam prosesnya, peran pengadilan mempunyai peran yang sangat penting. Kepastian hukum dalam hal-hal yang bersinggungan dengan ketertiban umum di Indonesia tidak dapat dipastikan karena ketertiban umum dinilai berubah-ubah. perumusan ketertiban umum secara terperinci dianggap penting, sehingga para investor yang akan berinvestasi mempunyai guide line dalam keuntungan dan kerugian yang akan didapat.

---

Arbitration is a very popular dispute resolution institution used by business people. However, this does not guarantee that a decision can be implemented in a country, because it is obstructed by a country's public order. Rapid progress in the field of business both nationally and internationally such as investment foreign investment cooperation contracts, and transfer of technology, etc. Requires a mechanism for resolving legal disputes quickly and precisely when disputes occur (misunderstanding) and even legal disputes. Problems arise when disputes occur and use the Arbitration forum to resolve the dispute. The dispute is related to an arbitration award that will be carried out in Indonesia not carried out in good faith by the losing party. This is of course directly related to whether the district court has authority over an arbitration award or not. Conditions where the parties to the dispute certainly want legal certainty, if the decision is to be implemented but is hindered by public order and custom law owned by a country.

Based on the description, 3 problem formulations are determined namely: (1) What is the authority of the court of an international arbitration award ?; (2) How will legal certainty be obtained by a party that has a dispute in Indonesia where the dispute is related to Public Policy ?; (3) Should the Public Policy be formulated in detail? The type of research used is normative legal research.

The result of this research is that the authority of the court is before and after the arbitration process, but in the process, the role of the court has a very important role. Legal certainty in matters pertaining to Public Policy in Indonesia cannot be ascertained because Public Policy is judged to be changing. The formulation of a detailed Public Policy is considered important, so that investors who will invest have a guide line in the profits and losses that will be obtained."

"Kondisi Indonesia yang saat ini telah menjadi salah satu negara anggota New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention 1958) membuka peluang bagi putusan arbitrase internasional untuk dapat diakui dan dilaksanakan di wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia. Dalam hal ini klasifikasi suatu putusan arbitrase, apakah merupakan putusan arbitrase internasional atau putusan arbitrase nasional, menjadi penting karena berpengaruh terhadap kewenangan pengadilan terhadap perkara arbitrase internasional. Namun pada praktiknya dijumpai adanya perbedaan persepsi mengenai putusan arbitrase internasional menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (Undang-Undang Arbitrase) dan konvensi internasional. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif skripsi ini akan memberikan analisis mengenai aspek-aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional serta analisis mengenai pertimbangan hukum para hakim di Indonesia dalam pengklasifikasian putusan arbitrase internasional pada perkara Nomor 144/K/Pdt/2012 dan perkara Nomor 175/PDT/2018/PT.DKI. Selain itu juga ditemukan keperluan atas keselarasan pengaturan mengenai putusan arbitrase internasional dalam Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan konvensi-konvensi internasional demi mencapai kepastian hukum.

---

The condition of Indonesia which is one of the member country of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention 1958) give an opportunity to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the jurisdiction of Indonesia. According to this condition the classification of arbitral awards, whether international arbitral award or national arbitral award, is important because it could affects the authority of the national court against international arbitration cases. In fact, there is a different perspective about international arbitral awards under the Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law) and international convention.

By using juridical normative approach, this thesis would give an analysis about the Private International Aspects and law considerations of Indonesian judges in the classification of international arbitral awards on case No. 144/K/Pdt/2012 and case No. 175/PDT/2018/PT.DKI. In addition, it is also requiring the regulation conformity of international arbitral awards under Arbitration Law and international conventions in order to attain the legal certainty."

"Penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan terus mengalami peningkatan seiring dengan meningkatnya pengetahuan masyarakat akan keuntungan dan kemudahan yang diperoleh dari proses tersebut. Dalam penulisan skripsi ini membahas tentang sengketa yang terjadi dalam perjanjian kontrak kerjasama yang tercantum di dalamnya klausula arbitrase. Pengaturan mengenai Arbitrase ini sendiri telah diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Melalui penelitian ini maka akan diteliti permasalahan yang timbul terkait dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi melalui putusan arbitrase international. Selain itu, penelitian ini bertujuan mempelajari dan menganalisis kualifikasi tentang ketertiban umum dengan pembatalan atau penolakan putusan arbitrase asing dan cara kerjanya di Indonesia. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan hukum sosiologis yang merupakan penelitian hukum mengacu pada hukum dan perjanjian dan diperiksa oleh keputusan pengadilan atau arbitrase.Untuk itu diperlukan metode penafsiran sesuai dengan doktrin yang dilakukan untuk melakukan penemuan hukum, sehingga dapat menciptakan kepastian hukum dalam penyelesaian perkara arbitrase.

---

Settlement of disputes outside the courts continued to increase along with the increasing knowledge of the community will benefit and convenience gained from the process. In writing this essay discusses the dispute in a cooperative contract agreement that the arbitration clause contained therein. Regulation of arbitration itself has been regulated by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Through this research will be examined problems that arise related to the execution through international arbitration decision. In addition, this research aims to study and analyze the qualifications of public order with the cancellation or denial of a foreign award and how it works in Indonesia.

The method used in this study is the legal approach which is a legal research sosiological refers to the laws and treaties and examined by a court decision or arbritati.That was necessary method of interpretation in accordance with the doctrine committed to the discovery of the law, so as to create legal certainty in the settlement arbitration."

"Arbitrase adalah salah satu alternatif penyelesaian sengketa yang banyak diminati oleh masyarakat. Pelaksanaan arbitrase didasarkan pada suatu perjanjian arbitrase yang memberikan kewenangan mengadili kepada arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Namun, ketika perjanjian pokok yang mengandung perjanjian arbitrase berakhir atau batal, timbul pertanyaan mengenai keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase di dalamnya dan kewenangan mengadili arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Hal tersebut berkaitan erat dengan prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz. UU Arbitrase mengatur prinsip separabilitas, namun tidak terdapat ketentuan yang jelas mengenai Kompetenz-Kompetenz atau forum mana yang sebenarnya berwenang untuk mengadili sengketa mengenai keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase dan kewenangan arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Dalam praktiknya, putusan pengadilan Indonesia juga masih menunjukkan inkonsistensi dalam pelaksanaan prinsip separabilitas dan penentuan pihak yang berwenang untuk memeriksa keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase dan wewenang arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Penelitian ini akan menggali alasan negara Indonesia tidak mengatur prinsip Kompetenz-Kompetenz bersamaan dengan separabilitas secara tegas, akibat hukum batal atau berakhirnya perjanjian pokok terhadap perjanjian arbitrase di dalamnya ditinjau dari prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz, dan kecukupan ketentuan kompetensi pengadilan dalam UU Arbitrase untuk mengakomodasi pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia. Pengumpulan data dalam penelitian ini dilakukan melalui studi pustaka serta menggunakan metode deskriptif evaluatif dan pendekatan perbandingan hukumdengan negara Singapura, Malaysia, Filipina, dan Vietnam sebagai negara pembanding. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa UU Arbitrase tidak mengatur prinsip Kompetenz-Kompetenz bersamaan dengan separabilitas secara tegas karena politik demikian yang dipilih oleh pembuat undang-undang. Adapun berdasarkan prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz, batal atau berakhirnya perjanjian pokok tidak membatalkan perjanjian arbitrase dan menghilangkan wewenang mengadili arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Dapat disimpulkan pula bahwa ketentuan kompetensi pengadilan dalam UU Arbitrase perlu diperjelas agar dapat mengakomodasi pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia dengan lebih baik......Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution that is much in demand by the public. The implementation of arbitration is based on an arbitration agreement which bestows the authority to adjudicate to an arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. However, when the main agreement containing the arbitration agreement is cancelled or expires, questions regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement contained therein and the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal’s authority to adjudicate arise. This is closely related to the principle of separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Indonesia Arbitration Law regulates the principle of separability, yet there are no clear provisions regarding Kompetenz-Kompetenz or which forum is authorized to adjudicate disputes regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement and the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. In practice, a form of inconsistency can still be found within Indonesian court decisions which dealt with the implementation of the separability principle and the determination of a competent forum to assess the validity of the arbitration agreement and the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. This research will explore the reasons as to why Indonesia Arbitration Law does not clearly regulate the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz together with separability, the legal consequences of canceling or terminating the main agreement on the arbitration agreement contained within it in terms of the separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, and the adequacy of provisions regarding competence of courts in Indonesia Arbitration Law to accommodate the execution of arbitration in Indonesia. The data collection in this research was carried out through literature study by implementing a descriptive evaluative method and a comparative legal approach with Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as the countries used for comparison. The results of the study show that Indonesia Arbitration Law does not clearly regulate the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenztogether with separability because such politics was chosen by the legislators. Moreover, based on the principle of separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, canceling or terminating the main agreement neither cancels the arbitration agreement within it nor eliminates the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. It can also be concluded that the provisions on the competence of courts within the Arbitration Law need to be clarified in order to better accommodate the implementation of arbitration in Indonesia."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis peraturan perundang-undangan terkait pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dan prakteknya di lembaga peradilan di Indonesia berdasarkan aspek-aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketentuan mengenai pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dalam UU Arbitrase belum jelas dan memadai. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari berbagai aturan mengenai pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dan alasan-alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Lembaga peradilan di Indonesia pada prakteknya masih inkonsisten dalam menerapkan aturan-aturan tersebut. Contohnya adalah kasus antara PT Sumber Subur Mas, Yusman Tamara, Imelda Irawan melawan Transpac Capital Pte. Ltd., dan Transpac Industrial Holdings Limited ;dan kasus antara PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia (d/h PT Risna Karya Wardhana Mandiri) dan PT Dayaindo Resources melawan Suek AG.

