RPS minggu 7 · 2x50 menit
Arbitrase Internasional: 8 Institusi, ICC Lifecycle & NY Convention 1958 International Business Law — S1 Manajemen FEB UNDIP Selamat datang di pertemuan 7. Minggu lalu kita mendalami ICC family, FX hedging, dan sanctions/AML compliance. Hari ini kita masuk ke mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa internasional — arbitrase. Arbitrase adalah alternative dispute resolution yang lebih disukai untuk cross-border commercial disputes karena: (1) netral — tidak perlu ke court counterparty; (2) enforceable di 169+ negara via NY Convention 1958; (3) confidential; (4) expertise — arbitrator pakar; (5) final — limited ground untuk set aside. Kita akan dalami 8 institusi arbitrase utama: ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, BANI, AAA/ICDR, DIAC, KLRCA. ICC lifecycle: Request for Arbitration → Answer → Terms of Reference → arbitrator appointment → hearing → award. NY Convention 1958 — 169+ states parties, Indonesia ratified via UU 5/1999. Sampai akhir kuliah Anda harus bisa pilih institusi yang tepat untuk dispute dan draft arbitration clause yang enforceable. Peta Pembelajaran Hari Ini Empat blok yang harus Anda kuasai tentang arbitrase internasional.
Mengapa arbitrase vs litigation untuk cross-border? 8 institusi: ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, BANI, AAA/ICDR, DIAC, KLRCA ICC Rules lifecycle: Request → Terms of Reference → Award Arbitrator selection: party-appointed vs institutional NY Convention 1958: 169+ states, UU 5/1999 Grounds untuk refuse enforcement (Art. V) Indonesia: UU 30/1999, SEMA MA 3/2017 exequatur Mini-case: Pertamina vs ..., enforcement di Indonesia Output: mahasiswa mampu pilih institusi arbitrase dan draft clause enforceable.
Mari petakan empat blok pembelajaran hari ini. Blok pertama: mengapa arbitrase vs litigation untuk cross-border. Blok kedua: 8 institusi arbitrase utama — ICC Paris, LCIA London, SIAC Singapore, HKIAC Hong Kong, BANI Indonesia, AAA/ICDR New York, DIAC Dubai, KLRCA Kuala Lumpur. Anda harus tahu kapan pilih yang mana. Blok ketiga: ICC Rules lifecycle detail — Request for Arbitration → Answer → Terms of Reference (unique ICC) → arbitrator appointment → hearing → award → scrutiny. Blok keempat: NY Convention 1958 yang memungkinkan enforcement di 169+ states; Indonesia ratified via UU 5/1999; grounds untuk refuse enforcement (Art. V); SEMA MA 3/2017 mengatur exequatur procedure di Indonesia. Mini-case: enforcement international arbitral award di Indonesia. Output: mahasiswa mampu pilih institusi arbitrase dan draft arbitration clause yang enforceable. Persiapan: baca UU 30/1999 tentang Arbitrase, NY Convention text (khususnya Article I, III, V). Mengapa Arbitrase vs Litigasi untuk Cross-Border Lima alasan strategis memilih arbitrase untuk sengketa cross-border commercial.
Aspek Arbitrase Internasional Litigasi (Court) 1. Netralitas Forum netral — tidak di court counterparty Sering home court advantage 2. Enforcement NY Convention 1958 — 169+ negara, single treaty Bilateral enforcement treaty (sulit) 3. Confidentiality Default confidential Default public 4. Expertise Pilih arbitrator dengan expertise industri Hakim random (mungkin tidak paham industri) 5. Finality Limited ground set aside — final & binding Multiple appeals bertahun-tahun 6. Bahasa Pilih bahasa (English umum) Bahasa local court 7. Cost Tinggi upfront (admin fee), bisa lebih cepat Rendah upfront, tapi panjang 8. Procedural Fleksibel, party autonomy Strict civil procedure code
Arbitrase: netral, enforceable NY Convention, confidential, expert, final. Trade-off: cost tinggi upfront dan limited appeal.
Mari bandingkan arbitrase dengan litigasi untuk cross-border commercial disputes. Pertama, netralitas — arbitrase forum netral (mis. ICC Paris untuk Indonesia-China dispute), tidak di court counterparty yang mungkin bias. Litigasi sering home court advantage. Kedua, enforcement — NY Convention 1958 dengan 169+ states parties memungkinkan recognition dan enforcement dengan single treaty framework. Litigasi butuh bilateral enforcement treaty yang sulit. Ketiga, confidentiality — arbitrase default confidential, litigasi default public. Untuk dispute yang sensitif (mis. trade secret, IP), confidential penting. Keempat, expertise — pilih arbitrator dengan expertise industri (mis. construction, shipping, banking); hakim court random mungkin tidak paham industri. Kelima, finality — arbitrase limited ground untuk set aside, lebih final dan binding. Litigasi multiple appeals bertahun-tahun. Keenam, bahasa — arbitrase pilih bahasa (English umum); litigasi bahasa local court. Ketujuh, cost — arbitrase tinggi upfront (admin fee ICC, arbitrator fee), tapi bisa lebih cepat. Litigasi rendah upfront tapi panjang. Kedelapan, procedural — arbitrase fleksibel dengan party autonomy; litigasi strict civil procedure code. Strategi: untuk cross-border commercial dengan counterparty asing, arbitrase hampir selalu lebih baik. Untuk domestic Indonesia, BANI atau court lokal. Trade-off: cost tinggi upfront dan limited appeal. Bagian 1 · 1/4
Delapan Institusi Arbitrase Utama
Diskusi kelas: dispute Indonesia-China. Mana yang paling tepat — ICC Paris, SIAC Singapore, atau HKIAC Hong Kong?
