Publication Search

This study examines the comparison between litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving business conflicts in Indonesia. The increasingly complex nature of business activities has led to a variety of conflicts, such as breach of contract, share ownership disputes, and payment issues, which require efficient resolution methods that provide legal certainty. This study aims to explore the characteristics, procedures, advantages, and disadvantages of dispute resolution through litigation and ADR, which include negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. The method applied is normative juridical, drawing on legislation, legal doctrine, and relevant literature. The research findings indicate that litigation offers stronger legal certainty through binding court decisions and organized procedures, but is often time-consuming, expensive, and produces win-lose outcomes. On the other hand, ADR offers flexibility, confidentiality, efficiency, and the opportunity to reach mutually beneficial solutions, although in some situations it requires court confirmation for enforcement. Therefore, the choice of dispute resolution method needs to be adjusted to the nature of the conflict, the relationship between the parties, and the need for legal certainty.

Disputes over unpaid insurance claims are a problem that frequently arises in insurance practice and can harm consumers both financially and psychologically, while also reducing public trust in the insurance industry. Such disputes are generally triggered by differing interpretations of policy provisions, alleged breaches of the good-faith principle, and administrative obstacles, which ultimately lead to civil conflicts between the insured and the insurer. To provide access to dispute resolution that is faster, fairer, and more affordable than litigation, the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan/OJK) established the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution for the Financial Services Sector (Lembaga Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa Sektor Jasa Keuangan/LAPS SJK) through OJK Regulation No. 61/POJK.07/2020. This study aims to analyze the mechanism for resolving disputes over unpaid insurance claims through LAPS SJK and to assess its effectiveness in providing legal protection and legal certainty for consumers. The research method employed is normative legal research using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach, through an examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials related to contracts, insurance, consumer protection, and alternative dispute resolution. The findings show that LAPS SJK has the authority to handle civil disputes in the financial services sector, including insurance disputes, provided that the parties have a written agreement and have first pursued internal dispute resolution (Internal Dispute Resolution/IDR). Dispute resolution at LAPS SJK is conducted through mediation and arbitration. Mediation is facilitated by a mediator to encourage the parties to reach a settlement agreement, which may be reinforced into a Deed of Settlement (Akta Perdamaian) that is final, binding, and enforceable. If mediation fails, arbitration offers a more determinative resolution through a final and binding award that can be enforced after being registered with the District Court. Overall, LAPS SJK is considered effective because its procedures are structured, time-bound, and provide a fee waiver for mediation in retail and small-claim cases up to IDR 750,000,000. However, its effectiveness remains conditional, as it depends on the existence of a written agreement between the parties, the obligation to undergo IDR, and good faith in the mediation process.

This study aims to analyze the implementation of problematic murabahah financing settlement at KSPPS BMT Huwaiza Depok and assess its compliance with the DSN-MUI Fatwa Number 47 and 48 of 2005. The approach used is descriptive qualitative with the type of normative-empirical Islamic law research. Data were obtained through interviews, observations, and documentation, which were then analyzed descriptively comparatively between field practices and the provisions of the fatwa. The results of the study indicate that the settlement of problematic financing is carried out in stages, starting with a persuasive approach, issuing warning letters, to restructuring through rescheduling and collateral sales. The rescheduling practice is carried out without increasing the amount of debt, only adjusting the payment period, while collateral sales are carried out based on market prices with the principle of justice. In conclusion, the implementation of problematic murabahah financing settlement at KSPPS BMT Huwaiza is in accordance with sharia principles and the DSN-MUI Fatwa, although the sharia arbitration mechanism has not been implemented.

Litigation has long been regarded as the primary method of dispute resolution. However, in practice, it is often criticized for its lengthy procedures, high costs, and adversarial (win–lose) nature, which limit its effectiveness in restoring relationships and accommodating the parties’ interests. As a result, non-litigation alternatives such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are increasingly considered more flexible, faster, and better able to preserve relationships between the parties. This study examines the effectiveness of dispute resolution methods: litigation, mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, by focusing on key aspects, including procedure, cost, time, flexibility, and legal certainty. This approach is used to identify the characteristics of each method in responding to various types of disputes, particularly within complex business and civil law contexts. The findings indicate that no single method can be considered universally effective for all types of disputes. Litigation remains relevant as an ultimum remedium in the enforcement of formal law, especially when binding and enforceable decisions are required. Meanwhile, negotiation serves as the simplest, fastest, and most cost-efficient initial option, allowing parties greater autonomy in reaching agreements. Mediation has proven effective in producing collaborative, consensus-based solutions that support long-term relationships, while arbitration offers a balance between efficiency and legal certainty through final and confidential decisions.

