Email this article 
CHOICE OF PARADIGM IN ARBITRATION: ARBITRATOR’S AUTONOMY OR PARTIES’ AUTHORITY?
Copyright (c) 2024 Masalah-Masalah Hukum License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Abstract
The choice of paradigm in dispute resolution through arbitration raises a fundamental question: should the arbitral tribunal render its decision based on the law or ex aequo et bono? Most legal scholars affirm that the disputing parties have the full authority to dictate the tribunal's choice of paradigm in resolving disputes. This perspective, in Indonesia, is justified by two grounds: the Elucidation of Article 56(1) of Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Law, and the party autonomy principle in arbitration. Against this mainstream view, this paper repositions the role of arbitrators, emphasizing that they should possess autonomy -rather than being dictated to-when choosing the paradigm dispute resolution. This paper concludes that the choice of paradigm should rest within the authority of arbitrators.
Keywords
References
Adolf, H. (2014). Dasar-Dasar, Prinsip dan Filosofi Arbitrase . Keni Media.
Allsop, J. (2013). The Authority of the Arbitrator. Arbitration International, 30(4), 639–660.
Ariprabowo, T., & Nazriyah, R. (2017). Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase oleh Pengadilan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014 [The Nullifying of Arbitral Decision by Court in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XII/2014]. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(4).
Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa. (2024). Paradigma. In Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebud.
Christine, N., Fajri, M., & Putra, M. (2022). Arbitration as A Choice of Forum in Dispute Resolution Regarding Deed of Agreement. In Legal Brief (Vol. 11, Issue 2). https://jdih.bpk.go.id/?p=6493.
de Clippel, G., Eliaz, K., & Knight, B. (2014). On the Selection of Arbitrators. American Economic Review, 104(11), 3434–3458.
Entriani, A. (2017). Arbitrase dalam Sistem Hukum di Indonesia. An-Nisbah, 3(2), 277–293.
Gaillard, E. (2010). Legal Theory of International Arbitration. Martinus Nijhoff.
Gautama, S. (1996). Aneka Hukum Arbitrase: ke Arah Hukum Arbitrase Indonesia Baru . PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Giesel, G. M. (2007). Client Responsibility for Lawyer Conduct: Examining the Agency Nature of the Lawyer-Client Relationship. Nebraska Law Review, 86(2), 346–395. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr
Ginsburg, T. (2010). The Arbitrator as Agent: Why Deferential Review Is Not Always Pro-arbitration. The University of Chicago Law Review, 77, 1013–1026. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40962099
Hadylaya, M. H. (2024). Harmonizing Arbitration: Clarity, Consistency, and Consent in the Application of Ex Aequo Et Bono. Jambura Law Review, 6(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw036
Hariyanto, B. (2024). Sinergitas Perguruan Tinggi Dan Lembaga Arbitrase Dalam Pembangunan Hukum Dibidang Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis. BANI Arbitration and Law Journal, 1(1), 58–70. https://bani-journal.org/index.php/bani/index
Helm, R. K., Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2016). Are Arbitrators Human? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(4), 666–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12129
Ibrahim, D. N. (2022). Tanggung Jawab Hukum Arbiter dan Badan Arbitrase Atas Putusan Arbitrase yang Diajukan Pembatalan di Pengadilan. Jurnal Ilmiah Publika, 10(1).
Kedokteran Indonesia, M. K. E. (2012). Kode Etik Kedokteran Indonesia. Ikatan Dokter Indonesia.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata.
Memi, C. (2017). Penyelesaian Sengketa Kompetensi Absolut Antara Arbitrase dan Pengadilan. Jurnal Yudisial, 10(2), 115–134.
Nugroho, S. A. (2015). Penyelesaian Sengketa Arbitrase dan Penerapan Hukumnya . Kencana.
Pamolango, J. T. (2015). Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Kewenangan Arbitrase dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa. Lex Administratum , 3(1).
Peraturan Dan Prosedur Arbitrase Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia (2022). www.baniarbitration.org
Prasetyo, E. D. (2024). Choice of Paradigm dalam Arbitrase: Refleksi Filosofis terhadap Kebebasan Memilih Hukum atau Ex Aequo et Bono sebagai Pertimbangan Putusan Arbitrase [PhD Dissertation]. Universitas Indonesia.
