Indonesia: Shipping

What system of port state control applies in your jurisdiction? What are their powers?

Indonesia implements port state control based on its national laws and its membership in the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region ("Tokyo MOU"). Harbour masters (syahbandar), appointed under the authority of the Indonesian Ministry of Transportation ("MOT"), are vested with broad port state control powers under Article 218 of Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping, as amended by Law No. 66 of 2024 ("Shipping Law"), and Government Regulation No. 31 of 2021 on the Implementation of the Shipping Sector ("GR 31/2021").

Port state control is further governed by MOT Regulation No. PM 119 of 2017 on Foreign Ship Seaworthiness and Safety Inspection Officers, which outlines safety inspection procedures for foreign vessels and expressly refers to the Tokyo MOU framework. Port state control officers, acting under the direction of the harbour master, are authorized to inspect both Indonesian-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels while in Indonesian ports. These inspections are aimed at verifying compliance with safety, manning, and environmental standards, and typically cover the vessel's seaworthiness, crew certification, and pollution control equipment. If a vessel is found to pose a threat to human life, navigational safety, or the marine environment, officers have the authority to delay or detain its departure.

Where deficiencies are identified, port state control officers may classify findings as non‑detainable deficiencies or detainable deficiencies. In cases involving serious non‑compliance that poses a risk to the safety of the vessel, human life, or the marine environment, port state control officers have the authority to order the detention of the vessel, thereby preventing its departure until the deficiencies are rectified to the satisfaction of the inspecting authority. Port state control officers also have the power to release a vessel from detention once corrective actions have been verified.

Port state control officers may also act as Indonesia's coastal state representatives for the purpose of gathering initial information and evidence in connection with marine casualties involving foreign vessels, although responsibility for casualty investigation and wreck removal remains governed by separate legal regimes.

Are there any applicable international conventions covering wreck removal or pollution? If not what laws apply?

Indonesia is a party to multiple international conventions addressing pollution from ships, including the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969 and its 1992 Protocol, ratified by Presidential Decree No. 18 of 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 52 of 1999, respectively, as well as the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, ratified by Presidential Regulation No. 65 of 2014. Indonesia has also adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (the "MARPOL Convention"), including Annexes I to VI, through Presidential Regulation No. 29 of 2012.

With respect to wreck removal, Indonesia formally ratified the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007 through Presidential Regulation No. 80 of 2020. This convention establishes strict liability on shipowners for the location, marking, and removal of hazardous wrecks, and allows for the imposition of compulsory insurance requirements. Indonesia implements the Nairobi Convention in conjunction with domestic provisions under GR 31/2021, which require shipowners to remove wrecks within 180 days, failing which the Ministry of Transportation may undertake removal at the owner's expense. In urgent cases, such as obstruction of ports or pollution risk, the harbour master may order immediate removal.

What is the limit on sulphur content of fuel oil used in your territorial waters? Is there a MARPOL Emission Control Area in force?

Indonesia has ratified Annexes III, IV, V, and VI of the MARPOL Convention, which includes the "IMO 2020" rule. The IMO 2020 rule is further implemented through Directorate General of Sea Transportation Circular Letter No UM.003/93/14/DJPL-18 regarding the Limitation of Sulphur Content in Fuel and the Obligation to Report Fuel Consumption on Ships, which provides that, as of 1 January 2020, ships operating in Indonesian waters must use fuel with a sulphur content not exceeding 0.5% mass by mass ("m/m").

Indonesian-flagged vessels that still use fuel with a sulphur content greater than 0.5% m/m must be equipped with an exhaust gas cleaning system (scrubber) approved by the Directorate General of Sea Transportation. Notwithstanding this, all Indonesian-flagged vessels sailing internationally are prohibited from transporting or carrying fuel with a sulphur content greater than 0.5% m/m for the propulsion/propulsion system or for the operation of other onboard equipment, unless otherwise permitted under the MARPOL Convention.

Are there any applicable international conventions covering collision and salvage? If not what laws apply?

Indonesia ratified the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) through Presidential Decree No. 50 of 1979, and its provisions are implemented domestically through the Shipping Law and Government Regulation No. 51 of 2002 on Shipping, as amended.