---

Arbitral Award with the practice of Indonesian Court in accordance with the aspects of Private International Law. The author uses a juridical-normative research method with an addition of literature studies.

This research shows that the regulation about the annulment of international arbitral award in Law of Arbitration has not been clear and sufficient. This can be seen from numerous rules about the annulment of International Arbitral Award and the grounds of the annulment of arbitral awards. The Indonesian Court has been inconsistent to implement these regulations.

The examples are the case between Transpac Capital Pte. Ltd., and Transpac Industrial Holdings Limited; and the case between PT Daya Mandiri Resources Indonesia (d/h PT Risna Karya Wardhana Mandiri) and PT Dayaindo Resources melawan Suek AG."

"ABSTRAKTujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji apa saja yang menjadi dasarditerimanya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc oleh Arbiter pada badan arbitraseICSID dan menganalisa apakah dasar-dasar penerimaan gugatan tersebutmenjadikan badan arbitrase ICSID memang memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksaperkara yang diajukan oleh Churchill Mining Plc. Sehingga perlu untuk ditinjausecara yuridis apakah memang sepatutnya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc tersebutditerima oleh ICSID atau tidak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penulisanini adalah metode yuridis-normatif. Metode yuridis-normatif tersebut akandigunakan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap data sekunder. Adapun bahanhukum primer yang digunakan berupa peraturan Konvensi ICSID, UndangundangNomor 5 Tahun 1968 tentang Ratifikasi atas Konvensi ICSID dan bahanhukum sekunder berupa buku, jurnal ilmiah, dan artikel ilmiahBahwa adapun Churchill Mining Plc menggugat Indonesia dengan mendasarkangugatannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 7 ayat (1) BIT UK-Indonesia. Dimana atas haltersebut tergugat mengemukakan statement of defence tentang keberatan terhadapyurisdiksi ICSID, maka Dewan Arbitrase harus terlebih dahulu mengemukakankeputusan mengenai yurisdiksinya untuk menangani perkara. Dimana dewanarbitrase harus mendasarkan putusannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 25 KonvensiICSID yang mengatur secara khusus mengenai yurisdiksi ICSIDBahwa berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut di atas, maka untuk kasusChurchill Mining Plc vs Republik Indonesia sepatutnya tribunal ICSID tidakmenerima gugatan tersebut, hal ini karena seharusnya yang menggugat Indonesiaadalah bukan Churchill Mining melainkan perusahaan Ridlatama Group, karenasesungguhnya yang dicabut Izin Kuasanya adalah Ridlatama Group dan bukanChurchill. Sehingga sepatutnya masalah ini tidak dicampuradukkan denganmasalah hukum internasional dan sepatutnya diselesaikan melalui ranah hukumnasional Indonesia. Adapun menurut penulis untuk menghindari terjadinya halyang sama, ada baiknya Indonesia melakukan amandemen terhadap BillateralInvestment Treaty dan bahkan Indonesia juga lebih baik mempertimbangkanuntuk keluar sebagai anggota Konvensi ICSID, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 71Konvensi ICSID hal tersebut diperolehkan

---

