Indonesia Arbitration Quarterly Newsletter. Contents. Governing Board. Editorial Board. Published by : Vol. 7 No. 3 September 2015 ISSN :

ISSN : 1978-8398

Indonesia Arbitration Quarterly Newsletter Vol. 7 No. 3 September 2015

Governing Board Chairman M. Husseyn Umar Member Harianto Sunidja Huala Adolf N. Krisnawenda

Editorial Board Editor in Chief Chaidir Anwar Makarim Editors Madjedi Hasan Mieke Komar Martin Basiang Danrivanto Budhijanto Arief Sempurno Secretary Desi Munggarani N. Distributor Gunawan

Published by : BANI Arbitration Center Wahana Graha Lt. 1 & 2, Jl. Mampang Prapatan No. 2, Jakarta 12760, Indonesia Telp. (62-21) 7940542 Fax. 7940543 Home Page : www.bani-arb.org, www.baniarbitration.org E-mail : [email protected]

All intellectual property or any other rights reserved by prevailing law. Limited permission granted to reproduce for educational use only. Commercial copying, hiring, lending is prohibited.

Contents From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ii

Topics : Arbitration And Maritime Issues In Indonesia M. Husseyn Umar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Maritime Law And Arbitration Frans H. Winarta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Arbitrase Dan Hukum Maritim Mieke Komar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Filsafat Hukum Pancasila Dan Arbitrase . . . . . . 19 Huala Adolf

News & Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

INDONESIA ARBITRATION - Vol. 7 No. 3 September 2015

In October 2014, while taking the oath the Indonesia’s seventh president, Mr. Jokowi Widodo called upon his Indonesia people “to work as hard as possible to turn Indonesia into a maritime nation”. The development of maritime and trade sectors may increase the potential legal and commercial disputes. In a response to this policy, on 6 April 2015 BANI Arbitration Centre in collaboration with Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) has conducted an International Seminar on Maritime Law and Arbitration. Maritime arbitration is not a recent phenomenon. Its history has been described in the literature and there is a wealth of materials discussing the proceedings and procedures of maritime arbitration throughout the world. Like in any business, disagreements can arise at any stage of the maritime cycle, from new building and repairs to salvage, pollution, bunker and cargo claims. All these issues are not only multiple and complex but frequently also are multi-party. Some maritime disputes, however, are not submitted to the courts for resolution. Instead, the parties may have opted to submit their disputes for resolution through the process of arbitration. While it might not always be the least expensive, especially for long drawn out disputes with many issues to resolve, but for the majority of maritime disputes arbitration is cheaper than litigation. Also, arbitration is confidential, especially if the Parties have not opted-in to allow for appeal. Unlike court judgments, arbitral awards are enforceable across 145 countries in the world (Signatories to the 1958 New York Convention). The enforcement process can also be initiated simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions until the award is satisfied. The interim orders are also enforceable in certain jurisdictions even if the seat of arbitration proceeding is in a third country. In the current issue, we are pleased to present three articles on arbitration in maritime disputes prepared by our three BANI Fellow Chartered Arbitrators, namely Messrs M. Husseyn Umar, Prof. DR. Frans Hendra Winarta and Prof. DR. Mieke Komar. These articles are complemented by an article paper prepared by Prof. DR. Huala Adolf, who looks on the Pancasila Philosophy of Law in relation to the settlement of dispute. Enjoy reading these articles and we welcome comments and contribution of articles. Please do not hesitate to contact us at our e-mail address [email protected] (our web site: http://www.bani-arb.org). Jakarta, September 2015

Arbitration And Maritime Issues In Indonesia (M. Husseyn Umar)

M. Husseyn Umar, S.H., FCBArb., FCIArb., is Chairman of BANI Arbitration Center and also arbitrator at the institution. Besides acting as arbitrator in ad hoc and BANI arbitrations, he was also acting as arbitrator or counsel or expert in international arbitrations. He has also acted as expert in the court in various countries. He has attended either as attendee or speaker various conferences/workshops on international arbitration in Indonesia and abroad. Mr. Umar is listed as arbitrator in the Panel of Arbitrators/Conciliators at the International Center for Investment Disputes (ICSID), Washington D.C. and in the Panel of Arbitrators at the Asia-Pacific Regional Arbitration Group (APRAG) in Sydney. Mr. Umar is also Of Counsel in the Law Office Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro (ABNR) in Jakarta. Before practicing law, he was a government official at the Ministry of Transport and Communication in various positions. He had been appointed as an Attache for Transport Communication and Maritime Affairs at the Indonesian Embassy in the Hague (the Netherlands). He has also been appointed as Sectoral Adviser on Shipping, Ports, Multi- modal Transport and International Maritime Legislation at the Permanent Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. He has also been appointed as President Director of Pelni National Shipping Company and PT PANN Ships Financing & Leasing Corporation. He also published a few books and articles on maritime law and arbitration.

1

Abstrak Pengaturan secara umum mengenai hukum maritim Indonesia terdapat dalam ketentuan-ketentuan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang (KUHD) yang meliputi : kapal dan muatan, operator dan perusahaan kapal, pengawakan kapal, perjanjian kerja laut, carter kapal, pengangkutan barang dan orang melalui laut, tanggung jawab pengangkutan, kecelakaan kapal serta asuransi baik di laut, sungai maupun diperairan pedalaman. Ketentuan - ketentuan hukum perdata pelayaran yang terdapat dalam KUHD tersebut bersifat lex specialis terhadap ketentuan – ketentuan hukum perdata yang bersifat lex generalis yang terdapat dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPer). Diluar itu terdapat peraturan peraturan yang bersifat ad hoc yang mengatur hal tertentu dan harus dipatuhi. Perlu pula diketahui bahwa Indonesia tidak meratifikasi konvensi internasional tentang pengangkutan barang di laut seperti Hague/Visiby Rules. Namun secara sistematis kalangan maritim Indonesia perlu menyesuaikan diri dengan perkembangan dan praktek hukum maritim internasional, termasuk hubungannya dengan arbitrase untuk penyelesaian sengketa perdagangan maritim. Dengan demikian adalah urgen untuk mengambil langkah-langkah penyesuaian hukum arbitrase Indonesia dengan ketentuan arbitrase internasional dalam hal ini UNCITRAL Model Law. Kata kunci : Hukum Maritim Indonesia, Hukum Perdagangan, Lex Spesialis, Lex Generalis,UU. No. 30/1999, UNCITRAL Model Law

Presented in 19th International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators, Hong Kong, 11 - 15 May 2015

1

INDONESIA ARBITRATION - Vol. 7 No. 3 September 2015 : 01-06

I.

Main features of the Indonesian maritime law The main features of the Indonesian maritime law are embodied in the provisions of the Commercial Code concerning the following: sea–ship and its cargo; ship operator and shipping company; the master, crew and persons on board the vessel; sea– labor agreement; chartering of vessels; carriage of goods and passengers which includes issues on sea transport contract and liability of carrier; and an accidents at sea which include collisions, ship wrecks and salvages, general average and marine insurance. The provisions on maritime law also include provisions concerning ships used in rivers and internal waters. The Commercial Code is considered a lex specialis vis–a–vis the Civil Code as the lex generalis. Principles of the general private law embodied in the Civil Code are applicable when the Commercial Code is silent on certain issues or specifically refer to the provisions in the Civil Code. The contract of carriage is based on the principles of contract law in the Civil Code. In addition to the above, there are ad hoc laws or regulations which the Commercial Code refers to, such as the regulations concerning registration of ships and rights on ships and the regulations pertaining to the nationality of ships. Note that Indonesia does not ratify any of the conventions on carriage of goods at sea.

2

II. Key Issues From the legal point of view, the provisions on sea transport or carriage of goods by sea concern the rights and obligations of the carried on one hand and the rights and obligations of the shipper/receiver (consignee) on the other hand. The relationship between the carrier and the shipper focuses on the responsibility of the carrier to carry the goods to the destination point with good care and the liability of the carrier in the event the goods are lost or damaged. Article 468 of the Commercial Code provides that the carrier is responsible from the time he receives the good until he delivers it to the receiver. Furthermore the carrier is obliged to pay compensation for the damage or non–delivery of the goods carried except if he can prove that the damage or non–delivery was caused by a circumstance that could not reasonably have been avoided by the carrier or his servants, by the inherent vice or hidden defects of the goods or by the default of the shipper. Under Article 466 a carrier is presumed to be responsible for the delivery of the goods, regardless of what portion of the journey the cargo spends on board. The Code further provides (Article 470) that the carrier is under no circumstance allowed to limit his liability for loss or damage arising out of negligence, fault or failure in the carrying out of his (or his servant’s) duties or obligations, or due to the lack of sea–or cargo–worthiness of the


vessel. The article also stipulates that the carrier will be liable for the loss of valuable goods, provided the carrier has been well notified of the nature and value of such goods before the acceptance or shipment of the goods. The provision concerning package liability limitation, however, is not always upheld by carrier which is in local currency which is regarded as low. Shipping companies trading in the domestic trade put a somewhat higher rate in their bills of lading. In practice, claims are settled through negotiations. Indonesian shipping companies in the overseas trade generally issue international bills of lading which include package liability limit in conformity with the Hague Visby Rules. III. Choice of Law The Indonesia private international law largely respects party autonomy with regard to choice of law. The parties concerned or the contracting parties are free to make the choice of law, and it could be the law of a third country which may have nothing to do with the interest of the parties. In most shipping agreements, such as in the case of bills of lading and charter parties, the governing law is usually English law. International bills of lading issued by Indonesian overseas shipping companies normally include a paramount clause referring to the Hague/Visby Rules and Jakarta (Indonesia) as the forum of jurisdiction. In addition the bills of lading usually

