Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"A unique collaboration between academic scholars, legal practitioners, and arbitrators, this handbook focuses on the intersection of arbitration - as an alternative to litigation - and the court systems to which arbitration is ultimately beholden. The first three parts analyze issues relating to the interpretation of the scope of arbitration agreements, arbitrator bias and conflicts of interest, arbitrator misconduct during the proceedings, enforceability of arbitral awards, and the grounds for vacating awards. The next section features fifteen country-specific reviews, which demonstrate that, despite the commonality of principles at the international level, there is a significant of amount of differences in the application of those principles at the national level. This work should be read by anyone interested in the general rules and principles of the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards and the grounds for courts to vacate or annul such awards."

"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"

"Tesis ini membahas alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa ("UU No. 30/1999") berdasarkan sifat final dan mengikat putusan arbitrase. Kelebihan arbitrase berupa sifat putusan yang final dan mengikat, pada praktiknya tidak sepenuhnya benar karena baik dalam UU No. 30/1999, New York Convention dan UNCITRAL Model Law terdapat alasan-alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase, terlebih lagi dalam Penjelasan Umum Bab VII UU No. 30/1999 terdapat frase "antara lain" yang membuka celah adanya alasan lain bagi Pengadilan untuk membatalkan putusan arbitrase di luar ketentuan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam menganalisa permasalahan-permasalahan yang dirumuskan pada Bab 1 adalah metode yuridis normatif dan data yang digunakan adalah data primer, sekunder dan tersier. Hasil penelitian tesis ini adalah UU No. 30/1999 mengatur alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase yang bersifat limitatif, keberadaan frase "antara lain" pada Penjelasan Umum Bab VII UU No. 30/1999 menyebabkan ketidakpastian hukum dan alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase yang diatur dalam New York Convention dan UNCITRAL Model Law berbeda dengan alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase dalam UU No. 30/1999. Adapun penelitian ini menyarankan agar Penjelasan Umum Bab VII UU No. 30/1999 dimohonkan pembatalannya ke Mahkamah Konstitusi karena frase "antara lain" dalam Penjelasan Umum Bab VII UU No. 30/1999 tersebut bertentangan dengan Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999 dan mereduksi sifat final dan mengikat putusan arbitrase.

---

This thesis discusses the reasons for the revocation of arbitral award under the Act No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ("Law No. 30/1999") based on the character of the final and binding arbitration award. The advantage of arbitration is the character of its final and binding award, while in practice it is not entirely true because either in the Law 30/1999, the New York Convention or in the UNCITRAL Model Law, the reasons for the revocation of the arbitration award can be found, moreover, in General Explanation Chapter VII of Law No. 30/1999 contained the phrase "among others" which opened the rift for other reasons for the Court to revoke the arbitral award beyond the provision of Article 70 of Law No. 30/1999.

The method used in analyzing problems formulated in Chapter 1 is normative juridical method and the data which used are primary, secondary and tertiary data.

The results of this thesis are the Law 30/1999 regulate the limited revocation of arbitral award, where the phrase "among others" on the General Explanation of Chapter VII of the Act No. 30/1999 cause legal uncertainty and the reasons for the revocation of an arbitral award which is set in the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law are different from the reasons for the revocation of arbitral award in Law 30/1999.

This thesis suggests that General Explanation Chapter VII of Law No. 30/1999 should be applied for its revocation to the Constitutional Court because the phrase "among others" in the General Explanation Chapter VII of Law No. 30/1999 contrary to Article 70 of Law No. 30/1999 and reducing the final and binding character of arbitral award."