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research is to assess what is the basis of the acceptance ofChurchill Mining Plc Lawsuit by the Arbitrator in ICSID and analyze whether thefundamentals of the acceptence of the lawsuit indeed made the ICSID does have ajurisdiction to examine the case. Therefore it is necessary to make a judicialreview, whether the Lawsuit which had been filed by Churchill should be receivedby ICSID or not. The method used in this paper is a method of juridicalnormative.Juridical-normative methods will be used to conduct an analysis thesecondary data. The primary legal materials use in this research are the regulationsof the ICSID Convention and Law No. 5 of 1968 concerning the Ratification ofthe Convention ICSID and the secondary legal materials use in this research arebooks, scientific journals and scientific articlesWhereas Churchill file a lawsuit against Indonesia, based on Article 7 paragraph 1BIT UK-Indonesia and the Approval of BKPM. Where based on the claim byChurchill, Indonesia as the Defendant also has submit the statement of defenceregarding their objection toward the jurisdiction of ICSID. Based on Article 41ICSID Convention, the Board of ICSID Arbitration in advance must make adecisions regarding its jurisdiction to handle the case. Where the decision ofBoard of ICSID Arbitration must be made under the Article 25 of the ICSIDConvention that specifically regulates the jurisdiction of ICSID.Based on the regulations as above, therefore for the case of Churchill Mining vsRepublic of Indonesia, ICSID tribunal should not accept the claim of ChurchillMining. The reason is because the one who should suing Indonesia is notChurchill Mining but Ridlatama Group, because the party who‟s their mininglicense are revoked by the Regent of Kutai Timur is Ridlatama Group notChurchill Mining. So this problem should not be yoked with the international lawand should be resolved through national (Indonesia) legal sphere. To prevent thesame thing accure again, Indonesia should consider to amendment the BillateralInvestment Treaty between United Kingdom and Indonesia and it is better toconsider to drop out as a member of the ICSID Convention, where that is possibleunder Article 71 of the ICSID Convention"

"Third-Party Funding merupakan metode pendanaan di mana penyandang dana memberikan dana kepada salah satu pihak dalam sengketa untuk menggugat atau meminimalkan gangguan arus kas, dan jika kasus dimenangkan, penyandang dana akan mendapatkan bagian dari putusan akhir yang diperoleh. TPF awalnya dipergunakan dalam litigasi di beberapa yurisdiksi, namun kini semakin populer dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Peningkatan pemanfaatan TPF ini berpotensi menghadirkan dampak yang signifikan. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menganalisis data sekunder dari studi literatur, terutama ICSID Rules and Regulations setelah amandemen keempat. Amandemen ini menghadirkan aturan baru terkait praktik TPF, yakni Pasal 14 dalam ICSID Arbitration Rules tentang Notice of Third-Party Funding. Analisis Skripsi ini terutama difokuskan pada potensi dampak pengaturan baru terhadap praktik arbitrase investasi internasional, bagi Indonesia sebagai host state dalam ICSID, serta sebagai negara pelaksana arbitrase. Skripsi ini diharapkan dapat mendukung implementasi TPF yang lebih mengutamakan akses keadilan berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip Konvensi ICSID, menganalisis hambatan dan tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi oleh Indonesia di kemudian hari, serta dampak yang mungkin dihadirkan terhadap pengaturan arbitrase di Indonesia.

