THE BINDING POWER OF MEDIATION IN DEBT DISPUTE CASES

Abstract

This research aims to theoretically analyze the binding force of mediation decisions in debt cases and to legally analyze alternative forms of legal recourse against mediation decisions considered unfair by one of the parties. This research utilizes John Rawls' Theory of Justice as fairness from his work titled A Theory of Justice, and the Theory of Free Contract & Consensus ad Idem by Hugo de Groot, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.             The method used is a normative legal approach, which examines the applicable legal rules, including provisions in the Civil Code and regulations related to mediation.             Previous research by Hidayat, A., (2016) discussed the Role of Mediation in Resolving Debt Disputes; and Rahman, Z., (2018) discussed the Supervision of the Implementation of Mediation Decisions in Debt Disputes.

The research findings indicate that mediation decisions are legally binding, especially when agreed upon by both parties. However, if there is dissatisfaction with a decision considered unfair, the aggrieved party can file a lawsuit in court or use other alternative dispute resolution methods, such as arbitration. Optimizing the application of mediation in debt disputes requires improving the quality of mediators, spreading public understanding, and stronger regulatory support to make it a fair and effective solution in Indonesia.