COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA
The expansion of international trade, investment, and globalization of commerce has led to the development of international commercial arbitration as a preferred method of resolving disputes. Once parties have decided to submit their disputes to arbitration, they have invariably agreed to be bound b...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
[Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada
2014
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1826048796839116800 |
|---|---|
| author | , RACHMI DZIKRINA , Prof.!Dr.!Sigit!Riyanto,!S.H.,!LL.M. |
| author_facet | , RACHMI DZIKRINA , Prof.!Dr.!Sigit!Riyanto,!S.H.,!LL.M. |
| author_sort | , RACHMI DZIKRINA |
| collection | UGM |
| description | The expansion of international trade, investment, and globalization of
commerce has led to the development of international commercial arbitration as a
preferred method of resolving disputes. Once parties have decided to submit their
disputes to arbitration, they have invariably agreed to be bound by the arbitral
award. However, the New York Convention stipulates that the competent
authority in the country may refuse the recognition and enforcement of the award
if it is contrary to the public policy of that country. This public policy is one of the
most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards,
leading to judicial inconsistency. Moreover, it also causes unpredictability of its
application, as there is not any harmonization of the application across national
borders by domestic courts. This research would provide a comparative study of
the court�s interpretation towards public policy as mentioned under Article V(2)b
of the New York Convention between Singapore (arbitration-friendly jurisdiction)
and Indonesia (non-arbitration-friendly jurisdiction). This research is therefore
essential to figure out the obstacles of Indonesia and to learn the approach of
Singapore in defining public policy.
The research was conducted by using normative legal research as the
method, which is through literature studies, such as laws and regulations, books,
journals, etc. While the material sources of this research are based on Article 38 of
the ICJ Statute, which is the source of international law.
Further, the result of this research, the writer concludes that Singapore and
Indonesia have different approach in the interpretation of public policy. Singapore
courts interpret public policy narrowly as the forum�s fundamental considerations
of justice, and public morals. To the contrary, Indonesia broadly interprets public
policy as the principles and national interest of a nation, which is in accordance
with the applicable legislations.
Keywords: Public Policy, Indonesia, Singapore, New York Convention |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T23:35:47Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:generic.eprints.org:132307 |
| institution | Universiti Gadjah Mada |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T23:35:47Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oai:generic.eprints.org:1323072016-03-04T08:07:49Z https://repository.ugm.ac.id/132307/ COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA , RACHMI DZIKRINA , Prof.!Dr.!Sigit!Riyanto,!S.H.,!LL.M. ETD The expansion of international trade, investment, and globalization of commerce has led to the development of international commercial arbitration as a preferred method of resolving disputes. Once parties have decided to submit their disputes to arbitration, they have invariably agreed to be bound by the arbitral award. However, the New York Convention stipulates that the competent authority in the country may refuse the recognition and enforcement of the award if it is contrary to the public policy of that country. This public policy is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, leading to judicial inconsistency. Moreover, it also causes unpredictability of its application, as there is not any harmonization of the application across national borders by domestic courts. This research would provide a comparative study of the court�s interpretation towards public policy as mentioned under Article V(2)b of the New York Convention between Singapore (arbitration-friendly jurisdiction) and Indonesia (non-arbitration-friendly jurisdiction). This research is therefore essential to figure out the obstacles of Indonesia and to learn the approach of Singapore in defining public policy. The research was conducted by using normative legal research as the method, which is through literature studies, such as laws and regulations, books, journals, etc. While the material sources of this research are based on Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which is the source of international law. Further, the result of this research, the writer concludes that Singapore and Indonesia have different approach in the interpretation of public policy. Singapore courts interpret public policy narrowly as the forum�s fundamental considerations of justice, and public morals. To the contrary, Indonesia broadly interprets public policy as the principles and national interest of a nation, which is in accordance with the applicable legislations. Keywords: Public Policy, Indonesia, Singapore, New York Convention [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada 2014 Thesis NonPeerReviewed , RACHMI DZIKRINA and , Prof.!Dr.!Sigit!Riyanto,!S.H.,!LL.M. (2014) COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA. UNSPECIFIED thesis, UNSPECIFIED. http://etd.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=72835 |
| spellingShingle | ETD , RACHMI DZIKRINA , Prof.!Dr.!Sigit!Riyanto,!S.H.,!LL.M. COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title | COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title_full | COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title_fullStr | COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title_full_unstemmed | COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title_short | COMPARATIVE STUDY: PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) CONCEPT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA |
| title_sort | comparative study public policy ordre public concept in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in singapore and indonesia |
| topic | ETD |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rachmidzikrina comparativestudypublicpolicyordrepublicconceptintheenforcementofforeignarbitralawardsinsingaporeandindonesia AT profdrsigitriyantoshllm comparativestudypublicpolicyordrepublicconceptintheenforcementofforeignarbitralawardsinsingaporeandindonesia |