skip to main content

Reconstruction of Arbitration Agreement Arrangements to Prevent Pathological Arbitration Clauses in Indonesia

*Meydora Cahya Nugrahenti orcid scopus publons  -  Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Tidar, Indonesia
Herliana Herliana orcid scopus publons  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
Rr. Retno Sugiharti orcid scopus publons  -  School of Economics, Faculty of Social Science, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Citation Format:
Abstract
Pathological arbitration clauses can hinder the arbitration process and open up opportunities for the parties to avoid arbitration or challenge its decision. These clauses may arise due to deliberate intent or a lack of understanding on the part of the parties. Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (AAPS Law) does regulate arbitration agreements, but it is not comprehensive in preventing the emergence of pathological clauses. This study aims to identify forms of pathological arbitration clauses that hinder the effectiveness of arbitration and to formulate a reconstruction of arbitration agreement regulations to prevent them in Indonesia. The research method used is juridical-normative with an emphasis on legal norms as the main object. The data used consists of primary and secondary legal materials through legislative, analytical, comparative, and conceptual approaches. The results of the study show that pathological arbitration clauses hinder arbitration because they contain ambiguities, such as unclear arbitration authority to resolve disputes, the existence of options for the parties to choose a court, and the appointment of unavailable arbitrators. To prevent pathological arbitration clauses, Article 9 of the AAPS Law needs to be reconstructed by including arbitration clause regulations that explicitly state the authority of arbitration without exception. The conclusion of this study is that there are pathological clauses in the agreement and therefore the reconstruction of Article 9 of the AAPS Law is carried out by providing legal certainty on the pactum de compromittendo in the arbitration agreement.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Pathological Arbitration Clause; Arbitration Agreement; Reconstruction

Article Metrics:

  1. Alcolea, L. C. (2025). The King [’s] Courts As The Fountain Of Justice’and The Supremacy Of Ordinary Law: Implications For English Arbitration. Arbitration International, 41(1), 29-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiae029
  2. Bell, G. F. (2022). Conflicts of Laws and Jurisdictions in Indonesia-Related Arbitrations Seated in Singapore-Perspectives from the Tribunal. Indonesia Law Review, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.157 42/ilrev.v12n1.3
  3. Boklan, D., & Bahri, A. (2020). The First WTO’s Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora’s Box?.World Trade Review,19(1),135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000430
  4. Campbell, L., & Clancy, Á. (2024). The Principled and Practical Limits to Unexplained Wealth Orders. University of Western Australia Law Review, 52(1), 36. https://www.uwa. edu.au/schools/-/media/documents/uwa-law-review/volume-52-issue-1/03-campbell-clancy.pdf
  5. Chopard, B. (2025). Liability law, Defensive medicine and Healthcare quality. International Review of Law and Economics,84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106285
  6. Dagan, N., & Baron, S. (2025). Lifting the Veil of Ignorance: Prison Cruelty, Sentencing Theory, and the Failure of Liberal Retributivism. Critical Criminology, 33, 210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-025-09812-9
  7. Demamu, A. Y. (2024). IssuesLegal issues of transparency and disclosure in Ethiopian state-owned enterprises: a global perspective. International Journal of Law and Management, 66(5), 580. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-11-2023-0256
  8. Lubis, A. E. N., & Fahmi, F. D. (2021). Pengenalan Dan Definisi Hukum Secara Umum (Literature Review Etika). JIMT: Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen Terapan, 2(6), 768–789. DOI: 10.31933/jimt.v2i6.622
