Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Reconstructing Judicial Authority in the Annulment of Arbitral Awards: Between Finality and Substantive Justice Khairunnisa Siregar; Arifuddin Muda Harahap; Suci Hidayati Malau; Raja Muda Pahlevi Siregar; Ahmad Yasin Dongoran
Jurnal Cendikia ISNU SU Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): ISNU Cendikia Mei
Publisher : ISNU Sumatera Utara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70826/jcisnu.v3i1.1304

This study examines the annulment of arbitral awards within the Indonesian legal system as an extraordinary legal remedy that lies at the intersection of arbitral autonomy, the principle of finality, and the pursuit of substantive justice. The research is motivated by the persistent tension between the final and binding character of arbitral awards and the necessity of judicial intervention to address awards affected by fundamental procedural defects. Employing normative legal research, this study adopts statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are collected through library research and analyzed using descriptive, systematic, and prescriptive legal reasoning. The findings reveal that Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution confines annulment to three narrowly defined procedural grounds document forgery, newly discovered decisive evidence, and fraud thereby excluding judicial review of the substantive merits of arbitral awards. Nevertheless, judicial practice demonstrates inconsistent interpretations that occasionally expand the scope of annulment beyond its statutory limits, resulting in judicial overreach and weakening the final and binding nature of arbitration. This study argues that the legitimacy of annulment should be understood as a procedural safeguard rather than a mechanism for substantive review and proposes a Balanced Annulment Doctrine, under which judicial intervention is justified only to preserve procedural integrity while respecting arbitral autonomy. The study concludes that maintaining a proportionate balance between legal certainty, minimum judicial intervention, and substantive justice is essential to strengthening the credibility of arbitration and enhancing Indonesia's legal certainty in commercial dispute resolution.

Confidentiality in Arbitration and the Limits of Legal Transparency: Reassessing the Balance Between Private Autonomy and Public Accountability Azka Rayyani; Fitria Mukhtar Siregar; M. Abdillah; Suci Hidayati Malau; Raja Muda Pahlevi Siregar
Jurnal Cendikia ISNU SU Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): ISNU Cendikia Mei
Publisher : ISNU Sumatera Utara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70826/jcisnu.v3i1.1308

The increasing reliance on arbitration as a mechanism for resolving commercial disputes has reinforced the importance of confidentiality as one of its defining characteristics. While confidentiality protects commercial interests, trade secrets, and sensitive business information, its extensive application has generated growing concerns regarding legal transparency, judicial accountability, and public access to legal reasoning. This study examines the legal relationship between confidentiality and transparency in arbitration and evaluates the extent to which these competing principles can be reconciled within the Indonesian arbitration framework. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study analyzes Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution alongside international arbitration instruments, institutional rules, and relevant legal scholarship. The findings demonstrate that confidentiality should not be regarded as an absolute principle but rather as a proportional legal mechanism whose application must be balanced against broader interests of legal certainty, public accountability, and the development of arbitration jurisprudence. Although confidentiality remains essential for protecting commercial privacy and preserving business confidence, excessive secrecy may hinder legal development, restrict access to legal information, and weaken the legitimacy of arbitral dispute resolution. Accordingly, limited judicial supervision, controlled disclosure through anonymized arbitral awards, and strengthened digital information security provide an appropriate balance between commercial confidentiality and legal transparency. This study contributes to arbitration scholarship by proposing a proportional interpretation of confidentiality that preserves commercial autonomy while accommodating transparency where required by public interest, judicial accountability, and the coherent development of arbitration law.

Reconstructing Judicial Authority in the Annulment of Arbitral Awards: Between Finality and Substantive Justice Khairunnisa Siregar; Arifuddin Muda Harahap; Suci Hidayati Malau; Raja Muda Pahlevi Siregar; Ahmad Yasin Dongoran
Jurnal Cendikia ISNU SU Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): ISNU Cendikia Mei
Publisher : ISNU Sumatera Utara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70826/jcisnu.v3i1.1304

This study examines the annulment of arbitral awards within the Indonesian legal system as an extraordinary legal remedy that lies at the intersection of arbitral autonomy, the principle of finality, and the pursuit of substantive justice. The research is motivated by the persistent tension between the final and binding character of arbitral awards and the necessity of judicial intervention to address awards affected by fundamental procedural defects. Employing normative legal research, this study adopts statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are collected through library research and analyzed using descriptive, systematic, and prescriptive legal reasoning. The findings reveal that Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution confines annulment to three narrowly defined procedural grounds document forgery, newly discovered decisive evidence, and fraud thereby excluding judicial review of the substantive merits of arbitral awards. Nevertheless, judicial practice demonstrates inconsistent interpretations that occasionally expand the scope of annulment beyond its statutory limits, resulting in judicial overreach and weakening the final and binding nature of arbitration. This study argues that the legitimacy of annulment should be understood as a procedural safeguard rather than a mechanism for substantive review and proposes a Balanced Annulment Doctrine, under which judicial intervention is justified only to preserve procedural integrity while respecting arbitral autonomy. The study concludes that maintaining a proportionate balance between legal certainty, minimum judicial intervention, and substantive justice is essential to strengthening the credibility of arbitration and enhancing Indonesia's legal certainty in commercial dispute resolution.

Confidentiality in Arbitration and the Limits of Legal Transparency: Reassessing the Balance Between Private Autonomy and Public Accountability Azka Rayyani; Fitria Mukhtar Siregar; M. Abdillah; Suci Hidayati Malau; Raja Muda Pahlevi Siregar
Jurnal Cendikia ISNU SU Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): ISNU Cendikia Mei
Publisher : ISNU Sumatera Utara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70826/jcisnu.v3i1.1308

The increasing reliance on arbitration as a mechanism for resolving commercial disputes has reinforced the importance of confidentiality as one of its defining characteristics. While confidentiality protects commercial interests, trade secrets, and sensitive business information, its extensive application has generated growing concerns regarding legal transparency, judicial accountability, and public access to legal reasoning. This study examines the legal relationship between confidentiality and transparency in arbitration and evaluates the extent to which these competing principles can be reconciled within the Indonesian arbitration framework. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study analyzes Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution alongside international arbitration instruments, institutional rules, and relevant legal scholarship. The findings demonstrate that confidentiality should not be regarded as an absolute principle but rather as a proportional legal mechanism whose application must be balanced against broader interests of legal certainty, public accountability, and the development of arbitration jurisprudence. Although confidentiality remains essential for protecting commercial privacy and preserving business confidence, excessive secrecy may hinder legal development, restrict access to legal information, and weaken the legitimacy of arbitral dispute resolution. Accordingly, limited judicial supervision, controlled disclosure through anonymized arbitral awards, and strengthened digital information security provide an appropriate balance between commercial confidentiality and legal transparency. This study contributes to arbitration scholarship by proposing a proportional interpretation of confidentiality that preserves commercial autonomy while accommodating transparency where required by public interest, judicial accountability, and the coherent development of arbitration law.

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 4 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search