Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi perbedaan konsep pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional di Malaysia, Singapura, dan Indonesia. Penelitian ini juga menganalisis praktek yang dilakukan oleh lembaga peradilan di Malaysia, Singapura, dan Indonesia melalui putusan Pengadilan setempat. Penulis mempergunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan walaupun Malaysia dan Singapura merupakan negara yang mengadopsi UNCITRAL Model Law namum terdapat perbedaan dalam hal pengaturan pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional di kedua negara tersebut. Perbedaan pengaturan pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional juga akan terlihat kontras jika konsep pembatalan dikedua negara tersebut dibandingkan dengan Indonesia. Praktek di lembaga peradilan sudah tepat dalam menerapkan peraturan arbitrase di negara setempat. Hal tersebut tercermin dalam putusan Court of Appeal Malaysia antara TLL HLL melawan Laos, High Court Singapore JVL melawan Agritrade, dan putusan MA PT.Indiratex melawan Everseason. ......This research aimed to identify the difference of the concept of international arbitral award annulment in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. This research also analyze the practice of the national courts in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia through the court judgment. Author use juridical normative research method with literature studies. The research shows although Singapore and Malaysia are the Model Law Countries, they still have differences on the regulation of international arbitral award annulment. The differences contrastingly will be shown if we compare those regulations with Indonesia regulation in the international arbitral award annulment. The practice of the courts have been appropriate in applying the rules of arbitration of the country concerned. It was proved on the Malaysia Court of Appeal award between TLL HLL vs. Laos Government, Singapore High Court award JVL vs. Agritrade, and Indonesia Supreme Court PT. Indiratex vs. Everseason."

"Arbitrase adalah salah satu alternatif penyelesaian sengketa yang banyak diminati oleh masyarakat. Pelaksanaan arbitrase didasarkan pada suatu perjanjian arbitrase yang memberikan kewenangan mengadili kepada arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Namun, ketika perjanjian pokok yang mengandung perjanjian arbitrase berakhir atau batal, timbul pertanyaan mengenai keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase di dalamnya dan kewenangan mengadili arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Hal tersebut berkaitan erat dengan prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz. UU Arbitrase mengatur prinsip separabilitas, namun tidak terdapat ketentuan yang jelas mengenai Kompetenz-Kompetenz atau forum mana yang sebenarnya berwenang untuk mengadili sengketa mengenai keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase dan kewenangan arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Dalam praktiknya, putusan pengadilan Indonesia juga masih menunjukkan inkonsistensi dalam pelaksanaan prinsip separabilitas dan penentuan pihak yang berwenang untuk memeriksa keabsahan perjanjian arbitrase dan wewenang arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Penelitian ini akan menggali alasan negara Indonesia tidak mengatur prinsip Kompetenz-Kompetenz bersamaan dengan separabilitas secara tegas, akibat hukum batal atau berakhirnya perjanjian pokok terhadap perjanjian arbitrase di dalamnya ditinjau dari prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz, dan kecukupan ketentuan kompetensi pengadilan dalam UU Arbitrase untuk mengakomodasi pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia. Pengumpulan data dalam penelitian ini dilakukan melalui studi pustaka serta menggunakan metode deskriptif evaluatif dan pendekatan perbandingan hukumdengan negara Singapura, Malaysia, Filipina, dan Vietnam sebagai negara pembanding. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa UU Arbitrase tidak mengatur prinsip Kompetenz-Kompetenz bersamaan dengan separabilitas secara tegas karena politik demikian yang dipilih oleh pembuat undang-undang. Adapun berdasarkan prinsip separabilitas dan Kompetenz-Kompetenz, batal atau berakhirnya perjanjian pokok tidak membatalkan perjanjian arbitrase dan menghilangkan wewenang mengadili arbiter/majelis arbitrase. Dapat disimpulkan pula bahwa ketentuan kompetensi pengadilan dalam UU Arbitrase perlu diperjelas agar dapat mengakomodasi pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia dengan lebih baik......Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution that is much in demand by the public. The implementation of arbitration is based on an arbitration agreement which bestows the authority to adjudicate to an arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. However, when the main agreement containing the arbitration agreement is cancelled or expires, questions regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement contained therein and the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal’s authority to adjudicate arise. This is closely related to the principle of separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Indonesia Arbitration Law regulates the principle of separability, yet there are no clear provisions regarding Kompetenz-Kompetenz or which forum is authorized to adjudicate disputes regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement and the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. In practice, a form of inconsistency can still be found within Indonesian court decisions which dealt with the implementation of the separability principle and the determination of a competent forum to assess the validity of the arbitration agreement and the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. This research will explore the reasons as to why Indonesia Arbitration Law does not clearly regulate the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz together with separability, the legal consequences of canceling or terminating the main agreement on the arbitration agreement contained within it in terms of the separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, and the adequacy of provisions regarding competence of courts in Indonesia Arbitration Law to accommodate the execution of arbitration in Indonesia. The data collection in this research was carried out through literature study by implementing a descriptive evaluative method and a comparative legal approach with Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam as the countries used for comparison. The results of the study show that Indonesia Arbitration Law does not clearly regulate the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenztogether with separability because such politics was chosen by the legislators. Moreover, based on the principle of separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, canceling or terminating the main agreement neither cancels the arbitration agreement within it nor eliminates the authority of the arbitrator/arbitral tribunal. It can also be concluded that the provisions on the competence of courts within the Arbitration Law need to be clarified in order to better accommodate the implementation of arbitration in Indonesia."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis peraturanpembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional disertai praktek yang dilakukanlembaga peradilan di Indonesia berdasarkan teori-teori HPI. Penulismempergunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan mengenai pembatalan putusanarbitrase internasional dalam UU Arbitrase belum jelas dan lengkap. Hal tersebutdapat dilihat dalam perdebatan mengenai pengaturan pelaksanaan putusanarbitrase internasional dan alasan pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Lembagaperadilan di Indonesia pun pada prakteknya masih inkonsisten dalam menerapkanaturan-aturan tersebut. Sebagai contoh ialah kasus antara Yemen Airwaysmelawan PT Comarindo Tama Tour&Travel dan kasus antara PTPertamina(Persero) dan PT Pertamina EP melawan PT Lirik Petroleum