Blok pertama mendalami 8 institusi arbitrase utama. Pertanyaan diskusi: dispute Indonesia-China — mana yang paling tepat ICC Paris, SIAC Singapore, atau HKIAC Hong Kong? Pertimbangan: (1) Netralitas — semua tiga netral; (2) Lokasi — SIAC dan HKIAC lebih dekat ke Indonesia (lebih murah travel); (3) Biaya — SIAC dan HKIAC umumnya lebih murah dari ICC; (4) Enforcement — semua tiga adalah NY Convention states; (5) Track record Indonesia — SIAC populer untuk Indonesia disputes karena Singapore sebagai hub; (6) Bahasa — semua mendukung English. Untuk Indonesia-China commercial dispute, SIAC Singapore biasanya pilihan optimal — lokasi strategis, biaya reasonable, track record Indonesia-China cases, expertise Asia. ICC Paris lebih prestige tetapi lebih mahal dan jauh. HKIAC Hong Kong populer untuk China-related karena common law system dan proximity. Strategi: untuk dispute dengan China counterparty, SIAC atau HKIAC. Untuk dispute dengan EU counterparty, ICC Paris atau LCIA London. Untuk dispute dengan Middle East, DIAC Dubai. Delapan Institusi: Comparison Matrix Profil delapan institusi arbitrase utama — gunakan untuk pilih forum optimal.
Institusi Lokasi Biaya Admin Keahlian Cases/thn (di-hedge) ICC Court of Arbitration Paris (global) Tinggi (tiered) Universal, complex ~800-1000 LCIA (London Court of Intl Arb) London Hourly UK Commonwealth, banking ~400-500 SIAC (Singapore Intl Arb Centre) Singapore Tiered Asia, Indonesia populer ~400-500 HKIAC (Hong Kong Intl Arb Centre) Hong Kong Tiered China-related, shipping ~300-400 BANI (Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia) Jakarta Rendah Domestic Indonesia ~200-300 AAA/ICDR (Intl Centre for Dispute Resolution) New York Tiered US-related ~600-800 DIAC (Dubai Intl Arb Centre) Dubai Tiered Middle East, construction ~300-400 KLRCA (Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre) Kuala Lumpur Rendah Asia, Islamic finance ~100-200
Untuk Indonesia: SIAC populer untuk international, BANI untuk domestic, ICC untuk complex high-value. Strategi: pilih sesuai dispute dan counterparty.
Mari pelajari delapan institusi arbitrase utama. ICC Court of Arbitration (Paris) — biaya admin tinggi (tiered berbasis claim value), universal expertise untuk complex disputes, ~800-1000 cases per tahun. Gold standard international prestige. LCIA London Court of International Arbitration — biaya hourly (arbitrator time), expertise UK Commonwealth dan banking/insurance, ~400-500 cases. SIAC Singapore International Arbitration Centre — tiered fee, expertise Asia terutama Indonesia cases populer, ~400-500 cases. SIAC adalah pilihan optimal untuk Indonesia international disputes karena Singapore hub dan proximity. HKIAC Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre — tiered, expertise China-related dan shipping, ~300-400 cases. BANI Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia — biaya rendah, expertise domestic Indonesia, ~200-300 cases. Untuk sengketa domestik Indonesia, BANI lebih efisien. AAA/ICDR International Centre for Dispute Resolution — tiered, expertise US-related, ~600-800 cases. DIAC Dubai International Arbitration Centre — tiered, Middle East dan construction, ~300-400 cases. KLRCA Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration — rendah fee, Asia dan Islamic finance, ~100-200 cases. Strategi untuk Indonesia: SIAC untuk international, BANI untuk domestic, ICC untuk complex high-value. Pilih sesuai dispute dan counterparty profile. ICC Arbitration Lifecycle: Step-by-Step Sembilan tahap ICC arbitration dari Request sampai Award — paling detailed dan institutionalized.
Tahap Activity Typical Duration (di-hedge) 1. Request for Arbitration Claimant file Request dengan Secretariat ICC 1-2 minggu 2. Answer to Request Respondent file Answer + counterclaims (jika ada) 30 hari dari receipt 3. Prima facie jurisdiction ICC Court decide prima facie arbitral agreement exists 2-4 minggu 4. arbitrator appointment Sole (1) atau tribunal (3) — party-appointed + chair 1-3 bulan 5. Terms of Reference (ToR) UNIK ICC — document define issues, claims, procedural rules 2-6 bulan (sangat variable) 6. Procedural Order No. 1 Tribunal issue procedural timetable Setelah ToR 7. Memorial (submissions) Claim Memorial → Defense → Reply → Rejoinder 3-12 bulan 8. Hearing Evidence, witness, expert testimony 1-4 minggu 9. Award Tribunal deliberate → draft → ICC scrutiny → final 3-6 bulan setelah hearing Total typical — 18-30 bulan (ICC stats)
ICC Terms of Reference (ToR) adalah fitur unik — slow upfront tetapi memperjelas issues dan sering accelerate proses akhir.
