Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Sengketa yang timbul dari hubungan kontraktual tidak dapat dihindari, sehingga sangat penting untuk para pihak memiliki metode penyelesaian sengketa. Salah satu metode yang umum digunakan saat ini adalah arbitrase. Banyak perjanjian arbitrase internasional saat ini yang menggunakan mekanisme berjenjang dimana para pihak sepakat untuk melakukan metode penyelesaian sengketa alternatif terlebih dahulu. Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, menjadi penting untuk memahami apakah klausul penyelesaian sengketa berjenjang merupakan perjanjian arbitrase yang sah dan mengikat. Umumnya, dalam menentukan keabsahan klausul penyelesaian sengketa berjenjang, uji ‘tribunal versus claim’ akan digunakan untuk menyimpulkan apakah masalah dengan klausul tersebut berkaitan dengan yurisdiksi majelis arbitrase atau keabsahan klaim. Jika masalahnya terkait dengan yurisdiksi majelis arbitrase, masalah yang mendasarinya adalah bahwa para pihak tidak sepakat untuk menyelesaikan sengketa melalui arbitrase. Di sisi lain, jika masalahnya adalah mengenai keabsahan klaim, para pihak dianggap setuju untuk menyelesaikan sengketa melalui arbitrase, namun klaim tidak dapat diterima karena alasan-alasan seperti ketidaktepatan waktu atau prematur. Pengadilan Singapura dan Hong Kong SAR telah memutuskan klausul penyelesaian sengketa berjenjang melalui proses penangguhan arbitrase. Baik Pengadilan Singapura dan Pengadilan SAR Hong Kong telah memutuskan bahwa klausul penyelesaian sengketa berjenjang dapat diterima. Namun, Pengadilan Singapura memandang bahwa kegagalan untuk memenuhi serangkaian prasyarat membuat majelis arbitrase tidak memiliki yurisdiksi atas kasus tersebut. Di sisi lain, Pengadilan SAR Hong Kong memandang bahwa sejauh para pihak setuju untuk melaksanakan arbitrase, majelis arbitrase akan memiliki yurisdiksi dan dapat menggunakan yurisdiksi tersebut untuk memerintahkan para pihak untuk melakukan kegiatan apapun untuk memenuhi prasyarat tersebut. Ketentuan hukum Indonesia tidak secara khusus mengatur mengenai klausul penyelesaian sengketa berjenjang, namun klausul-klausul tersebut telah lazim dalam praktik.

---

Disputes arising from contractual relations is inevitable, it is imperative for the parties to have a method of dispute resolution. One of the commonly used method today is arbitration. Many present international arbitration agreements utilize a multi-tiered mechanism whereby parties will agree to conduct alternative dispute resolution methods first. In relation to the foregoing, it becomes important to understand whether a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause constitutes a valid and binding arbitration agreement. Generally, in determining the validity of a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, a 'tribunal versus claim' test will be used to conclude whether the issue with such clause relates to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal or the admissibility of a claim. Should the matter be regarding jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, the underlying issue is that parties have not properly agreed to resolve the dispute through arbitration. On the other hand, if the matter is concerning admissibility, the parties are deemed to agree to resolve the dispute through arbitration, however the claim is not admissible due to reasons such as untimeliness or prematurity. Singaporean and Hong Kong SAR Courts have ruled on multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses through stay of arbitration proceedings. Both Singaporean and Hong Kong SAR Courts have ruled that a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause are acceptable. However, Singaporean Courts viewed that failure to fulfill a set of preconditions renders an arbitral tribunal to not have jurisdiction on the case. On the other hand, Hong Kong SAR Courts viewed that insofar the parties agree to arbitrate, the arbitral tribunal will have jurisdiction and may use such jurisdiction to instruct parties to conduct any activity to fulfill such preconditions. Indonesian statutory provisions do not necessarily shed a light on multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses, however such clauses are already prevalent in practice."

