Harmonizing Arbitration: Clarity, Consistency, and Consent in the Application of Ex Aequo Et Bono

Michael Herdi Hadylaya

Abstract


This article delves into the intricate dynamics surrounding the application of the ex aequo et bono principle in arbitration, addressing concerns arising from potential procedural challenges and deviations from justice principles amid the escalating popularity of arbitration. The study intricately navigates the legal complexities of this principle, centering on the interpretation of Article 56 of Law 30/1999. Specifically, it scrutinizes whether the article mandates parties' consent for the arbitrator to decide based on ex aequo et bono. Employing a normative legal research approach and utilizing legal hermeneutics with a structuralist focus, the research analyzes the interplay of written agreements, tacit understandings, and standard practices in arbitration. The article underscores the critical role of precise protocols and unequivocal agreements in safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. It highlights the paramount need for clarity and consistency in legal provisions, advocating for collaborative efforts between legal authorities and arbitration institutions. This collaboration is essential for aligning statutory provisions and arbitration rules, ultimately fortifying a robust and dependable framework for the equitable resolution of conflicts. In conclusion, the article calls for a harmonized approach to address inconsistencies, enhance the legitimacy of arbitration decisions, and foster trust in the arbitration process. By exploring these challenges, the article contributes to the ongoing discourse of optimizing arbitration as a fair and efficient means of resolving international disputes.

Keywords


Arbitration Procedures; Ex Aequo Et Bono Principle; Legal Hermeneutics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amiruddin, and Zainal Asikin. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Depok: Rajawali Press, 2020.

BANI. Peraturan dan Prosedur Arbitrase (2022).

Botha, Christo. Statutory Interpretation: An Introduction for Students. 5. ed. Cape Town: Juta, 2012.

Camper, Martin. Arguing over Texts: The Rhetoric of Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Gaillard, Emmanuel. “Abuse of Process in International Arbitration.†ICSID Review 32, no. 1 (February 2017): 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw036.

Hadylaya, Michael Herdi. “Arbitrator’s Authority to Decide Ex Aequo et Bono: A Juridical Review.†Law Review 23, no. 1 (July 31, 2023): 50–67. https://doi.org/10.19166/lr.v23i1.7338.

Harefa, Billy Dicko Stepanus. “Kekuatan Hukum Perjanjian Lisan Apabila Terjadi Wanprestasi (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Yogyakarta Nomor 44/PDT.G/2015/PN.YYK).†Privat Law IV, no. 2 (December 2016): 113–22.

Hartini. “Pengecualian terhadap Penerapan Asas Ultra Petitum Partium dalam Beracara di Pengadilan Agama.†Mimbar Hukum 21, no. 2 (June 2009): 381–93.

Huda, Arsha Nurul. “Ex Aequo et Bono as a Manifestation of Legal Justice for Society.†Damhil Law Journal 1, no. 2 (November 29, 2021): 116–29. https://doi.org/10.56591/dlj.v1i2.1039.

International Chamber of Commerce. ICC Arbitration Rules (2021).

Jovanović, Marko. “The Role of Ex Aequo et Bono in ICSID Arbitration.†Revija Kopaonicke Skole Prirodnog Prava 3, no. 1 (2021): 147–64. https://doi.org/10.5937/RKSPP2101147J.

KC, Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides KC, Alan Redfern, Nigel Blackaby KC, Constantine Partasides KC, and Alan Redfern. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. Seventh Edition, Seventh Edition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.

Lazić, Milan, Giulio Palermo, and Srđan Dragićević. “Ex Aequo et Bono in International Arbitration.†Revija Kopaonicke Skole Prirodnog Prava 2, no. 1 (2020): 47–66. https://doi.org/10.5937/RKSPP2001047L.

Mohnaty, Gautam. “Ex Aequo Et Bono: A Redundant Concept in a Modern Legislation? Some Reflections From Indian Arbitral Jurisprudence.†GNLU Student Law Review II (2021): 19–32.