---

ABSTRACTThis research aimed to describe and analyze the regulation about annulment of

international arbitral award with the practice of Indonesian Court in accordance

with International Private Law. Author use juridical-normative research method

with literature studies. The research shows that the regulation about annulment of

international arbitral award in Law of Arbitration has not been clear and

sufficient. It can bee seen from the articles about the enforcement of international

arbitral award and the ground for annulment of arbitral award. In accordance

with that, Indonesian Court has been inconsistent to implement those regulations.

For examples is case between PT Comarindo Tama Tour&Travel v. Yemen

Airways and case between PT Pertamina (Persero) and PT Pertamina EP v. PT

Lirik Petroleum."

"Penerapan ketentuan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (?UU Arbitrase?) telah menimbulkan kontroversi akibat ketentuan tersebut tidak konsisten dan tidak ada aturan yang tegas. Penelitian ini bermaksud untuk mencari korelasi yang tepat terhadap penerapan Pasal 70 dihubungkan dengan penjelasan pasal itu sendiri dan penjelasan pada bagian umum UU Arbitrase sehingga dapat menjamin tercapainya kepastian hukum keadilan bagi para pihak bersengketa. Permasalahan mendasar adalah apakah alasan untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase bersifat limitatif atau non-limitatif, dan bagaimana pembuktian alasan-alasan tersebut apakah diperlukan keputusan Pengadilan terlebih dahulu atau tidak. Bagaimana sikap Mahkamah Agung terhadap pembatalan putusan arbitrase ini, apakah telah memenuhi asas kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi para pihak. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Penulis menemukan bahwa ternyata ketentuan Pasal 70 dan putusan Mahkamah Agung tentang permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase ini sangat beragam dan tidak konsisten sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dan keadilan. Dilain pihak, aturan tentang upaya hukum untuk pembatalan putusan arbitrase juga tidak bisa dihapuskan sama sekali karena bisa terjadi putusan arbitrase diambil dalam keadaan yang salah sehingga dapat menimbulkan ketidakadilan apabila putusan tersebut tetap dipertahankan. Oleh karenanya perlu dilakukan perbaikan atas aturan arbitrase yang mengatur tentang upaya hukum pembatalan putusan sehingga dapat tercapainya kepastian hukum dan memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat. ......The application of the provisions of Article 70 of Law No. 30 Year 1999 Regarding Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (?Arbitration Act?) has caused controvercy due to such article are inconsistent and there is no strict rule. This research intends to find out the correlation of the application of Article 70 associated with its elucidation and the general description of the Arbitration Act, to ensure the achievement of legal certainty and justice for disputing parties. The fundamental issues in respect of the annulment of arbitral award is whether the reasons of annulment is qualified limitative or non-limitative and whether is required prior final court decision or not. What is the opinion of the Supreme Court on such annulment of the arbitral award which has fulfilled the principle of legal certainty and justice for disputing parties. This research was conducted with juridical normative research methods. Authors found that the Article 70 and Supreme Court?s decision regarding the annulment of the arbitral award has caused legal uncertainty and injustice due to being indistinct and inconsistent. On the other hand, the rule of law remedy for the annulment of the arbitral award could not be eliminated completely because there are still any conditions where the arbitral award was taken in the wrong circumstances that can lead to uncertainty and injustice when the award is retained. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the arbitration rules which regulates legal remedy of application of the annulment of the award to ensure the legal certainty and justice in society."