refer to the Indonesian law in so far as certain matters are not covered under the rules of the respective bill of lading. This would mean that although the Hague/Visby Rules are applicable, Indonesian law will be applied in so far as the bill of lading itself and the Hague/Visby Rules are silent concerning certain issues pertaining to the bill of lading. It is indeed a fact that there exist little significant precedents by Indonesia’s court in maritime cases. This situation needs to be changed. The Indonesian court should have more opportunities to deal with admiralty cases, such as cases on limitation of liabilities. The Indonesian legal system adopts the concept that a judge should make his judgment not only based on law but also on justice and common usages, (Article 1339 of the Civil Code). This would mean that a judge should not apply provisions of law which are generally and publicly accepted as being out of date. In the case of Gesuri Lloyd Ltd. vs. C.Y. Lee (1981), the court awarded damages of HK$ 392.510,15 as assessed by an independent adjuster, which was way above the limitation figure that would have been applied in that case if the judge had applied Article 474 of the Commercial Code. IV. Jurisdiction and Enforcement a. Judicial System Within a country jurisdiction concerns the choice of the court which, both from the geographical

3


and the quality standpoint, is considered to be most suitable for the settlement of a given dispute. Internationally, it consist in establishing in which circumstances national courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute to which one or more aliens are parties. It affects the judicial system in the country. Indonesia judiciary consists of three layers of courts, namely the District Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. b. Arbitration The settlement mechanism for the resolution of a dispute in the event that an amicable settlement could not be reached is a matter of choice that needs to be decided by the parties in the dispute. Particularly in shipping, arbitration has been widely used to resolve disputes, as is reflected in the bills of lading, charter parties, and the MOA’s for the sale and purchase of ships. Law No. 30/1999 provides rules and procedure on arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. The law recognizes the existence of institutional arbitration conducted by arbitration institutions, besides ad hoc arbitration. One of the arbitration institutions is BANI Arbitration Center, which was established in 1977 on the initiative of the Indonesia Chamber of Commerce. The panel of arbitrators consists of Indonesian and foreign experts in various fields, such as trade, industry, construction, mining, insurance, and shipping, etc.

4

Law No. 30/1999 includes some general rules on dispute settlement alternatives. The Law defines that a dispute settlement alternative is a mechanism for the settlement of disputes or different of views through the procedure agreed upon by the parties concerned, namely the settlement out of the court by means of mediation, conciliation, consultation, negotiation or evaluation by experts. With respect to arbitration, the entire arbitration process that starts from the appointment of the arbitrator(s) must take no longer then 180 days to complete. An extension of this length of time may only be made upon the agreement of both parties and the arbitrator(s). Law No. 30/1999 prescribes that a decision or award shall be made based on the rules of law and for upon agreement by parties, on the principle of pro aequo–et–bono. In practice, however, most arbitrator(s) apply both principles unless the parties insist to solely apply either one of those principles. When the arbitrator(s) have completed the examination and hearings, an award will be issued, which award, is to be read out in the final session of the proceedings. An arbitration award can be in form of an interim/interlocutory award or a final award. An interim or interlocutory award is issued, whenever it is necessary; for instance, an interim decision is required due to the challenges of


jurisdiction (exception) submitted by one of the disputing parties. Or an interim measure may be issued for instance in the case of an attachment of property is requested by one party which is possible under Law No. 30/1999. The final award concerns mainly the merit of the case. It is final and binding upon the parties, meaning that the decision is of the highest resort, so that no appeal or cassation can be made against the award. The disputing parties are bound and obligated to implement the award. c. Enforcement of Award Basically an arbitration award is to be implemented or executed voluntarily by the parties concerned. The law provides regulation to secure the execution of the award, especially in the event the losing party fails to implement the award voluntarily. Article 59 of Law No. 30/1999 provides that not later than 30 days as from the date when the award is issued, the original sheet or authentic copy of the award shall be registered by the arbitrator or his proxy at the Registrar of the District Court. d. Annulment of Award An application for the annulment of an arbitration award can be filed at the District Court where the award is registered. Article 70 of Law No. 30/1999 provides certain conditions on which basis an annulment request can be made: 1) The award is suspected to be

issued based on letters or documents which turned out to be fake or declared false. 2) After the award has been issued, decisive documents that the opposite party has hidden are found 3) The award is issued based on results of deceit conducted by one party at the examination of the case The application for the annulment shall be submitted in writing not later than 30 days as from the date of the registration of the award at the District Court. Furthermore the Law determines that in the case the application for annulment is approved by the Chairman of the District Court, an appeal against such decision can be made to the Supreme Court. e. International Arbitration In connection with the international trade it is important to see as to how international arbitration awards are enforced. Law No. 30/1999 does not adopt UNCITRAL Model Law. Law No. 30/1999 does provides rules and procedures for arbitration conducted in Indonesia. With respect to international arbitration, the Law provides a special regime with respect to the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. The Law defines that an international arbitration award is an award which is issued by an arbitration institution or an individual arbitrator outside

5


the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia or an award issued by an arbitration institution or an individual arbitrator which according to the law of Indonesia is regarded as an international arbitration award. Under Law No. 30/1999, the Central Jakarta District Court is authorized to deal with the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards (Article 65). With respect to the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration award, Indonesia adheres to the provisions of the above mentioned New York Convention, which hasbeen ratified by Indonesia in 1981. Article 66 of the Law stipulates that international arbitration awards shall only be recognized and enforced if the awards fulfill the following requirements: 1) International arbitration award is issued by an arbitrator or arbitration panel in a country which has a bilateral or multilateral relation with respect to the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards with Indonesia; 2) Recognition and enforcement of the international arbitration award is limited to the award which according to Indonesian

6

law belongs to the scope of trade/economic law; 3) International arbitration award can only be enforce in Indonesia to the extent that award does not contravene the public order; 4) International arbitration award will be enforced after securing an enforcement order (exequatur), from the Chairman of the District Court of Central Jakarta; 5) International arbitration award which concerns the state of the Republic of Indonesia as a party in a dispute can only be enforced after securing an enforcement order from the Supreme Court. Conclusion The Indonesian maritime law (commercial shipping) needs systematical and certain adjustments with the development of international maritime law and practices. Arbitration is mostly used in the settlement of disputes in the business world, including in shipping business, as an alternative to court litigation. The Indonesia’s Arbitration Law (Law No. 30/1999) also includes provisions on dispute settlement alternatives, i.e. mediation, conciliation, negotiation, consultation and expert’s advice. Med–arb/hybrid arbitrations are widely applied in Indonesia. There is an urgent need now in Indonesia to adjust the Indonesian Arbitration Law in line with the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Maritime Law And Arbitration (Frans H. Winarta)

At present, Dr. Winarta is the Founder & Managing Partner of Frans Winarta & Partners Law Firm. In his practice, he handles all aspects of civil, commercial and criminal litigation. He is also experienced in international and national arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. He has experience in various kinds of disputes ranging from general corporate matters, joint venture, construction issue, oil and gas issue, mining issue, cross-border investment issue, taxation, and many more. He has been awarded as a Fellow Certified BANI Arbitrator (FCBArb.), given under the seal of the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI). He functions as the Co-Chairman and Founder of the Indonesian Chapter of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb). He is also an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (ACIArb.) and CoFounder of the Indonesian Chapter of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). He is currently serving in as the Chairman of the ICC Indonesia Court of Arbitration as well as arbitrator in various international arbitration institutions.