Indonesia has not ratified the 1910 Brussels Collision Convention or the 1989 International Convention on Salvage. Accordingly, matters relating to collision liability and salvage operations are governed by domestic legislation, primarily the Indonesian Commercial Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang or "ICC") and the Shipping Law.

For collisions, Articles 534 to 537 of the ICC generally provide the following liability regime:

a. If a collision occurs due to force majeure or there is doubt as to the cause, each vessel bears its own loss.

b. If fault is attributable to one vessel, the liable party must compensate for all damage.

c. In the event of shared fault, liability is apportioned according to the degree of fault.

Indonesia regulates salvage and underwater work through MOT Regulation No. 71 of 2013 on Salvage and Underwater Works, as amended. This regulation governs the licensing, conduct, and liability of parties engaged in salvage, including the obligation of shipowners to bear all costs arising from loss or damage to wrecks or their cargo during such operations.

Is your country party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims? If not, is there equivalent domestic legislation that applies? Who can rely on such limitation of liability provisions?

Indonesia is not a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims ("LLMC") or its 1996 Protocol.

Limitation of liability for maritime claims in Indonesia is governed instead by domestic legislation, primarily the ICC and relevant provisions of the Shipping Law and its implementing regulations. These laws contain specific but fragmented liability provisions, which vary depending on the nature of the maritime incident, such as collisions, loss or damage to cargo, or passenger injury.

For example, in cases of collision, Articles 534 to 537 of the Commercial Code provide a fault-based liability regime. Carriers may also limit their liability for cargo loss under Article 468, unless the damage is due to gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Because Indonesia has not adopted a general limitation framework equivalent to the LLMC, there is no unified tonnage-based limitation regime, nor any statutory right to establish a limitation fund. As such, shipowners, charterers, and insurers operating in Indonesia cannot rely on general LLMC protections unless contractually agreed. In practice, any limitation of liability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with courts, where elected by the parties as the dispute resolution forum, retaining broad discretion to evaluate faults, contractual terms, and applicable statutory thresholds.

If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged, what can the receiver do to secure their claim? Is your country party to the 1952 Arrest Convention? If your country has ratified the 1999 Convention, will that be applied, or does that depend upon the 1999 Convention coming into force? If your country does not apply any Convention, (and/or if your country allows ships to be detained other than by formal arrest) what rules apply to permit the detention of a ship, and what limits are there on the right to arrest or detain (for example, must there be a "maritime claim", and, if so, how is that defined)? Is it possible to arrest in order to obtain security for a claim to be pursued in another jurisdiction or in arbitration?

Indonesia is not a party to either the 1952 Arrest Convention or the 1999 Arrest Convention. Ship arrest procedures are governed exclusively by domestic law, primarily the Shipping Law.

Ship arrest in Indonesia generally may only be carried out based on a written order of an Indonesian court ("Arrest Order"), which must then be executed by the relevant harbour master. Arrest may be permitted in connection with either a criminal case or a civil maritime claim. In civil matters, the claimant must file a petition to the court for seizure, typically in the form of a sita jaminan (collateral seizure) submitted alongside a lawsuit, or sita eksekusi (enforcement seizure) following a final judgment. Although the Shipping Law allows for arrests in civil maritime claims without a full lawsuit, in practice, courts generally require the arrest to be tied to a formal claim filed before the Indonesian court.

The definition of "maritime claim" is further enumerated in the Elucidation of Article 223, which provides that the detention of ships in connection with a maritime civil claim may take place in the event of the following:

loss or damage due to the operation of a ship;

loss of life or fatal injury that occurs on land or in the water or sea due to the operation of a ship;

damage to the environment, ship, or cargo due to salvage operation activities or an agreement on salvage;

damage or threat of damage to the environment, coastline, or other interests caused by a ship, including costs needed to take measures to prevent damage to the environment, ship, or cargo, as well as costs incurred for environmental remediation as a result of the damage caused;

costs or expenses relating to lifting, removal or repair, or relating to the ship, including costs associated with the rescue of the vessel and its crew;

