It seeks to determine whether judicial review of foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia was in accordance with the requirements of the New York Convention. It notes that judicial review of foreign arbitral awards issued by the Indonesian judiciary may sometimes be considered inconsistent with the requirements of the New York Convention. It is important for a company to consider the availability of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in its opposing country before drafting an arbitration agreement in its contract.
This article will focus solely on the authority of the secondary jurisdiction to deny the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Convention. Under Article V of the Convention, the opposing party may appeal to the enforcement court to refuse recognition and enforcement of a judgment if it can prove one of the following grounds. The problem of this article is what the law will determine the capacity of the party.
It is possible that the court of the forum has its own concept to deter. GNMTC case.41 In this case, the defendant (GNMTC) has claimed that the statement of the arbitrators states so. The defendant must also prove that the suspension of the award was actually ordered by a judge in the arbitral award.”
Under this article of the Convention, the enforcement court may refuse to recognize and enforce an arbitral award if it considers that the case is not subject to arbitration under its own law. The Supreme Court's conclusion in this case was apparent from the judgment in P.T. Shipping Maritime Bulgaria (Bulgaria).85 In this case, the Supreme Court (MahkamahAgung), presided over by Judge Asikin, overturned the judgment of the Central Jakarta District Court upholding the arbitral award rendered in London.
This law provides legal certainty with regard to the procedural rules for the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. According to Article 2 of the Supreme Court Regulation, a foreign arbitral award is equivalent to a binding judgment of a court. The latter sentence in this article seems to refer to the Convention's Article 1 regarding
102 A creditor's award must also submit certain documents in order to have recognition and enforcement of the award. 101 Article 1 of the Supreme Court Regulation states that the District Court of Central Jakarta is the only court authorized to deal with matters relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. 107 Section 59 (1) of the Act of 1999 states that the original or authentic copy of the arbitral award must be submitted within 30 days of the award being made.
Both the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and the 1999 Act are different from the provision of the U.S.
REFUSAL OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD UNDER INDO- NESIAN ARBITRATION LAW
The case of Bakri and Brothers (Indonesia).127 The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the District Court and the High Court which refused to enforce an arbitral award made in London. 125 Article II, subsection 2, of the New York Convention requires an arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams. It appears that the District Court and High Court not only examined whether the respondent was sufficient to be heard by the arbitrators, but also the merits of the award.
131 The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the judex facti was apparently not contrary to the law and/or laws. In this case, the Court of South Jakarta issued a judgment in favor of the Defendant, annulling the ISDA Master Agreement and ordering the Plaintiff not to take legal action based on or arising from the ISDA Master Agreement.135 This decision is not yet bound, because the plaintiff (respondent) has appealed. The court held that the judgment in London had been made after the interlocutory judgment of the court of South Jakarta existed.136 Under the existing legal practice in Indonesia, enforcement of the arbitral award could not be awarded and it had to be awaited for the judgment on the ISDA Master Agreement dispute is bound.137 The request to enforce the arbitral award rendered in London must therefore be rejected.138.
This case may not concern the non-binding decision as intended in Article V (1) (e) of the Convention.139 According to this article, the non-binding decision means if there is an appeal for the decision in the country of origin. .140. It is debatable why the District Court and the Supreme Court did not implement Article 10 of the 1999 Law, which recognizes and approves the principle of severability, while the 1999 law entered into force with the decision of the case. KarahaBodas Company L.L.C (" KBC"), the District Court of Central Jakarta set aside an arbitration award rendered in Geneva, Switzerland.143 In part of the review, the court concluded that it had authority to set aside the award because the governing law of the Joint Operation Contract (JOC) and the Energy Supply Contract (ESC) is Indonesian law, therefore the Claimant's (Pertamina) attempt to seek the annulment of the foreign arbitral award in the Indonesian court is appropriate.144 From this consideration, it is assumed that the body The trial judge interpreted, although not explicitly in the decision, New York Article V(1)(e).
In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment that the absence of jurisdictional appeals by the parties creates jurisdiction of the High Court over the case, even if there is an agreement to arbitrate. the Convention, particularly on the term "competent authority".145 It is likely that the panel believed that it has the authority to set aside the award based on the term "competent authority of the country". The Indonesian court's annulment of the award shows that the enforcement of an arbitral award depends on the willingness of a national court to recognize and enforce it, by interpreting the interpretation of the New York provision narrowly.
The law determined that the cause (object) of the agreement is prohibited if it is prohibited by acts.152 When the sugar purchase contract was concluded, there was Presidential Decree no. In Bankers Trust Company,154 the Supreme Court affirmed the decision. of the district court and the high court. Bankers Trust Company's approach may be justified if the decision of the South Jakarta District Court is final and binding.
In the more recent case159, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Central District Court. The reasoning of the District Court and High Court may perhaps be accepted if seen only in terms of the order itself.