Abstrak Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan terbesar di dunia yang dua pertiga dari wilayahnya merupakan wilayah perairan. Secara geografis, Indonesia merupakan negara maritim yang terdiri atas beribu pulau yang tersebar dari Sabang hingga Merauke. Indonesia sebagai negara kepulauan, seperti disebutkan di dalam Konvensi Hukum Laut Internasional (UNCLOS) 1982, memiliki laut teritorial, wilayah yuridiksi, dan kawasan dasar laut. Potensi maritim di laut lepas ini, mau tidak mau terkait dengan investasi dalam pembangunan seperti transportasi laut, perikanan, pertambangan laut, operasi lepas pantai, logistik, dan sebagainya. Penyelesaian sengketa untuk permasalahan maritim tersebut telah diatur di dalam UNCLOS yang mencakup The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), The International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), Majelis Arbitrase sesuai UNCLOS 1982, dan Majelis Arbitrase Khusus sesuai yang diatur di dalam UNCLOS 1982. Perlu menjadi catatan bahwa UNCLOS 1982 mengatur hak dan kewajiban negara dan tidak mengatur mengenai aktivitas perdagangan dari individu atau badan swasta. Kata kunci : Negara Maritim, International Court of Justice

UNCLOS,

ITLOS,

7


Introduction Indonesia is the largest archipelagic state in the world where two-thirds of its territory is water. In the era of Sriwijaya Empire and Majapahit Empire, Indonesia had powerful sea power resulting in Indonesia being wellknown as a maritime country. However, such reputation is degrading due to many reasons, i.e. the imbalance of infrastructure in Indonesia, resulting in inefficient utilization of the coastal line and national sea area. In addition, Indonesia’s maritime defense is very limited, resulting in Indonesia being susceptible to illegal fishing. Being aware of this fact, Indonesia these days is concerned with its maritime development such as sea transport, shipbuilding, shipping, marine, offshore sectors, fishing to build the maritime sector. As President Joko Widodo stated, “I strive to turn Indonesia into a maritime axis of the world while boosting the connectivity of the islands across the archipelago, especially on maritime infrastructure development, such as construction of deep seaports”. In history, Indonesia claimed itself as an archipelagic country by declaring the Declaration of Djuanda. In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS 1982”) was enacted. Upon ratification by Law No. 17 of 1985 regarding the ratification of the UNCLOS 19821, Indonesia is bound by this international instrument. Definition of Maritime State Even though Indonesia claimed itself as the largest archipelagic country, at this time

Indonesia cannot be called a maritime country, because it does not use its waters optimally, especially since Indonesia has not used its waters as one of its strengths. This is in accordance with the opinion of Wahyono Suroto Kusumoprojo who stated in his book that2: “Maritime country is a country that is succeeding because it is supported by the maritime powers, which include social, cultural and economic forces that exploit marine nature, and whose entire water is entirely under its power and control.” To be a maritime country that is recognized by other countries, there are several aspects to be considered to develop the maritime sector in a country. These include among others the geographical conditions, physical conformation, extent of the territory, number of population, character of the nation and character of the Government3. Legal and Commercial Issues in the Development of Maritime Sector The main legal activity that will certainly happen in relation to the development of the maritime sector is the agreement of sea transport, port & harbor, ship building/ repair, fishery, sea mining, off-shore rig operation, logistics/forwarding, financing & insurance between businessmen. Upon these activities, the potential legal and commercial issue that may arise is bureaucracy of the administration. The lack of facilities for law enforcement and the

1

Law No. 17 of 1985 regarding the ratification of UNCLOS 1982

2

Wahyono S.K., Indonesia Negara Maritim, Mizan Publika: Jakarta, 2009, page 110

3

Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, Little, Brown and Co., 1890, page 19

8


sovereignty over the maritime zone is the example of legal issues in bureaucracy of the administration. As a matter of fact, the number of Indonesian-controlled ships is very limited considering the broad area of Indonesian seas. Moreover, there is an absence of relevant authority institutions dealing with maritime affairs, resulting in the lack of control. Furthermore, upon the development of the maritime sector in a country, it will increase the investment, either domestic or foreign. This event will increase the number of occupations along with employment. There will be many domestic and foreign investors participating in the port construction business, fishing business, or transportation business. This condition raises a lot of commercial disputes due to the increase of transactions between the ship owner and charterer, sea expedition, demurrage, carrier liability, port construction agreement, etc. Arbitration as Dispute Settlement It is clear that there are several activities that can be conducted in the sea within the national jurisdiction, states, legal entities (foreign and domestic) or individual business actors. These parties may engage in commercial activities. It should be noted that, in any international business transaction, the business actors will face different backgrounds of each country, such as differences in legal systems, customs and cultures. Also, it is often in an international business transaction, a dispute cannot be avoided, although it is not expected by every business actor. Thereby, it is 4

necessary to have an alternative dispute resolution method that can produce an award as the solution of the dispute that is fair, effective and acceptable to the business actors, and better yet, if the award can keep and maintain a long-standing relationship between the business actors. To answer the above demands, commercial arbitration has grown to become one of the methods of dispute resolution that is in demand by business actors. This is because the characteristics of arbitration, i.e. the final and binding award, flexibility and confidentiality, which have become an appropriate solution to resolve maritime disputes in commercial sector. As mentioned before, the settlement of disputes through arbitration is based on an arbitration agreement4. Without the existence of the arbitration agreement, the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through arbitration unless, after the onset of a dispute, the parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitration body or ad hoc arbitration by a deed of compromise. Based on the description above, it can be concluded that in essence the settlement of disputes through arbitration is based on the parties' freedom to choose the arbitration rules or institution that will resolve the dispute, such as International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) or Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia (BANI). However, it should be noted that, in the event that the dispute arises out of or in relation to the UNCLOS 1982, it should be settled in accordance with the procedure provided in

Article 9(2) of the Arbitration Law: “In the event that parties are unable to sign the written agreement as contemplated in paragraph (1), such written agreement must be drawn by a Notary in the form of a notarial deed” .

9


the UNCLOS 1982. According to the UNCLOS 1982, the state parties may choose any dispute settlement by peaceful means through negotiation, mediation or conciliation5. The following are the quotations of the relevant articles: Article 279 of the UNCLOS 1982: States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by peaceful means in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.” Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations: “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” The UNCLOS 1982 further stipulates that, in case the state parties cannot reach any amicable settlement by peaceful means, the parties are at liberty to choose any dispute settlement procedure other than 1

procedures regulates within the UNCLOS 1982, provided that such procedure entails a binding decision. The UNCLOS 1982 provides 4 (four) optional procedures to be chosen when ratifying the UNCLOS 1982, which consist of: a. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) The ITLOS shall be composed of a body of 21 independent members. No two members of the ITLOS may be nationals of the same State and there shall be no fewer than three members from each geographical group as established by the General Assembly of the United Nations, such as African, Asia Pacific, Eastern European Group, Latin American and Caribbean Group and Western European and Other Group7. The ITLOS consists of several chambers, inter alia: (i) Seabed Disputes Chamber; (ii) Chamber for Fisheries Dispute; (iii) Chamber for Marine Environmental Disputes; (iv) Chamber for Maritime Delimitation Disputes; and (v) Chamber of Summary of Procedure. b. The International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (“UN”), where all the members of the UN automatically become members of the ICJ8. The Court shall consist of fifteen members, no two

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 279; Charter of the United Nations (1945), art. 33(1)

6

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 282: “If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed, through a general, regional or bilateral agreement or otherwise, that such dispute shall, at the request of any party to the dispute, be submitted to a procedure that entails a binding decision, that procedure shall apply in lieu of the procedures provided for in this Part, unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree.” 7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), Annex VI art. 2: “The Tribunal shall be composed of a body of 21 independent members, elected from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea”. 8 Charter of United Nations (1945) art.92: “The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.” Charter of United Nations (1945) art.93(1): “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.”

10


of whom may be nationals of the same state9. c. Arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with UNCLOS 1982 (“UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal”) The UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal consists of five members. Each party may appoint one member and the other three members are appointed by an agreement between the parties. Then, the parties may appoint the president of the arbitral tribunal from among those three members. The failure of such appointment results in an appointment by the President of the ITLOS. d. Special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with UNCLOS 1982 (“Special UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal”). The Special UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal has the same constitution mechanism as the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal. However, the authority to appoint the member of the Special UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal due to

failure of parties’ agreement is vested on the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Special UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to resolve certain matters concerning (1) fisheries, (2) protection and preservation of the marine environment, (3) marine scientific research, or (4) navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping10. However, if the state parties do not choose any of those 4 (four) optional procedures or have not reached an agreement on the procedures, they will be considered to have agreed to choose arbitration as a dispute settlement11. Those 4 (four) optional procedures have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS 198212, and also concerning the interpretation or application of any international agreement related to the purpose of UNCLOS 1982. It must be noted that, in the event that any dispute arises related to the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil beyond the limit of national jurisdiction, the state parties must accept

9

Statute of International Court of Justice, art. 3(1): “The Court shall consist of fifteen members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same state.”

10

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 287(1) “When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention: (a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI; (b) the International Court of Justice; (c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII; (d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one.”

11

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 287(3); “A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.” United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 287(5); “If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.”

12

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 288(1) “A court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is submitted to it in accordance with this Part.” United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art. 288(2) “A court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall also have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of an international agreement related to the purposes of this Convention, which is submitted to it in accordance with the agreement.”

11


the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the ITLOS13. Conclusion There are many countries that have ratified the UNCLOS 1982. This means the UNCLOS 1982 has already been regarded as law in the State Parties where the UNCLOS 1982 governs the general provisions on the law of the sea. However, it must be noted that, 13

the UNCLOS 1982 only deals with rights and obligations of State Parties generally and do not deal with commercial activities conducted by a private entity or an individual. Hence, there is a necessity for harmonization in the commercial sector. This is purported to give legal certainty to any foreign party using the Indonesian territory as a passing lane or as a harbor.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), art.288(3) “The Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI, and any other chamber or arbitral tribunal referred to in Part XI, section 5, shall have jurisdiction in any matter which is submitted to it in accordance therewith.”

“Arbitration Law Reform” International Seminar on Indonesia Arbitration Law Nr.30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and ADR Wednesday, 12 August 2015 Hotel Pullman , Jl. M.H. Thamrin 59, Jakarta 10350 – Indonesia 08.30 A.M.‐05.30 P.M.

