Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal LAW REVIEW Jambura Law Review
Hadylaya, Michael Herdi
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Arbitrator’s Authority to Decide Ex Aequo et Bono: A Juridical Review Hadylaya, Michael Herdi
Law Review Volume XXIII, No. 1 - July 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v23i1.7338

Abstract

Arbitration is a dynamic practice. One of the issues to consider is the implementation of ex aequo et bono by arbitrators, which many parties see as requiring prior approval from the parties so that arbitrators can make decisions based on ex aequo et bono. This study concludes that the arbitrator's authority to decide ex aequo et bono is not derived from the parties' agreement but rather from the arbitrator's inherent authority. First, because this principle is consistent with the spirit of arbitration, the Arbitrator has the authority to decide ex aequo et bono. Second, Law Number 48 Year 2009 concerning Judicial Authority imposes an obligation to investigate, adhere to, and comprehend legal values and the sense of justice in society. Third, no provision in Law Number 30 Year 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution requires the parties to agree in advance on the grant of ex aequo et bono.
Harmonizing Arbitration: Clarity, Consistency, and Consent in the Application of Ex Aequo Et Bono Hadylaya, Michael Herdi
Jambura Law Review VOLUME 6 NO. 1 JANUARY 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Gorontalo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33756/jlr.v6i1.19703

Abstract

This article delves into the intricate dynamics surrounding the application of the ex aequo et bono principle in arbitration, addressing concerns arising from potential procedural challenges and deviations from justice principles amid the escalating popularity of arbitration. The study intricately navigates the legal complexities of this principle, centering on the interpretation of Article 56 of Law 30/1999. Specifically, it scrutinizes whether the article mandates parties' consent for the arbitrator to decide based on ex aequo et bono. Employing a normative legal research approach and utilizing legal hermeneutics with a structuralist focus, the research analyzes the interplay of written agreements, tacit understandings, and standard practices in arbitration. The article underscores the critical role of precise protocols and unequivocal agreements in safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the arbitration process. It highlights the paramount need for clarity and consistency in legal provisions, advocating for collaborative efforts between legal authorities and arbitration institutions. This collaboration is essential for aligning statutory provisions and arbitration rules, ultimately fortifying a robust and dependable framework for the equitable resolution of conflicts. In conclusion, the article calls for a harmonized approach to address inconsistencies, enhance the legitimacy of arbitration decisions, and foster trust in the arbitration process. By exploring these challenges, the article contributes to the ongoing discourse of optimizing arbitration as a fair and efficient means of resolving international disputes.
Arbitrator’s Authority to Decide Ex Aequo et Bono: A Juridical Review Hadylaya, Michael Herdi
Law Review Volume XXIII, No. 1 - July 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v23i1.7338

Abstract

Arbitration is a dynamic practice. One of the issues to consider is the implementation of ex aequo et bono by arbitrators, which many parties see as requiring prior approval from the parties so that arbitrators can make decisions based on ex aequo et bono. This study concludes that the arbitrator's authority to decide ex aequo et bono is not derived from the parties' agreement but rather from the arbitrator's inherent authority. First, because this principle is consistent with the spirit of arbitration, the Arbitrator has the authority to decide ex aequo et bono. Second, Law Number 48 Year 2009 concerning Judicial Authority imposes an obligation to investigate, adhere to, and comprehend legal values and the sense of justice in society. Third, no provision in Law Number 30 Year 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution requires the parties to agree in advance on the grant of ex aequo et bono.
Co-Authors