  9. Halimah, R., & Pranoto, P. (2019). Analisis Perbandingan Kekuatan Mengikat Pra Kontrak Dalam Hukum Kontrak Di Indonesia Dengan Hukum Kontrak Di Eropa Kontinental. Jurnal Privat Law, 7(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.20961/privat.v7i1.30100
  10. Handayani, E., & Hardiyanti, M. (2025). Forging a Legal Culture: Criminal Law Enforcement in Environmental Protection Amidst The Sustainable Development Era. Clio; Revista de Historia, Ciencias Humanas y Pensamiento Critico, 5(10), 252. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14975866
  11. Hansen, S., Kartono, K., & Susanto, S. (2025). Fictitious Projects: Legal Case Analysis of Construction Fraud in a Developing Country. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction,17(3),189. https://doi.org/10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1274
  12. Harahap, P. (2019). The Enforcement of International Arbitration Award in Indonesia: a Comparative Study with United States, Netherlands and Singapore. Yuridika,34(1),119. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v34i1.11402
  13. Henriques, D. G. (2015). Pathological Arbitration Clauses, Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations. Arbitration International,31(2),349–362. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/arbint/aiv016
  14. Herman, KMS., & Rusman, R. (2025). Asset Forfeiture: A Blueprint for Justice, Legal Reform and Corruption Eradication. Yustisia Tirtayasa, 5(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.51825/yta.v5i1.30866
  15. Hijriani, H., Nur, M. N. A., Sahyunu, S., & Kassymova, G. K. (2025). The Potential Misuse of Artificial Intelligence Technology Systems in Banking Fraud. Law Reform, 21(1),18. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.65881
  16. Howse, R. (2016). The World Trade Organization 20 years on: global governance by judiciary. European Journal of International Law,27(1),12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chw011
  17. Hufron, H., & Fikri, S. (2024). The Urgency of Regulating Forfeiture of Assets Gained From Corruption in Indonesia. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 32(2), 293. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v32i2.35243
  18. Indahwati, A. N., Sami’an, S., & Hardjomuljadi, S. (2024). Arbitration in Resolving Construction Cost Claim Disputes Due to Time Extensions: A Study of Contract Law in Indonesia. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 6(2), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v6i2.388
  19. Innaka, A., Rusdiana, S. I., & Sularto, M. (2012). Penerapan Asas Itikad Baik Tahap Prakontraktual Pada Perjanjian Jual Beli Perumahan. Mimbar Hukum, 24(3), 504-514. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16122
  20. Irawan, B., Mulyanti, D., Budiaman, H., Rahman, Y. M., & Taufiqurrohman, A. (2025). Perspective of State Sovereignty in Law Enforcement Related to Cyberlaw Jurisdiction. Law Reform, 20(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.68760
  21. Jan, M. N. I., & Haruna, A. L. (2014). The Role of Arbitration in The Resolution of International Commercial Disputes. The International Islamic University Malaysia Law Journal, 22(2), 265. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v22i2.137
  22. Kadir, A., Gunarto, G., Hussain, A. Al. M., & Taher, M. A. (2025). Measuring the consistency of Pancasila rule of law implementation in ensuring judicial independence in Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Fakultas Hukum Unisulla, 41(2), 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.26532/jh.41.2.321-345
  23. Kendall, S. (2024). Espionage Law In The Uk And Australia: Balancing Effectiveness And Appropriateness. Cambridge Law Journal, 83(1),75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000466
  24. Komarudin, U., Handoko, W., & Hussain, F. (2025). Money politics and voter behavior: factors behind incumbent defeat in Subang regency’s 2024 regional election. Jurnal Hukum Fakultas Hukum Unisulla, 41(2), 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.26532/jh.41.2.216-235
