Author:
Author:
Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto
dodiksetiawan@uii.ac.id
Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto
Search for other papers by Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Business entities see arbitration as a forum where they can settle their disputes. This form of alternative dispute resolution provides a win-win situation for both parties involved in the debate. Arbitration is the only institution that has full authority to settle their disputes once parties entered into a consent to choose an arbitration committee over a classic judicial forum. Even though arbitral awards have a final and binding character, they may be challenged using two legal methods: refusal or annulment. Besides providing specific grounds of refusal, the New York Convention 1958 ruled that the annulment of a foreign arbitral award could be done by a “competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made”. Although Indonesia has ratified the Convention and has specific national regulations on arbitration, judges of the courts of the first and second instance in fact do not have sufficient understanding of the refusal and annulment grounds of foreign arbitral awards. The well-known case of Karaha Bodas Company v. Pertamina shows that judges of the District Court of Central Jakarta failed to exercise their jurisdiction to annul the Geneva arbitral award. The case is a very typical example of not thinking outside the box and disregarding international treaties that sadly seems to be a commonly followed ‘habit’ in many cases all over the world. This paper aims to criticize several mistakes in the judicial reasoning that lead to such outcomes in judicial practice. Moreover, this paper will explain ways to strengthen judges’ ability to understand the international treaties ratified by their government, as their usual practice in the civil law system is to constantly rely on the hierarchy of national legislation.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Agusman, D. , Hukum Perjanjian Internasional: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Indonesia (Refika Aditama 2010).
-
Budidjaja, T. , Public Policy as Grounds for Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia (PT. Tatanusa 2002).
-
Department Review of Court Decision International, ‘Effect of Award Annulled by a Country Lacking Primary Jurisdiction’ (2003) 59 JUL Journal of Dispute Resolution 90–91.
-
Drahozal, C. R. , ‘Enforcing Vacated International Arbitral Awards: An Economic Approach’ (2000) 11 American Review of International Arbitration 451–479.
-
Hikmah, M. , ‘The Roles of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia in Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Indonesia’ (2013) 3 Indonesia Law Review 238–266.
-
Hunter, H. and Martin, J., ‘The UNCITRAL Model Law’ (1985) 13 International Business Lawyer 399–402.
-
Hwang, M. , et.al, ‘Survey of South East Asian Nations on the Application of the New York Convention’ (2008) 25 Journal of International Arbitration 873–892.
-
Juwana, H. , ‘Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional oleh Pengadilan Nasional’ (2002) 21 Jurnal Hukum Bisnis 67–74.
-
Longdong, T. L. T. , Asas Ketertiban Umum & Konvensi New York 1958 (PT. Citra Aditya Bakti 1998).
-
Mills, K. , ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Indonesia’ (2000) 6 International Arbitration Law Review 192–194.
-
Peradilan, V. , ‘Putusan Arbitrase Internasional Digugat Pembatalannya: Kasus Pertamina v. Karaha Bodas’ (2005) 20 Majalah Hukum Tahun 4–27.
-
Rajagukguk, E. , ‘Economic Law: Legal Reform in Indonesia’ in RM Talib Puspokusumo (ed), Reformasi Hukum di Indonesia: Sebuah Keniscayaan (Tim Pakar Hukum Departemen Kehakiman dan HAM RI 2000).
-
Rubins, N. , ‘The Enforcement and Annulment of International Arbitral Awards in Indonesia’ (2005) 20 American University International Law Review 359–401.
-
Slate, W. K. , ‘International Arbitration: Do Institutions Make a Difference?’ (2004) 31 Wake Forest Law Review 41–64.
-
Soemartomo, G. P. , Arbitrase dan Mediasi di Indonesia (Gramedia Pustaka Utama 2006).
Acta Juridica Hungarica
P.O. Box 25
HU–1250 Budapest,Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 355 7384
Fax. (36 1) 375 7858
E-mail: acta.juridica@tk.mta.hu
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- Information technology and the Law
- International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
- Worldwide Political Science Abstractss
- Translation Studies Abstracts
- SCOPUS
- Cabell's Directories
- HeinOnline
| Acta Juridica Hungarica | |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Size | |
| Year of Foundation |
1959 |
| Publication Programme |
changed title |
| Volumes per Year |
|
| Issues per Year |
|
| Founder | Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  |
| Founder's Address |
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 1216-2574 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1588-2616 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2024 | 0 | 37 | 9 |
| May 2024 | 0 | 10 | 8 |
| Jun 2024 | 0 | 24 | 5 |
| Jul 2024 | 0 | 14 | 10 |
| Aug 2024 | 0 | 17 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 32 | 5 |
| Oct 2024 | 0 | 12 | 5 |
Author:
Author:
Author:
Author:
Author:
Author:
Author:
Taxonomy of law and legal mapping
Patterns and limits of the classification of legal systems
Author:
The resurrection of field warehousing
— the booming Hungarian field warehousing sector, the incomplete English narrative and the unexplored field warehousing law of the United States —
Author:
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory