COMPARING CIVIL AND COMMON LAW (INDONESIA AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION

Abstract

Disputes are inevitable in any relationship, often resulting from conflicting interests between the parties involved. Employers aim to avoid budget deficits, while employees focus on maximizing profits. These conflicts necessitate effective mechanisms for resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides a cooperative, informal method to resolve conflicts outside of court, offering a mutually acceptable solution. Delays in resolving business disputes can lead to inefficient economic development, decreased productivity, and higher production costs, ultimately harming workers and consumers. To address this, parties are free to choose their preferred dispute resolution method. ADR offers a timely solution, preventing prolonged conflicts that may cause significant losses. This paper examines the application of ADR in business competition disputes, comparing the practices in Indonesia and the United States of America. Using a normative juridical approach, it analyzes the relevant laws and regulations governing ADR in both countries. The writer utilizes secondary data, including legal texts and publications from law enforcement institutions. The study highlights the potential for expanding ADR's role in resolving business disputes efficiently, providing valuable insights for improving dispute resolution practices in Indonesia and the USA