Pujiyono. (2018). Kewenangan Absolut Lembaga Arbitrase. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, 7(2), 243–260.
Purba, O., & Batubara, S. (2013). Arbitrase Internasional . Raih Asa Sukses.
Rogers, C. A. (2005). The Vocation of International Arbitrators. American University International Law Review, 20, 957–1020. http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works
Rohanawati, A. N., & Wicaksono, D. A. (2018). Kesetaraan dalam Perjanjian Kerja dan Ambiguitas Pertimbangan Hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Yudisial , 11(3).
Roosdiono, A. W., Taqwa, D., & Subiyanto, M. J. P. (2022). The Good Faith Principle in Trust and Confidentiality on the Arbitration Process. Law Review, XXII (1), 102–127.
Roosdiono, A. W., & Taqwa, M. D. (2023, March 3). Paradigma dalam Arbitrase di Indonesia: Win-Lose atau Win-Win/Lose-Lose? Hukumonline.Com.
Roosdiono, A. W., Taqwa, M. D., & Salsabila, M. C. (2022). The Non-Applications of Good Faith, Trust, and Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Study of the Annulment Cases in Indonesia. Indonesia Law Review, 12(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v12n2.1
Salar, N. (2023). Institutional Arbitration versus Ad Hoc Arbitration: Determining the Right Choice. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 15(3).
Saleh, M. (2023). Evolution of Dispute Resolution through Arbitration in Indonesia During Covid-19. Arena Hukum Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 16(1), 129–147. https://doiorg/1021776/ubarenahukum2023016017
Soebagjo, F. O., & Jatim, F. (1995). Arbitrase Indonesia Beberapa Contoh Kasus dan Pelaksanaan dalam Praktek. Ghalia Indonesia.
Stipanowich, T. J. (2010). Arbitration: The “New Litigation.” University of Illinois Law Review, 2010(1), 1–60. http://www.
Sujayadi. (2015). Patologi dalam Arbitrase Indonesia: Ketentuan Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase dalam Pasal 70 UU No. 30/1999. ADHAPER: Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata , 1(2).
Sweet, A. S., & Grisel, F. (2017). The Evolution of International Arbitration: Delegation, Judicialization, Governance. In A. S. Sweet & F. Grisel (Eds.), The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
Tan, D. (2023). Analisa Yuridis Pengesampingan Prinsip-prinsip Keadilan dan Kepatutan dalam Proses Pengambilan Keputusan oleh Arbiter. Humani (Hukum Dan Masyarakat Madani), 11(1).
Tektona, R. I. (2011). Arbitrase Sebagai Alternatif Solusi Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis di Luar Pengadilan. Pandecta, 6(1).
Tobias, P. H. (1960). In Defense of Creeping Legalism in Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 13(4), 596–607. www.jstor.org
Trakman, L. (2008). Ex Aequo et Bono: Demystifying an Ancient Concept. Chicago Journal of International Law, 8(2), 621–642.
Triana, N. (2019). Alternative Dispute Resolution: Penyelesaian Sengketa Alternatif Dengan Model Mediasi, Arbitrase, Negosiasi dan Konsiliasi . Kaizen Sarana Edukasi.
Undang-Undang Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, Pub. L. No. UU Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 (1999).
Vartolomei, B. (2014). The Subordination of the Employee to the Employer: The Fundamental Legal Characteristic of the Individual Employment Contract and Its Consequences on Labor Law. Perspectives of Business Law Journal, 3(1).
Wawuru, A. H. (2023). Kewenangan Arbiter dalam Memutus Sengketa Bisnis Arbitrase Secara Ex Aequo Et Bono. Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review , 2(12).
Winata, F. H. (2012). Hukum Penyelesaian Sengketa. Sinar Grafika.
Witasari, A. (2019). Kewenangan Lembaga Arbitrase: Upaya Merekonstruksi Sifat Kemutlakan Putusan Arbitrase Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis Berbasis Nilai Keadilan . Unissula Press.