Mari pelajari sembilan tahap ICC arbitration lifecycle. Pertama, Request for Arbitration — Claimant file Request dengan Secretariat ICC Paris; 1-2 minggu. Kedua, Answer to Request — Respondent file Answer dengan counterclaims jika ada; 30 hari dari receipt. Ketiga, prima facie jurisdiction — ICC Court decide prima facie arbitral agreement exists; 2-4 minggu. ICC Court dapat proceed bahkan jika jurisdiction disputed (prima facie test). Keempat, arbitrator appointment — sole arbitrator (1) atau tribunal (3); party-appointed + chairman; 1-3 bulan. Kelima, Terms of Reference (ToR) — UNIK ICC, document yang define issues, claims, procedural rules; 2-6 bulan (sangat variable). ToR adalah fitur unik ICC yang tidak ada di SIAC, LCIA, atau lainnya. Keenam, Procedural Order No. 1 — Tribunal issue procedural timetable setelah ToR. Ketujuh, Memorial submissions — Claim Memorial → Defense Memorial → Reply → Rejoinder; 3-12 bulan. Kedelapan, Hearing — evidence, witness testimony, expert testimony; 1-4 minggu. Kesembilan, Award — Tribunal deliberate → draft → ICC scrutiny (scrivener check) → final; 3-6 bulan setelah hearing. Total typical duration 18-30 bulan (ICC stats). ICC Terms of Reference (ToR) adalah fitur unik — slow upfront tetapi memperjelas issues dan sering accelerate proses akhir. Strategi: prepare strong ToR draft untuk efisiensi. Hitung dari Nol: ICC Arbitration Cost Skenario: dispute US$ 50 juta di ICC Paris, 3-arbitrator tribunal. Hitung total cost.
Komponen Perhitungan Nilai 1. ICC Admin Fee (claim US$ 50M) Scale ICC — US$ 50M claim ~US$ 95.000 (di-hedge, scale) 2. Arbitrator fee (3 arb) Scale ICC × 3 arbitrator ~US$ 800K-1,2M (di-hedge) 3. Legal counsel 2-3 counsel × 18-30 bulan US$ 2-5 juta (tergantung complexity) 4. Expert witness Industry expert, quantum expert US$ 200K-500K 5. Hearing venue + logistics Paris, 2 minggu hearing US$ 50K-100K 6. Translation (jika perlu) English + bahasa local US$ 30K-80K 7. Total cost — US$ 3,2-7,0 juta 8. As % of dispute US$ 3,2-7M / US$ 50M 6,4% - 14% (di-hedge) 9. Comparison SIAC (claim US$ 50M) — Sedikit lebih rendah (~US$ 2,8-6,2M, di-hedge) 10. Comparison BANI domestic — Jauh lebih rendah (~US$ 200K-800K)
ICC arbitration cost 6-14% dari dispute value untuk US$ 50M case. Strategi: untuk high-value dispute, ICC justifiable; untuk smaller, SIAC/BANI lebih efisien.
Mari hitung dari nol ICC arbitration cost untuk dispute US$ 50 juta. Pertama, ICC Admin Fee — scale berbasis claim value, untuk US$ 50M ~US$ 95.000 (di-hedge, per ICC schedule). Kedua, Arbitrator fee — 3-arbitrator tribunal, scale ICC, ~US$ 800K-1,2 juta (di-hedge). Ketiga, Legal counsel — 2-3 counsel selama 18-30 bulan, US$ 2-5 juta tergantung complexity (engaged major international firm). Keempat, Expert witness — industry expert + quantum expert (forensic accounting), US$ 200K-500K. Kelima, Hearing venue + logistics — Paris, 2 minggu hearing, US$ 50K-100K. Keenam, Translation jika perlu, US$ 30K-80K. Total cost US$ 3,2-7,0 juta. Sebagai persen dispute: 6,4-14% dari US$ 50M. Comparison SIAC untuk claim US$ 50M: sedikit lebih rendah ~US$ 2,8-6,2 juta (di-hedge) — SIAC admin fee sedikit lebih rendah, location Singapore lebih murah dari Paris. Comparison BANI untuk domestic Indonesia: jauh lebih rendah ~US$ 200K-800K. Strategi: untuk high-value dispute (US$ 50M+), ICC justifiable karena expertise dan prestige. Untuk smaller value (US$ 5-20M), SIAC lebih efisien. Untuk domestic Indonesia, BANI. Pertimbangan: cost arbitrase upfront tinggi tetapi time efficiency (final dalam 2-3 tahun vs litigasi 5-10 tahun) dan enforceability (NY Convention) sering membuat ROI positif. Bagian 2 · 2/4
NY Convention 1958 & Enforceability
Diskusi kelas: arbitral award dari ICC Paris ingin di-enforce di Indonesia. Apa procedure-nya?
Blok kedua mendalami NY Convention 1958 dan enforcement procedure. Pertanyaan diskusi: enforce ICC Paris award di Indonesia. NY Convention 1958 (Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) — cornerstone of international arbitration. 169+ states parties (per 2024). Indonesia ratified via UU 5/1999. Article III: each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them per its procedural rules. Article IV: party seeking enforcement must supply (1) duly authenticated original award atau certified copy; (2) original arbitral agreement atau certified copy. Article V: limited grounds untuk refuse enforcement (public policy, incapacity, invalid agreement, lack of proper notice, excess authority, etc.). Procedure di Indonesia per SEMA MA 3/2017: file petition ke Pengadilan Negeri Negeri (PN) Central Jakarta; PN examine within 90 hari; jika grant, issue exequatur; jika refuse, appeal ke MA. Mini-case: Pertamina vs ... (caselaw Indonesia enforcement). Banyak award dari ICC, SIAC, LCIA telah berhasil di-enforce di Indonesia via procedure ini. NY Convention 1958: Cornerstone International Arbitration Empat pilar NY Convention 1958 yang membuat arbitrase internasional efektif.
