Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas penggunaan Ketertiban Umum (Public Policy) untuk membatalkan putusan arbitrase asing yang diatur di dalam Pasal V (2) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award 1958. Pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase merupakan hal krusial karena eksekusi putusan merupakan esensi diadakannya arbitrase. Tiap-tiap negara memberlakukan Ketertiban Umum (Public Policy) secara berbeda, termasuk Indonesia yang belum memiliki konsensus melihat lingkup Ketertiban Umum (Public Policy). Antara Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung memiliki konsepsi berbeda mengenai Ketertiban Umum (Public Policy) Indonesia. Hal ini menjadi sebuah problema dimana pihak yang dikalahkan menggunakan alasan Ketertiban Umum (Public Policy) untuk menunda atau membatalkan eksekusi putusan.

---

This thesis is aimed to prescribe the practice of using Public Policy doctrine to annul foreign arbitral awards as were allowed under Article V (2) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award 1958. The enforcement of an award is crucial and essential to arbitration proceedings. Different states will treat Public Policy differently, including Indonesia whom has yet to reach a consensus in defining what Public Policy should be used in foreign arbitration award enforcement. There are still discrepancy between Indonesian District Court and Supreme Court on the matter of what constitutes as Indonesian Public Policy. These discrepancies created a gaping loophole which are exploited by the party (parties) to delay or to annul the enforcements of the foreign arbitration award. "

"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."

"Konvensi New York 1958 mengharuskan setiap negara peserta untuk mengakui dan melaksanakan putusan arbitrase internasional. Akan tetapi, Konvensi New York 1958 juga memungkinkan pengecualian atas pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional, salah satunya ketertiban umum. Pada hakikatnya, hukum perdata internasional menentukan hukum perdata negara mana yang akan diberlakukan bilamana terdapat unsur asing di dalamnya. Tetapi, keberlakuan hukum asing tersebut dapat dikesampingkannya apabila membawa hasil yang tidak memuaskan para pencari keadilan. Ketertiban umum sendiri tidak memiliki definisi yang ajek, seragam, dan berlaku universal sehingga penentuanya berada di tangan hakim.  Di Indonesia, pihak-pihak yang bersengketa menggunakan berbagai macam dalil ketertiban umum sebagai alasan untuk menolak pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase, khususnya putusan arbitrase internasional. Skripsi ini akan meneliti putusan-putusan pengadilan Indonesia mengenai putusan arbitrase internasional dengan dalil ketertiban umum dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir dengan melihat pertimbangan hakim dan teori-teori ketertiban umum dalam hukum perdata internasional.

---

The New York Convention 1958 requires each contracting state to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards. However, the 1958 New York Convention also allows exceptions to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, one of them is public order. In essence, private international law determines which private state law will be applied if there is a foreign element in it. However, the application of these foreign laws can be excluded if they bring results that do not satisfy the justice seekers. Public order itself does not have a definite, uniform, and universally definition so that it determines by the judge. In Indonesia, the parties to the dispute use various kinds of public order as a reason to refuse the enforcement of the arbitral award, especially the international arbitral award. This thesis will examine the Indonesian court decisions regarding international arbitral awards with the argument of public order in the last ten years by looking at judges' considerations and public order theories in private international law."

"The authors, each of whom is an experienced practitioner in the field of international arbitration, draw on experience in a wide variety of national jurisdictions. In addition to drafting chapters independently, each has made invaluable contributions to other authors? chapters. Authoritative case law research was further provided by dozens of contributors with expertise in specific jurisdictions worldwide. The analysis thoroughly covers the major issues that have arisen in the application of the Convention, including the following: the use of reservations made by Contracting States; the distinctions between recognition and enforcement and between recognition sought at the seat of the arbitration and outside the seat; the role of the courts in reviewing arbitral awards and, in particular, the Convention?s focus on safeguarding due process standards; the ?more favourable rights? principle embodied in Article VII(1); the relevance of forum shopping and asset spotting to the application of the Convention; and the role of formalities and formalism"