"Skripsi ini pada dasarnya membahas mengenai cara dan dasar pembatalan putusan arbitrase antar negara. Dalam mekanisme arbitrase, terutama arbitrase antar negara (interstate arbitration) masih terdapat berbagai ketidakjelasan, salah satunya adalah tidak terdapat kepastian mengenai bagaimana prosedur pembatalan putusan arbitrase tersebut, dan dasar apa saja yang dapat digunakan untuk membatalkan putusan arbitrase tersebut. Penelitian yang dilakukan Penulis ini berujung pada suatu hasil bahwa sejatinya suatu putusan arbitrase antar negara dapat dibatalkan, dimana disaat para pihak memiliki persetujuan untuk menunjuk badan ketiga untuk melakukan proses pembatalan, dan pada prakteknya badan ketiga tersebut adalah International Court of Justice/Mahkamah Internasional, dimana ICJ sendiri pernah menangani dua kasus pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional, yaitu antara negara Guinea-Bissau dan Senegal, serta antara negara Honduras dan Nicaragua. Dasar yan dapat digunakan untuk membatalkan putusan arbitrase antar negara pun bervariasi, dimulai dari saat majelis arbitrase melampaui kewenangannya dalam menangani suatu perkara hingga disaat majelis arbitrase tidak memberikan alasan yang lengkap dalam memutus suatu perkara. Berdasarkan analisa dari penulis, dasar pembatalan tersebut bukanlah merupakan suatu hard law dimana berasal dari suatu konvensi internasional, namun dapat dikatakan sebagai huku kebiasaan internasional, dimana dasar-dasar pembatalan putusan tersebut telah diakui secara umum oleh berbagai negara dalam prakteknya. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan melakukan tinjauan pustaka ke berbagai literature terkait dan juga putusan-putusan mahkamah internasional serta putusan-putusan badan arbitrase internasional. Saran Penulis terkait dengan isu ini adalah bahwa ada baiknya jika dasar pembatalan putusan arbitrase yang telah marak digunakan ini dicantumkan dalam suatu konvensi internasional, agar tidak terjadi ketidakjelasan mengenai status hukum dari dasar pembatalan tersebut.

---

This thesis discusses on how to and what are the grounds to annul an interstate arbitral award. In interstate arbitration, there are still a lot of ambiguity on how to annul an interstate arbitral award, and what grounds that could be used to annul such award.This research leads to the conclusion that it is possible to annul an interstate arbitral award as long as the parties have appointed a third body with such authority, one of which is the International Court of Justice. In fact, ICJ has handled two cases of annulment of interstate arbitral award, between Guinea Bissau and Senegal, and between Honduras and Nicaragua. The grounds in annulling an interstate arbitral award also varies, for example, when the arbitral panel exceeds its power, or when the arbitral panel did not provide sufficient reasoning in relation to the decision. Based on author rsquo s analysis, such grounds could only be referred as a customary international law, and not as a hard law.This research is conducted by reviewing various literature and book as well as International Court of Justice rsquo s decisions and international arbitration rulings. The Authors suggest that it is necessary for an international convention to compile the existing annulment grounds that has been rampantly used by various countries to avoid ambiguity about the legal status of such annulment grounds. "

"Tesis ini membahas perbandingan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia dan Singapura. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan tesis ini adalah normatif dengan pendekatan komparatif (comparative approach). Tesis ini juga menganalisa beberapa kasus pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia dan Singapura yang menjadi pembahasan dalam tesis serta menganalisa upaya hukum terhadap putusan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Saran Penulis dalam tesis ini adalah UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 perlu mengatur secara tegas mengenai pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional, termasuk di dalamnya mengenai syarat-syarat pembatalan. Salah satu cara yang dapat ditempuh Indonesia untuk memberikan kepastian hukum terhadap penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase serta melengkapi UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 perlu dibuatkan suatu revisi terhadap UU No. 30 Tahun 1999, mengenai pasal yang mengatur tentang syarat pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dengan mengadopsi ketentuan yang diatur dalam UNCITRAL Model law on International Commercial Arbitration secara komprehensif khususnya dalam konteks pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia. Pengadilan Indonesia dan Singapura diharapkan tetap bersikap tegas dalam memeriksa dan menangani permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional sesuai dengan ketentuan yang berlaku mengenai arbitrase internasional. Putusan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia tidak dapat upaya hukum menurut UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 dan upaya hukum di Singapura terhadap putusan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional dapat diajukan kasasi dengan syarat ketat terkait dengan adanya pelanggaran terhadap prinsip Natural Justice.