Mulaj, Valbon. “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Arbitration in Relation to the Regular Courts in Kosovo.†Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 59, no. 1 (March 2018): 118–33. https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2018.59.1.7.

Nevisandeh, Mohammad. “The Nature of Arbitration Agreement.†Procedia Economics and Finance, 1st International Conference on Applied Economics and Business, 36 (January 1, 2016): 314–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30042-9.

Novianty, Nelly, Muhamad Amirulloh, Rika Ratna Permata, and Eman Suparman. “Strengthening the Independent Execution of the Rulings of the National Arbitration Body Based on Legal Principles and Theories.†Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 25, no. 1 (December 20, 2021): 1–145.

Olson, Kent C., ed. Legal Research in a Nutshell. Fourteenth edition. West Nutshell Series. St. Paul, Minn: West Academic Publishing, 2021.

Pretorius, C.J. “The Basis of Tacit Contracts.†Obiter 31, no. 3 (2010): 518–34. https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v31i3.12322.

Rampall, Yeshnah D. “The Sanctity of Party Autonomy and the Powers of Arbitrators to Determine the Applicable Law: The Quest for an Arbitral Equilibrium.†Harvard Negotiation Law Review 23 (2017).

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (1999).

Sari, Indah. “Keunggulan Arbitrase sebagai Forum Penyelesaian Sengketa di Luar Pengadilan.†JURNAL ILMIAH HUKUM DIRGANTARA 9, no. 2 (October 9, 2019). https://doi.org/10.35968/jh.v9i2.354.

Subagyono, Bambang Sugeng Ariadi, Johan Wahyudi, and Razky Akbar. “Kajian Penerapan Asas Ultra Petita Pada Petitum Ex Aequo et Bono.†Yuridika 29, no. 1 (February 23, 2014). https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v29i1.360.

Tan, David. “Analisa Yuridis Pengesampingan Prinsip-prinsip Keadilan dan Kepatutan dalam Proses Pengambilan Keputusan oleh Arbiter.†Humani (Hukum dan Masyarakat Madani) 11, no. 1 (May 5, 2021): 38–56. https://doi.org/10.26623/humani.v11i1.2772.

Teramura, Nobumichi. “Ex Aequo et Bono as a Response to the ‘Over-Judicialisation’ of International Commercial Arbitration.†Thesis, UNSW Sydney, 2018. https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/20865.

The London Court of International Arbitration. LCIA Arbitration Rules (2020).

Trakman, Leon. “Ex Aequo et Bono: Demystifying an Ancient Concept.†ChicagoJournalof InternationalLaw, n.d.

Umam, Khotibul, and Muhammad Guntur Hamonangan Nasution Nasution. “Pemaknaan Dan Implementasi Prinsip Ex Aequo et Bono Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi Syariah Melalui Basyarnas.†Veritas et Justitia 9, no. 2 (December 30, 2023): 456–84. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v9i2.7303.

Wagner, Kimberly R. “The Perfect Circle: Arbitration’s Favors Become Its Flaws in an Era of Nationalization and Regulation†12 (2013).

Waruwu, Ariful Hakim, Tan Kamello, T. Keizerina Devi Azwar, and Abd Harris. “Kewenangan Arbiter dalam Memutus Sengketa Bisnis Arbitrase Secara Ex Aequo Et Bono.†Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review, December 1, 2023, 986–99. https://doi.org/10.56128/ljoalr.v2i12.268.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v6i1.19703

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Michael Herdi Hadylaya

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Editorial Office of Jambura Law Review:
2nd Floor Pancasila building, Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo
Jenderal Sudirman Street No.6, Gorontalo City, Gorontalo Province, 96128, Indonesia
Tel. +62-812-1356-9044;  +62-822-9329-6045  (SMS/WA)
E-mail: jamburalawreview@gmail.com

This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Powered by  Public Knowledge Project OJS.

 

Jambura Law Rev. has been indexed by:

SCOPUS SCOPUS DimensionBase Index
Microsoft Academic   
    
    

 

Jambura Law Rev. has been available at:

Leipzig Julich Harvard Stanford