Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L Makmur
Faced with increasingly complex and sophisticated economic activities and business arrangements, business practitioners need a reliable and efficient dispute resolution mechanism. Arbitration, as an alternative dispute resolution method, remains one of the most favored methods for businesses to settle disputes, in part due to its final and binding nature.
Unfortunately, in general businesses consider Indonesia’s current legal framework on arbitration outdated and obsolete. Frans Hendra Winarta, Chairman of the Indonesian Arbitration Commission at the International Chamber of Commerce, said that Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law), must be amended to better accommodate business interests.
In addition, Mr. Winarta said that the Arbitration Law needs to be adjusted to various international arbitration rules. For instance, he is concerned that the Arbitration Law does not authorize an arbitrator to choose its own jurisdiction.
“The Arbitration Law must give such authority,” said Mr. Winarta last Thursday.
Mr. Winarta admits that Arbitration Law clearly prohibits any court from interfering in a dispute in which the parties are already bound by an arbitrator clause/agreement. The Arbitration Law, however, fails to stipulate whether or not an arbitrator can choose its own jurisdiction.
The lack of this provision, according to Mr. Winarta, enables parties to reject the competence of an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, an arbitrator’s authority to choose its own jurisdiction is provided for under the rules of many arbitration institutions, such as the ICC Rules, BANI Rules, and SIAC Rules.
Mr. Winarta also believes that the Arbitration Law must be able to offer quick solutions in emergency situations. He stressed the importance of emergency arbitrator provisions, a crucial mechanism for disputing parties that urgently need a decision when unable to wait for a tribunal to be formed.
“The essence of the emergency arbitration process is to protect urgent interests where a delay equals injustice, as ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,” concluded Mr. Winarta.
Under emergency arbitration, disputing parties may submit an application, and the arbitrator will render an award within fifteen days after the application. According to Mr. Winarta, this method ensures the protection of urgent interests of the parties involved.
Moreover, Mr. Winarta stated that under the ICC Rules, awards issued by emergency arbitrators are in the form of an order or directive. The Arbitration Law, on the other hand, does not acknowledge orders or directives as final and binding, especially when issued by an emergency arbitrator outside Indonesian jurisdiction.
“The execution of directives is being hindered as a result,” complained Mr. Winarta.
(hot/kc)
Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L Makmur
Faced with increasingly complex and sophisticated economic activities and business arrangements, business practitioners need a reliable and efficient dispute resolution mechanism. Arbitration, as an alternative dispute resolution method, remains one of the most favored methods for businesses to settle disputes, in part due to its final and binding nature.
Unfortunately, in general businesses consider Indonesia’s current legal framework on arbitration outdated and obsolete. Frans Hendra Winarta, Chairman of the Indonesian Arbitration Commission at the International Chamber of Commerce, said that Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law), must be amended to better accommodate business interests.
In addition, Mr. Winarta said that the Arbitration Law needs to be adjusted to various international arbitration rules. For instance, he is concerned that the Arbitration Law does not authorize an arbitrator to choose its own jurisdiction.
“The Arbitration Law must give such authority,” said Mr. Winarta last Thursday.
Mr. Winarta admits that Arbitration Law clearly prohibits any court from interfering in a dispute in which the parties are already bound by an arbitrator clause/agreement. The Arbitration Law, however, fails to stipulate whether or not an arbitrator can choose its own jurisdiction.
The lack of this provision, according to Mr. Winarta, enables parties to reject the competence of an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, an arbitrator’s authority to choose its own jurisdiction is provided for under the rules of many arbitration institutions, such as the ICC Rules, BANI Rules, and SIAC Rules.
Mr. Winarta also believes that the Arbitration Law must be able to offer quick solutions in emergency situations. He stressed the importance of emergency arbitrator provisions, a crucial mechanism for disputing parties that urgently need a decision when unable to wait for a tribunal to be formed.
“The essence of the emergency arbitration process is to protect urgent interests where a delay equals injustice, as ‘justice delayed is justice denied’,” concluded Mr. Winarta.
Under emergency arbitration, disputing parties may submit an application, and the arbitrator will render an award within fifteen days after the application. According to Mr. Winarta, this method ensures the protection of urgent interests of the parties involved.
Moreover, Mr. Winarta stated that under the ICC Rules, awards issued by emergency arbitrators are in the form of an order or directive. The Arbitration Law, on the other hand, does not acknowledge orders or directives as final and binding, especially when issued by an emergency arbitrator outside Indonesian jurisdiction.
“The execution of directives is being hindered as a result,” complained Mr. Winarta.
(hot/kc)