costs for the use, operation, or rental of a ship as set out in a charterparty or otherwise;

transportation costs for cargo or passengers on board a ship, as set out in a charterparty or otherwise;

loss or damage to cargo, including trunks/suitcases, transported on board a ship;

loss and damage to a ship and cargo due to an accident at sea (general average);

towage costs;

pilotage costs;

costs of goods, equipment, ship supplies, fuel oil or bunker, or ship tools, including containers provided for service purposes and ship supplies for the operation, upkeep, rescue, or maintenance of the ship;

costs associated with construction, reconstruction or reconditioning, repair, alteration, or completing ship supplies;

fees for the use of ports, canals, docks, harbours, shipping lanes and/or other levies;

salaries and other payables for a ship's captain, officers, crew members, and others employed on board a ship, including repatriation and social insurance costs for their interests;

financing or disbursements incurred for the interest of the ship on behalf of the ship's owner;

insurance premium (including mutual insurance calls) payable in respect of the vessel by its owner or charterer, other than the vessel's crew or bareboat (demise) charterer;

commissions, fees, and brokerage or agency fees payable relating to the ship on behalf of the ship's owner, other than the ship's crew or bareboat (demise) charterer;

costs of a dispute related to the ownership status of the ship;

costs of a dispute between the co-owners of a ship related to the operation and revenue or mining products of the ship;

a mortgage fee on a ship or other encumbrance of a similar nature on the ship; and

costs of a dispute caused by a ship sale agreement.

Arrest for the sole purpose of obtaining security in aid of foreign proceedings, such as arbitration or court litigation in another jurisdiction, is not clearly provided for under Indonesian law. While not expressly prohibited, such security arrest actions are rarely granted in practice, unless the underlying claim has a sufficient "nexus" to Indonesia (e.g., the breach occurred in Indonesian territory, or the vessel has substantial connections with the forum). Indonesian courts also retain broad discretion in assessing jurisdiction and are not bound by stare decisis. As a result, success in obtaining security arrests is fact-dependent and subject to case-by-case judicial interpretation.

For an arrest, are there any special or notable procedural requirements, such as the provision of a PDF or original power of attorney to authorise you to act?

Indonesian procedural law imposes several formal requirements when filing an application for arrest through the civil courts, which requirements shall apply to domestic and foreign claimants and must be fulfilled before a court will consider issuing an Arrest Order.

Among the critical requirements is the provision of an original notarized power of attorney authorizing the appointed Indonesian legal counsel to represent the claimant in court and submit the arrest application. For foreign claimants, the power of attorney must be duly legalized and apostilled (if the issuing country is a party to the Apostille Convention). If the issuing country is not a party, the document must instead be consularised at the relevant Indonesian Embassy or Consulate in the claimant's jurisdiction.

In Indonesian civil courts, all submissions must be made in hard copy and physically lodged with the Registrar of the District Court that has jurisdiction over the port where the vessel is located. The application must include all relevant claim documentation and sufficient identification of the vessel to enable enforcement.

What maritime liens / maritime privileges are recognised in your jurisdiction? Is recognition a matter for the law of the forum, the law of the place where the obligation was incurred, the law of the flag of the vessel, or another system of law?

Indonesia recognizes maritime liens and maritime privileges pursuant to its ratification of the 1993 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages (the "Maritime Lien Convention"), through Presidential Regulation No. 44 of 2005. As a matter of domestic law, the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens are governed by the law of the forum, such that Indonesian law will determine whether a claim constitutes a maritime lien capable of enforcement before the Indonesian courts.

Under Article 65(2) of the Shipping Law, maritime liens (piutang pelayaran yang didahulukan) rank in priority over registered mortgages and encumbrances, and are recognised for the following categories of claims:

a. Crew wages and related entitlements, including repatriation costs and social insurance contributions;

b. Loss of life or personal injury occurring in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;

c. Salvage remuneration;

d. Port, canal, and pilotage dues;

e. Tort-based claims for physical damage caused by the operation of the vessel, excluding damage to cargo or passenger property.