General session : Keynote speech by UNCITRAL , Ms. Corinne Montineri

12

Arbitrase Dan Hukum Maritim (Mieke Komar)

Prof. Mieke Komar is a retired judge of the Indonesian Supreme Court (20032012) dealing with commercial cases (Chamber : Commercial Court). She was a former Dean of the Padjajaran University Law School, Bandung, Indonesia (1995-2011). At present she is still teaching international law at the university. She is a certified Mediator and Arbitrator in the BANI Arbitration Center and founder of Madyasta Mediation Firm in Jakarta. She is active in various seminars and workshops in Indonesia and abroad on International law issues and Arbitration/ Mediation.

Abstract Arbitration on maritime disputes has developed in various countries. Prominent arbitration centers in London, New York, Hamburg, Singapore, Hongkong, Tokyo and Shanghai are dealing with most of the world’s maritime arbitration cases. Indonesia as a maritime nation is compelled to follow their suit, upgrade its maritime laws, and read international as well as national arbitration cases available in various legal sources. Key Words: Arbitration, Maritime Law, International Voyage Charterparty, Tokyo Arbitration Award 2005. Pendahuluan Pada Seminar Internasional Tentang Maritim dan Arbitrase yang diselenggarakan BANI pada tanggal 6 April 2015 yang lalu telah didiskusikan berbagai aspek hukum dalam ranah kelautan perdata dan publik, yang cukup penting dalam rangka turut membangkitkan dan mengembangkan Negara Maritim Indonesia1. Makalah berikut ini membahas beberapa aspek arbitrase dalam kaitan dengan hukum perdata maritim. Perlu dicatat bahwa dengan harus dipatuhi syarat kerahasiaan (confidentiality principle), maka tidak mudah

1

International Seminar on Maritime Law and Arbitration, alternative dispute resolution approach on commercial and international maritime issues, Pullman hotel , 6th April Jakarta .

13


memperoleh putusan-putusan arbitrase dalam hukum maritim secara lengkap, terkecuali apabila suatu perkara arbitrase dipermasalahkan kembali di badan peradilan suatu Negara, atau putusan arbitrase telah dimuat dalam majalah hukum terkemuka, atau merupakan bahan studi riset yang kemudian dipublikasikan misalnya melalui Internet. Aspek kerahasiaan dari proses penyelesaian perkara Arbitrase juga tidak sama. Misalnya, di London, Singapura, Hongkong, Rotterdam dan Hamburg putusan arbitrase bersifat rahasia atau confidential. Khususnya di London, sifat perkara dan identitas para pihak hanya dapat diketahui publik pada saat perkara tersebut diterima di Pengadilan/Court of Appeal, sementara di New York putusan arbitrase diumumkan ke publik2. Di Indonesia prinsip kerahasiaan dalam seluruh proses arbitrase komersial harus dipegang teguh, namun demikian perkara maritim perdata lazim diperkarakan di Pengadilan Niaga dan jarang diselesaikan dalam proses arbitrase di BANI. Sengketa Perdata Maritim Masalah–masalah yang umum termasuk dalam sengketa perdata maritim berkaitan dengan sewa kapal, ruang dalam kapal, juga disebut charterparty, klaim berkaitan dengan muatan atau kargo kapal (cargo), jual beli kapal, produksi pembuatan kapal, asuransi maritim dan aktivitas para agen dan brokers. Sengketa yang tidak termasuk

dalam sengketa kontraktual maritim dan karenanya tidak melibatkan upaya penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase adalah tabrakan antar kapal (casualities)3. Di Indonesia, hal yang terakhir ini diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 tentang Pelayaran dan merupakan wewenang Mahkamah Pelayaran yang berfungsi untuk melaksanakan pemeriksaan lanjutan atas kecelakaan kapal. Klausula Arbitrase Secara umum klausula Arbitrase ditemukan dalam Bills of lading (konosemen), baik dalam form Bill of Lading itu sendiri maupun dengan dimasukkan charterparty dalam suatu kontrak Bill of Lading4. Berikut ini beberapa hal berkaitan dengan perjanjian arbitrase yang harus diperhatikan. Suatu kontrak yang bersifat internasional, harus memperhatikan aturan hukum yang spesifik berlaku di negara-negara para Pihak. Misalnya dalam menetapkan sifat dari sengketa yang bersangkutan. Menurut Hukum Indonesia, UU No 30 1999 dengan tegas menetapkan bahwa arbitrase hanya dapat diupayakan untuk kasus yang bersifat komersial (Pasal 5 dan 66) dan hubungan hukum antara Indonesia dengan Negara Asing harus dilandasi pada prinsip resiprositas berdasar suatu kerjasama bilateral atau multilateral (Pasal 66). Suatu hal yang teramat penting ialah yurisdiksi dan klausula arbitrase, yaitu apakah badan arbitrase atau arbitrase ad hoc yng

2

International Commercial Arbitration Practice : 21 st Century Perspectives, Horacio A. Grigera Naon, Paul E.Mason , 2011, no 28-1 sd 2820

3

ibid

4

baca , Sandra Lielbarde, “The incorporation of a Charterparty arbitration clause in the Bill of lading: binding effect of Contract without consent” , Faculty of Law, Spring 2010 , internet .; Binnaz Toopaloglu, “The validity of Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses against Third Party holders of Bills of Lading- a comparative study under French, English and EU Law,” King’s College London. , dan “Incorporation of arbitration clauses in Bills of Lading: the saga continues “, International Congressof Maritime Arbitrators X1X, 2015

14


bersangkutan dapat menetapkan telah atau belum terciptanya suatu perjanjian yang mengikat antara para pihak?. Pilihan Hukum dan Pilihan Forum (Choice of Law and Choice of Forum) Para pihak bebas memilih Badan Arbitrase yang akan menyelesaikan suatu sengketa maritim, apakah itu London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA),yang sangat terkenal atau London Court of International Arbitration. Selain di London, Badan Arbitrase yang terkemuka adalah New York Arbitration dan Arbitration Centre di Hamburg, Amsterdam/ Rotterdam, Singapore, Hongkong, Australia, Tokyo dan Shanghai. Para pihak juga memiliki kebebasan memilih hukum yang akan menguasai kontrak mereka, namun demikian berkaitan dengan hukum mana yang dipilih untuk menyelesaikan sengketa tersebut (Choice of Law) harus dimaklumi bahwa setiap yurisdiksi memiliki aturan hukum perdata internasional sendiri (private international law/conflicts of law rules) untuk menerapkan hukum mana yang dapat menyelesaikan suatu sengketa antara para pihak. Dalam yurisdiksi yang sudah maju aturan hukum acara peradilannya penerapan aturan perdata internasional bukan merupakan halangan, misalnya para arbitrators di New York dapat menerapkan hukum Nederland ataupun sebaliknya. Di Indonesia, di Mahkamah Agung penulis mendapatkan beberapa kali kesempatan membaca putusan perkara maritim5, dimana kontrak dengan tegas memilih London sebagai forum untuk

menyelesaikan sengketa dengan hukum Inggris sebagai hukum yang menguasai kontrak yang bersangkutan. Dalam hal demikian, maka Mahkamah Agung akan menyatakan N-O atau Niet ontvankelijk verklaard tehadap kasus tersebut. Dengan kata lain Para Pihak dipersilahkan untuk berperkara di London, atau yurisdiksi lain yang dapat menerapkan hukum Inggris, seperti misalnya Singapura. Adalah sulit bagi hakim Indonesia untuk dapat memenuhi kwalifikasi penguasaan Common Law atau Hukum Inggris, sekalipun mayoritas aturan hukum maritim di dunia berasal dari Hukum Inggris. Selanjutnya, para pihak harus dengan tegas memilih anggota Majelis Arbiter. Perlu diketahui bahwa setiap Arbitration Centre akan menyediakan daftar nama para arbiter, namun demikian para pihak lazim diberi kebebebasan memilih arbiter di luar daftar tersebut. Pilihan untuk menetapkan arbiter tunggal atau sole arbitrator diserahkan pada para pihak. Pada umumnya sebuah majelis akan terdiri dari tiga arbiter dengan satu arbiter bertindak sebagai ketua. Contoh Kasus Sengketa Maritim Berikut ini contoh kasus sengketa maritim antara dua perusahaan berasal dari dua Negara berkaitan dengan Voyage Charterparty. Inti permasalahan berasal dari penolakan Consignee untuk menerima muatan (cargo) semen yang telah mengeras6. Pemohon dalam perkara ini berasal dari Korea yang bergerak dalam usaha perkapalan, sementara Termohon adalah perusahaan dagang berasal dari Jepang.

5

Penulis adalah mantan hakim agung RI thn 2003-2012 , kamar Hukum Perdata Khusus.

6

WaveLenght, the Bulletin of the Japan Shipping Exchange Inc. no 15, Maret 2006. Singkatan digunakan untuk memenuhi prinsip kerahasiaandari para pihak.

