Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution for Shipping in Indonesia

Originally published in Lexology Panoramic: Shipping 2027.

By Setyawati Fitrianggraeni, S.H., LL.M., FCIArb., FAIADR, Reynalda Basya Ilyas, and Tiyana Sigi Pertiwi, S.H., LL.M.

In brief

There is no specialist shipping court in Indonesia: maritime disputes go to the relevant district court, while the body called the maritime or admiralty court is in fact an investigative agency under the Ministry of Transportation with no power to decide claims. Foreign court judgments cannot be directly enforced and must be re-litigated, but foreign arbitral awards are recognised under the Arbitration Law once examined by the Central Jakarta District Court. Indonesian courts cannot issue anti-suit injunctions, so a party facing proceedings in breach of an arbitration or jurisdiction clause must object to the court’s competence instead. The law is stated as at 22 May 2026.

Competent courts

There is no specific court in Indonesia for shipping disputes. All shipping disputes are submitted to and examined by the relevant district court. The Civil Procedural Law provides the jurisdiction applicable for dispute settlement by a certain district court as being:

The district court where the defendant is domiciled.
If the defendant’s domicile is unknown, the claim will be submitted to the district court in the plaintiff’s domicile.
For disputes involving immovable property, the district court in the location of the object may also be relevant.

Indonesia does have a “maritime/admiralty court”, but although the name uses the term “court”, its function serves more akin to an investigative agency under the Ministry of Transportation. It has no legal jurisdiction to decide on claims related to maritime incidents, and its authority is generally limited to the following:

To carry out further examination of investigation results issued by the Directorate General of Sea and Communication at the Indonesian Ministry of Transportation.
To examine the causes of ship accidents and determine whether there were breaches of code of ethics and seafaring professional standards carried out by the master or shipowner or officers, and to impose administrative sanctions for negligent parties found at fault.
To mediate disputes related to seafarers’ employment agreements.
To enforce the ethics code for shipmasters and/or ship officers.
To conduct investigations on operators, shipowners, and ship officers who hold authority in connection with the incidence of an accident to a vessel.
To impose administrative penalties on shipmasters, ship officers, operators, or shipowners who are proven to have committed an error resulting in vessel collision.

Service of proceedings

The Indonesian Civil Procedural Laws consisting of Herzien Inlandsch Reglement, Rechtreglement voor de Buitengewesten, and Reglement op de Rechtsvordering govern the service of court proceedings on defendants. If the party or defendant is domiciled in another country, the court will summon the party through diplomatic channels.

Arbitration

To date, there is no domestic arbitral institution specific to maritime arbitration in Indonesia yet.

Foreign judgments and arbitral awards

Foreign judgments cannot be recognised or directly enforced in the same manner as domestic court judgments within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, pursuant to article 436(1) of the Reglement op de Rechtsvordering (RV). Indonesia has not ratified the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, nor any other multilateral treaty governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The only available mechanism to enforce a foreign judgment in Indonesia is by using such judgment as the legal basis for filing a new claim before an Indonesian court, which must then be re-examined and adjudicated by the Indonesian courts (re-litigation), as provided under article 436(2) of the RV.

Regarding foreign arbitral awards: in Indonesia, arbitration is governed under Law No. 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (the ADR Law). The Law recognises foreign arbitration awards, including those related to maritime disputes, as Indonesia has ratified the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards through the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981.

Note that in Indonesia, following Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-XXII/2024, the definition of a foreign (or international) arbitral award under the ADR Law is now read as: (1) an award rendered by an arbitral institution or an individual arbitrator outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia; or (2) an award which is rendered by an arbitral institution or individual arbitrator, which, under the laws of the Republic of Indonesia, is a foreign (or international) arbitral award. For a foreign arbitral award to be recognised and enforced in Indonesia, the award must be examined by the Central Jakarta District Court. This foreign arbitral award must also satisfy the requirements laid out in article 66 of the ADR Law.

At the time of writing, the drafting process for an Academic Manuscript is ongoing between the Indonesian Government and the House of Representatives in the hopes of revising the ADR Law in Indonesia.

Asymmetric agreements

Indonesian law does not specifically regulate the use of asymmetric jurisdiction or asymmetric arbitration agreements. The general principle is that parties have the freedom to decide which forum they would like their dispute to be settled in, including any court. In practice, however, the court usually declines to hear cases where the parties have chosen arbitration as their dispute settlement mechanism in their agreement.

Breach of jurisdiction clause

In cases where one of the parties has committed a breach of an arbitration agreement’s jurisdictional clause by submitting a lawsuit to an Indonesian court, the other party has the right to submit an objection or demurrer regarding the competency of the Indonesian court to adjudicate the case. However, it must be noted that, in order to do so, the wronged party must participate in the Indonesian court proceedings brought by the party in breach of the clause. The ADR Law, as well as Indonesian Supreme Court jurisprudence, have established that written arbitration agreements nullify the parties’ rights to bring disputes between them before Indonesian district courts, so long as these disputes are subject to the arbitration agreement.

Meanwhile, in cases where the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration for any dispute between them would be Indonesia, but one of the parties then submitted its dispute to another seat of arbitration or a foreign court, Indonesian laws do not endow upon Indonesian courts the authority to issue anti-suit injunctions against the party in breach, as is possessed by the courts of such jurisdictions as Singapore, which would enable those courts to hold such parties to be in contempt of the court and render them subject to a range of sanctions. Neither does the ADR Law provide for any kind of remedy which the wronged party may ask from Indonesian courts.

Where the breach concerns a clause providing for a foreign court or arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction, the party may submit an objection or demurrer on the breach of the dispute settlement clause in the agreement. This can also be supported by citing Indonesian court decisions that have declared repeatedly that Indonesian courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, as the parties in the agreement have agreed to elect a foreign court or arbitral tribunal as the dispute settlement forum.

For advice on jurisdiction, arbitration, and enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in Indonesia, contact Anggraeni and Partners at connect@ap-lawsolution.net.