<![CDATA[General Background The authority of an adjudicator originates from and is strictly bound by the mutual consent of the disputing parties. Specific Background National legal frameworks exclusively restrict arbitral award cancellation to three fraud-related conditions under Article 70 of Law Number 30/1999, which distinctly omits provisions for an adjudicator's excess of authority. Knowledge Gap Existing literature lacks a comprehensive analysis determining the boundaries of judicial law-finding when adjudicating claims of excessive mandate following Constitutional Court Decision Number 26/PUU-XV/2017 and Supreme Court Regulation Number 3/2023. Aims This study investigates the permitted boundaries of legal interpretation in civil courts concerning mandate violations, contrasting the national framework with the UNCITRAL Model Law. Results The analysis demonstrates that judges are legally restricted to interpreting the existing statutory conditions without improperly expanding the definitions of fraud or public policy to accommodate excess of authority claims. Furthermore, a recent district court ruling incorrectly expanded these cancellation grounds by utilizing ex aequo et bono and ultra petita arguments disconnected from the established legal prerequisites. Novelty This research establishes that the omission of mandate violations in national cancellation law constitutes a deliberate normative restriction rather than a legal vacuum requiring judicial intervention. Implications Protecting disputing parties necessitates legislative reform of the arbitration frameworks aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, operating within the established civil justice system and utilizing precise transitional provisions. Highlights Current frameworks restrict cancellation strictly to fraud, deliberately excluding cases where adjudicators exceed their permitted scope. Courts cannot exploit legal interpretation to accommodate extra-legal claims like ultra petita without violating strict normative limits. Adopting the UNCITRAL Model provides a structured mechanism to rectify unauthorized tribunal decisions. Keywords Award Cancellation; UNCITRAL Model Law; Excess Of Authority; Normative Restriction; Court Intervention]]>
Copyrights © 2026
