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."

"The global increase in cross-border transactions has led to a rising trend in international disputes. International arbitration has become the preferred dispute resolution method, as companies and individuals increasingly favour a neutral international tribunal over foreign domestic courts. This new book provides a practical guide to international arbitration. Written by leading experts Stuart Dutson, Andy Moody, and Neil Newing from Eversheds, this title explains the stages of the arbitration process in a straight-forward manner and from a practitioner's perspective. The authors provide guidance on drafting the arbitration agreement, commencing arbitration, selecting the arbitral tribunal, drafting pleadings and witness evidence, liaising with the tribunal throughout the arbitral process and enforcing the final award. Numerous tips, examples and precedents are included to help the new practitioner or interested student understand each stage of the arbitration proceedings"

"This article discusses whether international law may be applied as lex causae by arbitral body. The international instruments used as comparative study are the Model Arbitration Law 1985, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the ICC Rules of Arbitration, the ICSID Convention and the Indonesian National Law on Arbitration. The article suggests that although international law seems inappropriate to deal with commercial mailers, in certain circumstances, it is possible"

"[ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang Eksepsi Kompetensi Absolut sebagai dasar hukum penolakan permohonan Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional. Skripsi ini juga membahas tentang pertimbangan pengadilan dalam memutuskan permohonan kasus Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional antara PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk vs KT Corporation. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah normatif yang berdasarkan Undang Undang, dan peraturan peraturan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Skripsi ini menunjukan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia yaitu Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, dan Mahkamah Agung telah tepat dalam pelaksanaan Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 dalam menangani permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Penulis juga ingin menunjukan bahwa perlunya perubahan terhadap Pasal 70 Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 menjadi Putusan Arbitrase Nasional agar tidak menimbulkan kekeliuran dalam permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional kedepannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about the Absolute Competence Exception as the legal grounds for rejection of the request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards. It also discusses the consideration of the courts in deciding towards a request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards between PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk., vs KT Corporation. The method used is normative which is based on the Laws and other regulations in Indonesia. This thesis shows that the District Court in Indonesia in particular the Central Jakarta District Court, as well as the Supreme Court has accurately implemented the Law No 30 Year 1999 in handling the request of the International Arbitral Awards Annulment. The writer would suggest that Article 70 of Law No 30 Year 1999 to be amended become National Arbitral Awards to avoid any misapplication in a request for the International Arbitral Awards Annulment in the future.;ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang Eksepsi Kompetensi Absolut sebagai dasar hukum penolakan permohonan Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional. Skripsi ini juga membahas tentang pertimbangan pengadilan dalam memutuskan permohonan kasus Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional antara PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk vs KT Corporation. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah normatif yang berdasarkan Undang Undang, dan peraturan peraturan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Skripsi ini menunjukan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia yaitu Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, dan Mahkamah Agung telah tepat dalam pelaksanaan Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 dalam menangani permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Penulis juga ingin menunjukan bahwa perlunya perubahan terhadap Pasal 70 Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 menjadi Putusan Arbitrase Nasional agar tidak menimbulkan kekeliuran dalam permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional kedepannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about the Absolute Competence Exception as the legal grounds for rejection of the request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards. It also discusses the consideration of the courts in deciding towards a request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards between PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk., vs KT Corporation. The method used is normative which is based on the Laws and other regulations in Indonesia. This thesis shows that the District Court in Indonesia in particular the Central Jakarta District Court, as well as the Supreme Court has accurately implemented the Law No 30 Year 1999 in handling the request of the International Arbitral Awards Annulment. The writer would suggest that Article 70 of Law No 30 Year 1999 to be amended become National Arbitral Awards to avoid any misapplication in a request for the International Arbitral Awards Annulment in the future.;ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang Eksepsi Kompetensi Absolut sebagai dasar hukum penolakan permohonan Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional. Skripsi ini juga membahas tentang pertimbangan pengadilan dalam memutuskan permohonan kasus Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional antara PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk vs KT Corporation. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah normatif yang berdasarkan Undang Undang, dan peraturan peraturan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Skripsi ini menunjukan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia yaitu Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, dan Mahkamah Agung telah tepat dalam pelaksanaan Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 dalam menangani permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Penulis juga ingin menunjukan bahwa perlunya perubahan terhadap Pasal 70 Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 menjadi Putusan Arbitrase Nasional agar tidak menimbulkan kekeliuran dalam permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional kedepannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about the Absolute Competence Exception as the legal grounds for rejection of the request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards. It also discusses the consideration of the courts in deciding towards a request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards between PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk., vs KT Corporation. The method used is normative which is based on the Laws and other regulations in Indonesia. This thesis shows that the District Court in Indonesia in particular the Central Jakarta District Court, as well as the Supreme Court has accurately implemented the Law No 30 Year 1999 in handling the request of the International Arbitral Awards Annulment. The writer would suggest that Article 70 of Law No 30 Year 1999 to be amended become National Arbitral Awards to avoid any misapplication in a request for the International Arbitral Awards Annulment in the future., ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang Eksepsi Kompetensi Absolut sebagai dasar hukum penolakan permohonan Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional. Skripsi ini juga membahas tentang pertimbangan pengadilan dalam memutuskan permohonan kasus Pembatalan Arbitrase Internasional antara PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk vs KT Corporation. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah normatif yang berdasarkan Undang Undang, dan peraturan peraturan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Skripsi ini menunjukan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia yaitu Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, dan Mahkamah Agung telah tepat dalam pelaksanaan Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 dalam menangani permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional. Penulis juga ingin menunjukan bahwa perlunya perubahan terhadap Pasal 70 Undang Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 menjadi Putusan Arbitrase Nasional agar tidak menimbulkan kekeliuran dalam permohonan pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional kedepannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about the Absolute Competence Exception as the legal grounds for rejection of the request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards. It also discusses the consideration of the courts in deciding towards a request for an Annulment of International Arbitral Awards between PT. Global Mediacom, Tbk., vs KT Corporation. The method used is normative which is based on the Laws and other regulations in Indonesia. This thesis shows that the District Court in Indonesia in particular the Central Jakarta District Court, as well as the Supreme Court has accurately implemented the Law No 30 Year 1999 in handling the request of the International Arbitral Awards Annulment. The writer would suggest that Article 70 of Law No 30 Year 1999 to be amended become National Arbitral Awards to avoid any misapplication in a request for the International Arbitral Awards Annulment in the future.]"

