Post Award Fraud Sebagai Dasar Penolakan Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Internasional Berdasarkan Asas Ketertiban Umum Dalam Kasus Navayo V. Kementerian Pertahanan RI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v6i6.9838Keywords:
arbitrase internasional, Ketertiban Umum, Post Award FraudAbstract
Indonesia saat ini berpotensi kehilangan aset-asetnya di Prancis atas dasar pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional dalam kasus Navayo v. Kementerian Pertahanan Republik Indonesia. Perkembangan kasus tersebut menunjukkan bahwa fakta atau bukti tambahan mengenai dugaan fraud muncul setelah putusan arbitrase dijatuhkan, sedangkan post award fraud belum diatur secara eksplisit sebagai dasar penolakan pelaksanaan yang berdiri sendiri dalam Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 maupun hukum arbitrase Indonesia dan Prancis. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kedudukan post award fraud dalam perspektif asas ketertiban umum serta menilai kemungkinan penerapannya oleh Pengadilan Prancis dalam perkara Navayo melawan Kementerian Pertahanan Republik Indonesia. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan perbandingan. Secara normatif, apabila penolakan pelaksanaan putusan Navayo diajukan melalui upaya hukum yang tersedia di Prancis, post award fraud dapat dijadikan dasar argumentasi ketertiban umum internasional sepanjang bukti yang diajukan menunjukkan pelanggaran yang nyata, efektif, dan konkret serta memiliki keterkaitan material dengan proses atau putusan arbitrase.
References
Adolf, H. (2016). Hukum Arbitrase Komersial Internasional. Keni Media.
Adolf, H. (2021). The Meaning Of Public Policy Under Indonesian Arbitration Law And Practice. Transnational Business Law Journal, 2(1), 15–34.
Bantekas, I. (2020). Equal treatment of parties in international commercial arbitration. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 991–1011.
Beatson, S. J. (2017). International arbitration, public policy considerations, and conflicts of law: The perspectives of reviewing and enforcing courts. Arbitration International, 33(3), 175–196.
Berkoff, L. A. (2019). Clarifying an Otherwise Final Award. Business Law Today. https://businesslawtoday.org/2019/06/clarifying-otherwise-final-award-exception-functus-officio-doctrine/
Blackaby KC, N., Partasides KC, C., & Redfern, A. (2023). Redfern And Hunter On International Arbitration (Seventh Edition). Oxford University Press.
Born, G. (2018). The New York Convention: A Self-Executing Treaty. Michigan Journal of International Law, 40(1), 115-187.
Carducci, G. (2012). The Arbitration Reform in France: Domestic and International Arbitration Law. Arbitration International, 28(1). 125-158.
Concepción, C. F. (2016). Combating Corruption and Fraud from an International Arbitration Perspective. Arbitraje, 9(2), 369–396.
Cordero-Moss, G., Grémaud, S., Ragno, F., & Seraglini, C. (2025). Enforcement Under the New York Convention: Universalism or Exceptionalism? Jus Mundi Arbitration Review, 2(1). 47-80.
ESISCO v. Danieli & C.Officine Meccaniche, [2023] No. 22/20051 (Cour d’appel de Paris). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-egyptian-sponge-iron-steel-co-s-a-e-v-danieli-c-officine-meccaniche-s-p-a-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-22-20051-tuesday-5th-december-2023#decision_57377
Garner, B. A. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
Garner, B. A. (2004). Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.). West Publishing Co.
Hortoğlu Grant, Y. (2025). Arbitral fraud and the power of arbitrators in the Nigeria v P&ID case: all that glitters is not gold. Arbitration International, 41(3), 633–646.
Hortoğlu Grant, Y. (2021). Fraud and Arbitration. ASA Bulletin, 39(2). 145-167.
Jayanti, H. D. (2025). Kalah Sengketa, Yusril Ungkap Ancaman Penyitaan Aset Indonesia di Prancis Terkait Kasus Satelit Kemhan. Hukumonline. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/kalah-sengketa-yusril-ungkap-ancaman-penyitaan-aset-indonesia-di-prancis-terkait-kasus-satelit-kemhan-lt67dd02feb6bf5
Karton, J. (2020). International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2020(2). 293-326.
Kharab, R. (2021). PUBLIC POLICY IN ARBITRATION. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 2(1). 1-9.
Kokkini-Iatridou, D. (1992). Judicial recourse against the arbitral award: A comparative synthesis. Netherlands International Law Review, 39(S1), 157–174.
Kühner, D. (2018). Annulment and enforcement of arbitral awards in France. Wolters Kluwer. 33-50.
Muhaimin. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Mataram University Press.
Navayo International A.G. and Hungarian Export Credit Insurance Pte Ltd v. Ministry of Defence of Indonesia, [2024] SGHC(I) 10 (Singapore International Commercial Court). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-navayo-international-and-hungarian-export-credit-insurance-v-indonesia-judgment-of-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-2024-sghc-i-10-monday-22nd-april-2024
Okorie, C. K. (2024). Effect Of Fraud And Bribery In The Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: The Case Of P & ID. Nigerian Journal Of Legal Studies. 13. 16-24
Omiunu, O., & Akanmidu, O. (2021). Reflections on Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID). NYU Journal of International Law and Politics Online Forum. 53(110). 110-124.
QC, S. G. (2006). The Autonomy of Arbitrators, and Fraud Unravels All. Arbitration International, 22(3). 337-372.
Rowley, J. William., Gaillard, Emmanuel., Kaiser, G. E. ., & Siino, Benjamin. (2021). The guide to challenging and enforcing arbitration awards. Law Business Research Ltd.
Sasson, M. (2022). Public Policy in International Commercial Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration. 39(3). 411-432.
Sibon, A. S. (2013). Enforcing Punitive Damages Awards In France. The Arbitration Brief. 3. 1-15.
Securiport v. Benin, [2020] No. 19/04177 (Cour d’appel de Paris). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-securiport-v-republic-of-benin-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-tuesday-27th-october-2020#decision_13332
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (1995). Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Raja Grafindo.
Solikin, N. (2021). Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. Qiara Media.
Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v. Exim Rajathi India Pvt Ltd, [2009] No. OS 1620/2008 (Singapore High Court). https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2009_SGHC_231
Várady, T. (2012). Control Of Arbitral Awards And The Relevance Of Newly Discovered Facts. Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu, 62(1-2). 457-473.
Varesis, F. (2025). No Second Bites At The Cherry: Functus Officio In Bifurcated Arbitration Proceedings. Cambridge Law Journal, 84(1), 43–46.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revaldi Irawan, Prita Amalia, Mursal Maulana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hak cipta :
Penulis yang mempublikasikan manuskripnya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut:
- Hak cipta pada setiap artikel adalah milik penulis.
- Penulis mengakui bahwa Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik (JIHHP) berhak menjadi yang pertama menerbitkan dengan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0) .
- Penulis dapat mengirimkan artikel secara terpisah, mengatur distribusi non-eksklusif manuskrip yang telah diterbitkan dalam jurnal ini ke versi lain (misalnya, dikirim ke repositori institusi penulis, publikasi ke dalam buku, dll.), dengan mengakui bahwa manuskrip telah diterbitkan pertama kali di JIHHP.