  25. Körtl, C., & Chbib, I. (2024). Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime’s ability to confiscate proceeds of crime. International Review of Law and Economics, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2024.106230
  26. Latifiani, D., Yusriadi, Y., Sarono, A., Al Fikry, A. H., & Cholis, M. N. (2022). Reconstruction Of E-court Legal Culture In Civil Law Enforcement. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies,7(2),413. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v7i2.59993
  27. Mayana, R. F., Santika, T., Win, Y. Y., Matalam, J. A. K., & Ramli, A. M. (2024). Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence–Generated Works: Challenges on Indonesian Copyright Law. Law Reform, 20(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.14710/Ir.v20i1.61262
  28. Mevorach, I. (2021). Overlapping International Instruments for Enforcement of Insolvency Judgments: Undermining or Strengthening Universalism?. European Business Organization Law Review, 22(2),297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00204-4
  29. Natalis, A., & Purwanti, A. (2025). Dissecting Masculinity: Transformative Strategies to Address Smoking in Indonesia. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 54(2), 436. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i2.17915
  30. Paranata, A. (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of Anti-corruption Policy: A Future Research Agenda in Indonesia. Public Organization Review, 25, 1181-1214. https://doi.orq/10.1007/s11115-025-00847-8
  31. Comșa, P. (2018). At A Crossroads: The Case of “Pathological Arbitration Clauses” Which Determine A Jurisdictional Fight. LESIJ: Lex ET Scientia International Journal, 25(2),55. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=729350
  32. Priyono, E. A. (2017). Peranan Asas Itikad Baik Dalam Kontrak Baku (upaya menjaga keseimbangan bagi para pihak). Diponegoro Private Law Review, 1(1), 14. https://ejournal2.undip.ac.id/index.php/dplr/article/view/1934
  33. Pujiyono, P. (2018). Kewenangan Absolut Lembaga Arbitrase. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 7(2), 243. DOI: 10.33331/rechtsvinding.v7i2.241
  34. Pusida, R., Pati, A., & Lambey, T. (2018). Perilaku Pemilih Pada Pemilihan Umum Kepala Daerah Kabupaten Kepulauan Talaud Tahun 2013 (Studi Tentang Efektivitas Kampanye). Jurnal Eksekutif, 1(1),1-11. https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/jurnaleksekutif/article/view/21953
  35. Rudy, D. G., & Mayasari, I. D. A. D. (2022). Kekuatan Mengikat Klausula Arbitrase dalam Kontrak Bisnis dari Perspektif Hukum Perjanjian. Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal), 11(2),427–437. https://doi.org/10.24843/ JMHU.2022.v11.i02.p14
  36. Samra, H. J., & Ramachanderan, R. (2020). A Cure for Every Ill? Remedies for "Pathological" Arbitration Clauses. University of Miami Law Review, 74(4). https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss4/6
  37. Setyawan, Y., Erliyana, A., Makarim, E., Sjarif, F. A., Dewi, L. R., & Sukma, A. N. A. (2025). Digital Government Post-Reform in Indonesia: Normative Developments and Implementation by State Organizing Institutions. Law Reform, 21(1), 174. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.68556
  38. Shabrina, S., & Putrijanti, A. (2022). Online Legal Counselling As Business Strategy: Exploring The Mediating Role Of Notarial Code Of Ethics. Corporate Law and Governance Review, 4(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv4i2p8
  39. Mokoagow, D. S., Mokoagow, F., Pontoh, S., Ikhsan, M., Pondang, J., & Paramarta, V. (2024). Sistem Informasi Manajemen Rumah Sakit dalam Meningkatkan Efisiensi: Mini Literature Review. COMSERVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, 3(10), 4135-4144. https://doi.org/10.59141/comserva.v3i10. 1223
  40. Sherman, F. E., & Bennett, S. C. (2006). Avoiding “pathological” arbitration clauses. The Practical Lawyer, 52(4). https://archive.org/details/sim_practical-lawyer_2005-2007_51-53_index-contents/page/62/mode/2up?q=%22jacqueline+mendez%22
  41. Shore, L., De Benedetti, V., & de Nitto Personè, M. (2022). A Pathology (Yet) to Be Cured?. Journal of International Arbitration, 39(3), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2022016