These five categories mirror the core maritime lien claims enumerated in Article 4 of the 1993 Maritime Lien Convention. Indonesia does not recognize maritime liens outside this closed list unless introduced by statute or treaty. In accordance with Article 8 of the Maritime Lien Convention and Article 66 of the Shipping Law, maritime liens attach to the vessel and survive a change of ownership, unless the vessel is subject to a forced judicial sale conducted in accordance with Article 12 of the Maritime Lien Convention.

The recognition of a maritime lien in Indonesia is determined under Indonesian law. This approach reflects Indonesia's position as a civil law jurisdiction, where the existence, nature, and enforceability of maritime liens must be expressly provided for under national legislation or ratified international conventions. Accordingly, Indonesian courts do not apply foreign law to determine the existence of a maritime lien.

As a result, even when a claim qualifies as a maritime lien under foreign law, it will not be enforceable as such in Indonesia unless it falls within the limited categories of maritime liens recognized under Indonesian law and under the Maritime Lien Convention, which Indonesia has ratified. As stated previously, enforcement actions such as arrest or judicial sale are considered procedural in nature, and therefore fall squarely within the exclusive competence of the Indonesian courts, to be governed by Indonesian procedural and substantive law.

Is it a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam? Or can a vessel be arrested in respect of debts incurred by, say, a charterer who has bought but not paid for bunkers or other necessaries?

Indonesian law does not expressly require that the vessel owner or demise charterer be liable in personam for a vessel to be arrested. Under the Shipping Law, a vessel may be arrested based on a court-issued Arrest Order in respect of a wide range of enumerated maritime claims. These include claims for unpaid bunkers, materials, equipment, port dues, and other necessaries, regardless of whether the debt was incurred by the registered owner or by a charterer.

In practice, however, Indonesian courts typically require the claimant to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the vessel and the underlying claim, which may involve showing that the owner (or the party appearing as the owner in the relevant documentation) benefited from the transaction. For instance, where the claimant is not in privity with the shipowner, or where it is clear from the facts that the debtor is not the owner but an unrelated charterer or operator, Indonesian courts may be reluctant to grant an arrest order, especially if the registered owner is able to provide evidence disassociating itself from the obligation.

Are sister ship or associated ship arrests possible?

Indonesia does not currently recognize sister ship or associated ship arrest under its Shipping Law framework.

Does the arresting party need to put up counter-security as the price of an arrest? In what circumstances will the arrestor be liable for damages if the arrest is set aside?

Indonesia does not have a codified rule requiring the arrestor to post counter-security (e.g., a bond or guarantee) as a mandatory condition for arrest. If the arrest is later set aside (e.g., due to lack of jurisdiction, wrongful party, or lack of a maritime claim), the arresting party may be held liable for damages under general Indonesian tort principles (perbuatan melawan hukum under Article 1365 of the Civil Code). To succeed in a damages claim, the shipowner would generally need to show that, among other elements, that the arrest was wrongful, i.e., the claim had no legal basis or was brought in bad faith, the arresting party acted negligently or maliciously, and/or the shipowner suffered actual quantifiable loss as a result (e.g., demurrage). As there is no statutory provision on damages specific to wrongful ship arrest, any remedy must be pursued via a separate civil lawsuit for tort (unlawful act claim) in the Indonesian courts.

How can an owner secure the release of the vessel? For example, is a Club LOU acceptable security for the claim?

As stated above, a vessel subject to arrest or conservatory seizure (sita jaminan) in Indonesia may be released upon application to the competent district court, provided that the vessel owner (or the charterparty, as applicable) furnishes an alternative form of security deemed adequate by the court. The Indonesian civil procedure regime allows for the lifting of the conservatory seizure (sita jaminan) where the defendant (in this context, the vessel owner or the charterparty, as applicable) provides a substitute guarantee that satisfies the protective purpose of the original seizure.

Under Indonesian civil procedural law, a defendant is allowed to petition the court to lift a conservatory seizure by offering a guarantee or bond that serves as collateral for the underlying claim. The rationale is that conservatory seizure (sita jaminan) is a preventive measure, with the purpose of avoiding rendering the final judgment ineffectual. Once the claimant's position is secured by an equivalent or better form of guarantee (such as a bank guarantee or cash deposit), the justification for continued detention of the vessel would no longer apply.