15


Dalam perkara ini Pemohon adalah pihak yang telah mencarter flag bulk carrier M.V. ABC untuk mengangkut semen Termohon (in bulk) dari Sri Rachs (Thailand) ke Long Beach Calfornia (Amerika Serikat) back to back basis. Persayaratan dan Kondisi (Terms and Conditions) Charter party (“C/PB”) dan voyage charter party tertanggal Juni 21, 2001 (“C/PA”) mencantumkan ketentuan perihal Loading, Discharging Costs, FIO dengan free of any risk, liability and expense whatsoever to the Owners. Para pihak juga sepakat bahwa penyelesaian setiap sengketa diselesaikan melalui forum arbitrase yang diselenggarakan di Tokyo oleh Tokyo Maritime Arbitration Commission of the Japan Shipping Exchange Inc. (TOMAC) sesuai dengan Rules dari TOMAC serta setiap amandemennya dengan putusan arbitrase yang bersifat final dan binding. Setelah memuat (loading) 38,500 metric tons of Ordinary Gray Portland Cement in bulk, pada tgl Oktober 14, 2001 kapal tsb berlayar dari Sri Racha (Thailand) menuju Long Beach USA. Kapal tersebut tiba pada tanggal November 10, 2001 dan ternyata bahwa kurang lebih 2,500 metric ton cargo tersebut telah mengeras. Pihak Consignee (PPP Cement), menolak kargo semen yang mengeras tersebut dengan alasan bahwa semen tersebut tidak lagi memenuhi nilai komersial dan juga dapat menimbulkan kerusakan pada peralatan unloading karena kargo yang keras tersebut dapat turut merusak kargo yang baik yang sudah disimpan di gudang (warehouse). Akibatnya pihak Pemohon (Korea) memindahkan kargo yang telah ditolak tersebut dari kapal atas biaya sendiri.

16

Pemohon kemudian mengajukan klaim ke pihak Termohon berdasarkan C/PA untuk beaya pemindahan kargo selama di Long Beach dan di Vancouver. Jumlah klaim yang terdiri dari Balance freight and demurrage yang terjadi di Long Beach dan kehilangan waktu di Vancouver, seluruhnya berjumlah USD 857,164.50. Klaim yang dimohonkan juga termasuk bunga sejak November 10, 2001 sampai dengan selesainya pembayaran, sebesar 6% sesuai dengan Commercial Code Jepang. Klaim ini diperiksa oleh Majelis Arbitrase di Tokyo sesuai dengan ketentuan kontrak. Dalam pemeriksaan pihak Pemohon berpendapat bahwa Charterer menanggung beban pembuktian (burden of proof) bahwa kargo berada dalam keadaan baik pada waktu loading terkait dengan adanya pasal tentang FIO (Free In and Out), yaitu suatu terminologi yang umum digunakan dalam pelayaran internasional dan diartikan bahwa pihak Pengangkut tidak bertanggung jawab untuk biaya loading dan unloading barang ke dalam dan keluar Kapal. Putusan Majelis Arbitrase yang dijatuhkan pada tanggal 26 Agustus 2005 di Tokyo, hanya mengabulkan sebagian tuntutan Pemohon, yaitu mewajibkan Termohon untuk membayar uang sejumlah US D 373,328.43 ditambah bunga 6% per tahun sejak November 7, 2002 sampai dengan tanggal pembayaran, sementara biaya arbitrase dibebankan pada kedua belah pihak. Jumlah ganti rugi ini hanya sekitar 45% dari jumlah tuntutan yang berjumlah USD 857,126.50. Berikut ini beberapa pertimbangan hukum


yang dipergunakan oleh Majelis Arbitrase dalam membuat putusan.

5) Dari pemeriksaan bukti, ditemukan bahwa:

1) Bahwa perkara ini harus diputus dengan ketentuan umum good faith and trust (itikad baik dan kepercayaan) menurut hukum sipil Jepang. Dalam hal ini perlu dilakukan pemeriksaan bagaimana kerugian kargo muncul, siapa yang seharusnya melakukan pengawasan (control) terjadinya kerusakan atau yang dapat menghindari terjadinya kerusakan kargo.

a) Pemohon gagal membuktikan bahwa kerugian pada kargo di Hold 1 disebabkan oleh alasan lain kecuali adanya kontaminasi dari air laut,

2) Pemilik kargo tidak bertanggung jawab atas beaya untuk mengeluarkan kargo dari kapal kecuali bila kargo tersebut bernilai lebih dari biaya pemindahannya. Hal ini didasarkan pada Pasal 760 Commercial Code Jepang yang menyatakan:

c) Termohon juga tidak dapat membuktikan bahwa Kargo berada dalam keadaan baik (sound) sebelum di masukkan ke dalam Kapal, maka alasan alasan Termohon patut ditolak.

“The carriage contract shall be automatically terminated in case of sinking of the ship or CTL of the ship. In such a case, the charterer shall pay the ocean freight to the owner according to the rate of the performance of the contract but the charterer’s liability shall not exceed the value of the cargo”.

6) Pihak Pemilik Kapal bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang disebabkan pada Hold no 1, dan wajib membayar biaya removal dan disposal semen keras tersebut. Pihak Charterer bertanggung jawab atas biaya Kargo Hold no 2 dan no 5, dan berdasar perhitungan kembali, Majelis berpendapat bahwa kerusakan Kargo seluruhnya berjumlah 2300 ton, terdiri dari:

3) Patokan nilai kargo diatas diterapkan kepada penerima kargo yang merupakan pemegang Bill of Lading terakhir, dan bukan pihak pembuat voyage charter dengan pihak pengangkut, pihak pemilik kapal. 4) Pihak Charterer harus membuktikan bahwa pihak Pemilik Kapal telah melanggar Warranty Clause, yang berisi jaminan (warranty) bahwa hatch cover adalah kedap air (watertight).

b) Termohon tidak berhasil memberikan cukup bukti tentang bagaimana kargo dalam Hold no 2 dapat terkontaminasi oleh air bersih, sementara hasil surveyor tidak menyatakan adanya kerusakan baik pada Hold no. 2 dan 5.

Hold No. 1: 1100 ton Hold No. 2: 1000 ton Hold No. 5: 200 ton 7) Jumlah kerugian sebesar USD 746,656.75, dan kerugian harus ditanggung bersama oleh Pemilik Kapal dan Charterer, masing-masing 50% (lima puluh persen). Selain itu, Pihak Pemohon juga berhak mendapatkan

17


bunga sebesar 6% per tahun dihitung sejak 7 November 2002 sampai dengan tanggal pembayaran sesuai dengan Pasal 514 Commercial Code Jepang. 8) Biaya arbitrase dibebankan kepada para pihak.

Dapat ditambahkan bahwa Putusan Arbitrase diatas tidak mengandung sifat mengikat pada pihak lain maupun mengikat pada kasus kasus yang muncul kemudian hari (precedent) namun demkian kasus tersebut bernilai untuk diketahui baik bagi para praktisi, arbitrator dan kalangan akademis.


Session I : Arbitration law, General Provisions Prof. Huala Adolf (Speaker), Dr. Madjedi hasan (Moderator) and Mr. Shintaro Uno (Speaker)

Session II : Conduct of the Arbitration Prof. Locknie Hsu (Speaker), Prof. Chaidir Makarim (Moderator) and Prof. Dr. Frans H. Winarta (Speaker) 18

Filsafat Hukum Pancasila Dan Arbitrase (Huala Adolf)

Huala Adolf is professor at Faculty of Universitas Padjadjaran, Law, Bandung, Indonesia. He is Chairman of Center for Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Universitas Padjadjaran). He is also an Arbitrator and Fellow (FCBArb) of BANI Arbitration Center, Jakarta, Indonesia and Vice Chair of Indonesian Arbitrators Institute (IArbI). He published books and articles mainly on arbitration, law and international trade international contract law.

ABSTRAK People’s interest to arbitration is greater than ever. This development is giving a encouraging signal to arbitration and will add people’s confidence to arbitration to settle their dispute. This article contends that the attention would be better when the understanding to the theory or even the philosophy of arbitration is also added. This article would take a look on the Pancasila philosophy of law in relation to the settlement of dispute. This article argues that the concept of the so-called “musyawarah” or negotiation reflects the Pancasila philosophy of law. Keywords : Arbitration, Philosophy of Law

Musyawarah,

Pancasila

A. Pendahuluan Tulisan ini menguraikan teori dan filsafat hukum Pancasila terkait arbitrase. Dalam berbagai literatur, ada beberapa sarjana mengangkat teori dan filsafat arbitrase. Mereka, misalnya adalah Prijatna Abdurrasjid, Emmanuel Gaillard, Jerzy Jakobowski, dll. Prof Priyatna Abdurrasjid dalam bukunya Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa memaparkan teorinya mengenai filsafat penyelesaian sengketa ini1. Beliau mendalilkan dua filsafat dari alternatif penyelesaian sengketa (yang di dalamnya termasuk arbitrase). Dua filsafat itu adalah: 1

Priyatna Abdurrasjid, Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, Jakarta: Fikahati, cet 2, 2011, hlm. 305-310.