  42. Silalahi, W. (2020). Penataan Regulasi Berkualitas Dalam Rangka Terjaminnya Supremasi Hukum. Jurnal Hukum Progresif 8(1),56–66. https://doi.org/10.14710/hp.8.1.56-66
  43. Sitorus, W. (2016). Judicial Control of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 14(4), 543. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol14.4.706
  44. Suardi, I., Rossieta, H., Djakman, C., & Diyanty, V. (2024). Procurement governance in reducing corruption in the indonesian public sector: a mixed method approach. Cogent Business and Management, 11(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2393744
  45. Waincymer, J. M. (2016). Pathologies, Presumptions and Proof - Adjudicating The Effectiveness of Arbitration Agreements. American Review of International Arbitration (ARIA), 26(3). https://arbitrationlaw.com/library/pathologies-presumptions-and-proof-%E2%80%93-adjudicating-effectiveness-arbitration-agreements-aria
  46. Wardana, K. A., Rahayu, R., & Sukirno, S. (2024). Redefining Indonesia's Blasphemy Law in The Digital Age: A Human Rights Perspective. Diponegoro Law Review, 9(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.9.1.2024.19-35
  47. Widyawati, A., Arifin, R., Aisy, R., Abidah, S. Q., & Setyanto, H. (2024). Supervision in Integrated Justice: Legal Reform and Constructive Enforcement in the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law and Legal Reform,5(2),434. https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.vol5i2.3886
  48. Wijayanti, S. N., ALW, L. T., Lailam, T., & Iswandi, K. (2025). Progressive Legal Approaches of the Constitutional Justice Reasoning on Judicial Review Cases: Challenges or Opportunities?. Law Reform, 21(2),219. https://doi.org/10.14710/Ir.v21i2.66334
  49. Wilcox, M. G. J. (2024). Sims v Commonwealth’: The Ultimate Foundation Of Australian Law And The Recovery Of Ultra Vires Payments By The Commonwealth Executive. The Sydney Law Review, 46(2), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.30722/slr.19857
  50. Winarta, F. H. (2015). Prinsip Proses Dan Praktik Arbitrase Di Indonesia Yang Perlu Diselaraskan Dengan Kaidah Internasional. Selisik; Jurnal Hukum Dan Bisnis, 1(1), 11-36. https://doi.org/10.35814/selisik.v1i1.622
  51. Bunga, D. (2021). Rekonstruksi Hukum Pidana Dalam Penanggulangan Perundungan Di Dunia Siber (Cyberbullying) Terhadap Anak. Universitas Gadjah Mada
  52. Rifai, A. (2019). Rekonstruksi Model Hukum Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia. Universitas Sebelas Maret
  53. Adolf, H. (2015). Dasar-Dasar, Prinsip & Filosofi Arbitrase. Bandung: Keni Media
  54. Kartasasmita, A. G. (2021). Kepastian Hukum Dalam Proses Arbitrase. Depok: Rajawali Press
  55. Khairandy, R. (2017). Itikad Baik Dalam Kontrak Di Berbagai Sistem Hukum. Yogyakarta: FH UII Press
  56. Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution
  57. Interim Decision No.535/Pdt.G/2011/PN.Jkt.Sel
  58. College of Commercial Arbitrators. (2022). Pathological Clause of 2021: Winner. Retrieved from https://www.ccarbitrators. org/articles-by-fellows/pathological-clause-of-2021-winner/
  59. Hidayat, R. (2020). Jalan Menuju Opsi Merevisi Atau Membuat UU Arbitrase Baru. Retrieved from https://www.hukum online.com/berita/a/jalan-menuju-opsi-merevisi-atau-membuat-uu-arbitrase-baru-lt5f44a29432823/?page=1
  60. Hukum Online. (2015a). Jelang MEA, Praktisi Usul Perubahan UU Arbitrase. Retrieved from https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/ a/jelang-mea--praktisi-usul-perubahan-uu-arbitrase-lt566fb4d7bd39a/
  61. Hukum Online. (2015b). Sudah Saatnya UU Arbitrase Diamandemen. Retrieved from https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/sudah-saatnya-uu-arbitrase-diamandemen-lt55713c7a4688a/
  62. Kliklegal. (2021a). Banyak Yang Belum Jelas, UU Arbitrase Dinilai Perlu Dilakukan Perubahan. Retrieved from https://kliklegal.com/banyak-yang-belum-jelas-uu-arbitrase-dinilai-perlu-dilakukan-perubahan/
  63. Kliklegal. (2021b). Urgensi Pembaruan UU No.30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Retrieved from https://kliklegal.com/ urgensi-pembaruan-uu-no-30-tahun-1999-tentang-arbitrase-dan-alternatif-penyelesaian-sengketa/

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.