Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Contents : Brussels -- Buenos Aires -- Cairo -- China -- Dubai -- Dublin -- Germany -- Hong Kong -- India -- London -- Mexico City -- Moscow -- Paris -- SaÌ?o Paolo -- Singapore -- Stockholm -- Switzerland -- Sydney -- United States (New York, Miami, Houston) -- Vienna."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional berdasarkan alasan perjanjian tidak menggunakan Bahasa Indonesia. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif. Bahwasanya, perjanjian yang melibatkan pihak asing dan pihak Indonesia harus dibuat dalam Bahasa Indonesia juga. Ketentuan tersebut diatur dalam Pasal 31 UU 24/2009. Dalam penelitian ini, akan dijelaskan lebih rinci terkait dengan keabsahan perjanjian asing yang tidak menggunakan Bahasa Indonesia di dalamnya dan juga pengaruh penggunaan Bahasa Indonesia dalam perjanjian terhadap pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional. Dengan tidak digunakannya Bahasa Indonesia dalam perjanjian yang mengikat para pihak, terdapat perdebatan apakah perjanjian tersebut sah atau tidak. Perdebatan yang dimaksud adalah apakah perjanjian tersebut menjadi batal demi hukum karena melanggar ketentuan Pasal 31 UU 24/2009 dan syarat sah perjanjian dalam Pasal 1320 KUHPer atau perjanjian tersebut tetap menjadi sah dikarenakan Bahasa Indonesia tidak termasuk ke dalam ketentuan Pasal 1320 KUHPer, sehingga menyebabkan perjanjian batal demi hukum. Lalu, terdapat perjanjian arbitrase yang mengikuti perjanjian pokoknya, menjadi sebuah pertanyaan apakah perjanjian arbitrase tersebut juga menjadi batal demi hukum dan forum arbitrase yang telah disepakati tidak menjadi tempat penyelesaian sengketa. Seharusnya, perjanjian arbitrase tersebut tidak menjadi batal demi hukum karena perjanjiannya juga batal. Hal tersebut karena perjanjian arbitrase memiliki sifat yang independen sehingga merupakan klausla arbitrase yang terpisah dengan perjanjian pokoknya. Contoh perkara yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah perkara No. 590/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst dan perkara No. 328/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst. Kedua perkara tersebut adalah perkara yang berjalan bersamaan. Pada perkara No. 590 mengenai perbuatan melawan hukum pihak asing kepada pihak Indonesia dalam perjanjian, sedangkan dalam perkara No. 328 mengenai permohonan pembatalan putusan arbirase internasional

---

This research discusses the annulment of international arbitration decisions based on the reason that the agreement does not use Indonesian. This research was conducted using normative juridical methods. In fact, agreements involving foreign parties and Indonesian parties must be made in Indonesian as well. These provisions are regulated in Article 31 of Law 24/2009. In this research, we will explain in more detail the validity of foreign agreements that do not use Indonesian in them and also the effect of using Indonesian in agreements on the annulment of international arbitration awards. By not using Indonesian in agreements that bind the parties, there is debate as to whether the agreement is valid or not. The debate in question is whether the agreement is null and void because it violates the provisions of Article 31 of Law 24/2009 and the legal conditions for an agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code or whether the agreement remains valid because Indonesian is not included in the provisions of Article 1320 of the Civil Code, thus causing the agreement to be void. by law. Then, there is an arbitration agreement that follows the main agreement, the question is whether the arbitration agreement is also null and void and the agreed arbitration forum is not a place for dispute resolution. The arbitration agreement should not be null and void because the agreement is also void. This is because the arbitration agreement has an independent nature so that it is a separate arbitration clause from the main agreement. The example of the case used in this research is case No. 590/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst and case no. 328/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst. These two things are things that run simultaneously. In case no. 590 regarding unlawful acts by foreign parties against Indonesian parties in agreements, while in case no. 328 regarding requests for annulment of international arbitration decisions."

"Opportunities to see expert cross-examinations are often infrequent in international arbitration and the occasions to sharpen these skills for many are rare. This book is both an invaluable teaching tool as well as a general guide to effective cross-examination in international arbitration. Based on extensive experience and insight from the authors and aided by practical examples, it provides a thoroughly illustrated analysis of how essential cross-examination techniques can best be adapted to the arbitral format. Concise and well organised, it leads the reader through the different cross-examination techniques in an accessible 'do's and don'ts' structure, presenting readers with a clear and authoritative introduction on how best to conduct a cross-examination or a quick-reference for more experienced practitioners. An international arbitration hearing is very different from a trial in a court and any practitioner appearing as counsel, whether common or civil law lawyers, need to know what will happen and how it will differ in order to adapt their conduct. Hober and Sussman explore the challenges practitioners face when conducting a cross-examination in such an environment and provide practical learning aids to help overcome them. Cross Examination In International Arbitration addresses the common issues that can occur in cross-examination in arbitrations such as adjusting the level of English to consider the competency of the panel's least competent member or how to cross-examine a witness with only the use of a written statement rather than by means of oral direct testimony. By highlighting the common challenges which might arise, the authors present a guide which will benefit those practicing or looking to practice in this field."