Pilar Article Substansi 1. Field of application Art. I Awards made in territory of another Contracting State; non-domestic awards 2. Obligation to recognize Art. III Each State shall recognize awards as binding dan enforce per procedural rules 3. Documentary requirements Art. IV Duly authenticated original award + original arbitral agreement (atau certified copy) 4. Grounds untuk refuse Art. V Limited — incapacity, invalid agreement, lack of notice, excess authority, etc. 5. Public policy exception Art. V(2)(b) Refuse if enforcement contrary to public policy 6. Reciprocity reservation Art. I(3) Apply only to awards made in territory of another Contracting State (reciprocity) 7. Commercial reservation Art. I(3) Apply only to differences arising out of legal relationships considered commercial 8. More favorable right Art. VII Party may invoke more favorable treaty atau law
NY Convention 1958: 169+ states parties, Indonesia via UU 5/1999. Article V grounds untuk refuse: sangat limited — enforcement default rule.
Mari pelajari empat pilar NY Convention 1958 yang membuat arbitrase internasional efektif. Pilar pertama, Field of application (Article I) — Convention apply to awards made in territory of another Contracting State dan non-domestic awards. Pilar kedua, Obligation to recognize (Article III) — each Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding dan enforce them per rules of procedure of territory where enforcement sought. Tidak boleh substantially more onerous conditions atau higher fees. Pilar ketiga, Documentary requirements (Article IV) — party seeking enforcement must supply (1) duly authenticated original award atau certified copy; (2) original arbitral agreement atau certified copy; (3) translations jika perlu. Pilar keempat, Grounds untuk refuse enforcement (Article V) — sangat limited: (a) incapacity party; (b) invalid arbitral agreement; (c) lack of proper notice atau unable to present case; (d) excess authority atau ultra petita; (e) defective composition of arbitral authority atau procedure; (f) award not yet binding atau set aside. Public policy exception Article V(2)(b): court may refuse if enforcement contrary to public policy. Reciprocity reservation Article I(3): apply only to awards made in territory of another Contracting State. Commercial reservation: apply only to commercial legal relationships. More favorable right Article VII: party may invoke more favorable treaty atau law. Strategi: NY Convention enforcement default rule — enforcement shall be granted; refusal adalah exception yang harus interpreted narrowly. Article V NY Convention: 7 Grounds untuk Refuse Tujuh grounds untuk refuse enforcement — harus interpreted narrowly karena enforcement adalah default.
Ground Art. Substansi 1. Incapacity V(1)(a) Party to agreement under incapacity 2. Invalid agreement V(1)(a) Arbitral agreement not valid under applicable law 3. Lack of notice V(1)(b) Party unable to present case (no proper notice) 4. Excess authority V(1)(c) Award beyond scope of submission (ultra petita) 5. Defective composition V(1)(d) Composition of arbitral authority atau procedure not per agreement 6. Not binding V(1)(e) Award not yet binding atau set aside oleh court competent 7. Subject-matter inarbitrable V(2)(a) Subject-matter not capable of settlement by arbitration 8. Public policy V(2)(b) Enforcement contrary to public policy of country
Article V(1) grounds: oleh permohonan party. Article V(2) grounds: court dapat raise ex officio (sua sponte). Semua harus interpreted narrowly.
Mari pelajari tujuh grounds untuk refuse enforcement per Article V NY Convention. Pertama, Incapacity (Article V(1)(a)) — party to agreement under incapacity (mis. minor, mentally incapacitated). Kedua, Invalid agreement (Article V(1)(a)) — arbitral agreement not valid under applicable law (mis.不符合 form requirements). Ketiga, Lack of notice (Article V(1)(b)) — party unable to present case karena no proper notice atau unable to defend. Keempat, Excess authority (Article V(1)(c)) — award beyond scope of submission (ultra petita) — arbitrator decide issue not submitted. Kelima, Defective composition (Article V(1)(d)) — composition of arbitral authority atau arbitral procedure not per agreement atau applicable law. Keenam, Not binding (Article V(1)(e)) — award not yet binding atau set aside oleh court of country where award made. Ketujuh, Subject-matter inarbitrable (Article V(2)(a)) — subject-matter not capable of settlement by arbitration (mis. criminal, family law beberapa yurisdiksi). Kedelapan, Public policy (Article V(2)(b)) — enforcement contrary to public policy of country where enforcement sought. PENTING: Article V(1) grounds — harus oleh permohonan party yang resist enforcement. Article V(2) grounds — court dapat raise ex officio (sua sponte) pada examination. Semua grounds harus interpreted narrowly karena enforcement adalah default rule. Strategi defense: kalaupun ada Article V ground, dokumentasikan dengan baik; success rate refusal hanya ~10% global (ICC stats). Bagian 3 · 3/4
UU 30/1999, SEMA MA 3/2017 & Indonesia Enforcement
Diskusi kelas: bagaimana procedure exequatur di Indonesia untuk arbitral award ICC Paris?
Blok ketiga mendalami Indonesia framework untuk arbitrase dan enforcement international award. UU 30/1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa — undang-undang Indonesia mengatur arbitrase domestic dan international. Pasal 1 definisi arbitrase. Pasal 5-67 arbitrase domestic. Pasal 68-82 pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase (foreign awards). Indonesia ratified NY Convention via UU 5/1999. SEMA MA 3/2017 tentang Tata Cara Pemenuhan Permohonan Pengakuan dan Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing — mengatur procedure exequatur di Indonesia. Procedure: (1) File permohonan ke Pengadilan Negeri Central Jakarta (PN Jakpus); (2) PN Jakpus examine dalam 90 hari; (3) Jika grant, issue exequatur (perintah pelaksanaan); (4) Jika refuse, party dapat appeal ke MA. Mini-case: PT ...
