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 2 Documents
Search
Journal : LAW REVIEW

 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.
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