scholarly journals PENERAPAN PRINSIP PEMBUKTIAN HUKUM PERDATA FORMIL DALAM ARBITRASE BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 30 TAHUN 1999

Yuridika ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunti Kalma Syita

In the dispute resolution mechanism both litigation and non-litigation such as arbitrary, proofing evidence process plays essential role to reconstruct the real occurrence in order to seek the truth. Proofing principles that is used in Indonesian arbitrary process is based on the Law number 30 year 1999 on arbitrary and alternative dispute resolution that is lex arbitri for Indonesia. Arbitrary is part of formal civil law, therefore its proofing principles is basically the same with the dispute resolution trough litigation. The Law number 30 year 1999 shows that Even though Indonesia is a civil law jurisdiction, there are some common law principles that are accommodated in the arbitrary process. Using conceptual and statute approach, this article attempts to look at proofing principles may arise in arbitrary mechanism based on the law mentioned and based on the actual practice.Keywords : arbitrary, proofing principles, civil procedural law.

1987 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Greene ◽  
Edith Greene

This article describes a course that bridged the disciplines of clinical and experimental psychology and the law. The course included discussion of issues in criminal law, such as the psychology of policing, the reliability of confessions, victimization, plea bargaining, jury decision making, and alternative dispute resolution, and in civil law, such as civil commitment, predicting dangerousness, and child custody. Course objectives, requirements, and teaching aids are outlined, and some thoughts on integrating these diverse topics are included.


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
William Steel

In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and judicial discussion, the Government introduced legislation to Parliament to replace the existing High Court commercial list with a specialist commercial panel. Whilst this panel would bring New Zealand into line with many comparable common law jurisdictions, this article argues that the case for specialisation has not been established. In particular, it notes that there is no publically available evidence to support the claim that the High Court is losing its commercial jurisdiction, or that commercial parties are choosing to resolve their disputes offshore or through alternative dispute resolution. Accordingly, this article argues that future research by the Law Commission, or other research agency, is required before specialisation can be justified. In reaching this conclusion, it also examines the issues that may arise if the Government decides to continue with its proposed reform under cl 18 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, suggesting changes along the way.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William Steel

<p>In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and judicial discussion, the government introduced legislation to Parliament to replace the existing High Court commercial list with a specialist commercial panel. Whilst this panel would bring New Zealand into line with many comparable common law jurisdictions, this paper argues that the case for specialisation has not been established. In particular, it notes that there is no publically available evidence to support the claim that the High Court is losing its commercial jurisdiction, or that commercial parties are choosing to resolve their disputes offshore or through alternative dispute resolution. Accordingly, this paper argues that future research by the Law Commission, or other research agency, is required before specialisation can be justified. In reaching this conclusion it also examines the issues that may arise if the government decides to continue with its proposed reform under clause 18 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, suggesting changes along the way.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
William Steel

<p>In November 2013, after a series of Law Commission reports and years of academic, professional and judicial discussion, the government introduced legislation to Parliament to replace the existing High Court commercial list with a specialist commercial panel. Whilst this panel would bring New Zealand into line with many comparable common law jurisdictions, this paper argues that the case for specialisation has not been established. In particular, it notes that there is no publically available evidence to support the claim that the High Court is losing its commercial jurisdiction, or that commercial parties are choosing to resolve their disputes offshore or through alternative dispute resolution. Accordingly, this paper argues that future research by the Law Commission, or other research agency, is required before specialisation can be justified. In reaching this conclusion it also examines the issues that may arise if the government decides to continue with its proposed reform under clause 18 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill 2013, suggesting changes along the way.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawzia Cassim ◽  
Nomulelo Queen Mabeka

