Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Rule of Reason adalah suatu pendekatan untuk mengevaluasi akibat perjanjian atau kegiatan usaha tertentu guna menentukan apakah bersifat menghambat atau mendukung persaingan. Terkait dengan pembuktian kartel, kelebihan pendekatan ini adalah menggunakan analisis ekonomi dalam membuktikan eksistensi dari perjanjian kartel antar pelaku usaha. Namun di sisi lain, penggunaan analisis ekonomi (yang merupakan bukti tidak langsung) masih merupakan kontrovensi, tidak hanya karena sifatnya yang memiliki ambiguitas, namun karena metode-nya yang belum diatur secara tegas dalam sistem hukum di Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis metode yang digunakan oleh KPPU dalam membuktikan kartel dengan mengacu pada Peraturan KPPU mengenai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pasal 11 UU No.5/99 sebagai acuan minimum bagi KPPU dalam pembuktian kartel. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk menganalisa validitas penggunaan analisa ekonomi berdasarkan hukum di Indonesia.

---

Rule of reason is a legal approach by competition authorities or the courts where an attempt is made to evaluate the pro-competitive features of a restrictive business practices against its anti-competitive effects in order to decide whether or not the practices should be prohibited. In term of cartel detection, one of many advantages of rule of reason approach is the use of an economic analysis to prove the existence of a gentlemen's agreement among the alleged cartel members. However, on the other hand, the use of economic analysis (which is an indirect evidence), still remains controversy, not only because its ambiguity, but also its method has not yet clearly been regulated under Indonesian Law. This research is to analyze the method employed by Commission (KPPU) in proving alleged case of cartels according to Commission Guidelines on Article 11 of Act No. 5 / 1999 as minimum reference of the Commission in proving cartels. This research is also to examine the validity of economic analysis according to national law system."

"Tesis ini membahas penerapan pendekatan rule of reason dalam hukum persaingan khususnya Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan desain preskriptif dan menggunakan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya Yang menjadi permasalahan adalah mengapa pendekatan rule of reason perlu dilakukan dalam penyelesaian perkara persaingan usaha, bagaimana pendekatan rule of reason tersebut dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, dan hal-hal apa saja yang menjadi pertimbangan KPPU dalam memutuskan pelanggaran Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 secara rule of reason. Pendekatan rule of reason pada prinsipnya adalah pendekatan yang mengetengahkan analisis atas dampak terhadap persaingan dari suatu perilaku atau tindakan pelaku usaha, setidaknya untuk melihat manfaat ekonomi dan kebaikannya bagi persaingan itu sendiri. Pendekatan rule of reason diperlukan dalam rangka menguji manfaat ekonomis dan kebaikan dari suatu perilaku atau tindakan yang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha dalam rangka pencapaian efisiensi ekonomi secara makro. Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai pendekatan rule of reason tersebut, namun penerapan rule of reason dapat ditelusuri dari 3 (tiga) hal yaitu: dari tujuan pembentukan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, dari rumusan masing-masing pasal larangan, dan dari tugas Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU). Rule of reason dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 lebih luas dibanding praktek di negara lain, tidak hanya mencakup analisis dampak, tetapi juga mencakup cara bersaing. Putusan Nomor 06/KPPU- L/2004, Putusan Nomor 02/KPPU-L/2005, dan Putusan Nomor 07/KPPU-L/2007 telah menyuguhkan bukti-bukti analisis atas dampak terhadap persaingan dan juga potensi dampak atas suatu perilaku atau tindakan Terlapor. Putusan Nomor 06/KPPU- L/2004 dan Putusan Nomor 07/KPPU-L/2007 telah menyajikan bukti analisis ekonomi berupa penurunan penjualan dan terjadinya harga serta keuntungan yang eksesif sebagai penguat telah terjadinya dampak negatif terhadap persaingan.

---

This thesis discussed the implementation of rule of reason approach on the competition law, particularly of the Law Number 5 Year 1999 Conceming Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study use normative juridical research method with prescriptive design and use secondary data as data resources. The problem are why rule of reason approach need to be done in the business competition case settlement, how is the rule of reason approach in the Law Number 5 Year 1999, and what other matters that become the KPPU’s judgments to resolve the Law Number 5 Year 1999 violation according to rule of reason. Basically rule of reason approach is an approach that set forth deeper analysis to determine if the competition law violation occurred or not. That analysis intended to find out the impact that happens on the competition, at least to observe the economic benefit and its advantages to the competition itself. Rule of reason approach needed to examine the economic advantage and the goodness of a behavior or act whom done by business subject to achieve macro economic efficiency. The Law Number 5 Year 1999 not explicitly rules the rule of reason approach, but the rule of reason approach can be traced from 3 (three) matters, which are: from the Law Number 5 Year 1999 establishment goals, the formulation of each prohibition articles, and the KPPU duties. The Number 06/KPPU-L/2004 verdict, Number 02/KPPU-L/2005 verdict, and the Number 07/KPPU-L/2007 verdict have confirmed the analysis of the impact which happen already or might happen as the effect from the behavior or the act of its Reportee. In particular, the Number 06/KPPU-L/2004 Verdict and the Number 07/KPPU-I/2007 Verdict present economic analysis in the form of sales declines and the excessive price and profit as the reinforcement that the negative impact on competition has occurred."