19


1) Pemberdayaan Individu; dan 2) Pemecahan Masalah dengan Bekerja sama. Dua unsur filsafat ADR ini penting, karena pandangan beliau tidak sematamata melihat putusan arbitrase bukan sebagai hal utama, namun bagaimana masalah atau sengketa itu diselesaikan. Pandangan filsafats ini tercermin dan terbawa di dalam praktek arbitrase di Indonesia terkait bagaimana sengketa itu diselesaikan. Para pihak yang bersengketa pertama-tama diberi bekal terlebih dahulu mengenai filsafat ini, terutama filsafat yang kedua, kerja sama atau istilah yang beliau gunakan adalah kooperatif. Pandangan beliau yang kuat adalah, setiap sengketa baik yang sederhana atau sulit, dapat diselesaikan dan dapat diterima oleh semua pihak dengan lapang dada. Pencapaian ini dapat terjadi apabila ada kerja sama atau ada sikap kooperatif yang ditunjukkan oleh kedua pihak yang bersengketa. Tanpa filsafat kooperatif ini, sengketa yang paling sederhana apa pun akan terasa sulit. Prof Emmanuel Gaillard memperkenalkan filsafat transnasional dalam tulisan beliau berjudul “Three Philosophies of International Arbitration2.” Filsafat transnasional beliau tampak lebih mencerminkan nilai-nilai filsafat Eropa (Barat)3. 2

3

4 5

Sedangkan sarjana lainnya Prof. Jerzy Jakubowski tertuang dalam tulisannya ‘Reflections on the Philosophy of International Commercial Arbitration’4. Tulisan Jakubowski ini bukan saja sekedar penting untuk dapat lebih memahami arbitrase, terutama filsafat arbitrase, tetapi juga karena tulisannya khas. Tulisan Jakubowski tidak menggantungkan pada filsafat yang ada tentang arbitrase, tetapi pemikiran Jakubowski lahir dari hasil pengamatan beliau terhadap proses atau praktek arbitrase. Dalam tulisannya Jakubowski menarik intisari atau yang beliau sebut sebagai refleksi dari bentuk-bentuk yang umum yang terdapat dalam arbitrase komersial internasional dan konsiliasi5. Dalam tulisan ini penulis akan mencoba mengangkat bagaimana Filsafat Hukum Pancasila dapat memberi makna kepada arbitrase. Tulisan mencoba melihat bagaimana filsafat hukum Pancasila dengan berbagai pemikiran atau konsepsi yang dikembangkan oleh para sarjana di tanah air diterapkan kepada penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase. Tulisan ini tidak berasumsi bahwa filsafat hukum Pancasila untuk penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase ini adalah yang terbaik dibanding aliran filsafat hukum lain

Emmanuel Gaillard, “Three Philosophies of International Arbitration,” Dalam Arthur W. Rovine (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010, hlm. 305-310. Emmanuel Gaillard, “Three Philosophies of International Arbitration,” Dalam Arthur W. Rovine (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010, hlm. 305-310. Uraian lebih lanjut mengenai teori prof. Gaillard ini, lihat tulisan penulis: Huala Adolf, Dasar-dasar, Teori, Prinsip dan Filosofi Arbitrase, Bandung: Keni Media, 2014. Dalam Jan C. Schultz and Albert J.V. den Berg, The Art of Arbitration, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1982, hlm. 175-194. Uraian lebih lanjut mengenai teori prof. Jerzy Jakubowski ini, lihat tulisan penulis: Huala Adolf, Dasar-dasar, Teori, Prinsip dan Filosofi Arbitrase, Bandung: Keni Media, 2014.

20


seperti misalnya konsepsi Gaillard atau Jakubowski. Dalam ilmu hukum yang kita pahami, terdapat prinsip-prinsip hukum umum yang dikenal bangsabangsa di dunia (’General principles of law recognised by civilised nations’). Prinsip hukum ini misalnya prinsip itikad baik, prinsip hutang harus dibayar, janji harus ditepati, atau prinsip ganti rugi (kompensasi). Dalam filsafat hukum tentang penyelesaian sengketa penulis berasumsi bahwa terdapat prinsipprinsip hukum umum yang dikenal oleh masyarakat bangsa di dunia terlepas sistem hukum yang dianut. Prinsip hukum ini termuat dalam Pasal 33 ayat (1) Piagam PBB. Pasal penting ini menyatakan: “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” Pasal 33 ayat (1) Piagam ini mensyaratkan penyelesaian sengketa secara damai. Prinsip damai tersirat dalam kata “international peace”6. Dari bunyi pengaturan Pasal 33 ayat (1) ini tersurat cara-cara penyelesaian yang 6

dikenal bangsa-bangsa dunia (dalam PBB) yaitu: 1) Negosiasi; 2) Penyelidikan; 3) Mediasi; 4) Konsilasi; 5) Arbitrase; 6) Pengadilan; 7) Penyelesaian melalui lembagalembaga regional; atau 8) Cara-cara damai lainnya yang para pihak pilih. B. Filsafat Hukum Pancasila Di antara kalangan akademisi, mereka yang memberi perhatian kepada Pancasila, terutama filsafat hukum Pancasila belumlah banyak. Sebagian besar literatur di bidang filsafat hukum lebih banyak memaparkan filasafat dari barat terutama benua Eropa. Memang dari daratan benua inilah filsafat mengalami masa pencerahan luar biasa ketika rasio dijadikan sarana berpikir untuk mendapatkan pengetahuan, makna keadilan, ’kebenaran,’ dll. Lahirnya perubahan ’radikal’, dari alam magis ke alam kekuatan ’rasio’ manusia di zaman Yunani kuno hingga lahirnya pikiran-pikiran atau mazhab filsafat pasca Renasissance, filsafat termasuk filsafat hukum berkembang pesat. Membanjirnya literatur barat seolah menutup dan menenggelamkan pemikiran filsafat di dalam negeri. Masalahnya adalah, pemikiran filsafat di dalam negeri kadang kala memiliki nilai

Juga termuat dalam Pasal 1 Piagam PBB: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;.”

21


-nilai yang lebih diterima dibandingkan dengan filsafat barat. Bahkan pemikiran filsafat yang tumbuh dan berkembang di dalam negeri tampaknya lebih tepat dan lebih dapat diterima. Tepat dan dapat diterima karena filsafat yang berkembang merupakan perwujudan dari cara pandang yang berakar dan tumbuh dari masyarakat. Filsafat yang dimaksud adalah filsafat Pancasila, dalam hal ini bagian daripadanya yaitu filsafat hukum Pancasila. Sarjana terkemuka yang mengkaji filsafat hukum Pancasila secara mendalam antara lain adalah Guru Besar terkemuka Soediman Kartohadiprodjo dan Arief Sidharta. Peran Arief Sidharta dalam menembangkan filsafat hukum Pancasila sangat penting dewasa ini karena beliau konsisten dalam mengembangkan konsep-konsep pemikiran filsafat hukum Pancasila. Beliau pun tekun membagi konsep ini dengan berbagai kalangan dalam pertemuan atau forum akademisi baik yang sifatnya formal atau pun informal. Uraian mengenai bagian ini tidak memaparkan filsafat hukum Pancasila secara panjang lebar buah pikiran Soediman yang dikembangkan oleh Arief Sidharta. Uraian hanya menguraikan sebagian kecilnya saja, itu pun dibatasi hanya kepada hal atau sub bagian yang terkait dengan sub bagian dari sistem hukum, yaitu sub bagian penyelesaian sengketa. 7

8 9

Dalam uraiannya, Arief Sidharta memaparkan pendekatan terhadap filsafat hukum Pancasila ke dalam 6 (enam) bagian, yaitu7: 1) Filsafat Hukum dan Pandangan Hidup; 2) Pancasila sebagai Pandangan Hidup Bangsa Indonesia; 3) Pengertian Hukum Pancasila; 4) Hakikat Hukum Pancasila; 5) Tujuan Hukum Pancasila: Pengayoman; dan 6) Tugas/Fungsi Hukum dalam Pancasila. Singkatnya, filsafat hukum Pancasila tidak lain adalah refleksi pandangan hidup Pancasila dalam hal hukum. Dengan pengertian ini, pengertian filsafat hukum Pancasila mengacu kepada pandangan hidup (bangsa Indonesia) dan dijiwai oleh Pancasila8. Dari 6 (enam) bagian uraian di atas, bagian yang relevan dengan penyelesaian sengketa (yang dijiwai Pancasila) adalah bagian ke-4, yaitu hakikat hukum Pancasila. Dalam uraian bagian ini Arief Sidharta tidak menyebut langsung keterkaitan bagian ini dengan penyelesaian sengketa, tetapi seperti penulis uraikan di bawah, pengertian bagian ke-4 ini dapat menjiwai bagaimana sengketa diselesaikan. Bagian ke-4 di bawah judul ”Hakikat Hukum Pancasila” membahas gagasan atau cita hukum dalam alam pemikiran menurut Pancasila9. Menurut Arief

B. Arief Sidharta, “Filsafat Hukum Pancasila,” dalam: Rudi M. Rizky dkk., Refleksi Dinamika Hukum: Rangkaian Pemikiran dalam Dekade Terakhir (Analisis Komparatif tentang Hukum oleh 63 Akademisi dan Praktisi Hukum, Jakarta: Perum Percetakan Negara RI, 2008, hlm. 15 dst. B. Arief Sidharta, Ibid., hlm. 16. B. Arief Sidharta, Ibid., hlm. 18.