"Tesis ini merupakan laporan penelitian tentang penanganan sengketa perbankan bidang perkreditan (selanjutnya disebut sengketa perbankan) oleh bank di pengadilan, bertujuan untuk menjawab pertanyaan akademis, bagaimana jika arbitrase dijadikan alternatif untuk menyelesaikan sengketa perbankan di Indonesia.Penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif dan empiris yang dimulai dengan meneliti data sekunder yang berupa literatur-literatur dan peraturan perundang-undangan serta yurisprudensi yang berkaitan. Selanjutnya, penelitian lapangan dilakukan di Kantor Pusat Bank BNI untuk memperoleh data bagaimana penyelesaian sengketa perbankan di Bank BNI oleh pengadilan.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam penanganan sengketa perbankan yang diproses melalui pengadilan sering dihadapkan pada berbagai permasalahan yang erat kaitannya dengan bentuk penyelesaian sengketa, lamanya penyelesaian sengketa, adanya tuntutan hak yang tidak berdasarkan hukum serta sikap a priori pengadilan terhadap bank. Adanya permasalahan tersebut dapat menghambat bank dalam upaya menyelesaikan kredit macet karena dalam usahanya bank sebagian besar menggunakan dana yang berasal dari masyarakat. Untuk itu, perlu dicari alternatif bentuk penyelesaian sengketa yang lebih sesuai dengan ciri dan sifat usaha perbankan. Hal itu sesuai dengan pendapat bahwa untuk penyelesaian suatu sengketa seharusnya dipilih bentuk penyelesaian yang paling tepat.Atas dasar hal tersebut, di antara bentuk penyelesaian sengketa yang ada, arbitrase akan lebih tepat menjadi alternatif untuk menyelesaikan sengketa perbankan di Indonesia karena arbitrase memberikan kebebasan, pilihan, otonomi, dan kerahasiaan. Di samping itu, putusan yang dikeluarkan oleh arbitrase bersifat final and binding sehingga kesemuanya itu lebih sesuai dengan ciri dan sifat usaha perbankan. Demikian pula arbitrase akan sangat penting dalam menghadapi internasionalisasi perbankan.Untuk memberdayakan arbitrase dalam penyelesaian sengketa perbankan di Indonesia, para manajemen bank perlu merubah kebijaksanaan (hukum) penyelesaian sengketa perbankan yang timbul antara bank dengan nasabah debiturnya. Perubahan tersebut adalah mengenai kemungkinan memilih penyelesaian sengketa di samping melalui pengadilan, juga melalui arbitrase. Selain itu dalam Rancangan Undang-Undang (RUU) Arbitrase yang saat ini sudah disiapkan hendaknya pengaturan menyangkut perbankan memperoleh perhatian."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis efektivitas pemilihan penyelesaian sengketa Arbitrase dalam Kontrak Baku Elektronik dan bagaimana implementasi Arbitrase Online sebagai bentuk dari Online Dispute Resolution di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan di Singapura dalam menyelesaikan sengketa bisnis e-commerce. Penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal yang bersifat normatif kualitatif. Perkembangan teknologi yang berdampak kepada kegiatan transaksi jual-beli menjadi hal yang tidak terlepaskan dari kebutuhan masa kini. Kehadiran penyelesaian sengketa dengan media online menjadi suatu urgensi untuk menjamin kepastian dan perlindungan hukum dalam menjawab sengketa yang berpotensi timbul di kemudian hari. Peneliti berfokus pada penyelesaian sengketa arbitrase online karena umumnya e-commerce menuangkan Klausula Arbitrase sebagai pilihan penyelesaian sengketa di dalam kontrak baku elektronik yang sudah mereka standarisasi. Dalam praktiknya keabsahan Klausula Arbitrase dalam Kontrak Baku Elektronik dapat dipertanggungjawabkan karena sudah selaras dengan peraturan perundang-undangan serta asas-asas hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia. Terkait implementasi Arbitrase Online di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan Singapura sudah dapat terlihat jelas melalui regulasi terkait prosedur pelaksanaan arbitrase online yang terdapat dalam lembaga-lembaga arbitrase yang ada di kedua negara. Melalui perbandingan antara kebijakan yang berlaku di kedua negara tersebut tulisan ini dapat memberikan gambaran bagaimana bentuk pelaksanaan arbitrase online yang dapat menjamin keefektifan dalam menyelesaikan sengketa bisnis e-commerce.

