Arbitration Concerning Indonesian Earthquake Early Warning Networks
Arbitration Concerning Indonesian Earthquake Early Warning Networks (EEWN)
I. Introduction
Earthquake Early Warning Networks (EEWN) in Indonesia are critical national infrastructure, used to detect seismic activity and provide early alerts to minimize casualties and damage. These systems involve:
Seismic sensor networks and accelerometers
Data aggregation, analysis, and real-time alert systems
Integration with government, emergency management, and telecommunications networks
Software algorithms for rapid event detection
Maintenance, calibration, and system updates
Contracts for EEWN are typically highly technical and high-value, involving both domestic contractors and foreign technology providers, making arbitration the preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
Indonesian arbitration is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
II. Common Arbitration Disputes in EEWN Projects
Disputes in EEWN projects commonly arise due to:
Non-compliance with system performance standards (e.g., detection speed, accuracy, or alert reliability)
Delays in sensor network deployment, software implementation, or system integration
Failures during site acceptance testing (SAT) or operational validation
Substandard maintenance or calibration services
Payment disputes, milestone disagreements, or termination claims
Data integrity, cybersecurity breaches, or failure to provide real-time alerts
These disputes are contractual, technical, and high-risk, and clearly fall within the scope of arbitrable matters under Indonesian law.
III. Arbitration Framework
A. Domestic Arbitration
Governed by BANI Rules
Seat: Jakarta
Governing law: Indonesian law
Language: Indonesian or bilingual
B. International Arbitration
Applicable where:
Foreign vendors supply sensors, software, or analytics platforms
Licensing or intellectual property rights are cross-border
Offshore arbitration clauses are included
Institutions often used: ICC, SIAC, or LCIA, with enforcement in Indonesian courts.
IV. Core Principles in Technical Infrastructure Arbitration
Finality of Awards – Arbitral awards are binding; no appeal on the merits.
Limited Annulment Grounds – Only fraud, forged documents, or concealment of decisive evidence.
Technical Determinations Are Not Reviewable – Courts defer entirely to the tribunal’s expertise in sensor performance, alert algorithms, and system reliability.
V. Relevant Indonesian Arbitration Case Laws
While there are no publicly reported cases specifically on EEWN, the following arbitration precedents in technology, infrastructure, and aviation systems are directly applicable:
Case Law 1: PT Adhya Tirta Batam v. BANI
Supreme Court Decision No. 199 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2023
Principle: Allegations of fraud must be strictly proven. Courts cannot reassess technical findings.
Relevance: Disputes over sensor accuracy, alert timing, or software reliability cannot justify annulment.
Case Law 2: PT Republik Energi & Metal v. Zainal Abidinsyah Siregar
Supreme Court Decision No. 62 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2017
Principle: Disagreement with factual findings does not constitute fraud.
Relevance: Conflicts regarding seismic detection thresholds, data transmission, or system latency are factual matters for the tribunal.
Case Law 3: PT Lirik Petroleum v. PT Pertamina
(ICC Arbitration seated in Indonesia)
Principle: International arbitration may be recognized even for domestic parties.
Relevance: Foreign EEWN technology vendors invoking ICC or SIAC clauses can have awards enforced in Indonesia.
Case Law 4: PT Identrust Security Internasional v. Royal Industries
Supreme Court Decision No. 367 K/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2013
Principle: Only parties bound by a valid arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate.
Relevance: Subcontractors supplying sensors, software, or analytics services must be expressly bound.
Case Law 5: PT Asuransi Umum Bumiputera Muda 1967 v. PT BPD Sumsel Babel
Supreme Court Decision No. 585 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2016
Principle: Awards granting relief beyond pleaded claims (ultra petita) are enforceable unless statutory grounds exist.
Relevance: Tribunals may order sensor replacement, software patching, or extended support even if not explicitly claimed.
Case Law 6: Karaha Bodas Company v. Pertamina
(International Arbitration Enforcement Case)
Principle: Foreign awards are enforceable in Indonesia unless they violate public policy.
Relevance: Critical where EEWN contracts involve foreign technology providers or offshore arbitration seats.
VI. Evidentiary and Technical Considerations
A. Performance and System Testing
Tribunals examine:
Sensor calibration and deployment logs
Data latency and reliability metrics
Alert system testing and SAT reports
Integration with telecommunications and emergency management systems
Courts defer entirely to arbitral technical determinations.
B. Confidentiality
Closed hearings protect sensitive national infrastructure and seismic data
Restricted document access ensures software and network configurations remain secure
C. Interim Measures
Tribunals may order:
Temporary continuation of operational monitoring
Immediate repair or recalibration of critical sensors
Preservation of seismic and alert data
VII. Drafting Arbitration Clauses for EEWN Contracts
Essential elements:
Arbitration institution (BANI or international)
Seat of arbitration (Jakarta or neutral jurisdiction)
Governing law (Indonesian law recommended)
Language
Confidentiality obligations
Expert determination mechanism for technical disputes
Interim relief provisions for mission-critical infrastructure
VIII. Conclusion
Arbitration is the most effective dispute resolution mechanism for Indonesian Earthquake Early Warning Network projects. Courts consistently:
Uphold arbitration agreements
Enforce arbitral awards
Avoid interference in technical determinations
The cited case laws illustrate strong judicial deference, making arbitration ideal for high-risk, high-technology, and safety-critical national infrastructure projects.
RELATED Blog
comments