THE DILEMMA BETWEEN MONISM AND DUALISM IN LAW: THE EXECUTORIAL POWER OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARDS AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF LAW IN INDONESIA

Abstract

Globalization has driven increased economic and legal interactions between nations, including the use of international arbitration as a primary mechanism for resolving disputes in transnational business relations. However, the enforcement of international arbitration awards in Indonesia often faces challenges, particularly when the principle of national legal sovereignty clashes with international legal norms. This dilemma reflects the fundamental differences between the monist and dualist theories in transnational law. The monist theory posits that international law and national law constitute an integrated entity, allowing international arbitration awards to be directly enforceable within national jurisdictions. Conversely, the dualist theory prioritizes the supremacy of national law, asserting that international law cannot be applied without adaptation through domestic legislative processes. These conceptual differences form the foundation for analyzing the complexities of enforcing international arbitration awards in Indonesia. Through the case study of the dispute between PT First Media Tbk (Indonesia) and Astro All Asia Networks (Malaysia), this article explores how the Supreme Court of Indonesia refused to enforce an award issued by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), amounting to USD 303 million, citing public policy and national legal sovereignty. This analysis employs a normative and comparative approach to assess the relevance of monist and dualist theories within the Indonesian legal system. The article aims to identify challenges and opportunities in harmonizing national law and international commitments, as well as the role of national courts in determining the boundaries of enforcing international arbitration awards.