Asymmetrical Arbitration Clauses: A Comparative Study of International and Indonesian Arbitration Law
(1) Universitas Padjadjaran
(2) Universitas Padjadjaran
(3) Universitas Padjadjaran
Abstract
This article presents a study of the validity of asymmetrical arbitration clauses, a clause that combines arbitration and a choice of court option, in international commercial contracts. These clauses designate a method of dispute settlement that gives a more favorable position for one of the parties to a contract, hence, creating a debate on its validity on an international level. Despite the convenience the trend has brought in business, this form of arbitration clause has been called into doubt by courts in numerous jurisdictions. Unfortunately, Indonesia itself has yet to have a firm legal standing on this matter as asymmetrical arbitration clauses are not explicitly regulated by the Indonesian arbitration law. This research is conducted by exploring the relation between theories and practices concerning asymmetrical arbitration clauses through analyzing case law and provisions of international arbitration law and the Indonesian arbitration law, and are also analyzed through principles of international and Indonesian contract law. This article aims to provide an analysis regarding the legal effects of having asymmetrical arbitration clauses in commercial contracts and commercial arbitration. Lastly, this study offers a method of interpretation towards such clauses that favors their validity under both international arbitration law and Indonesian arbitration law.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Books
Adolf, H. 2002. Arbitrase Komersial Internasional, Edisi Revisi, Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Basuki, Z.D. 2018. Hukum Perdata Internasional, Edisi 1 Cetakan 6. Tangerang Selatan: Penerbit Universitas Terbuka.
Born, G. 2014. International Commercial Arbitration Volume I: International Arbitration Agreements, Second Edition. Kluwer Law International.
Born, G. 2020, International Commercial Arbitration 2nd Edition, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Cordero-Moss, G. 2014, International Commercial Contracts: Applicable Sources and Enforceability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diantha, I. M. P., 2017, Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum, Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Gaillard, E. & Savage, J. 1999, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
Hartono, S., Setiawan., Sunandar, T., 2001. The Indonesian Law on Contracts. Japan: Institute of Developing Economies.
Holtzmann, H. M. & Neuhaus, J. E. 1995. A Guide to The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentaryâ€, 2nd Edition. Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
Latip, Y.D. 2002. Pilihan Hukum Dan Pilihan Forum Dalam Kontrak Internasional. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.
Mamudji, S., Rahardjo, H., Supriyanto, A., Erni, Daly., Simatupang D. P., 2005. Metode Penelitian dan Penulisan Hukum, Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
Merkin, R. & Flannery, L. 2019. Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act 1996 6th Edition. London: Informa Law from Routledge.
Journal Articles
Bakumenko, V. (2020). Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses: Grounds for Validity within Different Jurisdictions. Russian Law Journal, 8(3), 84-115. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2020-8-3-84-115
Chrenkoff, A. (1996). Freedom of Contract: A New Look at the History and Future of the Idea. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 21, 36-56.
Draguiev, D. (2014). Unilateral Jurisdiction Clauses: The Case for Invalidity, Severability or Enforceability. Journal of International Arbitration, 31(1), 19-46. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/LAW161/Unilateral%20jurisdiction%20clauses_%20the%20case%20of.pdf
Nesbitt, S. & Quinlan, H. (2006). The Status and Operation of Unilateral or Optional Arbitration Clauses. Arbitration International, 22(1), 133-150.