–v
.... ICC Paris award. Pengadilan Negeri Central Jakarta adalah court eksklusif untuk exequatur (SEMA MA 3/2017). Strategi: untuk enforce international award di Indonesia, prepare authenticated original + translation Indonesia + arbitral agreement, file ke PN Jakpus. UU 30/1999 & SEMA MA 3/2017: Indonesia Framework Indonesia framework untuk arbitrase — domestic dan international enforcement.
Regulasi Substansi Implikasi praktis UU 30/1999 Arbitrase Arbitrase domestic + foreign award enforcement Pasal 1 definisi; Pasal 5-67 domestic; Pasal 68-82 foreign award UU 5/1999 Ratifikasi NY Convention 1958 Indonesia bound by NY Convention Pasal 67 UU 30/1999 Foreign award binding setelah exequatur Wajib execute di Pengadilan Negeri Pasal 68 UU 30/1999 Foreign award dapat refuse jika contravene public order Public policy exception SEMA MA 3/2017 Tata cara permohonan exequatur PN Central Jakarta exclusive jurisdiction SEMA MA 3/2017 Pasal 5 Permohonan file ke PN Central Jakarta Exclusive venue SEMA MA 3/2017 Pasal 13 Hakim examine 90 hari Time limit SEMA MA 3/2017 Pasal 23 Putusan dapat appeal ke MA One-level appeal
Strategi Indonesia: file ke PN Central Jakarta dengan authenticated original award + arbitral agreement + translation. Exequatur dalam 90 hari kerja.
Mari pelajari Indonesia framework untuk arbitrase dan enforcement international award. Pertama, UU 30/1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa — undang-undang Indonesia mengatur arbitrase domestic dan international. Pasal 1 definisi arbitrase; Pasal 5-67 mengatur arbitrase domestic (BANI); Pasal 68-82 mengatur pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase asing (foreign awards). Kedua, UU 5/1999 — ratifikasi NY Convention 1958; Indonesia bound by Convention. Ketiga, Pasal 67 UU 30/1999 — foreign award binding setelah exequatur (perintah pelaksanaan dari Pengadilan Negeri). Keempat, Pasal 68 UU 30/1999 — foreign award dapat refuse jika contravene public order (public policy exception selaras dengan NY Convention Article V(2)(b)). Kelima, SEMA MA 3/2017 tentang Tata Cara Pemenuhan Permohonan Pengakuan dan Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing — procedure detail exequatur. Pasal 5 SEMA: permohonan file ke Pengadilan Negeri Central Jakarta — exclusive venue. Pasal 13 SEMA: Hakim examine dalam 90 hari. Pasal 23 SEMA: putusan dapat appeal ke Mahkamah Agung (one-level appeal). Strategi enforcement di Indonesia: (1) prepare authenticated original award dari arbitral institution; (2) prepare certified copy arbitral agreement; (3) translate ke bahasa Indonesia oleh sworn translator; (4) file permohonan ke PN Central Jakarta dengan dokumentasi lengkap; (5) PN examine 90 hari; (6) jika grant, issue exequatur; (7) execute via juru sita. Indonesia enforcement track record: mostly success, dengan beberapa notable refusal kasus public policy. Bagian 4 · 4/4
Mini-Case: Enforcement di Indonesia
Diskusi kelas: PT X Indonesia vs Y Ltd (UK). ICC London award US$ 25 juta untuk Y. PT X resist. Strategi enforcement?
Blok penutup mini-case enforcement di Indonesia. Skenario: PT X Indonesia vs Y Ltd UK. ICC London award US$ 25 juta untuk Y Ltd (UK counterparty). PT X resist enforcement. Strategi Y Ltd: Pertama, prepare documentation NY Convention Article IV — (1) authenticated original award dari ICC Paris (atau certified copy); (2) original arbitral agreement dari contract (atau certified copy); (3) sworn translation ke bahasa Indonesia. Kedua, file permohonan ke Pengadilan Negeri Central Jakarta per SEMA MA 3/2017. Attach semua dokumentasi. Ketiga, PN Jakpus examine dalam 90 hari. PT X dapat oppose dengan Article V grounds jika ada (incapacity, invalid agreement, lack of notice, dll.). Kemungkinan pertahanan PT X: (a) Public policy Pasal 68 UU 30/1999 — argument bahwa award contrary to Indonesia public policy; (b) Lack of proper notice — jika PT X tidak properly served; (c) Invalid agreement — jika arbitration clause tidak valid. Strategi counter Y: (a) Document strong compliance dengan NY Convention Article IV; (b) Rebut public policy argument — award final dan binding, bukan fraud atau corruption; (c) Show proper notice dan due process. Perkem AKHMADI AFFAIR, PT ...
v
....: Indonesia court umumnya enforce international award jika documentation complete dan tidak ada strong public policy ground. Strategi: prepare appeal ke MA jika PN refuse. Sampai dengan saat ini, Indonesia enforcement track record umumnya positive untuk international award dengan proper documentation. Arbitration Clause: Drafting Strategi Tujuh element arbitration clause yang enforceable dan effective.