Online arbitration has emerged as a significant innovation in dispute resolution systems in the digital era, as information technology has become the primary foundation for various legal activities. This mechanism offers a new way to resolve disputes through the use of digital platforms that enable parties to interact without geographical boundaries. This study aims to analyze the relevance, challenges, and changes in legal processes brought about by online arbitration in the modern context. Using a juridical-normative method, the study examines the applicable legal framework, doctrine, and academic literature to understand how digitalization affects arbitration procedures. The analysis shows that online arbitration has strategic value because it can provide efficiency, flexibility, and accessibility not always found in conventional arbitration. However, its implementation still faces various issues, such as data security, technological capability gaps, the integrity of electronic evidence, and the lack of comprehensive legal standards. On the other hand, digitalization has also driven significant changes in the structure of procedural law, including the simplification of procedures and the expansion of the recognition of electronic evidence. This study confirms that the success of online arbitration requires regulatory harmonization, increased technical capacity of the parties, and strengthening of digital infrastructure so that it can function as an effective, fair, and adaptive dispute resolution mechanism to technological developments.

Letter of Credit or L/C is a payment instrument in international trade transactions. Payment through a Letter of Credit is the most ideal form of payment in providing  payment certainty, because in its mechanism, L/C requires  payment to the seller through a bank guarantee with the fulfillment of the conditions specified in the document. Fraudulent letters of credit are disputes between parties in the execution of L/C payments caused by errors or irregularities due to fraud. As a result, in international civil agreements,  such agreements are deemed invalid. Mediation is a method of dispute resolution through non-litigation channels. In mediation, the dispute resolution mechanism is carried out by using a third party called a mediator. This method is highly dependent on the trust of the disputing parties in the mediator. In carrying out their duties, mediators act based on the principles of neutrality, confidentiality, voluntariness, empowerment, and as a provider of recommendations in the course of mediation for dispute resolution. Generally, mediation as a method is rarely applied in cases of international civil dispute resolution, because the resolution of international civil payment disputes is carried out through arbitration. Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution based on an arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement is an agreement agreed upon by both parties to submit and surrender all matters to an arbitrator.

The evolution of modern civil procedural law demands dispute resolution mechanisms that are responsive, efficient, and substantively just. In this context, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) particularly mediation and arbitration has transformed from a supplementary option into a central instrument within Indonesia’s dispute resolution architecture. This study aims to analyze the development of ADR from the perspective of modern civil procedural law, focusing on the normative status and practical efficiency of mediation and arbitration as pre-litigation mechanisms. The research employs a normative-juridical approach, analyzing primary legal sources (legislation, Supreme Court Regulations [PERMA], court decisions) and secondary sources (scholarly journals, books, policy documents). The findings indicate that mediation has been mandatorily integrated into civil procedure through PERMA No. 1 of 2016, functioning as a court-facilitated pre-litigation stage, while arbitration operates as a consensual out-of-court mechanism under Law No. 30 of 1999. Both mechanisms demonstrate clear efficiency in terms of time (resolution within weeks to months), cost (minimal to predictable), and the ability to preserve parties’ relationships through collaborative processes and procedural confidentiality. Nevertheless, implementation challenges remain, particularly concerning the availability of qualified mediators and public perception of ADR. The study concludes that ADR is no longer a marginal alternative but an integral pillar of modern civil justice, aligning with principles of procedural efficiency and substantive justice.

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play a vital role in the Indonesian economy, yet they are vulnerable to various conflicts that can hinder their continuity. Dispute resolution through legal channels (litigation) is often considered inefficient for MSMEs due to the lengthy process, high costs, and inflexibility. Therefore, alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration are considered preferable to litigation. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of mediation and arbitration in resolving business conflicts among MSMEs in Indonesia, identify inhibiting factors in resolving business conflicts, and provide recommendations for strengthening the accessibility of these mechanisms for MSMEs. The research method used is empirical juridical, combining normative analysis of regulations governing mediation and arbitration with data collection using document studies related to MSMEs. The results indicate that mediation is generally more effective for MSMEs because it is less expensive, simpler, and can maintain business relationships between the parties. However, the success of mediation is also determined by the quality of the mediator and the willingness of both parties. On the other hand, arbitration provides legal certainty and a relatively quicker resolution process compared to litigation. However, the barriers are the relatively high cost and low legal understanding among MSMEs. A comparison of the two shows that the effectiveness of ADR depends heavily on the availability of information, support from service providers, and the MSME's ability to adapt to legal procedures.

