Arbitrase

Wikipedia Minangkabau - Lubuak aka tapian ilimu
Loncat ke navigasi Loncat ke pencarian
Sabuah sidang arbitrase di Jenewa sadang manyalasaian kasus Alabama Claims pado tahun 1872.

Arbitrase (bahaso Inggirih: arbitration) adolah sabuah bantuak panyalasaian sangketo alternatif (alternative dispute resolution) malalui jalur di lua pangadilan.

Sajarah[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Inggirih[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Arbitrase partamo kali muncua dan bakambang dalam sistem hukum umum ala Inggirih. Pado Abaik Patangahan, limbago paradilan sarupo Court of the Boroughs umumnyo indak manangani pakaro sangketo dagang, dan sangketo nan manyangkuik padagang asiang acok indak dapek disalasaikan.[1] Pado patangahan abaik nan ka-16, pangadilan Inggirih mulai mangambangkan konsep hukum kontrak, dan pangadilan Admiralty mulai dipakai sabagai forum untuak manyalasaikan sangketo jo padagang asiang.[1] Namun, pado maso tu pangadilan masih indak baprasangko nan elok taadok piliahan arbitrase. Dalam pakaro Kill v. Hollister (1746),[2] sabuah pangadilan Inggirih mamutusan baso putusan arbitrase dapek mangurangi peran pangadilan dan yurisdiksinyo.[3] Walaupun baitu, banyak padagang nan tatap mamiliah mamasuakkan pasal tantang arbitrase dalam kasapakatan dagang jo urang lua maupun dalam nagari. Katagangan antaro piliahan arbitrase jo sidang paradilan disalasaian dek Common Law Procedure Act 1854 nan maatua pangangkatan arbitrator, mambuliahan pangadilan untuak mangaluakan putusan sela kok surang panggugat mangajukan gugatan hukum ka pangadilan walaupun ado pasatujuan untuak manyalasaiannyo sacaro arbitrase, dan mambuliahan pulo arbitrator untuak batanyo tantang hukum ka pangadilan. Pado kini ko, nan balaku di Inggirih adolah Arbitration Act 1996.[4]

Amerika Sarikat[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Pado maso awal sajarah Amerika Sarikat, arbitrase adolah piliahan panyalasaian sangketo nan umum; George Washington, presiden AS nan partamo, tacatat pernah batugas sabagai arbitrator dalam satu kasus.[1] Walaupun AS mawarisi sistem hukum umum dari Inggirih, pangadilan di AS umumnyo indak mambuliahan pasatujuan nan basipaik eksekutorial (executory contract atau executory agreeements) untuak disalasaian malalui arbitrase.[5] Sabalun sabuah putusan diputuih dek arbitrator, surang panggugat (claimant) dapek mangajukan gugatan di pangadilan walaupun alah basapakaik untuak manyalasaian sangketo malalui arbitrase; salapeh putusan, pangadilan bawenang untuak maninjau ulang putusan arbitrase tasabuik, walaupun umumnyo indak banyak mambatalan apo nan alah diputuskan.[3] Baragamnyo putusan dan tanggapan limbago paradilan taadok arbitrase mambuek paralunyo ado satu paraturan undang-undang federal, yaitu Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. Undang-undang ko disusun dek Himpunan Pangacara Amerika (ABA) badasarkan pado undang-undang arbitrase nan pado kutiko itu balaku pado nagara bagian New York, nan dianggap. nagara bagian nan paliang maju dalam panagakan pasatujuan arbitrase.[6] Salanjuiknyo, panyalanggaraan dan pangaturan arbitrase sacaro nasional ditangani dek Asosiasi Arbitrase Amerika (AAA).[7][8][9]