Element Substansi Contoh drafting 1. Institusi arbitrase ICC, SIAC, BANI, dll "ICC International Court of Arbitration" 2. Aturan arbitrase ICC Rules 2021, SIAC Rules 2016 "ICC Rules of Arbitration" 3. Seat of arbitration Lokasi legal seat (bisa beda dengan hearing) "Seat: Singapore" 4. Bahasa Bahasa arbitrase "English" 5. Jumlah arbitrator 1 atau 3 "Sole arbitrator" atau "3 arbitrators" 6. Substantive law Hukum substantive kontrak "Indonesian law" 7. Scope Disputes covered "Any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract" 8. Exclusion litigation Waiver court jurisdiction "Courts shall have no jurisdiction"
Model ICC clause 2021: comprehensive. Hindari pathological clause yang ambiguous — dapat invalid agreement.
Mari pelajari tujuh element arbitration clause yang enforceable dan effective. Pertama, Institusi arbitrase — specify ICC International Court of Arbitration, SIAC Singapore, BANI Indonesia, dll. Hindari ambiguity. Kedua, Aturan arbitrase — ICC Rules of Arbitration (latest version), SIAC Rules 2016, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Ketiga, Seat of arbitration — lokasi legal seat (bisa beda dengan hearing venue). Seat menentukan supervisory court dan set aside jurisdiction. Mis. Singapore seat → Singapore High Court supervisory. Keempat, Bahasa arbitrase — English umum untuk international. Kelima, Jumlah arbitrator — sole (1) untuk smaller disputes, tribunal (3) untuk complex. Keenam, Substantive law kontrak — Indonesian law, English law, New York law, dll. Ketujuh, Scope — "any dispute arising out of or relating to this contract" — broad coverage. Kedelapan, Exclusion litigation — waiver court jurisdiction. Strategi: gunakan model ICC clause 2021 yang comprehensive. Hindari pathological clause yang ambiguous (mis. "arbitration if amicable settlement fails, otherwise courts") — dapat invalid agreement. Model ICC: "Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules." Plus specification seat, language, number. Strategi: consult counsel sebelum sign kontrak dengan arbitration clause. Hitung dari Nol: Strategi Arbitrase vs Litigasi Skenario: dispute US$ 20 juta, Indonesia vs China counterparty. Pilih strategi: ICC arbitrase atau Indonesia court litigasi?
Komponen ICC Arbitrase Indonesia Court Litigasi Cost upfront US$ 1,5-3 juta (di-hedge) Rp 500 juta - 1 miliar (~US$ 35-70K) Duration 18-30 bulan (ICC) 3-7 tahun (multiple appeals) Enforceability NY Convention — 169+ states, easy Bilateral treaty — sulit enforce di China Confidentiality Default confidential Public record Expertise Pilih arbitrator pakar Hakim random Netralitas Forum netral (Paris, Singapore) Indonesia home court (untuk PT INA) Finality Limited set aside ground Multiple appeals (KT, PT, PK) Outcome prediction Reasonable certainty Sulit predict
Untuk cross-border commercial Indonesia-China, ICC arbitrase sering lebih baik: enforceable NY Convention di China, faster, confidential.
Mari hitung dari nol strategi arbitrase vs litigasi untuk Indonesia-China commercial dispute US$ 20 juta. ICC Arbitrase: cost upfront US$ 1,5-3 juta (di-hedge, termasuk counsel); duration 18-30 bulan; enforceability NY Convention — 169+ states, mudah enforce di China; confidentiality default; expertise pilih arbitrator pakar; netralitas forum netral (Paris, Singapore); finality limited set aside; outcome prediction reasonable certainty. Indonesia Court Litigasi: cost upfront rendah Rp 500 juta - 1 miliar (~US$ 35-70K, court fee); duration 3-7 tahun multiple appeals (Kasasi, Peninjauan Kembali); enforceability bilateral treaty sulit enforce di China — Indonesia dan China tidak ada bilateral enforcement treaty yang robust; confidentiality public record; expertise hakim random mungkin tidak paham complex commercial; netralitas Indonesia home court untuk PT Indonesia (jika Indonesia file); finality multiple appeals; outcome prediction sulit. Strategi: untuk cross-border commercial Indonesia-China US$ 20 juta, ICC arbitrase sering lebih baik walaupun cost tinggi. Alasan: (1) enforceability NY Convention di China — mudah; (2) faster final resolution (2-3 tahun vs 5-10 tahun); (3) confidential untuk business reputation; (4) expertise pakar untuk complex commercial; (5) finality — limited appeals. Strategi counter-argumen: jika Indonesia home court menguntungkan (PT Indonesia file di Jakarta), mungkin litigasi viable untuk印尼 defendant. Tetapi untuk enforcement di China, ICC arbitrase adalah pilihan optimal. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Arbitration Strategy Cost-benefit arbitration — beyond fee, lihat enforceability, time, confidentiality.
Factor Arbitration (ICC) Litigation (Court) Cost (admin fee) USD 50K-500K+ (ICC scale) Low court fee (Rp 200K-1jt) Time to award 18-30 bulan 3-5 tahun first instance Confidentiality Default confidential Public Choice of law Party autonomy Lex fori (court law) Enforceability NY Convention 169+ states Bilateral treaty / reciprocity Appeal Tidak (final, kecuali annulment) Multi-tier cassation Discovery Limited (Redfern Schedule) Broad (RBg) Expertise arbitrator Party-selected experts Generalist judge
CBA: arbitration + confidential + enforceable, namun + expensive. Strategi: pilih sesuai dispute type.