Letters of Undertaking ("LOU") issued by P&I Clubs, while commercially acceptable as a matter of private agreement between parties and widely used in international maritime practice, are not typically accepted by Indonesian courts as sufficient substitute security. Although an LOU constitutes a binding contract under the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and is thus enforceable between the parties on the basis of contractual autonomy, it does not constitute an immediately executable instrument under Indonesian procedural law. In other words, while enforceable in theory, an LOU lacks the liquidity and enforceability safeguards that courts require for lifting a conservatory seizure (sita jaminan).

Consequently, an LOU is unlikely to be accepted by an Indonesian court as a valid substitute unless the arresting party expressly agrees to it and voluntarily withdraws its application for seizure. Absent such consent, an Indonesian court is unlikely to compel the release of a vessel based solely on an LOU, as it is regarded as a private contractual undertaking rather than a guaranteed financial instrument.

Describe the procedure for the judicial sale of arrested ships. What is the priority ranking of claims?

Judicial sale of an arrested vessel in Indonesia must be conducted pursuant to a final and binding court judgment, usually obtained through civil litigation. The Shipping Law does not provide a specific framework for forced judicial sale, and thus, the applicable procedure follows the general rules of civil enforcement under the Indonesian Civil Procedure Code.

To initiate a judicial sale, the arresting party must first obtain a favourable court judgment on the underlying maritime claim, followed by the issuance of an execution order (penetapan eksekusi) by the competent Indonesian court. This order empowers the court to coordinate with the harbour master and, depending on the sale method, either proceed with a public auction through the auction office, or otherwise authorize a private sale in accordance with applicable civil enforcement rules. The proceeds of sale are deposited with the court and distributed according to the priority ranking, including those of maritime lien as prescribed under the Shipping Law and the Maritime Lien Convention and other secured claims.

Who is liable under a bill of lading? How is "the carrier" identified? Or is that not a relevant question?

Under Indonesian law, liability under a bill of lading rests with the carrier, that is, the party undertaking the obligation to transport goods or passengers by water pursuant to a contract of carriage. Article 466 of the ICC defines the carrier as a person or entity that binds itself, whether under a voyage charter, time charter, or other contract, to perform the transportation of goods wholly or in part by sea. Importantly, the carrier need not be the vessel owner; charterers and non-vessel-operating parties may also qualify as carriers if they contractually assume carriage obligations.

The bill of lading, referred to in the ICC as a "cargo document," is the formal document evidencing the carriage contract between the shipper and the carrier. Article 513 of the ICC specifies that this document must include details such as the description of goods, names of consignee and carrier, freight amount, date of issuance, and the shipper's signature. These elements are consistent with internationally accepted definitions of a bill of lading. The Elucidation to Article 40(2) of the Shipping Law further confirms that the term "cargo document" includes bills of lading and manifests.

The carrier is typically identified on the face of the bill of lading. If not expressly named, courts will examine the totality of contractual documents, including agency agreements, booking notes, and standard trading conditions, to determine which party contractually undertook the carriage and thereby assumed liability.

Is the proper law of the bill of lading relevant? If so, how is it determined?

The proper law of the bill of lading is relevant under Indonesian law, particularly in disputes involving international carriage of goods by sea. The applicable or proper or governing law will govern key issues such as interpretation of contractual obligations, limitation periods, liability regimes, and procedural rights under the bill of lading. Indonesia does not have a codified statute specifically prescribing how the governing law of a bill of lading is to be determined. However, the principle of party autonomy under Article 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code allows parties to select foreign laws to govern their contract, including transport documents such as bills of lading. Where such a clause is present, Indonesian courts will generally give effect to it, provided it does not contravene Indonesian public policy or mandatory statutory provisions

In the absence of an express choice of law, Indonesian courts will apply general principles of private international law, including connecting factor analysis. In the context of maritime carriage, relevant connecting factors include the place of issuance of the bill of lading, the place of loading or discharge, the domicile or principal place of business of the carrier or shipper, the flag of the vessel, especially where liability or documentation requirements depend on vessel nationality, and/or the place of performance or breach of the transport obligation.