Zelst, B. V. (2018). Unilateral Option Arbitration clauses: An Unequivocal Choice for Arbitration Under the ECHR?. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25(1), 77-86. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1023263X18755968
Zelst, B. V. (2016). UAC in the EU: A Comparative Assessment of the Operation of Unilateral Option Arbitration Clauses in the European Context, Journal of International Arbitration, 33(4). 365-378
Zimmermann, R. (1996). The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. The Modern Law Review, 55(4), 611-614
Dissertation and Thesis
Ustinov, I. (2016). Unilateral Arbitration Clauses: Legal Validty (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from Tilburg University Library https://tilburguniversity.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=scr.uvt.nl:6315175
Websites
Berard, M., Dingley, J., Brown, M. (2020, May 7). Unilateral Option Clauses in Arbitration: An International Overview. Retrieved from http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-535-3743
Henderson, A & Chua, E. (2017, November 18). Singapore Court of Appeal Confirms the Validity of ‘Unilateral Option to Arbitrate’ Clauses. Retrieved from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7c61ee05-908d-4a77-8297-a7fd6f6de854
Herbert Smith in association with Gleiss Lutz and Stibbe (2011). Dispute Resolution and Governing Law Clauses in China-related Commercial Contracts An Introductory Guide to Drafting Clauses that Work and Avoiding Technical Traps, 4th Edition. Retrieved from https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2011/10/2011.09-Dispute-resolution-and-governing-law-clauses-in-China-related-commercial-contracts-4th-ed.pdf
Karume, M. (2016). Analysis of the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010. Retrieved from https://www.primerus.com/business-law-articles/analysis-of-the-unidroit-principles-of-international-commercial-contracts-2010.htm
Moses, M. (2018, November 12). Public Policy: National, International and Transnational. Retrieved from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/11/12/public-policy-national-international-and-transnational/
Scherer, M. & Lange, S. (2013, July 18). The French Rothschild Case: A Threat for Unilateral Dispute Resolution Clauses, Retrieved from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2013/07/18/the-french-rothschild-case-a-threat-for-unilateral-dispute-resolution-clauses/
Sukirno, T. & Sihombing, B. (2019, Oktober 1). Arbitration Procedures and Practice in Indonesia: Overview. Retrieved from https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-520-8397?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#co_anchor_a115703
Thevar, P. & Choo, J. (2017, September). Case Summary of Wilson Taylor v Dyna-Jet. Retrieved from https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2017/singapore/case-summary-of-wilson-taylor-v-dyna-je
Magazine Articles
Clifford, P. & Browne, O. (2013, July). Avoiding Pitfalls in Drafting and Using Unilateral Option Clauses. International Arbitration, Latham & Watkins LLP. 1-3.
Petit, S., Chung, K., Panov, A., Robert, M., Grant, B., Morova, M. (2017, October). Asymmetric Arbitration Agreements: A Global Perspective. International Arbitration Report, (9). 25-28.
Case Law
Decision of the England and Wales High Court (Comm) 2001 in regards to the case of NB Three Shipping Ltd. v. Harebell Shipping Ltd., 13 October 2004.
Decision of the England and Wales High Court (Ch) 1412 in regards to the case of Law Debenture Trust Co. plc. v. Elektrim Finance BV and Ors, 1 July 2005.
Decision of the Fed. Com. Ct., Northwest Circuit, Case No. A21-2498/2011 (Appendix J, Case 137) in regards to the case of LEKS LV v. ASSA, 11 Oct 2011.
Decision of the New York County 2010 NY Slip Op 50035(U) [26 Misc 3d 1210(A)] in regard to the case of Valens U.S. SPVI, LLC v Hopkins Capital Partners, Inc., January 7, 2010.
Decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal No. 71 of 2016 in regards to the use of an asymmetrical arbitration clause in the case of Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. v. Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd., 26 April 2017.
Rulings of the Federal Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District No. kG-A40/11983-09, 22 December 2009; No. kG-A40/13340-09, 23 December 2009; No. kG-A40/14014-09, 12 January 2010.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation No. 1831/12 in regards to the case of Russkaya Telephonnaya Kompaniya (RTK) v. Sony Ericsson, 19 June 2012.
Authorities
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 30 Year 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Indonesian Arbitration Law)
Indonesian Civil Code (Burgelijk Wetboek)
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Records A/40/17 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortieth Session, Supplement No. 17, 1985.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 Digest, 2012.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