Mari lakukan cost-benefit analysis untuk arbitration vs litigation strategy. Pertama, Cost (admin fee) — arbitration ICC USD 50K-500K+ (ICC scale based on claim value) versus litigation court fee low (Rp 200K-1jt di Indonesia PN). Arbitration much more expensive tetapi party bayar untuk expertise dan enforceability. Kedua, Time to award — arbitration 18-30 bulan versus litigation 3-5 tahun first instance (PN) + cassation (MA) di Indonesia bisa 7-10 tahun total. Arbitration faster. Ketiga, Confidentiality — arbitration default confidential (ICC Article 30) versus litigation public (open court). Untuk commercial secrets, arbitration advantage. Keempat, Choice of law — arbitration party autonomy (pilih law) versus litigation lex fori (court law). Kelima, Enforceability — arbitration NY Convention 169+ states (single award enforceable globally) versus litigation bilateral treaty atau reciprocity (limited). Arbitration huge advantage untuk cross-border. Keenam, Appeal — arbitration tidak ada appeal (final, kecuali annulment ground terbatas UU 30/1999 Article 70) versus litigation multi-tier cassation. Arbitration faster final. Ketujuh, Discovery — arbitration limited (Redfern Schedule untuk document production) versus litigation broad (RBg Indonesia). Discovery lebih predictable di arbitration. Kedelapan, Expertise arbitrator — arbitration party-selected experts (industry knowledge) versus litigation generalist judge. Arbitration better untuk complex commercial disputes. Strategi: pilih arbitration untuk high-value cross-border commercial disputes (>$1M, multi-jurisdiction, technical, confidential). Pilih litigation untuk domestic disputes, low value, atau jika disclosure broad diperlukan. Confidentiality in International Arbitration Confidentiality — default di arbitration, namun nuances dengan transparency treaty cases.
Document ICC UNCITRAL ICSID Award Confidential (publish consent) Confidential (party agree) Public excerpt (consent) Pleadings Confidential Confidential Confidential Hearing Private Private Private (some open) Existence dispute Confidential Confidential Public register (since 2007) Treaty case transparency Default confidential UNCITRAL Transparency Rules 2013 Public (with consent) Confidentiality agreement Recommended party Recommended party —
Confidentiality: default arbitration, tetapi evolving ke transparency untuk treaty cases (ISDS).
Mari pelajari confidentiality di international arbitration. Document, ICC, UNCITRAL, ICSID comparison. Award — ICC confidential (publish consent party) versus UNCITRAL confidential (party agree) versus ICSID public excerpt (with party consent). Pleadings — semua confidential. Hearing — semua private (some ICSID open with consent). Existence dispute — ICC/UNCITRAL confidential versus ICSID public register sejak 2007 (transparency). Treaty case transparency — ICC default confidential versus UNCITRAL Transparency Rules 2013 (default open untuk treaty cases) versus ICSID public with consent. Confidentiality agreement — recommended untuk party (explicit overlay). Strategi: jika confidential critical (commercial secrets, reputational), pakai arbitration dengan explicit confidentiality agreement. Untuk investor-State (ISDS), trend ke transparency (UNCITRAL Transparency Rules 2013, Mauritius Convention on Transparency). Strategi: kontrak cross-border komersial confidentiality critical pilih ICC/SIAC arbitration. Strategi ISDS: pahami trend transparency, engage publik untuk accountability. Multi-Party & Multi-Contract Arbitration Multi-party arbitration — common di construction, joint venture, group companies disputes.
Issue Substansi ICC Rules 2021 1. Joinder additional party Add third party ke arbitration Article 7(1) joinder 2. Consolidation Gabung multiple arbitrations Article 10 consolidation 3. Multi-contract arbitration Multiple kontrak dalam 1 arbitration Article 9 advanced 4. Arbitration agreement binding non-signatories Group companies, alter ego Case-by-case 5. Cross-claims Between co-defendants Permitted 6. Tribunal appointment multi-party Multi-party appointment issue Article 12 special 7. Class arbitration Bundled claims banyak claimants Rare in intl arbitration
Multi-party: ICC 2021 advanced. Strategi: draft arbitration clause untuk multi-party scenarios.
Mari pelajari multi-party dan multi-contract arbitration yang common di construction, joint venture, group companies disputes. Pertama, Joinder additional party — add third party ke arbitration. ICC Rules 2021 Article 7(1) joinder. Strategi: untuk downstream/upstream party. Kedua, Consolidation — gabung multiple arbitrations. ICC Rules 2021 Article 10 consolidation. Strategi: efficiency untuk related disputes. Ketiga, Multi-contract arbitration — multiple kontrak dalam 1 arbitration. ICC Rules 2021 Article 9 advanced (party dapat opt-in). Keempat, Arbitration agreement binding non-signatories — group companies, alter ego doctrine. Case-by-case. Strategi: pierce corporate veil jika parent company terlibat. Kelima, Cross-claims — between co-defendants. Permitted. Keenam, Tribunal appointment multi-party — multi-party appointment issue (jika 2 co-claimants vs 1 respondent, appointment issue). ICC Rules Article 12 special appointment procedure. Ketujuh, Class arbitration — bundled claims banyak claimants. Rare in international arbitration (common di US domestic). ICC Rules tidak explicitly permit class action. Strategi: draft arbitration clause dengan explicit multi-party scenarios (joinder, consolidation, multi-contract). ICC 2021 Rules most advanced untuk multi-party. Strategi construction JV: single arbitration clause across JV agreement, shareholder agreement, EPC contract untuk efficiency. Emergency Arbitrator & Provisional Measures Emergency arbitrator — provisional relief sebelum tribunal konstitusi.