Indonesian courts are not bound by precedent, as the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply, and they enjoy broad discretion to apply what they perceive to be fair and appropriate in the circumstances, including in deciding the closest connection (nexus) to the relevant contractual relationship.

Are jurisdiction clauses recognised and enforced?

Jurisdiction clauses are generally recognized and enforceable in Indonesia, provided they comply with Indonesian contract law principles and do not contravene public policy.
Under Article 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code, parties are free to contractually agree on dispute resolution mechanisms, including exclusive forum selection clauses. Indonesian courts have, in several cases, upheld jurisdiction clauses designating foreign courts or arbitral institutions, especially in commercial agreements with international elements.

However, enforceability in practice is not absolute. Foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Indonesia. Although parties may choose to litigate abroad, Indonesian courts do not recognize or execute foreign court decisions, absent a treaty or specific legislative framework (none currently exist). To pursue enforcement in Indonesia, the prevailing party must re-litigate the matter before an Indonesian court.

Separately, foreign arbitral awards are enforceable under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), to which Indonesia is a party. Awards must, however, be registered with the Central Jakarta District Court, and enforcement may be denied only on limited grounds, such as public order violations or fraud. Indonesian courts may also refuse to give effect to a jurisdiction clause if they find the connection to the foreign forum too remote, or if the choice undermines the rights of an Indonesian party. Courts typically assess whether there is a real and substantial nexus to the chosen forum.

What is the attitude of your courts to the incorporation of a charterparty, specifically: is an arbitration clause in the charter given effect in the bill of lading context?

Indonesian courts are generally receptive to the incorporation of charterparty terms into bills of lading, provided that such incorporation is clear, specific, and not contrary to public policy. This includes the incorporation of arbitration clauses. However, enforceability is subject to several key caveats under Indonesian law.

Indonesia is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which has been implemented domestically through Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution ("Arbitration Law"). Under the Arbitration Law, arbitration agreements must be in writing and signed by the parties or included in an exchange of written communications. Courts have generally interpreted this to require an express agreement or unequivocal reference in the bill of lading to the arbitration clause in the underlying charterparty.

Where a bill of lading contains a general incorporation clause (e.g., "all terms, conditions and exceptions of the charterparty are incorporated"), Indonesian courts will consider whether the reference is sufficient to constitute consent to arbitration. In line with international practice, a bare reference to the charterparty without specifically identifying the arbitration clause may be considered insufficient to establish the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. Indonesian courts, however, may favor formal consent and clarity, especially where arbitration would deprive a party, often a consignee or endorsee, of the right to litigate in local courts. That said, Indonesian courts have shown a greater willingness to uphold arbitration clauses where the party seeking enforcement is able to show that the claimant had knowledge of, and consented to, the arbitration clause in the charterparty.

Where the arbitral seat is outside Indonesia, the resulting award must be registered with the Central Jakarta District Court before enforcement, as required under Article 66 of the Arbitration Law. Enforcement may be refused under limited grounds, including public policy, lack of proper notice, or invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the law applicable at the seat.

Is your country party to any of the international conventions concerning bills of lading (the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules etc)? If so, which one, and how has it been adopted – by ratification, accession, or in some other manner? If not, how are such issues covered in your legal system?

Indonesia is not currently a party to any of the main international conventions governing bills of lading, including the Hague Rules (1924), Hague-Visby Rules (1968), Hamburg Rules (1978), or Rotterdam Rules (2008).

Instead, matters relating to bills of lading are governed under domestic legal sources, namely the ICC (which address principles on maritime carriage, freight, delivery, and liability), the Shipping Law and relevant ministerial regulations, and the Indonesian Civil Code, which applies general contract and tort principles, including liability for breach of carriage obligations.

While Indonesia has not adopted any of the above multilateral conventions, certain international shipping standards and practices (including Hague-Visby liability provisions and standard form contracts) are often incorporated by parties into bills of lading and charterparties. In such cases, Indonesian courts may give effect to those terms, consistent with the Indonesian Civil Code, which affirms that legally formed agreements are binding upon the parties as if they were law, provided they do not manifestly contravene Indonesian law or public policy.

