Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini mengkaji putusan ICSID dalam sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia yang diputus berdasarkan Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) antara negara Indonesia dan negara Inggris, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, yang ditandatangani pada tanggal 27 April 1976 dan mulai berlaku tanggal 24 Maret 1977. Permasalahan utama yang menjadi fokus penelitian ini adalah (i) apakah yang menjadi pokok sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dan (ii) bagaimana pendapat majelis arbitrase ICSID yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut dikaitkan dengan penafsiran atas ketentuan BIT dalam sengketa penanaman modal. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pokok sengketa yang terjadi adalah masalah proses dan prosedur masuknya penanaman modal asing (admission process) yang harus dilalui investor berdasarkan BIT. Proses tersebut menentukan legalitas penanaman modal yang dilakukan. Tidak terpenuhinya admission process tersebut menjadikan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa tersebut sehingga pokok perkara tidak dapat diperiksa. Penafsiran atas ketentuan-ketentuan dalam BIT utamanya menggunakan Pasal 31 ayat (1) Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang Hukum Perjanjian, khususnya penafsiran berdasarkan makna biasa dari rumusan ketentuan BIT. Kajian tesis ini menyimpulkan bahwa penanaman modal yang dilakukan Penggugat tidak memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT mengenai admission process sehingga Majelis Arbitrase menyatakan tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa perkara tersebut. Majelis Arbitrase menafsirkan frasa ?granted admission in accordance with? dalam ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris berdasarkan Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang hukum perjanjian khususnya Pasal 31 ayat (1). Penggunaan aturan penafsiran tersebut juga ditemukan dalam putusan-putusan ICSID lainnya yang menafsrikan ketentuan BIT yang serupa dengan ketentuan BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom., This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant’s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase “granted admission in accordance with” in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.]"

"Third party funding merupakan salah satu opsi pendanaan arbitrase yang dapat dipilih dalam menyelesaikan sengketa melalui arbitrase internasional. Walaupun third party funder berperan sebagai pemberi dana untuk pelaksanaan arbitrase, third party funder kerap dituntut oleh pihak lawan dalam arbitrase untuk turut menanggung beban biaya kerugian yang dijatuhkan majelis arbitrase dalam putusan arbitrase internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Penelitian ini menelaah pengaturan terkait third party funding dalam dan keterlibatan third party funder dalam menanggung biaya kerugian dalam putusan arbitrase internasional di beberapa badan arbitrase internasional, yaitu SIAC, ICSID, ICC, HKIAC, dan CIETAC. Penelitian ini juga meninjau penerapan pengaturan third party funding tersebut dalam praktik, melalui analisis Putusan Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Ltd. v. SBS Holdings Inc. & Ors. Judgment FAO(OS)(COMM) 59/2023 and CM NOS. 14793/2023 & 14794/2023. Analisis penerapan peraturan juga ditunjang dengan analisis Putusan Essar Oilfields Services Limited v. Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) dan Putusan AMT Cameroun, AMT SA Advance Maritime Transports, and Privinvest v. AZ and Navitrans No. 20/12332. Penelitian ini menunjukkan pentingnya penegasan pengaturan untuk melindungi third party funder dari tuntutan untuk dibebani tanggung jawab atas biaya kerugian yang dijatuhkan dalam putusan arbitrase internasional.

---

Third party funding is a funding option for parties intending to resolve disputes through international arbitration. Despite its role as a funder solely for the purposes of the arbitration, there have been instances where third-party funders are sued by an opposing party in the arbitration to share the burden of adverse costs imposed by the arbitral tribunal in an international arbitration award. This study uses a doctrinal research method. This study examines regulations related to third party funding and the involvement of third party funders regarding adverse costs liability arising from international arbitration awards in several international arbitration bodies, namely SIAC, ICSID, ICC, HKIAC, and CIETAC. This study also reviews the application of the regulations in practice through a case analysis of the Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Ltd. v. SBS Holdings, Inc. & Ors. FAO(OS)(COMM) Decision 59/2023 and CM Nos. 14793/2023 & 14794/2023 Judgment. The analysis of the application of the regulations is also supported by analyzing the Essar Oilfields Services Limited v. Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) Judgment and the AMT Cameroun, AMT SA Advance Maritime Transports, and Privinvest v. AZ and Navitrans No. 20/12332 Judgment. This study demonstrates the importance of establishing stricter regulatory frameworks to protect third party funders from claims for adverse costs imposed in international arbitration awards.