Provisional Measure Type Substansi ICC 2021 Article 1. Interim injunction Court-order temporary action Article 28 2. Asset preservation Freeze assets Article 28 3. Evidence preservation Document retention Article 28 4. Status quo order Maintain state of affairs Article 28 5. Emergency Arbitrator Pre-tribunal relief Appendix V (Article 29) 6. Preliminary order Pre-tribunal (without notice) Appendix V 7. Security for costs Deposit fee security Article 28 8. Anti-suit injunction Stop parallel court Article 28
Emergency Arbitrator ICC: 90 hari decision, enforceable di beberapa negara. Strategi: kalau urgent, pakai.
Mari pelajari emergency arbitrator dan provisional measures di ICC arbitration. Provisional measure types. Pertama, Interim injunction — court-order (atau tribunal-order) temporary action. ICC 2021 Article 28. Kedua, Asset preservation — freeze assets. Article 28. Ketiga, Evidence preservation — document retention. Article 28. Keempat, Status quo order — maintain state of affairs (mis. tidak terminate contract selama arbitration). Article 28. Kelima, Emergency Arbitrator — pre-tribunal relief untuk urgent cases (sebelum tribunal konstitusi). ICC Appendix V (Article 29). Procedure: file application, ICC appoint Emergency Arbitrator within 2 days, decision within 15 days (extendable), Emergency Arbitrator fee USD 40K+ deposit. Keenam, Preliminary order — pre-tribunal (without notice to respondent). Appendix V. Ketujuh, Security for costs — deposit fee security untuk claimant (terutama if claimant impecunious). Article 28. Kedelapan, Anti-suit injunction — stop parallel court proceedings (mis. restrain party dari filing di court despite arbitration agreement). Article 28. Strategi: kalau urgent (asset dissipation risk, evidence destruction risk), pakai Emergency Arbitrator. Decision dalam 15 hari. Enforceability: emergency arbitrator decisions enforceable di beberapa negara (US, UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, dll), tetapi belum uniform global. Strategi Indonesia: UU 30/1999 Article 32 dan KUHPer Article 22-25 untuk parallel court provisional measures sebelum arbitrator appointed. Coordinate dengan local counsel. Widget: Arbitration vs Litigation Comparator & Dispute Flowchart Eksplorasi interaktif — bandingkan arbitrase vs litigasi berdasarkan sifat sengketa, nilai, kerahasiaan, urgensi. Plus flowchart pilihan forum sengketa.
Widget ini menggabungkan dua alat bantu visual. Pertama, ibl-arbitration-litigation-comparator memungkinkan mahasiswa memilih sifat sengketa (lintas batas, domestik, investor-State), nilai (low-mid-high-mega), kebutuhan kerahasiaan, dan urgensi putusan final. Komparator menampilkan skor 8 faktor (biaya total, waktu ke award, enforceability cross-border, kerahasiaan, pilihan hakim ahli, finality, discovery, provisional measures) dalam bar chart comparative, dengan rekomendasi verdict otomatis (PILIH ARBITRASE, PILIH LITIGASI, atau HYBRID). Kedua, dispute-flowchart menampilkan alur pilihan forum sengketa dari negosiasi awal hingga enforceability. Strategi pembelajaran: minta mahasiswa mencoba 4 skenario (low-value domestic, mid-value cross-border confidential, high-value treaty-based ISDS, mega-value dengan urgency) dan diskusikan rekomendasi. Strategi manajerial: pemilihan forum yang tepat di awal kontrak dapat menghemat 30-50% biaya sengketa dan 2-3 tahun waktu. Selalu eksplisit di arbitration clause: institution (ICC/SIAC), seat (Singapore/Paris), language (English), dan jumlah arbitrator (1 atau 3). Ringkasan Kunci Pertemuan 7 8 Institusi
ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, BANI, AAA/ICDR, DIAC, KLRCA
ICC Lifecycle
Request → Answer → ToR → Hearing → Award; 18-30 bulan
NY Convention 1958
169+ states; UU 5/1999; SEMA MA 3/2017 exequatur PN Jakpus
Arbitrase: netral, enforceable NY Convention, confidential, expert, final. Pilihan optimal untuk cross-border commercial.
Persiapan P8: baca UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, ICSID Convention 1965. Pertemuan dekat akan mendalami investor-state dispute (ISDS) dan set aside procedure.
Sebagai penutup, tiga pesan kunci. Pertama, 8 institusi arbitrase — ICC Paris (universal), LCIA London (UK Commonwealth), SIAC Singapore (Indonesia populer), HKIAC Hong Kong (China-related), BANI Indonesia (domestic), AAA/ICDR New York (US), DIAC Dubai (Middle East), KLRCA Kuala Lumpur (Islamic finance). Kedua, ICC lifecycle — Request → Answer → prima facie → arbitrator appointment → Terms of Reference (unique) → Memorial → Hearing → Award. Total 18-30 bulan. Ketiga, NY Convention 1958 dengan 169+ states parties; Indonesia ratified via UU 5/1999; enforcement via SEMA MA 3/2017 procedure di PN Central Jakarta; Article V grounds untuk refuse sangat limited. Arbitrase adalah pilihan optimal untuk cross-border commercial karena netral, enforceable NY Convention, confidential, expert, final. Persiapan P8: baca UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 yang menjadi basis UU 30/1999, ICSID Convention 1965 untuk investor-state dispute (ISDS). P8 akan mendalami set aside procedure (annulment) dan investor-state arbitration yang berbeda dari commercial arbitration. Kuis singkat 10 menit di awal P8 tentang 8 institusi, ICC lifecycle, dan NY Convention.