Is your country party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? If not, what rules apply? What are the available grounds to resist enforcement?

Indonesia is a party to the New York Convention. Pursuant to Articles 66 to 69 of the Arbitration Law, a foreign arbitral award may be enforced in Indonesia provided that:

a. the award was rendered in a country that is also a party to the New York Convention;

b. the subject matter is commercial in nature and is capable of settlement by arbitration under Indonesian law;

c. the award does not contravene Indonesian public order; and

d. the award has been duly registered with the Central Jakarta District Court by obtaining an exequatur (writ of enforcement).

The Indonesian judiciary typically interprets public order narrowly in commercial matters. However, enforcement may still be resisted if there is fraud, forgery, or concealment of decisive documents discovered post-award, or if procedural fairness was materially undermined.

Please summarise the relevant time limits for commencing suit in your jurisdiction (e.g. claims in contract or in tort, personal injury and other passenger claims, cargo claims, salvage and collision claims, product liability claims).

Indonesia does not have a single, unified statute of limitations for all maritime claims, and the limitation periods for different categories of maritime disputes are set out under the ICC, with residual application of the Indonesian Civil Code for general civil claims such as tort and product liability. The limitation period depends on the nature of the claim.

Claims arising out of the carriage of goods and passengers by sea are subject to a one-year limitation period. This includes claims by carriers for unpaid freight and passenger fares, as well as claims by cargo interests or passengers against the carrier for loss, damage, or delay in delivery. The one-year period also applies to claims against a vessel master for unauthorized loading of goods, claims arising from the employment contract of the master or crew (calculated from the end of service), claims for pilotage dues and port-related charges, and disputes concerning the calculation and distribution of general average.

Claims resulting from ship collisions and salvage operations are subject to a two-year limitation period. In the case of collision claims, the period runs from the date of the incident, while for salvage remuneration, the time begins from the date the assistance is completed.

Claims relating to the supply of stores, provisions, or services for the maintenance or repair of a vessel are subject to a three-year limitation period, running from the date of delivery or completion of work. Insurance-related claims under marine policy (including hull, cargo, or liability insurance) must be brought within five years from the date the claim became due.

Where a claim does not fall under any of the express maritime categories set out in the ICC, such as general tort claims for personal injury or product liability, the general statutory limitation period under Article 1967 of the Civil Code applies. This article provides a 30-year limitation period for all civil claims unless a more specific rule applies.

Does your system of law recognize force majeure, or grant relief from undue hardship?

Indonesian law recognizes the concept of force majeure. The principle is embedded in Articles 1244 and 1245 of the Indonesian Civil Code, which collectively provide relief from liability for non-performance where the obligor can prove that the failure was caused by circumstances beyond their control, unforeseeable at the time of contracting, and without their fault or bad faith.

Beyond this general framework, the ICC includes a number of provisions recognizing force majeure or analogous relief across maritime activities. For example, Article 477 of the ICC releases sea carriers from liability for delays caused by events that could not reasonably be prevented or avoided. Article 421 of the ICC further provides that a maritime employment contract may be terminated if the voyage cannot commence or continue due to government action or force majeure.

While Indonesian law does not formally recognize a standalone doctrine of "undue hardship," certain provisions do allow for relief where performance becomes unreasonably burdensome. In particular, Article 563 of the ICC permits a court to annul or revise a salvage remuneration agreement if the terms are found to be manifestly unfair or disproportionate relative to the services rendered. Furthermore, the ICC recognizes the principle of limitation of liability for shipowners in cases involving cargo loss or passenger injury. Under Articles 474 and 525 of the ICC, the carrier's liability is capped at 50 Dutch guilders (gulden) per cubic meter of the vessel's net tonnage. Although these provisions remain technically in force, their practical application today is limited due to the obsolescence of the currency reference and the predominance of contractual and international regimes governing liability. In practice, parties typically agree on limitation of liability through express contractual terms, which are customarily implemented in Indonesian commercial shipping transactions.

Originally published by Legal 500

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.