|
This article explores the main features of exceptions to enforcement under Article V of the NYC,including its exhaustive and discretionary natures. It then specifically provides an overview ofnarrow judicial control over the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Article V of the NYC.It points out the fundamental principles of the provision in determining the enforceability ofinternational arbitral awards. Then this article will occasionally refer to international arbitralcases in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, France and Switzerland. It is noted thatcourts and legislatures in those jurisdictions have moved towards pro-enforcement policy toquestions of recognition and enforcement arising under Article V of the NYC. Therefore, thisapproach is a good signal and a promising development to promote the finality and enforeabilityof foreign arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration. This approach can also be agood lesson for the Indonesian judiciary system in relation to the enforcement and recognition ofinternational arbitral awards in the future.Artikel ini menganalisis tentang alasan-alasan penolakan pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusanarbitrase internasional yang diatur di dalam Pasal V Konvensi New York 1958, termasuksifat limitatif dan diskresi dari ketentuan tersebut. Beberapa putusan pengadilan di berbagainegara seperti Amerika Serikat dan Perancis menunjukkan adanya tendensi untuk menerapkanketentuan Pasal V Konvensi New York secara restriktif. Fenomena ini mencerminkan adanyakecenderungan dari berbagai negara untuk menerapkan prinsip ‘pro enforcement’ terhadappelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional sehingga lebih memberikan jaminan kepastianhukum terhadap pengakuan/pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional di berbagai negarayang telah meratifikasi Konvensi New York. Penerapan prinsip ‘pro enforcement’ juga dapatmemberikan paradigma baru bagi Pengadilan di Indonesia terkait dengan pengakuan danpelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional. |