This study conceptually analyzes how blockchain technology reshapes the mechanisms of transparency and trust in global Islamic trade from the perspective of Islamic economics. The digitization of financial systems encourages a shift from trust based on social integrity and human relations, which traditionally form the foundation of muamalah practices, to an algorithmic trust model governed by code. In this context, this study examines how core values such as amanah and 'adl can be supported and even strengthened when economic interactions are increasingly mediated by technology. The research approach employs a qualitative-descriptive method, based on a literature review, with Miles and Huberman's analysis used to interpret the data and combine it with the normative principles of Islamic economics, thereby supporting the substance of Sharia. The main findings of this article show that blockchain has significant potential to enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability through distributed ledgers and smart contracts, aligning with the objectives of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah. However, despite its ability to reduce informational gharar, this technology also gives rise to new uncertainties that are technical, epistemic, and social in nature. Cases such as the DAO hack and the Terra–Luna failure confirm that technical transparency does not automatically lead to substantive justice. As a contribution, this study offers a Digital-Trust Maqāṣidiyyah framework, which positions blockchain as a means to strengthen Sharia ethics through adaptive contracts, Sharia oracles, decentralized arbitration, digital literacy, and Sharia regulatory sandboxes.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that creates legal rights and obligations to perform or refrain from performing certain actions. In business practice, a contract serves as a legal instrument that ensures certainty, fairness, and protection for all parties involved. To regulate these legal relationships, a comprehensive understanding of contract law is required as the juridical foundation for drafting and executing agreements. A valid contract must not only fulfill formal and material requirements as stipulated in the Civil Code but also be based on several fundamental legal principles, including the principle of freedom of contract, consensualism, pacta sunt servanda, good faith, and personality. Moreover, the contract formation process consists of several stages: the pre-drafting stage, the drafting stage which involves the structure and anatomy of the contract, and the post-drafting stage which focuses on the implementation and evaluation of the agreement. In its execution, disputes may arise; therefore, appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation are essential. A comprehensive understanding of these principles and stages in business contract formation is crucial to ensure that every agreement created is valid, fair, and effective for all parties.

Contract law serves as a fundamental pillar of the modern legal system, regulating relationships and interactions between parties involved in various economic and business transactions. A contract functions as a legal instrument that ensures certainty, fairness, and the protection of rights and obligations among the parties. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the essential principles of contract law, such as the principles of freedom of contract, consensualism, good faith, and pacta sunt servanda, as well as their practical implementation within the Indonesian business context. Furthermore, this study discusses common challenges in the application of contract law, including unequal bargaining positions, contract breaches, and difficulties in law enforcement. The discussion also explores mechanisms for resolving contractual disputes, both through litigation and alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration. This research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how contract law functions not only as a binding legal framework but also as an instrument to promote equitable, transparent, and sustainable business relationships.

Insurance is a service designed to prevent or mitigate various potential risks. The Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) is authorized to resolve consumer disputes through three alternative methods: arbitration, conciliation, and mediation. This study aims to analyze the legal force of mediation outcomes and to identify and examine the obstacles encountered in the implementation of insurance dispute resolution through BPSK mediation. This research employs a normative legal method with a statutory approach through literature review. The analysis is conducted qualitatively based on legal regulations and principles. Data is sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary materials, and the process consists of three stages: formulation, analysis, and conclusion. The findings indicate that although BPSK’s authority is limited, its decisions are final and binding, and mediation agreements remain legally valid. If no objection is filed, the agreement must be implemented, with criminal consequences for non-compliance. However, the effectiveness of consumer dispute resolution remains hindered by weak legal force, limited regulatory framework, institutional capacity constraints, and potential external intervention.