"Tesis ini membahas penerapan pendekatan rule of reason dalam hukum persaingan khususnya Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan desain preskriptif dan menggunakan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya Yang menjadi permasalahan adalah mengapa pendekatan rule of reason perlu dilakukan dalam penyelesaian perkara persaingan usaha, bagaimana pendekatan rule of reason tersebut dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, dan hal-hal apa saja yang menjadi pertimbangan KPPU dalam memutuskan pelanggaran Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 secara rule of reason. Pendekatan rule of reason pada prinsipnya adalah pendekatan yang mengetengahkan analisis atas dampak terhadap persaingan dari suatu perilaku atau tindakan pelaku usaha, setidaknya untuk melihat manfaat ekonomi dan kebaikannya bagi persaingan itu sendiri. Pendekatan rule of reason diperlukan dalam rangka menguji manfaat ekonomis dan kebaikan dari suatu perilaku atau tindakan yang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha dalam rangka pencapaian efisiensi ekonomi secara makro. Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai pendekatan rule of reason tersebut, namun penerapan rule of reason dapat ditelusuri dari 3 (tiga) hal yaitu: dari tujuan pembentukan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, dari rumusan masing-masing pasal larangan, dan dari tugas Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU). Rule of reason dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 lebih luas dibanding praktek di negara lain, tidak hanya mencakup analisis dampak, tetapi juga mencakup cara bersaing. Putusan Nomor 06/KPPUL/ 2004, Putusan Nomor 02/KPPU-L/2005, dan Putusan Nomor 07/KPPU-L/2007 telah menyuguhkan bukti-bukti analisis atas dampak terhadap persaingan dan juga potensi dampak atas suatu perilaku atau tindakan Terlapor. Putusan Nomor 06/KPPUL/ 2004 dan Putusan Nomor 07/KPPU-L/2007 telah menyajikan bukti analisis ekonomi berupa penurunan penjualan dan terjadinya harga serta keuntungan yang eksesif sebagai penguat telah terjadinya dampak negatif terhadap persaingan.

---

This thesis discussed the implementation of rule of reason approach on the competition law, particularly of the Law Number 5 Year 1999 Concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study use normative juridical research method with prescriptive design and use secondary data as data resources. The problem are why rule of reason approach need to be done in the business competition case settlement, how is the rule of reason approach in the Law Number 5 Year 1999, and what other matters that become the KPPU?s judgments to resolve the Law Number 5 Year 1999 violation according to rule of reason.

Basically rule of reason approach is an approach that set forth deeper analysis to determine if the competition law violation occurred or not. That analysis intended to find out the impact that happens on the competition, at least to observe the economic benefit and its advantages to the competition itself. Rule of reason approach needed to examine the economic advantage and the goodness of a behavior or act whom done by business subject to achieve macro economic efficiency.

The Law Number 5 Year 1999 not explicitly rules the rule of reason approach, but the rule of reason approach can be traced from 3 (three) matters, which are: from the Law Number 5 Year 1999 establishment goals, the formulation of each prohibition articles, and the KPPU duties.

The Number 06/KPPU-L/2004 verdict, Number 02/KPPU-L/2005 verdict, and the Number 07/KPPU-L/2007 verdict have confirmed the analysis of the impact which happen already or might happen as the effect from the behavior or the act of its Reportee. In particular, the Number 06/KPPU-L/2004 Verdict and the Number 07/KPPU-I/2007 Verdict present economic analysis in the form of sales declines and the excessive price and profit as the reinforcement that the negative impact on competition has occurred"

"Multicultural society as a way of being-with-others needs a certain form of public reasoning. Unfortunately, the current yet dominant form of public reasoning is infiltrated by biases from occidental culture. This mode of reasoning does nothing but uproot participants from their cultural identity for the sake of universal consensus. Multicultural society, however, consists of identities which are embedded in the individuals? cultural tradition. This sociological fact demands a richer form of rationality that does not deny the multiplicity of cultural values and embedded identities. We need a form of public reasoning which emphasizes cultural understanding rather than abstract consensus. We might call it a multicultural, contextualized and other-regarding form of public reason."

"Al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111) is one of the most influential thinkers of Islam. There is hardly a genre of Islamic literature where he is not regarded as a major authority. Islamic Law, Sufism, ethics, philosophy, and theology are all deeply shaped by him. Yet in the past thirty years, the field of Ghazali-studies has been shaken by the realization that Avicenna (Ibn Sina, d. 428/1037) and other philosophers had a strong influence on him. Now, after the 900th anniversary at his death, the field emerges stronger than ever. This second volume of Islam and Rationality: The Impact of al-Ghazali brings together twelve leading experts on al-Ghazali who write about his thought and the impact it had on later Muslim thinkers. "