Civil procedure enforces the rules and provisions of civil law.  The law of civil procedure involves the issuing, service and filing of documents to initiate court proceedings in the superior courts and lower courts. Indeed, notice of legal proceedings is given to every person to ensure compliance with the audi alteram partem maxim (“hear the other side”). There are various rules and legislation that regulate these court proceedings such as inter alia, the Superior Courts Act, 2013, Uniform Rules of Court, Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 2012 and the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944. The rules of court are binding on a court by virtue of their nature.  The purpose of these rules is to facilitate inexpensive and efficient legislation. However, civil procedure does not only depend on statutory provisions and the rules of court.  Common law also plays a role. Superior Courts are said to exercise inherent jurisdiction in that its jurisdiction is derived from common law.  It is noteworthy that whilst our rules of court and statutes are largely based on the English law, Roman-Dutch law also has an impact on our procedural law. The question thus arises, how can our law of civil procedure transform to accommodate elements of Africanisation as we are part and parcel of the African continent/diaspora? In this regard, the article examines the origins of Western-based civil procedure, our formal court systems, the impact of the Constitution on traditional civil procedure, the use of dispute resolution mechanisms in Western legal systems and African culture, an overview of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2012 and the advent of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2017. The article also examines how the contentious Traditional Courts Bills of 2012 and 2017 will transform or complement the law of civil procedure and apply in practice once it is passed into law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-50
Author(s):  
Poku Adusei

This article provides comprehensive insights into the study of the Ghana legal system as an academic discipline in the law faculties in Ghana. It urges the view that the study of the Ghana legal system, as an academic discipline, should be transsystemic. Transsystemic pedagogy consists in the introduction of ideas, structures and principles which may be drawn from different legal traditions such as civil law, common law, religion-based law, African law and socialist law traditions to influence the study of law. Transsystemia involves teaching law ‘across,’ ‘through,’ and ‘beyond’ disciplinary fixations associated with a particular legal system. It is a mode of scholarship that defies biased allegiance to one legal tradition in order to foster cross-cultural dialogue among legal traditions. It involves a study of law that re-directs focus from one concerned with ‘pure’ legal system to a discourse that is grounded on multiple legal traditions.


Asy-Syari ah ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhibuthabary Muhibuthabary

This paper describes the arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution in Shariah economy. Dispute resolution in general civil religion has resolved through litigation in the religious courts that refer to Article 49 of Law Number 7 of 1989 Jo. Law Number 3 of 2006 Jo. Law Number 50 of 2009 on the Religious Courts. However, there are some interesting cases, one of which is the Islamic economic disputes could be resolved through non-litigation or arbitration process, which refers to the Law No. 30 Year 1999. Now, the Shari'ah economic dispute resolution becomes the object of this study which interesting to study both theoretically and practically, not only because the case is to be part of the absolute authority of religious courts, but also becomes a new knowledge in the field of Islamic Jurisprudence


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Theophilus Edwin Coleman

Any international commercial agreement has the potential to be the subject of a dispute. In resolving international commercial disputes, parties to a contract are at liberty to choose any dispute resolution mechanism that best serves and meets their commercial interests. Generally, parties to an international commercial contract may resort to courtroom litigation or choose an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism as a method of resolving their transnational disputes. Underlying almost every international commercial contract, therefore, is a very primary question about where, by whom and how the parties prefer their disputes to be litigated. The response to this question depends on whether parties prefer traditional courtroom litigation, or an ADR mechanism. In most instances, countries put in place dispute resolution regimes that seek to afford contracting parties the liberty to submit their disputes to a foreign forum or an arbitral tribunal for legal redress and/or a remedy. However, while the efficacy of resolving international disputes through arbitration has garnered immense international and domestic support, the submission of disputes by parties to a foreign forum through a forum selection agreement is regarded with much ambivalence in most countries. This article assesses the efficacy of forum selection agreements in Commonwealth Africa. It appraises the judicial approach of courts in Commonwealth African countries relative to the essence and effect of forum selection agreements. This article argues and calls for a higher degree of judicial commitment to the juridical choices of private individuals who are party to an international commercial contract, especially with regard to forum selection agreements.


Author(s):  
Eve M. Brank

Not all marriages last and unlike other personal relationships, the dissolution of a marriage requires legal involvement to end the relationship. A divorce not only severs a marriage, but it also introduces legal involvement. That legal involvement is in the form of state laws that define how divorces are granted, whether the couple needs to have a formal separation before a divorce can be granted, how property should be divided upon dissolution, and whether formalized spousal financial support should commence. Although the law is involved in each of these issues, there are now more opportunities for the use of alternative dispute resolution options rather than traditional court settings that attempt to give more of the decision making back to the couple.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document