This study examines how Baitul Maal wat Tamwil (BMT) resolves financing disputes internally. Employing a qualitative approach with library research, the study draws on scholarly articles, books, and related documents. Data were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively to identify common internal settlement practices that align with Sharia principles and national law. Results indicate that BMTs typically use deliberation among parties, mediation involving management or the Sharia Supervisory Board, and restructuring of financing as primary means to resolve conflicts. These options are favored to preserve institutional-member relationships and reduce adverse financial and social consequences. When internal measures do not succeed, disputes may be referred to Sharia arbitration or to religious courts. The findings highlight the importance of blending Sharia values with positive legal frameworks to ensure dispute resolution is fair, efficient, and sustainable.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is a preliminary agreement in contracts established under the Common Law system, and this research is based on the increasing phenomenon of using MoUs as an initial form of agreement in various fields, including the organization of beauty pageants; however, in practice, there remains ambiguity regarding the extent to which an MoU has binding legal force, particularly when one party commits a breach of contract or when disputes arise, thus this study formulates two main issues, namely the legal status of the parties involved in the MoU of the Miss Beauty East Java 2022 pageant agreement and the legal consequences of the non-performance of such MoU, employing a normative juridical method through statute, conceptual, and case approaches to analyze the practice of MoUs in Miss Beauty East Java 2022, and the findings indicate that although MoUs are not explicitly regulated in the Indonesian Civil Code, they may be considered preliminary agreements subject to the principle of freedom of contract under Article 1338 of the Civil Code, with the legal status of the parties being binding as long as the MoU fulfills the essential elements of a valid contract (agreement, legal capacity, specific object, and lawful cause), while the legal consequences of non performance may give rise to legal liability resolved through non-litigation efforts such as mediation or arbitration, or ultimately through litigation if amicable settlement fails, leading to the conclusion that the MoU in the Miss Beauty East Java 2022 pageant possesses binding legal force as a preliminary agreement rather than merely a moral commitment, provided that it is clearly drafted and meets the validity requirements of a contract under Indonesian law.

Public policies in the fields of health, environment, and safety are increasingly subject to disputes through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. However, state efforts to protect the public often face claims from investors who consider themselves harmed. This situation carries serious consequences, as states not only bear high litigation costs but may also be required to pay significantly larger compensation if they lose the dispute. This gives rise to regulatory chill, a condition in which governments delay, weaken, or revoke regulations due to concerns over potential investment disputes. Even when some cases result in a state victory, the potential for regulatory chill remains significant, as investors do not need to win disputes to create regulatory uncertainty and pressure policymakers. This phenomenon can manifest in three forms precedential chill, anticipatory chill, and specific response chill, each affecting the policy-making process differently. Regulatory chill narrows the regulatory space, limits state capacity to protect public interests, and creates a deterrent effect on the implementation of new regulations. Using a normative juridical approach enriched with comparative case studies, this paper examines three primary sources of regulatory chill: the economic burden of arbitration and potential compensation, long-term commitments, and institutional limitations in meeting the standard of fair and equitable treatment.

In the context of Indonesia’s evolving insurance landscape, this study examines the legal protection afforded to policyholders of the BLife Plan MultiPro unit-linked life insurance product against uncertainties in end-of-contract benefit payments. Employing a doctrinal-normative and historical approach, the research analyzes statutory provisions from Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection through Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance and POJK regulations to evaluate the efficacy of preventive (transparency requirements), corrective (mediation and arbitration), repressive (administrative sanctions), and restorative (insurance guarantee scheme) mechanisms. Integrating Fuller’s internal morality of law, Hart’s open-texture theory, and Knight’s risk-uncertainty distinction, the findings reveal that regulatory evolution has progressively enhanced policyholder protection from 65% under the 1999 framework to 95% under the forthcoming 2028 guarantee scheme yet practical gaps persist in consumer education and claims standardization. The study recommends clarifying policy clauses, streamlining administrative procedures, and enhancing judicial discretion to fortify legal certainty and restore consumer confidence