Arbitrase antarobanso[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Inggirih jo AS adolah duo nagara partamo nan mamakai metode arbitrase untuak manyalasaiakan sangketo. Arbitrase dipakai untuak manyalasaian sangketo tantang Jay Treaty (1795)[10] dan pado pakaro Alabama Claims (1872); pado pakaro nan taakhia, kaduo nagara basangketo dek karano dukuangan Inggirih taadok pasukan Konfederasi pado Parang Sipil Amerika.[11]

Arbitrase antarobanso manjadi salah satu mekanisme panyalasaian sangketo nan populer sabalun era Parang Dunia Partamo. Pado Konferensi Nagara Amerika nan partamo pado tahun 1890, sabuah rancangan sistem arbitrase antarobanso dicanangkan, namun indak mandapek pasatujaun. Dalam Konferensi Padamaian Den Haag tahun 1899, nagara-nagara nan kuaik basapakaik untuak manubuahkan satu sistem arbitrase nan tatap, nan kini dinamoan Pangadilan Arbitrase Tatap (Permanent Court of Arbitration).[12]

Sumber hukum[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Pajanjian antarobanso nan paliang utamo nan maatua tantang arbitrase adolah Pajanjian Pangakuan dan Palaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asiang 1958 (Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), nan biaso dinamokan Pajanjian New York (New York Convention).[13][14] Indonesia adolah nagara anggota dari Konvensi New York malalui Keputusan Presiden Nomor 34 Tahun 1981.[15][16]

Instrumen hukum antarobanso lain nan bapangaruah pulo sabagai sumber hukum arbitrase antaro lain adolah Protokol Jenewa tantang Arbitrase (1923 jo 1927);[17] Konvensi Eropa tantang Arbitrase Komersial Antarobanso (1961);[18] Pajanjian Washington tantang Panyalasaian sangketo Investasi (1965);[19] Pajanjian ICSID (1966);[20] jo UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, diubah 2006).[21]

Pasatujuan arbitrase[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Sacaro umum, pasatujuan arbitrase dibagi menjadi duo macam. Partamo adolah pasatujuan nan maatua baso sangketo nan muncul di kudian ari harus disalasaian malalui arbitrase. Model ko biasonyo ado pado kontrak biaso namun nan manganduang klausa arbitrase. Kaduo adolah pasatujuan nan sasudah munculnyo sangketo baru dipasatujui untuak memakai model arbitrase (submission agreement). Model ko labiah banyak dipakai. Di nagara-nagara Pasamakmuran (tapi indak tamasuak untuak Inggirih jo Wales, pasatujuan nan mamuek klausa arbitrase mambabankan biaya arbitrase pado pihak nan basangketo, namun indak pado kontrak nan dimodelkan jo submission agreement.[22]

Undang-undang biasonyo mangakui sahnyo klausa arbitrase walaupun kato-kato pado kontraknyo indak sacaro tarang dan legal-formal manyabuikkan mekanisme arbitrase. Klausa-klausa nan alah ditarimo sabagai klausa arbitrase antaro lain saroman "arbitration in London – English law to apply";[23] "suitable arbitration clause"; [24] jo "arbitration, if any, by ICC Rules in London".[25] Pangadilan juo alah mangasahkan klausa nan manyatokan sacaro spesifik mekanisme panyalasaian sangketo salain pado sistem hukum nan tatantu, saroman pangaturan baso arbitrator indak harus manilai manuruik paraturan hukum nan ketat, tapi sacaro umum harus mampatimbangkan prinsip bisnis nan praktis[26] dan harus pulo mamakai "prinsip-prinsip hukum nan maatua hubuangan kontrak antarobanso".[27]

