PENERAPAN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS SEBAGAI LANGKAH PENCEGAHAN DIAJUKANNYA SENGKETA KE PENGADILAN ASING DALAM ARBITRASE INTERNASIONAL

Cynitiya Scandi Sant

Abstract

Penelitian ini menganalisis permasalahan penerapan anti-suit injunctions sebagai langkah pencegahan diajukannya sengketa ke pengadilan asing dalam arbitrase internasional yang berdasarkan dengan prinsip hukum umum, New York Convention, dan UNCITRAL Model Law. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang bersumber pada bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, dan bahan hukum tersier, serta menggunakan metode pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach), pendekatan komparatif (comparative approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Penelitian ini menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data studi kepustakaan (library research) dengan teknik analisis data logika deduktif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, permohonan anti-suit injunctions dipengaruhi oleh seat of arbitration (lex loci arbitri) dan exclusive jurisdiction dari perjanjian arbitrase antar-para pihak, disertai dengan pendapat para ahli hukum dari kasus terdahulu. Penerapan anti-suit injunctions juga dipengaruhi oleh bagaimana hukum suatu negara yang mengatur perjanjian antar-para pihak. Sehingga, setiap yurisdiksi negara memiliki pertimbangan dan putusan yang berbeda dalam memberikan permohonan anti-suit injunctions. Penelitian ini menganalisis permohonan anti-suit injunctions melalui studi kasus yang dibandingkan dari empat yurisdiksi yang berbeda di bawah sistem hukum common law dan civil law yaitu yurisdiksi Inggris berdasarkan kasus UAU v. HVB; yurisdiksi Amerika Serikat berdasarkan kasus CitiBank, N.A. v. Mazza; yurisdiksi Rusia berdasarkan kasus UralTransMash v. Pojazdy Szynowe PESA Bydgoszcz SA; dan yurisdiksi Republik Rakyat Cina berdasarkan kasus Xiaomi v. Inter Digital, Inc.  

Keywords

penerapan anti-suit injunctions; seat of arbitration (lex loci arbitri); exclusive jurisdiction; arbitrase komersial internasional; New York Convention; UNCITRAL Model Law

Full Text:

PDF

References

Buku

Adolf, Huala. 2009. Arbitrase Negara-Negara ASEAN. Jakarta: Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional,

Departemen Hukum dan HAM RI.

Andrews, Neil. 2016. Arbitration and Contract Law: Common Law Perspective. Switzerland: Springer

International Publishing.

A. R, David. 2017. Williams and Kawharu on Arbitration. New Zealand: LexisNexis New Zealand.

Batubara, Suleman dan Purba, Orinton. 2013. Arbitrase Internasional Penyelesaian Sengketa Asing

Melalui ICSID, UNCITRAL, dan SIAC. Jakarta: Raih Asa Sukses.Born, Gary B.. 2014. International

Commercial Arbitration. New York: Kluwer Law International.

Blackaby, Nigel dkk. 2015. Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Caflisch, Lucius. 2001. Cent ans de reglement pacifique des differends interetatiques. Leiden: RCADI.

Contreras, Jorge L. dan Eixenberger, Michael A. 2017. The Anti-Suit Injunction – A Transnational

Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional SEP Litigation. Dalam buku Cambridge Handbook of Technical

Standardization Law – Patent, Antitrust, and Competition Law. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Dicey, A.V.. 2012. Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Djulaeka dan Rahayu, Devi. 2019. Buku Ajar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Surabaya: Scopindo Media

Pustaka.

Harahap, M. Yahya. 2003. Arbitrase. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Ingraham, Edward Duncan. 2019. Condensed Reports of Cases Decided in the High Court of Chancery

in England, Vol. 13. London: Forgotten Books.

Mardani, 2020. Penyelesaian Sengketa Ekonomi dan Bisnis Syariah: Litigasi dan Non Litigasi. Jakarta:

Kencana.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2005. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2006. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2010. Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada.

Moses, Margaret L. 2012. The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Mosimann, Oliver Luc. 2010. Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Commercial Arbitration. Den Haag:

Eleven International Publishing.