The role of experts in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (APS) forum in Indonesia has a strategic position in bridging the technical and legal aspects that are often at the core of the problem in a dispute. The presence of experts serves to provide objective and professional opinions that can strengthen the arguments of the parties, as well as speed up the dispute resolution process efficiently. Juridically, the role of experts has been recognized in Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and strengthened by the principle of freedom of contract in Article 1338 of the Civil Code. Although expert opinions are not always binding, their contributions are often used as the basis for important consideration by mediators or arbitrators in decision-making. In addition to being a provider of expert opinions, this role is also able to bridge the gap of understanding between technical and legal aspects that are often difficult to understand by the parties or even by the mediator himself. In practice, expert involvement can provide insight into complex issues, such as in construction, medical, information technology, or environmental cases, that require specialized expertise. Therefore, the presence of experts not only strengthens the legal argument, but also provides crucial scientific validity. However, the challenge faced is the lack of detailed technical arrangements related to qualifications, codes of conduct, and mechanisms for expert involvement in the APS. This can pose a risk of subjectivity and potential conflicts of interest. For this reason, a more comprehensive regulatory development is needed to ensure that the role of experts in APS can be carried out optimally, professionally, and fairly, so as to increase public trust in the dispute resolution mechanism outside the court.

The rapid expansion of Indonesia’s digital economy and the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Law (Law 27/2022) have exposed significant shortcomings in the resolution of data-related disputes under existing judicial and administrative frameworks. Public adjudication of sensitive data conflicts can erode trust, impose reputational damage, and delay reparative outcomes, while courts often lack specialized expertise in technology and privacy. Drawing upon international precedents including the European Data Protection Board’s Article 65 GDPR mechanism, the EU–US Data Privacy Framework arbitration annex, and the European Patent Office’s data-protection arbitration rules this study examines the urgency and feasibility of establishing a dedicated Data Dispute Arbitration Forum in Indonesia. Through comparative analysis, it identifies core design elements such as expert-appointed tribunals, streamlined online procedures, confidentiality safeguards, clear enforcement under the New York Con-vention, and mechanisms for restorative remedies beyond fines. Anchored in Pancasila’s social-justice ethos and Indonesia’s ADR law (Law 30/1999) and ITE Law, the proposed institutional architecture integrates online dispute resolution (ODR) protocols, data-minimization and cybersecurity guidelines, and publicly anonymized award publication to foster legal certainty and raise awareness of data-protection obligations. A stakeholder impact assessment demonstrates that such a forum would benefit individual data subjects through low-cost, expeditious relief; controllers and processors through predictability and trade-secret protection; regulators through expert findings; and foreign investors through alignment with global data-governance standards. By aligning domestic legal values with international best practices, the specialized forum promises to bolster enforcement, restore public trust, and strengthen Indonesia’s competitiveness in the global digital marketplace.

Conciliation is one form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that holds great potential for resolving disputes efficiently, participatively, and peacefully outside the courtroom. However, in the Indonesian legal practice, the role of conciliation remains limited and is less popular compared to mediation and arbitration. The main obstacles hindering the development of this mechanism include low public and legal practitioners' awareness, the absence of adequate technical regulations, and the lack of professional conciliation institutions. In fact, conciliation aligns well with Indonesia's legal culture that emphasizes deliberation and consensus. The purpose of this article is to examine the effectiveness of the legal framework for conciliation in Indonesia, identify the barriers to its implementation, and formulate strategies to strengthen conciliation within the national legal system. This study employs a normative juridical method with a statutory and doctrinal approach, complemented by analysis of applicable legislation and legal literature. The findings reveal that conciliation lacks a strong and operational legal framework. The absence of procedural standards, supervisory mechanisms, and training systems for conciliators hampers its effectiveness. On the other hand, conciliation has great potential to reduce the burden on courts, expedite dispute resolution, and preserve good relationships between parties. The article concludes that a comprehensive legal reform is urgently needed, including specific regulations, the establishment of independent conciliation institutions, and public education, so that conciliation can play a strategic role in the national dispute resolution system.

This research analyzes the legal provisions regarding the obligation to pay overtime wages and legal options for workers if the company fails to provide overtime compensation. Overtime wages are the right of workers regulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower which has been amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 and Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021. This study uses a case analysis of PT X in Semarang, which was accused of not paying overtime wages in full to its employees. The findings show that despite clear legal regulations, implementation faces various obstacles, such as inadequate supervision and lack of legal awareness. Employees whose rights are not met can pursue out-of-court (e.g. bipartite negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration) and court channels through the labor court. Non-compliance with regulations on overtime pay not only impacts the economic situation of employees, but also causes imbalances in labor relations. This research recommends strengthening the labor inspection system, increasing transparency in the handling of working hours, increasing legal awareness among employees, and developing a more accurate time recording system to ensure the fulfillment of employee rights according to the applicable regulations.