---

Third-Party Funding is a method in which a funder provides funds to one of the parties in a dispute to initiate a claim or minimize cash flow disruption. If the case is won, the funder will receive a share of the final award obtained. TPF was originally used in litigation in several jurisdictions, but is now increasingly popular in international investment arbitration. The increased use of TPF potentially presents significant implications. This thesis employs a normative legal research method by analyzing secondary data from literature studies, especially the ICSID Rules and Regulations after the fourth amendment. The amendment introduces new rules related to TPF practices, namely Article 14 in the ICSID Arbitration Rules concerning Notice of Third-Party Funding. This thesis analysis mainly focuses on the potential implications of the new regulation on international investment arbitration practices, for Indonesia as a host state in ICSID and a state that implements arbitration. This thesis is expected to support the implementation of TPF that prioritizes access to justice based on the principles of the ICSID Convention, analyze barriers and challenges that Indonesia may face in the future, and the potential impact on arbitration regulations in Indonesia."

"Pengenalan The Third Version of The Draft Code memperkenalkan tiga metode yang diusulkan untuk mengatur double hatting dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Pilihannya adalah "full prohibition", "modified prohibition", dan "disclosure with option to challenge". Diskusi telah muncul mengenai opsi mana yang paling sesuai dengan praktik dalam arbitrase investasi internasional yang telah membahas masalah double hatting dalam beberapa kasus. Skripsi ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang meliputi kajian doktrinal, yaitu kajian dan analisis terhadap doktrin-doktrin yang dianut oleh para sarjana hukum, serta dokumen-dokumen hukum yang relevan seperti yurisprudensi, perjanjian internasional. Setelah berkonsultasi dengan undang-undang kasus yang berhubungan dengan masalah pemalsuan topi, pedoman internasional, serta pendapat para sarjana pembenci ganda sebagai praktik tidak dilarang, melainkan keadaan khusus seputar pemalsuan topi adalah penyebab kekhawatiran terbesar. Selama seorang arbiter yang menjalankan peran ganda tidak menghalangi independensi atau ketidakberpihakan mereka, praktik itu sendiri diperbolehkan. Oleh karena itu, opsi "modified prohibition" akan paling cocok karena memberikan larangan yang ditargetkan terhadap keadaan yang telah terbukti menciptakan penampilan atau menunjukkan kurangnya independensi atau ketidakberpihakan.

---

The introduction of The Third Version of The Draft Code introduces three proposed methods of regulating double hatting within international investment arbitration. The options are “full prohibition”, “modified prohibition”, and “disclosure with option to challenge”. Discussions have arisen concerning which option best fits with practice in international investment arbitration that has already addressed the issue of double hatting in several cases. This thesis shall utilize normative legal research which includes doctrinal study, meaning the study and analysis of doctrines adopted by legal scholars, as well as relevant legal documents such as jurisprudence, international agreements. After consulting case laws dealing with the issue of double hatting, international guidelines, as well as the opinions of scholars double hatting as a practice is not prohibited, but rather the specific circumstances surrounding double hatting are the biggest cause of concern. So long as an arbitrator practicing multiple roles does not impede on their independence or impartiality the practice itself is permissible. Therefore, a “modified prohibition” option would be best suited as it provides targeted prohibitions toward circumstances that have been proven to create an appearance or manifest lack of independence or impartiality."