22


Sidharta, ciri-ciri khas dari hukum yang dijiwai oleh Pancasila atau Hukum Pancasila yaitu10: (a) asas kerukunan; (b) asas kepatutan; dan (c) asas keselarasan. Menurut Arief Sidharta, ketiga asas ini dapat dicakup dalam satu istilah, yakni sifat kekeluargaan, yang berasas tiga, yaitu: 1) Asas kerukunan sebagai11:

yang

diartikan

“Ketertiban dan keteraturan yang bersuasana ketenteraman batin, kesenangan bergaul di antara sesamanya, keramahan dan kesejahteraan yang memungkinkan terselenggaranya interaksi antarmanusia yang sejati.” 2) Asas kepatutan sebagai12: “Asas tentang cara menyelenggarakan hubungan antar-warga masyarakat yang di dalamnya para warga masyarakat diharapkan untuk berperilaku dalam kepantasan yang sesuai dengan kenyataan-kenyataan sosial. Juga dalam melaksanakan hak dan kewajiban yang sah menurut hukum, para warga masyarakat diharapkan untuk memperhatikan kepantasan, yakni dari para warga masyarakat diharapkan berperilaku sedemikian rupa hingga tidak merendahkan martabatnya sendiri dan atau orang lain.” 10

B. Arief Sidharta, Ibid., hlm. 20.

11


12


13


3) Asas keselarasan mendapat penjelasan yang terkait dengan penyelesaian sengketa, dimana Arief Sidharta menjelaskan dengan kalimat berikut13: ”Asas ini menghendaki terselenggaranya harmoni dalam kehidupan bermasyarakat. Berdasarkan asas ini, maka penyelesaian sengketa masalah -masalah konkret selain harus didasarkan pada pertimbangan kebenaran dan kaidah-kaidah hukum yang berlaku, juga harus dapat diakomodasikan pada proses-proses kemasyaratan sebagai keseluruhan yang utuh dengan mempertimbangkan perasaan-perasaan yang sungguh-sungguh hidup dalam masyarakat.” (Cetak miring oleh penulis). Dari uraian mengenai ketiga asas itu, yaitu asas kerukunan, kepatutan dan keselarasan sebenarnya terkait langsung dengan penyelesaian sengketa, bukan semata asas ketiga yaitu asas keselarasan. Bahkan menurut penulis, asas kerukunan ini adalah asas yang paling penting di dalam penyelesaian sengketa. Arti penting asas kerukunan terkait dengan filsafat penyelesaian sengketa (secara umum maupun secara langsung terkait dengan Pancasila). Filsafat penyelesaian sengketa tersebut adalah pencegahan sengketa. Dalam kehidupan masyarakat yang menjunjung tinggi asas ini, masyarakat akan

23


berupaya untuk mencegah terjadinya sengketa. Dengan asas kerukunan, masyarakat atau anggota masyarakat akan menahan diri untuk tidak mencederai atau menyakiti pihak lainnya demi terciptanya kerukunan ini. Namun apabila sengketa tidak dapat dihindari dan tetap lahir, maka asas kerukunan pun dapat berperan di dalamnya. Asas ini dapat mendorong para pihak untuk bersama-sama mencari ’pemecahan’ sengketa dengan berdasarkan pada keinginan untuk menjunjung tinggi asas kerukunan. Karena itu, penyelesaian menurut asas kerukunan ini adalah pencegahan sengketa. Apabila sengketa tidak dapat dielakkan atau dicegah, langkah yang para pihak tempuh adalah bagiaman sengketa diselesaikan secara damai.

14

”Suatu perjanjian tidak hanya mengikat untuk hal-hal yang dengan tegas dinyatakan di dalamnya, tetapi juga untuk segala sesuatu yang menurut sifat perjanjian, diharuskan oleh kepatutan, kebiasaan atau Undang-undang.” (Cetak miring oleh penulis). Masalah selanjutnya adalah bagaimana penerapan filsafat hukum Pancasila ini ke dalam norma-norma hukum (positif) dan bagaimana pula penerapannya terhadap sengketa-sengketa konkrit. Ketiga asas di atas bersifat umum atau abstrak.

Asas kedua kepatutan berperan pula di dalam menyelesaikan sengketa tetapi asas ini biasanya berdampingan dengan keadilan. Asas ini biasanya lebih terkait dengan penerapan hukum yang majelis arbitrase terapkan. Penerapan asas ini pun biasanya terbatas yaitu sepanjang para pihak menghendakinya. Di dalam hukum penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase, istilah ini terkait dengan penerapan hukum-nya yaitu berdasarkan kepatutan dan keadilan yang lazim dikenal dengan istilah ”ex aequo et bono.”

Menurut hemat penulis, esensi dari ketiga asas yang digolongkan ke dalam satu sifat yaitu sifat kekeluargaan adalah musyawarah untuk mencapai mufakat14. Sifat kekeluargaan berupa mausyawarah adalah cerminan masyarakat Indonesia (dan masyarakat di dunia timur umumnya) yang menekankan penyelesaian sengketa non-litigatif.

Asas keselarasan mencerminkan penerapan hukum yang berlaku di dalam menyelesasikan masalah. Asas

Sifat kekeluargaan dalam menyelesaikan sengketa lebih mencerminkan penyelesaian sengketa

Pencerminan dari sila ke-4 Pancasila.

24

ini mengakui pemberlakuan aturan hukum ini tidak semata-mata berupa norma hukum positif, tetapi juga memperhatikan ’proses-proses kemasyarakatan.’ Kalimat terkhir ini terutama berwujud kebiasaankebiasaan yang berlaku dalam masyarakat. Asas ini misalnya tercermin di dalam ketentuan Pasal 1339 KUH Perdata. Pasal 1339 KUH Perdata ini berbunyi:


melalui negosiasi yang tidak lain adalah musyawarah untuk mencapai mufakat. Dalam Pasal 33 ayat (1) Piagam PBB tersebut di atas memuat cara negosiasi sebagai cara yang pertama-tama ditempuh para pihak. Seperti telah disebut pula di atas, muatan Pasal 33 ayat (1) ini adalah prinsip hukum umum dalam penyelesaian sengketa15. Pengertian musyawarah sebagai refleksi dari filsafat hukum Pancasila merupakan nilai atau cita hukum yang berasal dari cara-cara penyelesaian sengketa yang dikenal dalam hukum adat di berbagai suku di Indonesia. Prof. Priyatna Abdurrasjid telah mengumpulkan berbagai terminologi yang dikenal dalam masyarakat hukum adat Indonesia (dan dunia) yang intinya adalah musyawarah (dalam konteks APS)16. C. Musyawarah untuk Mufakat dalam UU Arbitrase dan Rules BANI. Dari aturan norma hukum positif yang termuat dalam pasal-pasal UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999, asumsi awal tulisan ini adalah bahwa norma-norma hukum di dalamnya haruslah mencemrinkan atau memuat cita hukum Pancasila sebagai sumber dari segala sumber hukum di Indonesia. Telah diuraikan di atas, cita hukum dalam filsafat hukum Pancasila di dalam penyelesaian sengketa adalah musyawarah (untuk mencapai mufakat) atau yang dikenal dalam sistem hukum 15

16

yang dikenal di dunia yaitu negosiasi. Uraian berikut juga akan melihat bagaimana BANI Rules (Peraturan Prosedur BANI) dalam tahap tertentu mencerminkan prinsip mufakat ini di dalam aturan prosedur berarbitrasenya. 1. UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 a. Pasal 6 Musyawarah dapat tersirat dalam Pasal 6 UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 ini. Pasal 6 khusus mengatur alternatif penyelesaian sengketa (APS). Dalam APS ini termuat penyelesaian melalui negosiasi, meskipun tidak menggunakan istilah musyawarah. Pasal ini penting karena menekankan atau paling tidak menyebutkan cara APS (termasuk negosiasi di dalamnya) yang para pihak perlu tempuh untuk menyelesaikan sengketanya. Pasal ini pun agak berbeda dengan UU arbitrase di berbagai negara di dunia termasuk di dalam UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985. UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 berbeda karena UU ini yang sebagian besar pasalnya mengatur arbitrase, memuat 1 (satu) pasal khusus mengenai APS, yaitu Pasal 6. Dalam berbagai UU Arbitrase di dunia bahkan UNCITRAL Model Law, tidak secara

Dalam bidang ilmu hukum internasional, prinsip hukum umum dapatlah disebut pula sebagai Jus Cogens. Black’s Law memberi batasan Jus Cogens sebagai norma hukum yang bersifat memaksa yang diakui oleh negara-negara di dunia: “A mandatory or peremptory norm of general international law accepted and recognized by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. - A peremptory norm can be modified only by a later norm that has the same character. Cf. JUS DISPOSITlVUM. [Cases: International Law (;:.:c 1.] 2. Civil law. A mandatory rule of law that is not subject to the disposition of the parties, such as an absolute limitation on the legal capacity of minors below a certain age. Also termed (in sense 2) peremptory norm. (Black’s Law Dicitonary, 9th.ed., hlm. 937). Priyatna Abdurrasjid, Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, Jakarta: Fikahati, cet. 2., 2011, hlm. 11. (Misalnya beliau menyebutkan Pang Pade Payu atau Mangde Sami Polih (Bali), Rembug Desa, dll).