Muhaimin. 2020. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Mataram: Mataram University Press.

Onyema, Emilia. 2010. International Commercial Arbitration and the Arbitrator’s Contract. New York:

Routledge.

Rajoo, Sundra. 2016. Law, Practice and Procedure of Arbitration (second Edition). Petaling Jaya:

LexisNexis Malaysia.

Simma, B. dkk. 2012. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Soekanto, Soerjono. 1986. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum Universitas Indonesia. Jakarta: Universitas

Indonesia Press.

Soemartono, Gatot. 2006. Arbitrase dan Mediasi di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Sutiyoso, Bambang. 2006. Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis. Yogyakarta: Citra Media.

Tanaka, Yoshifumi. 2018. The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge: Cambrigde

University Press.

Tang, Zheng Sophia. 2014. Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law.

London: Routledge.

Zekos, Georgios I. 2008. International Commercial and Marine Arbitration. New York: RoutledgeCavendish.

Jurnal

Ahmed, Mukarrum dan Beaumont, Paul, 2017. “Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements: Some Issues

on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and Its Relationship With the Brussels I

Recast Especially Anti-Suit Injunctions, Concurrent Proceedings and the Implications of BREXIT”,

Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 13 Issue 2.

Bermann, George A., 1990. “The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation”, Columbia

Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 28.

Contreras, Jorge L., 2020. “It’s Anti-Suit Injunctions All the Way Down – The Strange New Realities of

International Litigation Over Standarts-Essential Patents”, IP Litigator, Vol. 26 No. 4.

Dewi, Ayu Atika, 2018. “Tarik Ulur Kompetensi Absolut Lembaga Arbitrase (Kajian Terhadap Prinsip

Niet van Openbaar Orde dan Pacta Sunt Servanda dalam Klausul Arbitrase)”, Dialogia Iuridica,

Vol. 9 No. 2.

Douglas, Michael, “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Australia”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 41, No.1,

, hlm. 1 - 40.

Dutson, Stuart, 1997. “The Conflict of Laws and Statues: The International Operation of Legislation

Dealing with Matters of Civil Law in the United Kingdom and Australia”, The Modern Law Review,

Vol. 60 No. 5.

Dutton, Tyler J., 2013. “Jurisdictional Battles in Both European Union Cross-Border Injunctions and

United States Anti-Suit Injunctions”, Emory of International Law Review, Vol. 27 Issue 2.

Fisher, Geoffrey, 2010. “Anti-Suit Injunctions to Restrain Foreign Proceedings in Breach of an Arbitration

Agreement”, Bond Law Review, Vol. 22 Issue 1.

Florescu, Cristina Ioana, 2020. “Emerging Tools to Attract and Increase the Use of International

Arbitration”, Juridical Tribune, Vol.10 Issue 2.

Grodl, Lukas, 2021. “England to Become the Prime Jurisdiction for International Commercial Disputes Anti-Suit Injunction As A Tool for Assurance”, The Lawyer Quaterly, Vol. 11 No. 2.

Hartley, Trevor C., 1987. “Comity and the Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation”, The

American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 35 No. 3.

Henderson, Alastair, 2014. “Lex Arbitri, Procedural Law and the Seat of Arbitration”, Singapore Academy

Law Journal, Vol. 26 SAcLJ.

Hirsch, Gustavo, 2021. “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Patent Litigation: A Race to the Bottom”, Revista de

Direito, Vol. 13 No. 03.

Karton, Joshua, 2020. “International Arbitration as Comparative Law in Action”, Journal of Dispute

Resolution, Vol. 20 Issue 2 Art. 7.

Kenny, Chng Wei Yao, 2015. “Breach of Agreement Versus Vexatious, Oppressive and Unconscionable

Conduct: Clarifying Their Relationship in the Law of Anti-Suit Injunctions”, Singapore Academy of

Law Journal, Vol. 27 Issue 2.

Moreno, Ronald B., 2020. “Anti-Suit Injunction in International Commercial Arbitration: A Critical

Analysis”, UST Law Review, Vol. 64 March 2020.

