<![CDATA[The growth of the transnational Islamic economic industry demands legal certainty in resolving cross-border Sharia business disputes. Non-litigation channels through arbitration have become the main choice for global business players. This study aims to examine and deeply compare the effectiveness of procedural law, arbiter qualifications, as well as issues of jurisdiction and cross-border enforcement of decisions between the National Sharia Arbitration Body (BASYARNAS) in Indonesia and the International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration (IICRA) based in Dubai. The legal research method used is normative, specifically library research, through a comparative approach and a statute approach. Statute Approach: This is used to examine formal regulations, such as Law No. 30 of 1999, PERMA No. 14 of 2016, the 1958 New York Convention, as well as the internal procedural law codes of each arbitration institution. Research results show that BASYARNAS has massive jurisdictional limitations in cross-border disputes because it is court-dependent on domestic courts (Religious Courts) and does not have direct enforcement reach abroad. Meanwhile, IICRA is designed internationally to be court-independent because its procedural law relies directly on the 1958 New York Convention. This allows IICRA rulings to have a more universal transnational enforcement reach in countries that have ratified it, as long as it does not conflict with the public policy exception in the country where enforcement is carried out.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