---

This thesis discusses the comparison of the setting aside of International Arbitration Awards in Indonesia and Singapore. The method used in writing for thesis is normative with comparative approach. This thesis analyzes several cases of setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards in Indonesia and Singapore which are discussed and analyzed the legal remedy against the decision to annul the International Arbitration Awards. The author's suggestion on the problem is Law No. 30 of 1999 need to strictly regulate for the setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards, including the terms of the setting aside. Indonesia can take to provide legal certainty to the settlement of disputes through arbitration and also complent for Law No. 30 of 1999 should be made a revision of Law No. 30 of 1999 regarding the provisions of the setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards by adopting the provisions set forth in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration comprehensively in particular in the context of the setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards in Indonesia. Indonesian and Singapore Courts are expected to remain firm in examining and handling requests for the setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards in accordance with the applicable provisions of international arbitration. The verdict of the setting aside of the International Arbitration Awards in Indonesia shall not be a legal remedy under Law No. 30 of 1999 and legal remedy in Singapore against the setting aside of verdict of the International Arbitration Awards may be filed with a strict covenant relating to breach of the principle of Natural Justice."

"Penelitian ini didasarkan pada permasalahan tentang bagaimana hukum yang hidup di Indonesia dan lingkup internasional mengatur mengenai kedudukan tindakan dan pertanggungjawaban dari Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN), yang dilihat dalam praktik yang ada berdasarkan putusan arbitrase internasional dalam forum ICSID dan Permanent Court of Atrbitration (PCA). Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode doktrinal. BUMN sejatinya merupakan badan yang sering meletakkan kakinya di lingkup privat dan publik. Dalam hukum Indonesia, BUMN sendiri dilihat dari definisi BUMN dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang BUMN dan teori transformatif, yang menyebabkan tindakan BUMN dan pertanggungjawaban didasarkan status BUMN sebagai suatu Perseroan yang bersifat privat dan terpisah dari Negara. Dalam lingkup internasional, asas separate legal entity memang dihargai, tetapi tindakan BUMN dapat diatribusikan sebagai tindakan Negara berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip yang dirumuskan dalam International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles). Dalam analisis Majelis Arbiter dalam putusan PCA Case No. 2014-11, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/38, dan ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, ditemukan bahwa tindakan BUMN dan pertanggungjawabannya dapat diatribusikan berdasarkan ILC Articles dengan pembuktian adanya fungsi dan hakikat kegiatan BUMN yang termasuk dalam lingkup pemerintahan, adanya pengendalian yang menyebabkan otonomi BUMN menghilang, dan adanya unsur pemberian kewenangan.

---

This research questions how Indonesian law sees the acts of State-Owned Enterprise (SEO) and its liability and how it compares to the international law and doctrines, by studying international arbitration awards in the ICSID and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCS) forums. The methodology used in this research paper is the doctrinal method. The result of this paper shows that Indonesian law sees SEO as a private and separate entity from the State based on the definition of SEO in Law Number 19 of 2003 and the transformative theory of SEO, in which the legal status of SEO as private entity implies the act and its liability as private act and should be liable as such. It is different from the practices in international scope where the principles of separate legal entities principle is respected. Still, the actions of SOEs are attributable to the State based on the principles of SOE formulated in the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles). The PCA Case No. 2014-11, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/38, and ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4 shows that the actions of SOE and its liability can be attributed based on ILC Articles by proving the elements of governmental function and nature of SEO's act, the State's control that overrides the SOE's autonomy, and authority granted by the State."

"Paham negara kesejahteraan menempatkan pemerintah sebagai penanggung jawab kesejahteraan umum, yang dalam penyelenggaraannya memerlukan berbagai peraturan administrasi negara. Terhadap pemerintah selaku orgaan administrasi negara dapat dikenakan bermacam-macam kontrol sebagai sarana untuk mencegah timbulnya berbagqi penyipangan. Tuiisan berikut memaparkan dua aspek penting yaitu aspek liability (tanggung jawab) dan aspek remedy(pemulihan/ganti rugi). Kedup aspek tersebut mencuat sehubungan dengan adanya kecenderungan bahwa adminisirasi negara modern dapat dituntut dan dipertanggungjawabkan kesalahannya"