Nguyen, Hieu Huu, 2020. “Impact of Foreign Trade Investment and International Trade on Economic

Growth: Empirical Study in Vietnam”, Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, Vol.7

No. 3.

Onuzulike, Chimezie, 2021. “An Appraisal of the Concept of Anti-Suit Injunction in International

Arbitration”, The Gravitas Review of Business & Property Law, Vol. 12 No. 3.

Pamolango, Jessica Tengar, 2015. “Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Arbitrase dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa”,

Lex Administratum, Vol. 3 No. 1.

Pull, Chetan, 2011. “U.S. Anti-suit Injuntions in Support of International Arbitration: Five Questions

American Courts Ask”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 28 No.1.

Situmorang, Mosgan, 2017. “Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional di Indonesia”, Jurnal Penelitian

Hukum De Jure, Vol. 17 No. 4.

Stipanowich, Thomas J., 2014. “Reflections on the State and Future of Commercial Arbitration:

Challenges, Opportunities, Proposals”, The American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 25

No. 3-4.

Strong, S.I., 2018. “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States”, The

American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 66 Issue 1.

Tang, Zheng Sophia, “Effectiveness of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in The Chinese Courts - A

Pragmatic Study”, International & Comparative Law Quaterly, Vol. 61, Issue 2 2012, hlm. 458 –

Konvensi Internasional

United Nations Charter

Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International

Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amandements as adopted in 2006.

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention).

The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial

Matters 1968

The Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial

Matters 1988

The Brussels I Regulation No. 1215/2012 of The European Parliament and of The Council on Jurisdiction

and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters 2012 with amandments as

adopted in 2015

Peraturan Perundang-undangan Nasional

The England Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873

The England Senior Courts Act 1981

The Judiciary Act 1789 (United States)

The US Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1937, last amended in 2020

The US Federal Arbitration Act 1925, last amended in 2022

Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 70-FZ of May 5, 1995

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China 1991

Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China 1999

Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Examining

Act Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes 2019 (People’s Republic of China)

Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional.

Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.

Kasus

Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SpA v Pagnan SpA (‘The Angelic Grace’), 1995, 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87,

The English Court of Appeal.

APR Energy, LLC v. First Inv. grp. Corp., 2015 88 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1321 (MD Fla 2015), United

States District Court of Middle District of Florida, 11th Circuit. Diakses melalui https://case-law.

vlex.com/vid/APR-Energy-LLC-v-First-Investment-Group-Corporation-022015-FLMDC-3-14-cv575-J-34JBT-601596206.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 2011, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742, United

States Supreme Court. Diakses melalui https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/888219583.

Augustin v. Cubesmart, L.P, 2018, US Dist. LEXIS 195925, 2018 WL 6198369, at *2 (SD Fla. 15

November 2018), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 2009, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), District

Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Diakses melalui https://cite.case.law/so-3d/24/649/.

Becker v. Davis, (11th Cir. 2007), 491 F.3d 1292, 1298, United States District Court for the Northern

District of Florida. Diakses melalui https://casetext.com/case/becker-v-davis-2.

Bushby v. Munday, 1814 – 1823, All E.R. Rep. 304, The English High Court of Chancery. Diakses

melalui https://vlex.co.uk/vid/william-bushby-v-james-806354217.

CitiBank, N.A. v. Mazza, 2020, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25658 (S.D. Fla. February 12, 2020), United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Cohen v. Rothfield, 1919, 1 K.B. 410, The English Court of Appeals. https://www.iclr.co.uk/

document/1911000072/casereport_79430/html.

Continental Bank NA v. Aeakos Compania Naviera SA, 1994, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 505, The English Court of

Appeal. Diakses melalui https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=149701.

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 1985, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S. Ct. 1238, 84 L. Ed. 2d 158, United

States Supreme Court. Diakses melalui https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/470/213.

Dermajaya Properties Sdn Bhd v Premium Properties Sdn Bhd, 2002, 1 SLR (R) 492, The Singapore

Court of Appeal. Diakses melalui https://docplayer.net/5818424-Dermajaya-properties-sdn-bhdv-premium-properties-sdn-bhd-and-another.html.