25


eksplisit atau tersurat mencantumkan APS ini. Pasal 6 ayat (1) misalnya berbunyi: “Sengketa atau beda pendapat perdata dapat diselesaikan oleh para pihak melalui alternatif penyelesaian sengketa yang didasarkan pada itikad baik dengan mengesampingkan penyelesaian secara litigasi di Pengadilan Negeri. “ Pengertian APS dijelaskan dalam Pasal 1 angka 10: ”Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa adalah lembaga penyelesaian sengketa atau beda pendapat melalui prosedur yang disepakati para pihak, yakni penyelesaian di luar pengadilan dengan cara konsultasi, negosiasi, mediasi, konsiliasi, atau penilaian ahli.” b. Pasal 45 ayat (1) Ketentuan lain yang penting adalah Pasal 45 ayat (1) UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999. Pasal ini menyatakan bahwa majelis arbitrase ketika menyidangkan sengketa harus terlebih dahulu mendorong para pihak untuk menyelesaikan sengketanya secara damai. Pasal ini penting dan seperti halnya Pasal 6 merupakan ketentuan yang ‘khas’ Indonesia dan tidak termuat di dalam UU Arbitrase umumnya, termasuk di dalam UNCITRAL Model Law. Pasal 45 ayat (1) UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 menyatakan: (1) Dalam hal para pihak datang

26

menghadap pada hari yang telah ditetapkan, arbiter atau majelis arbitrase terlebih dahulu mengusahakan perdamaian antara para pihak yang bersengketa. (Cetak miring oleh penulis). 2. BANI Rules (Peraturan Prosedur BANI) Seperti halnya UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 di atas, peraturan prosedur BANI memuat pula nilai-nilai filsafat hukum di dalamnya yaitu musyawarah ini (untuk mencapai perdamaian di antara para pihak). Dalam Peraturan Prosedur BANI termuat di dalam pasal-pasal berikut: a. Pasal 1 Pasal 1 Peraturan Prosedur BANI tidak secara tegas menyatakan istilah musyawarah atau damai ini. Istilah yang digunakan adalah cara kooperatif dan nonkonfrontatif. Dari kedua istilah ini tersirat di dalamnya upaya penyelesaian yang bersifat “kekeluargaan” seperti tercermin dalam filsafat hukum Pancasila yang diuraikan oleh Prof Arief Sidharta di atas. Pasal 1 menyebutkan: “Apabila para pihak dalam suatu perjanjian atau transaksi bisnis secara tertulis sepakat membawa sengketa yang timbul diantara mereka sehubungan dengan perjanjian atau transaksi bisnis yang bersangkutan ke arbitrase di hadapan Badan Arbitrase


Nasional Indonesia (“BANI”), atau menggunakan Peraturan Prosedur BANI, maka sengketa tersebut diselesaikan dibawah penyelenggaraan BANI berdasarkan Peraturan tersebut, dengan memperhatikan ketentuan-ketentuan khusus yang disepakati secara tertulis oleh para pihak, sepanjang tidak bertentangan dengan ketentuan undangundang yang bersifat memaksa dan kebijaksanaan BANI. Penyelesaian sengketa secara damai melalui Arbitrase di BANI dilandasi itikad baik para pihak dengan berlandasan tata cara kooperatif dan non-konfrontatif.” b. Pasal 13 ayat (1) Pasal 13 Peraturan Prosedur BANI berada di bawah judul “Ketentuan -ketentuan Umum/Persidangan.” Hal menarik dari pasal ini adalah ketentuannya senafas dengan Pasal 45 UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 di atas. Kelebihan pasal ini adalah penegasan bahwa upaya damai untuk mencari penyelesaian sengketa ini oleh Majelis Arbitrase dapat diupayakan dari awal hingga sebelum putusan dibacakan (selama masa persidangan). Tersirat dalam ketentuan pasal ini bahwa meskipun penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase telah berlangsung, tetapi tahap negosiasi atau musyawarah untuk mendapatkan penyelesaian atau perdamaian di antara para pihak musti atau didorong untuk terus

ditempuh. Inilah esensi dari filsafat hukum Pancasila. Musyawarah tidak terbatas semata-mata pada tahap negosiasi (seperti termuat dalam Pasal 30 Piagam PBB) tetapi juga dalam tahap setelah negosiasi tidak berhasil dan para pihak menempuh cara penyelesaian lain, dalam hal ini arbitrase, upaya perdamaian melalui negosiasi atau musyawarah masih terbuka, bahkan didorong oleh Majelis Arbitrase. Pasal 13 ayat (1) ini menyatakan: “Setelah terbentuk atau ditunjuk berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan dalam Bab III diatas, Majelis Arbitrase akan memeriksa dan memutus sengketa antara para pihak atas nama BANI dan karenanya dapat melaksanakan segala kewenangan yang dimiliki BANI sehubungan dengan pemeriksaan dan pengambilan keputusan-keputusan atas sengketa dimaksud. Sebelum dan selama masa persidangan Majelis dapat mengusahakan adanya perdamaian di antara para pihak. Upaya perdamaian tersebut tidak mempengaruhi batas waktu pemeriksaan di persidangan yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 ayat (7).” (Cetak miring oleh penulis). c. Pasal 20 ayat (1) Pasal 20 Peraturan Prosedur BANI berada di bawah judul “Upaya Mencari Penyelesaian Damai.”

27


Pasal ini memuat ketentuan upaya yang Majelis Arbitrase harus lakukan dalam hal menangani sengketa seperti halnya termuat dalam Pasal 13 ayat (1) Peraturan Prosedur BANI di atas. Pasal 20 ayat (1) Peraturan Prosedur BANI menyatakan: “Majelis pertama-tama harus mengupayakan agar para pihak mencari jalan penyelesaian damai, baik atas upaya para pihak sendiri atau dengan bantuan mediator atau pihak ketiga lainnya yang independen atau dengan

bantuan Majelis jika disepakati oleh para pihak. “ Pasal-pasal di atas dalam UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 dan Peraturan Prosedur BANI memuat nilai atau cita hukum Pancasila. Yang tampak dari uraian kedua peraturan ini, adalah bahwa upaya damai, musyawarah, tidak mengenal cara atau mekanisme apa yang para pihak gunakan. Musyawarah (atau negosiasi) perlu terus terlepas tahapan-tahapan cara atau mekanisme yang para pihak upayakan penyelesaian terhadap sengketa mereka, termasuk dalam tahap penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase.


Session III: Enforcement of Arbitration Award Dr. H. Gusrizal, SH, M.Hum (Speaker), Prof Zen Umar Purba (Moderator) and Prof. Colin Ong (Speaker) 28

News and Events

Upcoming Events 1. Maritime Dispute Resolution in the Lion City – The Next 50 Years

MARITIME DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE LION CITY – THE NEXT 50 YEARS Friday, 23 October 2015 Maxwell Chambers, Level 3

Great news for you! We are excited to announce SCMA Conference 2015: Maritime Dispute Resolution in the Lion City – The Next 50 Years has been accredited by SILE for 6 CPD Points! Click on Register Now to claim your CPD Points. For more information, visit www.scma‐conference.sg

Attendance Policy: Participants who wish to claim CPD Points are reminded that they must comply strictly with the Attendance Policy set out in the CPD Guidelines. This includes signing in on arrival and signing out at the conclusion of the activity in the manner required by the organiser, and not being absent from the entire activity for more than 15 minutes. Participants who do not comply with the Attendance Policy will not be able to obtain CPD Points for attending the activity. Please refer to www.sileCPDcentre.sg for more information.

2. KCAB (Korean Commercial Arbitration Board)

“Seoul ADR Festival (SAF)’’ 2 – 6 November 2015 in Seoul

3. Kluwer Law Conference for In-house Counsels South Korea: 4th Annual International Arbitration Summit Event Date : Thursday, 12th November 2015 Time : 8:50am — 5:40pm Venue : Millennium Seoul Hilton More information can be found at http://www.cch.com.hk/ExecutiveEvent_DocumentLibrary/Korea_4th‐Annual‐International‐ Arbitration‐Summit_12‐Nov.pdf

29

INDONESIA ARBITRATION - Vol. 7 No. 2 June 2015 : 33-34

Past Events 1. “Arbitration Law Reform” International Seminar on Indonesia Arbitration Law Nr.30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and ADR Wednesday, 12 August 2015 Hotel Pullman , Jl. M.H. Thamrin 59, Jakarta 10350 – Indonesia 08.30 A.M.‐05.30 P.M. 2.

“Diploma in Islamic Banking & Finance Arbitration Course” 5 ‐ 13 september 2015 Venue : Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration Bangunan Sulaiman, Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin

3. ICC Indonesia Seminar : Arbitration of Oil and Gas Disputes Date :Tuesday, 1 September 2015 Time : 14.00 – 17.00 WIB Venue : Sasono Mulyo 1, Le Meridien Hotel Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 18‐20 Jakarta 4. ”In Style Hongkong Expo” Date : 17 September 2015 Venue : Jakarta Convention Center Legal & Arbitration : Key for International Trade – Solving Business Disputes with Ease Alternative Disputes Resolution is the Way” 5. SIAC Jakarta Conference 2015

The Rise and Rise of International Arbitration in Indonesia

Date : 17 September 2015 Venue : Raf les Jakarta

30

Indonesia Arbitration Quarterly Newsletter. Contents. Governing Board. Editorial Board. Published by : Vol. 7 No. 3 September 2015 ISSN :

Recommend Documents