Posisi pasatujuan nan mamuek katantuan arbitrase biasonyo mamiliki posisi nan khusus di mato undang-undang. Contohnyo, dalam sangketo tantang suatu kontrak, fundamentum petendi nan biaso dipakai adolah baso kontrak itu alah batal demi hukum (void) sainggo klaim atehnyo indak sah. Kok satu pihak barasia mampatahankan argumen ko, sadoalah katantuan nan ado di kontrak tu (tamasuak klausa arbitrase) manjadi batal. Walau baitu, di banyak nagara, pangadilan alah mamutus baso sabuah kontrak anyo bisa dinyatoan batal dek sabuah pangadilan; dan kok kontrak tu manganduang klausa arbitrase, mako forum nan bawenang untuak manantuan baso kontrak tu alah batal atau indak adolah tribunal arbitrase.[28]

Tribunal arbitrase[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Arbitrator nan bawenang manantuan hasil panyalasaian sangketo adolah tribunal arbitrase. Susunan tribunal bisa amat baragam: mulai dari arbitrator tunggal, duo atau labiah arbitrator (ado atau indak ado ketua arbitrator), atau kombinasi lainnyo. Dalam kabanyakan yurisdiksi hukum, surang arbitrator punyo imunitas dari liabilitas atau patanggungjawaban dari pabuatan nan inyo lakukan kutiko sadang batugas sabagai arbitrator, kacuali inyo batindak tanpa itikad baik.[29]

Ado duo jinih utamo arbitrase: ad hoc jo talimbago. Dalam arbitrase ád hoc, tribunal arbitrase disapakati dan diangkek dek pihak-pihak nan basangketo atau oleh sabuah otoritas nan bawenang dan dipiliah dek pihak-pihak. Pado arbitrase nan talimbago, proses arbitrase diadoan dek sabuah institusi arbitrase profesional nan manyadioan jaso arbitrase, saroman London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) di London, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) di Paris, atau American Arbitration Association di AS. Limbago arbitrase punyo aturan jo prosedurnyo surang.[30]

Kawenangan tribunal arbitrase ditantuan dek klausa arbitrase pado kontrak nan disangketokan sarato prosedur dan undang-undang nan balaku pado tampek arbitrase balansuang. Hal iko tagantuang pulo pado sabarapo jauah undang-undang arbitrase lokal maizinan party autonomy, yaitu kawenangan pihak nan basangketo untuak manantuan prosedur jo regulasinyo surang. Walau baitu, sacaro umum tribunal arbitrase punyo kawenangan nan indak bisa diganggu-gugat, misalnyo untuak batindak sacaro adil dan imparsial; maagiah paluang bagi pihak nan basangketo untuak manyusun argumen dan marespon lawannyo; sarato maadopsi prosedur nan cocok untuak kondisi kasus nan tatantu sainggo dapek mancapai panyalasaian nan patuik untuak pihak nan basangketo, misalnyo di Inggirih harus manuruikkan Pasal 33 di Arbitration Act 1996.[31][32]

Putusan arbitrase[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

Pado umumnyo putusan arbitrase maagiah ganti rugi pado suato pihak. Pado babarapo yurisdiksi, kawenangan putusan dari tribunal arbitrase anyo dibatasi untuak hal itu. Namun, di babarapo yurisdiksi ado pulo macam-macam putusan lain nan diagiah dek tribunal:

  1. pitih pambayia dalam jumlah nan tatantu (conventional damages)
  2. deklarasi sasuai nan disapakati dek prosedur
  3. parintah tribunal untuak malakuan atau indak malakuan sasuatu (injunction relief), untuak malakuan prestasi nan tatantu dari sabuah kontrak, atau untuak mambuek batua, maminggirkan, atau mambatalkan suatu akte atau dokumen lain.[33][34]

Rujuakan[suntiang | suntiang sumber]