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh, 2015, EWCA 1309, The England & Wales Commercial

Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/

Civ/2015/1309.html&query=(Ecobank)+AND+(Transnational)+AND+(v)+AND+(Tanoh)+AND+(.

)+AND+(EWCA)+AND+(1309).

Ecom Agroindustrial Corp Ltd v. Mosharaf Composite Textile Mill Ltd, 2013, EWHC 1276, The England

& Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/

cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/1276.html&query=(Ecom)+AND+(v)+AND+(Mosharaf).

Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd, 2003, SGHC 142, Singapore High

Court. Diakses melalui https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2003_SGHC_142.

Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik Sanayii Anonim Sirketi, 2015, 3 HKC 246, The Hongkong

Court of First Instance. Diakses melalui https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_

result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=98020&QS=%24%26%2340%3BEver%2CJudger%2CHolding%2

CCo%2CLtd%2Cv%2CKroman%2CCelik%2CSanayii%2CAnonim%2CSirketi%2C%26%2340%

B2015%26%2341%3B%2C3%2CHKC%2C246%26%2341%3B&ID=AAAB73AADAAAQJeAAi

&TP=JU.

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 1995, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 131 L. Ed. 2d 985,

United States Supreme Court. Diakses melalui https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-560.

ZO.html.

Forum Insurance Co., Inc. v Bristol Myers Squibb. Co, 1996, 929 S.W. 2d114, Court of Appeals of

Texas. Diakses melalui https://casetext.com/case/forum-ins-v-bristol-myers-squibb.

Ibeto Petrochemical Industry. Ltd. v. M/T Beffen, 2007, 475 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir. 2007), United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York. Diakses melalui https://casetext.com/case/

ibeto-v-mt-beffen.

Impala Warehousing and Logistics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) PTE. Ltd,

, 2 ER 234, The England & Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://7kbw.co.uk/

wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Impala-v-Wangxiang-2014-FOLIO-1109-2.pdf.

In Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd, 1992, Ch 72 (CA), The English Court of Appeal. Diakses melalui

http://www.uniset.ca/lloydata/css/1992Ch72.html.

Johnson v. Agnew, 1980, AC 367, The English House of Lords. Dikases melalui https://www.coursehero.

com/file/89916030/Johnson-v-Agnew-1980-pdf/.

Klay v. All Respondent, (11th Cir. 2004), 389 F.3d 1191, 1200, United States Court of Appeals (11th

Circuit). Diakses melalui https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/389-f-3d-1191-597419570.

Magnolia Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., (11th Cir. 2008), 272 F. App’x 782, 785, United

States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Diakses melalui https://casetext.com/

case/magnolia-capital-v-bear-stearns.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 1985, 473 U.S. 614, 638-40, 105 S. Ct. 3346,

L. Ed. 2d 444, United States Supreme Court. Diakses melalui https://www.law.cornell.edu/

supremecourt/text/473/614.

Mobile Telecommunications Compnany Ltd v Abdulaziz, 2018, EWHC 1469, The England & Wales

Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/

EWHC/Comm/2018/1469.html&query=(Mobile)+AND+(Telecommunication)+AND+(v)+AND+(A

bdulaziz)+AND+(.2018.)+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(1469).

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 1983, 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S. Ct. 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d

, United States Supreme Court. Diakses melalui https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/

text/460/1.

National Navigation Co v. Endesa Generacion SA (The “Wadi Sudr”), 2010, 1 Lloyd’s Rep.193, The

English Court of Appeal. Diakses melalui https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=242540.

Nori Holdings Ltd & Ors v. Public Joint – Stock Company ‘Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation’, 2018,

EWHC 1343, The England & Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/

cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/1343.html&query=(Nori)+AND+(Holdings

)+AND+(Ltd)+AND+(.2018.)+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(1343).

Parks IP Law, LLC v. Wood, (11th Cir. 2018), 755 F. App’x 884, 888, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Georgia. Diakses melalui https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellatecourts/ca11/18-11178/18-11178-2018-11-08.html.

PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air, 2002, 1 SLR (R) 401, The Singapore Court of Appeal. Diakses

melalui https://docplayer.net/32277831-Pt-garuda-indonesia-v-birgen-air.html.

Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Company v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group Co Ltd, 2018, EWHC

, The England & Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/

format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/3009.html&query=(Qingdao)+AND+(v)+AND+(S

hanghai)+AND+(Dong)+AND+(.2018.)+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(3009).

RiverRock Securities Ltd v. International Bank of St. Petersburg (Joint Stock Co), 2020, EWHC 3324,

The England & Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.

cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2020/2483.html&query=(RiverRock)+AND+(Securities)+AND

+(Ltd)+AND+(v.)+AND+(International)+AND+(Bank)+AND+(of)+AND+(St.)+AND+(Petersburg)+

AND+((Joint)+AND+(Stock)+AND+(Co))+AND+(.2020.).

Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, 1987, A.C. 871, The English Judicial Committee

of the Privy Council. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1987/1987_12.html.

The Eleftheria, 1969, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 237, The English Court of Appeal. Diakses melalui https://www.ilaw.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=146249.

The Jay Bola, 1997, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 279, The English Court of Appeal. Diakses melalui https://www.i-law.

com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=150950#LLR:1997020279.

Times Trading Corporation v National Bank of Fujairah, 2020, EWHC 1078, The England & Wales

Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/

EWHC/Comm/2020/1078.html&query=(Times)+AND+(Trading)+AND+(Corporation)+AND+(v

)+AND+(National)+AND+(Bank)+AND+(of)+AND+(Fujairah)+AND+(.2020.)+AND+(EWHC)+A

ND+(1078).

UAU v. HVB, 2021, EWHC 1548, The England & Wales Commercial Court. Diakses melalui https://

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1548.html&query=(uau)+A

ND+(v)+AND+(hvb).

UralTransMash v Pojazdy Szynowe PESA Bydgoszcz SA, 2020, Case No. 60-36897/2020, Arbitration

Court of the Sverdlovsk Region. Diakses melalui https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/ru-pojazdy-szynowe-pesa-bydgoszcz-sa-v-uraltransmash-opredelenie-arbitrazhnyi-sudsverdlovskoi-oblasti-tuesday-24th-november-2020#decision_19276.

Wallshein v. Shugarman, 2010, 50 So. 3d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District. Diakses melalui https://cite.case.law/so-3d/50/89/.

Xiaomi v Inter Digital, Inc., 2020, E 01 Zhi Min Chu No.169, Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of

the People’s Republic of China. Diakses melalui https://patentlyo.com/media/2020/10/Xiaomi-v.-

InterDigital-decision-trans-10-17-2020.pdf.

Website dan Pustaka Maya

Angualia Daniel, 2010. “The Role of Domestic Courts in International Commercial Arbitration”, SSRN

Electronic Journal, hlm. 1-30. (https://ssrn.com/abstract=1674760, diakses tanggal 10 Agustus

pukul 20.17 WIB).

John James Barcelo, 2017. “Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Its Negative Effect – A Comparative View”,

Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 17 – 40. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.

cfm?abstract_id=3035485, diakses tanggal 13 Juni 2022 pukul 15.21)

UNCITRAL Secretariat, 2016. The Guide: 1958 New York Convention Guide, New York Arbitration

Convention. (https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=10&menu=7

&opac_view=-1/ diakses pada tanggal 2 Agustus 2021 pukul 21.54 WIB).

UNCITRAL, 2014. UNCITRAL Arbitartion Rules, United Nations Commission On International Trade

Law. (https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration, diakses pada 2

Agustus pukul 23.12 WIB).

WTO, 2022. China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights – Request for Consultations by the

European Union, World Trade Organization. (https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/

FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=282896,282897,282898,282500&Curren

tCatalogueIdIndex=3&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/belli.v8i1.68763

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/belli.v8i1.74408

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/belli.v8i1.74409

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.