Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal

Is Legal Reform the Answer to Dispute Resolution in the Construction Services Sector? A Critical Look at Law No. 2 of 2017

Journal of Law and Legal Reform · Vol. 5 No. 4 (2024) · hlm. 1881–1912

DOI
10.15294/jllr.v5i4.4310
ISSN
2715-0968, 2715-0941
Terbit
2024-12-15
Penerbit
Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Abstrak

Disputes in the construction services sector are inevitable due to the complexity of contracts, project delays, cost overruns, and quality issues. Law No. 2 of 2017 on Construction Services seeks to reform dispute resolution mechanisms by emphasizing alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation, and arbitration while ensuring legal certainty and fairness. This study analyzes these reforms using a quantitative survey approach to assess their effectiveness and identify existing gaps. The Construction Services Acts of 1999 and 2017 marked significant philosophical and procedural shifts, with the latter focusing on non-litigious settlements through a win-win approach. However, challenges remain, particularly regarding the interpretation of the term "court" and the enforcement of decisions. Findings indicate that while Law No. 2 of 2017 promotes ADR mechanisms, enforcement issues, contractual inconsistencies, and power imbalances between large developers and smaller contractors hinder its effectiveness. The Act also establishes a team formed by mutual agreement to oversee construction services and mediate disputes, yet concerns persist over defects, nonconformities, weaknesses, and perceived biases in its implementation. Despite these challenges, Indonesia is progressing toward more effective construction dispute resolution. To enhance future regulatory frameworks, this study recommends stricter sanctions for violations of construction agreements and improved procedural clarity. Comparative insights from international legal frameworks suggest that Indonesia could benefit from integrating global best practices, such as adjudication boards and expedited arbitration. These findings are crucial for legal practitioners and policymakers in refining dispute resolution mechanisms and raising public awareness of regulatory gaps that hinder sustainable development.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

14 penulis · 31 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 17 lintas organisasi

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
  • Pelita Harapan University
  • Philippine Women's University
  • Universitas Insan Pembangunan Indonesia
  • Columbia University
  • Muhammadiyah University of Ponorogo
  • Sultan Zainal Abidin University
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Dewiana NovitasariUniversitas Insan Pembangunan Indonesia1
Bambang DjinartoUniversitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya1
Syofyan HadiUniversitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya1
Sri SetyadjiUniversitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya1
Juan NickalusColumbia University1
Richard TomlinsAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hari TriasmonoUniversitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya1
Ferry Irawan FebriansyahMuhammadiyah University of Ponorogo1
Nazli Ismail NawangSultan Zainal Abidin University1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Is Legal Reform the Answer to Dispute Resolution in the Construction Services Sector? A Critical Look at Law No. 2 of 2017</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Waisapi, Jeffry Yuliyanto</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Suhartono, Slamet</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Mangesti, Yovita Arie</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en"> Latumahina, Rosalinda Elsina</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Young, Felina C </dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Dispute</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Services</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Construction</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Reform</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Disputes in the construction services sector are inevitable due to the complexity of contracts, project delays, cost overruns, and quality issues. Law No. 2 of 2017 on Construction Services seeks to reform dispute resolution mechanisms by emphasizing alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation, and arbitration while ensuring legal certainty and fairness. This study analyzes these reforms using a quantitative survey approach to assess their effectiveness and identify existing gaps. The Construction Services Acts of 1999 and 2017 marked significant philosophical and procedural shifts, with the latter focusing on non-litigious settlements through a win-win approach. However, challenges remain, particularly regarding the interpretation of the term "court" and the enforcement of decisions. Findings indicate that while Law No. 2 of 2017 promotes ADR mechanisms, enforcement issues, contractual inconsistencies, and power imbalances between large developers and smaller contractors hinder its effectiveness. The Act also establishes a team formed by mutual agreement to oversee construction services and mediate disputes, yet concerns persist over defects, nonconformities, weaknesses, and perceived biases in its implementation. Despite these challenges, Indonesia is progressing toward more effective construction dispute resolution. To enhance future regulatory frameworks, this study recommends stricter sanctions for violations of construction agreements and improved procedural clarity. Comparative insights from international legal frameworks suggest that Indonesia could benefit from integrating global best practices, such as adjudication boards and expedited arbitration. These findings are crucial for legal practitioners and policymakers in refining dispute resolution mechanisms and raising public awareness of regulatory gaps that hinder sustainable development.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2024-12-15</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/4310</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/jllr.v5i4.4310</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Journal of Law and Legal Reform; Vol. 5 No. 4 (2024): Contemporary Issues on Law Reform in Indonesia and Global Context; 1881-1912</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0968</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0941</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/jllr.v5i4</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/4310/2941</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2024 Jeffry Yuliyanto Waisapi, Slamet Suhartono, Yovita Arie Mangesti, Rosalinda Elsina  Latumahina (Author)</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>