Analisis Yuridis Normatif terhadap Perbandingan Sistem Arbitrase di Indonesia dan Malaysia

Abstract

Arbitration is an out-of-court civil dispute resolution mechanism based on the agreement of the parties, designed to provide a resolution that is swift, efficient, final, and binding. This study aims to analyze the arbitration systems in Indonesia and Malaysia from a normative-juridical perspective and to compare the scope of authority of arbitration institutions and the role of courts within both legal systems. The research employs a normative legal research method utilizing statutory and comparative legal approaches, drawing upon primary legal materials (legislation) and secondary legal materials (legal literature). The findings indicate that, normatively, the Indonesian arbitration system grants robust authority to arbitration institutions through the final and binding nature of awards; however, in practice, court involvement persists, potentially undermining legal certainty and the effectiveness of arbitration. Furthermore, limiting the grounds for setting aside awards to procedural issues raises concerns regarding substantive justice in instances of arbitrator error. In contrast, the Malaysian arbitration system demonstrates greater consistency in limiting court intervention, positioning arbitration as an autonomous dispute resolution mechanism aligned with international arbitration practices. A comparison of the two systems reveals differences in the degree of institutional autonomy and the consistency with which the principle of award finality is applied factors that directly impact legal certainty and business confidence.