Finality of Arbitration in Islamic and Positive Law: Analysis of Court Intervention in Non-Litigious Dispute Resolution

This study aims to analyze the extent to which judicial intervention in arbitration awards can be justified from the perspective of Islamic law and Indonesian positive law, as well as to assess the validity of such intervention based on the principle of finality of arbitration. Using a normative legal approach, this study compares Islamic legal norms regarding tahkim with arbitration provisions in national regulations, particularly those governing dispute resolution through non-litigation channels. The analysis was conducted through document review, legal interpretation, and comparison of norms to find points of convergence and divergence between the two legal systems. The results of the study show that both place arbitration awards as final decisions that must be respected in order to ensure legal certainty, efficiency in dispute resolution, and respect for the agreement of the parties. However, judicial intervention in positive law is possible to a limited extent under certain conditions, whereas in Islamic law, the decision of the hakam is final as long as the principles of justice and the willingness of the disputing parties are fulfilled. The conclusion of the study emphasizes that judicial intervention can only be justified as long as it does not eliminate the essence of the finality of arbitration and remains in line with the normative limitations of each legal system.