"

"Analisis Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR dalam Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial PPHI, merupakan penelitian yuridis yang mengkaji proses penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial berdasarkan kaidah peraturan perundang-undangan dan prinsip ADR serta menjabarkan lebih lanjut praktik tersebut melalui perbandingan hukum dengan negara Amerika Serikat. Penelitian yang bertujuan untuk menganalisis praktik ADR dalam PPHI dan menganalisis proses PPHI yang tepat bagi Indonesia didasarkan pada suatu permasalahan Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial dan Undang-Undang Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial yang belum mengatur prinsip ADR secara jelas. Penelitian ini menggunakan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier, yang diperoleh melalui kajian kepustakaan library research, wawancara, dan pengamatan. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa PPHI belum sesuai dengan prinsip ADR dan pelaksanaan PPHI harus didasarkan pada tujuan hukum ketenagakerjaan dengan membangun kesadaran moral dan penegakkan sanksi yang tegas. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar Pemerintah merevisi Undang-Undang Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial, mempertimbangkan lembaga independen untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan hubungan industrial, peningkatan pola pengawasan terhadap kompetensi mediator, dan merencanakan pengadaan Aparatur Sipil Negara khususnya bagi tenaga mediator dan pengawas.

---

The Analysis of Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR in the Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement PPHI is a juridical study that examines the process of resolving industrial relations disputes based on rules of legislation and the principles of ADR and further expounding the practice through comparative law with the United States. A study aimed at scrutinizing ADR practices in PPHI and analyzing the appropriate PPHI process for Indonesia based on an Industrial Relations Court and Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act that has not clearly set the principles of ADR. This study uses primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, obtained through library research, interviews, and observations. The results show that PPHI is not in accordance with the principles of ADR and the implementation of PPHI should be based on the objectives of the labor law by building moral awareness and enforcing strict sanctions. The results suggested that the Government should revise the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act, consider independent agencies to resolve industrial relations disputes, improve supervisory patterns of mediator competence, and plan the procurement of the State Civil Apparatus especially for mediators and supervisors."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas perlindungan hukum bagi Notaris ketika terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking olehnya. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana wewenang Notaris terhadap suatu dokumen yang dibuat di bawah tangan dan bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi Notaris apabila terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang menekankan pada norma-norma hukum dengan menganalisa peraturan perundang-undangan terkait dan pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf a dan b Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris yang telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Jabatan Notaris, wewenang Notaris terhadap dokumen atau akta di bawah tangan adalah mengesahkan (legalisasi) dan mendaftarkan (waarmerking) pada buku khusus, serta dapat dilihat masyarakat masih banyak yang kurang mengetahui bedanya kekuatan akta otentik dan akta di bawah tangan, sedangkan perlindungan hukum terhadap Notaris terkait waarmerking tercantum dalam Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf b, serta Pasal 66 ayat (1) jika ada proses penyidikan. Meski tidak ada pengaturan lebih lanjut dari wewenang Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf b, dengan sendirinya ketentuan dalam UUJN mengenai wewenang Notaris terkait waarmerking dapat melindungi Notaris ketika terjadi sengketa terkait dokumen yang diwaarmerking olehnya. Karena Notaris tidak menyaksikan peristiwa hukum antara kedua belah pihak sehingga ketika terjadi sengketa tidak dapat disangkutpautkan dengan Notaris selain tanggal pendaftaran. Masyarakat perlu diberi penyuluhan mengenai bedanya akta otentik dan akta di bawah tangan serta sejauh mana keterlibatan Notaris agar tidak merugikan Notaris juga polisi dalam proses penyidikan harus mengacu pula pada Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris.

---

ABSTRACT

The thesis discussed about legal protection for Notary when disputes related registration document. The main issues for this research is how the authority of Notary with private made document and how the legal protection for Notary if there is any disputes related registration document. This research is qualitative study using legal normative method which is focused on regulation analysis and the data collected by literature study. The results of the thesis, based on Article 15 Paragraph (2) Letter a and b Law of Notary?s Occupation Number 30 Year 2004 that has been changed by the Law of Notary?s Occupation Number 2 Year 2014, authority notary for private made documents are to legalize and registry into specific book. Some people also still confused about the different between private made document and authentic document. Legal protection to Notary related registration document listed in article 15 paragraph (2) letter b, and article 66 paragraph (1) if there was a process of investigation. Although there were no further explanation about authority article 15 paragraph (2) letter b, by itself the provisions of Law of Notary?s Occupation about authority Notary related registration document can protect Notary when disputes related document registered for it. Because Notary not witness the legal occasion between the two sides so that when disputes cannot involved a Notary besides registration date. People needs to be informed about the difference an authentic deed certificate and private made deed and how far the involvement of Notary that there is no disadvantage to Notary are also policemen in the process of investigation must refer to Law of Notary?s Occupation."

