maritime dispute resolution in the lion city

Transcription

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;
can only be enforce in Indonesia
to the extent that award does not
contravene the public order;
will be enforced after securing
an enforcement order (exequatur), from the Chairman of the
District Court of Central Jakarta;
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
“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.”
“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.”
“ArbitrationLawReform”
InternationalSeminaronIndonesiaArbitrationLawNr.30of1999concerning
ArbitrationandADR
Wednesday,12August2015
HotelPullman,Jl.M.H.Thamrin59,Jakarta10350–Indonesia08.30A.M.‐05.30P.M.
Generalsession:
KeynotespeechbyUNCITRAL,Ms.CorinneMontineri
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.
“Arbitration Law Reform”
International Seminar on Indonesia Arbitration Law Nr.30 of 1999 concerning
Arbitration and ADR
Session I : Arbitration law, General Provisions
Prof.HualaAdolf(Speaker),Dr.Madjedihasan(Moderator)
andMr.ShintaroUno(Speaker)
Session II : Conduct of the Arbitration
Prof.LocknieHsu(Speaker),Prof.ChaidirMakarim
(Moderator)andProf.Dr.FransH.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.
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
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)
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)
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.
“ArbitrationLawReform”
InternationalSeminaronIndonesiaArbitrationLawNr.30of1999concerning
ArbitrationandADR
SessionIII:EnforcementofArbitrationAward
Dr.H.Gusrizal,SH,M.Hum(Speaker),ProfZenUmarPurba(Moderator)andProf.Colin
Ong(Speaker)
28
News and Events
Upcoming Events
1.MaritimeDisputeResolutionintheLionCity–TheNext50Years
MARITIMEDISPUTE
RESOLUTIONINTHE
LIONCITY – THE NEXT 50 YEARS
Friday,23October2015 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(KoreanCommercialArbitrationBoard)
“Seoul ADR Festival (SAF)’’ 2 – 6 November 2015 in Seoul 3. KluwerLawConferenceforIn-houseCounsels
SouthKorea:
4thAnnualInternationalArbitrationSummit
EventDate:Thursday,12thNovember2015
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. “ArbitrationLawReform”
International Seminar on Indonesia Arbitration Law Nr.30 of 1999 concerning
ArbitrationandADR
Wednesday, 12 August 2015 Hotel Pullman , Jl. M.H. Thamrin 59, Jakarta 10350 – Indonesia 08.30 A.M.‐05.30 P.M. 2.
“DiplomainIslamicBanking&FinanceArbitrationCourse”
5 ‐ 13 september 2015 Venue : Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration Bangunan Sulaiman, Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin 3. ICCIndonesia
Seminar: ArbitrationofOilandGasDisputes 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. ”InStyleHongkongExpo”
Date:17September2015
Venue:JakartaConventionCenter Legal & Arbitration : Key for International Trade – Solving Business Disputes with Ease Alternative Disputes Resolution is the Way” 5. SIACJakartaConference2015
The Rise and Rise of International Arbitration in Indonesia
Date:17September2015
Venue:Raf lesJakarta
30

maritime dispute resolution in the lion city

Transcription

Similar documents

tax litigation - bkh

Z! - Argot ou La Maison Mobile

Shipping Law - Ria Grant Thornton

The 1958 New York Convention A bibliography

Downtown Boone Map 35x48-FINAL 02-24-15

memorandum saling pengertian antara direktorat jenderal hak

Bab 6 ARBITRASE - Kementerian Koordinator Bidang

The IVR Newsletter jan 1997

Institut suisse de droit comparé Schweizerisches Institut für

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia dan