---

This paper analyzes the effectiveness of Arbitration dispute resolution selection in Electronic Standard Contracts and how the implementation of Online Arbitration as a form of Online Dispute Resolution in Indonesia compared to Singapore in resolving e-commerce business disputes. This research is prepared by using a normative qualitative doctrinal research method. The development of technology that has an impact on buying and selling transaction activities is something that cannot be separated from today's needs. The presence of dispute resolution with online media is an urgency to ensure legal certainty and protection in answering disputes that could potentially arise in the future. Researchers focus on online arbitration dispute resolution because e- commerce generally includes the Arbitration Clause as an option for dispute resolution in the electronic standard contract that they have standardized. In practice, the validity of the Arbitration Clause in the Electronic Standard Contract can be accounted for because it is in line with the laws and regulations and legal principles applicable in Indonesia. Regarding the anticipation of Online Arbitration in Indonesia compared to Singapore, it can be clearly seen through regulations related to the procedures for implementing online arbitration contained in arbitration institutions in both countries. Through a comparison between the policies that apply in the two countries, this paper can provide an overview of how the form of implementation of online arbitration can guarantee effectiveness in resolving e-commerce business disputes."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana aspek hukum dari keputusan dan pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia dengan maksud untuk mempelajari penegakan arbitrase, upaya hukum terhadap putusan arbitrase serta kendala dalam pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase di Indonesia. Pasal 60 UU No. 30/1999 (UU Arbitrase dan APS) menyatakan bahwa putusan arbitrase bersifat final dan mengikat para pihak, artinya putusan tersebut tidak dapat diajukan banding, kasasi dan peninjauan kembali. Akan tetapi, berdasarkan Pasal 70 putusan arbitrase dapat dibatalkan. Selain itu, pelaksanaan putusan arbitase masih menghadapi kendala di dalam praktek. Penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase hanya akan efektif jika para pihak yang terlibat sengketa adalah para pihak yang bona fide, pihak yang menang berusaha supaya putusan arbitrase didaftarkan pada pengadilan negeri agar memiliki kekuatan hukum, dan pihak yang kalah tetap menghormati dan tidak menghalanghalangi eksekusi. Penelitian ini termasuk jenis penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat deskriptif. Penelitian yang bersifat deskriptif dimaksudkan untuk menggambarkan serta menguraikan semua data yang diperoleh, terkait dengan permasalahan yang diteliti. Dalam penelitian ini, teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi kepustakaan, yaitu dengan menganalisis putusan pengadilan serta membuat catatan dari buku literatur, peraturan perundang-undangan, dokumen dan hal-hal lain yang relevan dengan masalah yang diteliti. Selanjutnya data yang diperoleh diolah dan dianalisis lebih lanjut untuk menjawab permasalahan yang diteliti.

---

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to find out how the legal aspects of the decision and enforcement of arbitration in Indonesia with a view to study the enforcement of arbitration, the legal effort against the decision of arbitration as well as constraints in the execution of arbitration decision in Indonesia. Article 60 of Law No. 30/1999 (Arbitration and ADR Law) states that arbitral award is final and legally binding the parties, which means that the award could not be corrected by an appeal, cassation and review. However, in accordance with the Article 70 of the arbitration law the arbitral award can be annulled. Furthermore, the decision of arbitration is very hard to be implemented. It is due to the settlement of disputes through arbitration that will only be effective if the parties involved in the dispute are bona fide parties. The winning party tried to keep the decision of the Arbitration filed in state court in order to have legal force, and the losing party still respects and does not hinder the execution. This research includes the study of normative and descriptive legal. The research which is descriptive of this study are intended to illustrate and describe all the data obtained, related to the problem being investigated. In this research, data collection techniques used are literature studies, namely by analyzing court decisions and make notes of books of literature, legislation, documents and other matters relevant to the issues being investigated."

"[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.]"