"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."

"Indonesia has been being a member of the 1958 New York Convention since 1981, namely upon issuance of the Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981. Priori to talkiing intó force of the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic Indonesìa No. 1 of .1990 on Procedures for EnforcemenL of Foreign Arbit awards, there were still constrâints lor the foreign Business plâyers in terìr enforcement of arbitral awards in lndonesia, The Supreme Court âs the higest judicial institution in lndonesia holds that internationâl arbitral awards can not be enforced ill lndonesja. After the Indonesian Supreme Court has issued such a regulation, enforcement of international arbitral awards in Indonesia began to be enforceable, because the procedural law that governs the for execution of arbitral awards has been clear ln order to regulâte the international arbitral award problems in the hjerarchy of legislation, on October 12, 1999, the Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution was promulgated. In that Law there is a special part discussing the International Arbitration. This study Examines the development of international arbitral award enforcement in lndonesia before Indonesia becoming member of the .1958 New York Convention, until nowâdays, by analyzing the international arbitral awards that were decìded by the Supreme Court of the Republic of lndonesia after the coming into effect of the Arbitration Law."

"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"

"Penelitian ini dibuat untuk mencapai tiga tujuan. Pertama, untuk memahami pengaturan penolakan permohonan eksekuatur Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia, kedua, untuk mengetahui penafsiran asas ketertiban umum di dalam peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan arbitrase dan ketiga, untuk mengetahui apakah Penolakan Permohonan Eksekuatur Putusan Arbitrase SIAC No. ARB062/08/JL oleh Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat dan Mahkamah Agung dengan menggunakan asas Ketertiban Umum sudah tepat atau tidak. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dimana hal ini dilakukan dengan cara mengkaji putusan-putusan pengadilan dan Arbitrase, peraturan perundang-undangan serta buku-buku dan dokumen lain untuk dianalisis. Tipologi penelitian adalah yuridis normatif, yaitu dengan melakukan analisis terhadap peraturan perundangundangan di bidang arbitrase serta aturan prosedural (rules) yang berlaku dalam pengakuan putusan arbitrase internasional di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa Penggunaan asas ketertiban umum oleh PN Pusat di dalam Penetapan No.05/Pdt/ARBINT/2009 dan Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan No. 01 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 tidak tepat dalam kasus ini karena hanya menggunakan interpretasinya sendiri yang tidak didasarkan kepada arti dari ketertiban umum itu sendiri. Penulis juga berkesimpulan bahwa pada saat Putusan Arbitrase SIAC ini tidak mendapat eksekuatur, maka asas ketertiban umum itu sendiri yang akan terlanggar dengan pemahaman bahwa tidak adanya kepastian hukum untuk menjalankan Perjanjian yang sesuai dengan kontrak (tidak ditaatinya Pacta Sunt Servanda sesuai pasal 1338 KUH Perdata) dan juga terlanggarnya kebijakan publik yaitu Undang-undang No.30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.

---

The research is made to achieve three objectives. First, to understand the rule in refusing international arbitration award in Indonesia. Second, to understand the interpretation of public order in Indonesia?s arbitration laws, and third to know whether the use of public order in the refusal of Arbitration Award No. ARB062/08/JL by Jakarta Pusat District Court and Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court is already proper.

The research is using literature research methodology, which is done by studying court verdicts, arbitration awards, rules and legislations, books and other documents in making the analysis. The research typology is normative, which is done by doing analysis to legislations in arbitration field and other arbitration rules and procedures applied applied in Indonesia.

The research found that the use of public order in refusing arbitration award by Jakarta Pusat District Court in Penetapan No.05/Pdt/ARBINT/2009 and Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court in Putusan No. 01 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 is not proper. They used their own interpretation of public order without considering the essential meaning of the public order itself.

The writer concluded that, at the time SIAC Arbitration Awards didn?t get the exequatur, the public order itself was violated, with the justification that there?s no law certainty to execute agreeement (violation against Pacta Sunt Servanda as in Article 1338 KUH Perdata) and there is also a violation to Indonesia?s public order, Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 1999."