Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Unes Law Review
Herdi Hadylaya, Michael
Unknown Affiliation
Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Physics Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Ex Aequo Et Bono and the Quest for Arbiter Independence in Deciding a Case Herdi Hadylaya, Michael
UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 3 (2024): UNES LAW REVIEW (Maret 2024)
Publisher : LPPM Universitas Ekasakti Padang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i3.1814

Abstract

Arbitration is a dynamic practice that can be developed from many perspectives. 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, the Law on Judicial Power imposes an obligation to investigate, adhere to, and comprehend legal values and the sense of justice in society. Third, no provision in the Arbitration Law requires the parties to agree in advance on the grant of ex aequo et bono. As a result, the current arbitration practice does not violate the Arbitration Law as long as some parties request an ex aequo et bono award in their petitum.
Ex Aequo Et Bono and the Quest for Arbiter Independence in Deciding a Case Herdi Hadylaya, Michael
UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 3 (2024)
Publisher : Universitas Ekasakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i3.1814

Abstract

Arbitration is a dynamic practice that can be developed from many perspectives. 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, the Law on Judicial Power imposes an obligation to investigate, adhere to, and comprehend legal values and the sense of justice in society. Third, no provision in the Arbitration Law requires the parties to agree in advance on the grant of ex aequo et bono. As a result, the current arbitration practice does not violate the Arbitration Law as long as some parties request an ex aequo et bono award in their petitum.
Co-Authors