"Dewasa ini, perkembangan dunia perdagangan dan dunia usaha semakin meningkat, dimana produksi barang dan jasa yang dibutuhkan oleh masyarakat semakin meningkat, baik dari segi jenisnya maupun jumlahnya. Oleh karena itu, hubungan diantara para. pihak tersebut haruslah dituangkan ke dalam sebuah perjanjian. Perjanjian-perjanjian dalam dunia usaha dan perdagangan itu akan aelalu terjadi dan kemungkinan terjadi berulang-ulang pada objek ataupun tempat yang sama.Untuk menciptakan efisiensi terhadap kerja, waktu Serta biaya, maka di kemudian hari timbul apa yang disebut dengan Perjanjian Baku (Standard Contract) atau perjanjian dengan syarat-syarat baku yang dilakukan oleh kedua belah pihak.Yang dimaksud dengan Perjanjian Baku adalah suatu perjanjian tertulis yang dibuat hanya oleh salah satu pihak dalam perjanjian tersebut, di mana pihak lain dalam perjanjian tersebut tidak mempunyai kesempatan atau hanya sedikit kesempatan untuk menegosiasi atau mengubah klausula-klausula yang sudah dibuat oleh salah satu pihak tersebut, sehingga biasanya perjanjian baku tersebut sangat berat sebelah.Dengan kemajuan perekonomian di dunia yang selalu akan diikuti dengan meningkatnya arus produksi barang dan jasa dan tingginya daya bali masyarakat, mengakibatkan kurangnya ketel it ian dari para produsen di dalam menghasilkan produk mereka, baik dari segi kualitas dan higienis, yang kualitasnya tidak baik dan dalam kondisi yang nwmbahayakan hidup orang banyak. Dalam hal yang demikian, maka diperlukan suatu aspek yang mengatur mengenai perlindungan konsumen.Dikarenakan produsen memiliki kemampuan yang lebih dibandingkan dengan konsumen, maka menimbulkan permasalahan karena mendorong kegiatan proses konsumsi mengarah atau bertitik tolak pada kepentingan-kepentingan dari produsen, di mana kebutuhan konsumen diatur sesuai dengan kepentingan dari produsen dan konsumen tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa.Berdasarkan permasalahan teraebut diatas, maka lahirlah suatu Undang-Undang, yaitu UU No. 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen pada tanggal 20 April 1999 (Lembar Negara Republik Indonesia No. 42 Tahun 1999).

---

Presently, the longer growth of trading and business worlds had increased in which goods and service products required by society had increased either its quality or quantity. Hence, correlation among those parties should be expressed within any agreement. The agreement in those trading and business worlds will always occur, possibly, it will occur at the same object or place repeatedly. Then, to create efficiency of work, time and cost, in the future it will rise so called Standard Contract or agreement by standardized requirement conducted by both parties.The meaning of such Standard Contract is any agreement in written solely, it just be made by any party where other party had not been given opportunity and if any it is only a bit to negotiate or revise the clauses had been made by such any party, hence, usually, such agreement is not supposed fair.In line with economic growth in the world that always be followed by increasing of goods and service flows and height of purchase power of society, it result in producers had produced their products inaccurately, ether in quality or hygiene aspects which of quality is not good and in condition endangering so many people. Then, in such case, it is required any aspect regulating consumer's protection.As result of producers has more capability than consumers, then, it had resulted in problems as spurring consumption process activities directing or underlying producers' s interests in which consumer' s needs had been regulated in accordance with producer's interest but, consumers may not do anything.Based on such problem above, then, it had been issued any legislation, it is Laws No.8 year 1999 on Consumer Protection on April 20, 1999 (State Gazette of Republic of Indonesia No.42 year 1999)."

"

Penyelesaian sengketa perdata pada tingkat upaya hukum banding, kasasi dan peninjauan kembali melalui perdamaian, sebagaimana yang diatur dalam pasal 21 dan pasal 22 Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No. 1 Tahun 2008 tentang Prosedur Mediasi di Pengadilan, tidak banyak menjadi pilihan penyelesaian sengketa perdata oleh para pihak yang bersengketa di Pengadilan. Sementara perdamaian pada tingkat upaya hukum banding, kasasi dan peninjauan kembali merupakan alternatif penyelesaian sengketa yang sederhana, cepat dan biaya ringan. Penelitian ini bersifat deskriptif dengan metode normatif atau doktrinal, yaitu dengan melihat bagaimana pengintegrasian mediasi sebagai bentuk penyelesaian sengketa dalam hukum acara perdata di Indonesia dalam menyelesaikan sengketa perdata pada tingkat upaya banding, kasasi dan peninjauan kembali. Ada beberapa kendala dalam pelaksanaan perdamaian pada tingkat upaya hukum dengan bantuan mediator di pengadilan negeri, sehingga para pihak yang berperkara lebih memilih berdamai di luar pengadilan dan mencabut perkara dalam upaya hukum banding, kasasi ataupun peninjauan kembali.

---

ABSTRACT

Settlement of civil disputes at the level of an appeal, appeal and review through peace, as stipulated in Article 21 and Article 22 of Indonesian Supreme Court Rule No 1/2008 on Procedures for Mediation in the Court, not a lot of choice of civil disputes by the parties to the dispute in court. While the peace at the level of an appeal, an appeal and a review of alternative dispute resolution is a simple, fast and low cost. This research is descriptive and normative or doctrinal methods, is to see how the integration of mediation as a form of dispute resolution in civil procedural law in Indonesia in settling civil disputes at the appeal, appeal and judicial review. There are several obstacles in the implementation of the peace at the level of legal action with the help of a mediator in the district court, so that the litigants would prefer to settle out of court and withdraw the case in an appeal, an appeal or reconsideration."