  1. a b c Noussia, K. (2010). The History, Importance and Modern Use of Arbitration. dalam Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration (pp. 11-17). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  2. Wolaver, E. S. (1934). The historical background of commercial arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 83(2), 132-146.
  3. a b LeRoy, M. H., & Feuille, P. (2002). Judicial Enforcement of Predispute Arbitration Agreements: Back to the Future. Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol., 18, 249.
  4. Harris, B., Planterose, R., & Tecks, J. (2008). The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary. John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Huber, S. K. (2008). State Regulation of Arbitration Proceedings: Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards by State Courts. Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., 10, 509.
  6. Szalai, I. S. (2016). Exploring the Federal Arbitration Act Through the Lens of History. J. Disp. Resol., 115.
  7. Kritzer, H. M., & Anderson, J. K. (1983). The Arbitration Alternative: A Comparative Analysis of Case Processing Time, Disposition Mode, and Cost in the American Arbitration Association and the Courts. Just. Sys. J., 8, 6.
  8. Deye, J. R., & Britton, L. L. (1994). Arbitration by the American Arbitration Association. NDL Rev., 70, 281.
  9. Oldham, J., & Kim, S. J. (2013). Arbitration in America: The early history. Law & Hist. Rev., 31, 241.
  10. Happ, R., & Wuschka, S. (2017). From the Jay treaty Commissions towards a multilateral Investment Court: addressing the enforcement dilemma. Indian J. Arb. L., 6, 113.
  11. Hilmer, S. E. (2008). The Alabama Claims-The Origins of International Arbitration. Asian Dispute Review, 10(3).
  12. Indlekofer, M. (2013). International arbitration and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (Vol. 27). Kluwer Law International BV.
  13. Kronke, H., Nacimiento, P., & Otto, D. (2010). Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: a global commentary on the New York Convention. Kluwer Law International BV.
  14. Cordero-Moss, G. (2014). International commercial contracts: Applicable sources and enforceability. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Permatasari, Y. (2017). Kewenangan Pengadilan dalam Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional di Indonesia. Jurnal Privat Law, 5(2), 26-33.
  16. Hikmah, M. (2008). Pengakuan dan Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 5(2).
  17. Burks, D. D. (1959). The United States and the Geneva Protocol of 1924:" A New Holy Alliance"?. The American Historical Review, 64(4), 891-905.
  18. Benjamin, P. I. (1961). The European Convention on International Commerical Arbitration. Brit. YB Int'l L., 37, 478.
  19. Broches, A. (1966). Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes: Some Observations on Jurisdiction. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 5, 263.
  20. Lowenfeld, A. F. (2009). The ICSID convention: origins and transformation. Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 38, 47.
  21. Binder, P. (2019). International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions. Kluwer Law International BV.
  22. Handsaker, M., & Handsaker, M. (2017). The Submission Agreement in Contract Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  23. Swiss Bank Corporation v Novrissiysk Shipping [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 202
  24. Hobbs Padgett & Co v J C Kirkland (1969) 113 SJ 832
  25. Mangistaumunaigaz Oil Production v United Kingdom World Trade [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 617
  26. Norske Atlas Insurance Co v London General Insurance Co (1927) 28 Lloyds List Rep 104
  27. Deutsche Schachtbau v R'As al-Khaimah National Oil Co [1990] 1 AC 295
  28. Heyman v Darwins Ltd. [1942] AC 356
  29. Truli, E. (2006). Liability v. Quasi-Judicial Immunity of the Arbitrator: The Case Against Absolute Arbitral Immunity. Am. Rev. Int’l Arb., 17, 383-384.
  30. Rau, A. S., & Sherman, E. F. (1995). Tradition and Innovation in International Arbitration Procedure. Tex. Int'l LJ, 30, 89.
  31. Blessing, M. (1997). Mandatory rules of law versus party autonomy in international arbitration. J. Int'l Arb., 14, 23.
  32. Teitz, L. E. (2005). The Hague choice of court convention: Validating party autonomy and providing an alternative to arbitration. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(3), 543-558.
  33. Paulsson, J. (1998). Enforcing arbitral awards notwithstanding local standard annulments. Asia Pacific Law Review, 6(2), 1-28.
  34. Schreuer, C. (2004). Non-pecuniary remedies in ICSID arbitration. Arbitration International, 20(4), 325-332.