Menakar Urgensi Penerapan Arbitrase dalam Proses Bisnis Mutual Agreement Procedure di Indonesia

Abstract

Indonesia’s position on arbitration within the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) remains inconsistent, creating legal uncertainty in international tax dispute resolution and potentially affecting business certainty and cross-border tax enforcement. Indonesia’s current OECD Model Treaty position excludes arbitration, yet its treaty with Mexico contains its only arbitration clause. The Directorate General of Taxes has also provided room for arbitration development as the final MAP stage in its core tax administration system. This study examines the urgency of arbitration and the need for a consistent Indonesian position. It employs normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Secondary data comprise books, reports, and official documents; legal materials include international agreements, legislation, and scholarly journals. The findings indicate that arbitration is not required in the near term because no MAP cases with Mexico have arisen, the treaty’s arbitration clause is not yet effective, and domestic implementing regulations are absent. The immediate priority is therefore to clarify Indonesia’s position and fill the legal vacuum. Any decision against arbitration requires a sound legal basis, including consideration of constitutional compatibility. The study recommends regulating arbitration in the Minister of Finance Regulation on MAP and reconsidering Indonesia’s position on Part VI of the Multilateral Instrument (MLI).