The Implementation of Anti-Suit Injunctions in Arbitration as a Preventive Mechanism to Avoid Jurisdictional Conflicts

Abstract

Parallel proceedings in arbitration may generate jurisdictional conflicts, legal uncertainty, and inconsistent decisions, particularly when a party initiates or continues litigation before a national court despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. This study aims to examine the implementation of anti-suit injunctions in arbitration as a preventive mechanism against jurisdictional conflicts by analyzing their legal framework, procedural application, practical challenges, and comparative effectiveness in Indonesian and international arbitration. The study employs a normative legal method with a descriptive-qualitative approach, incorporating statutory, conceptual, and comparative analyses. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through library research, literature review, and document analysis and examined through systematic interpretation and comparison of relevant legal norms and practices. The findings indicate that anti-suit injunctions are not explicitly regulated under Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Instead, Indonesia primarily protects arbitration agreements through a passive and reactive mechanism whereby courts decline jurisdiction over disputes subject to arbitration. By contrast, international arbitration practice, particularly in common law jurisdictions, recognizes anti-suit injunctions as active and preventive measures for restraining parallel proceedings and safeguarding arbitral jurisdiction. Their application nevertheless faces substantial challenges arising from differences among legal systems, the absence of explicit regulatory harmonization, limited cross-border recognition and enforcement, and concerns relating to judicial sovereignty and access to justice. The study concludes that anti-suit injunctions may strengthen the effectiveness and legal certainty of arbitration by preventing jurisdictional conflicts and parallel proceedings. It further highlights the need for regulatory reform and harmonization of interim-measure frameworks in Indonesia to provide stronger protection for arbitration agreements and enhance the effectiveness of both national and international arbitration. This study contributes to arbitration law scholarship by clarifying the preventive function of anti-suit injunctions and identifying their potential relevance to the development of Indonesia’s arbitration framework.