Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis pengaturan mengenai yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter berdasarkan Konvensi ICSID dan penerapannya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID, yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dalam mengadili suatu sengketa ditentukan oleh adanya kesepakatan para pihak, ketentuan ratione materiae dan ratione personae. Pentingnya ketiga persyaratan tersebut untuk dipenuhi dalam menentukan yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dapat dilihat dalam perkara Pemda Kaltim melawan PT Kaltim Prima Coal dkk. Dalam perkara tersebut, ketentuan ratione personae tidak terpenuhi sehingga Majelis Arbiter ICSID menyatakan diri tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk mengadili perkara tersebut.

---

This research is aimed to describe and analyze the rules regarding the Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction based on the ICSID Convention and its implementation. The result of this research shows that based on Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction is determined by the consent of the disputing parties, requirements ratione materiae and ratione personae. In GPEK v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others, it is obvious that the compliance of those requirements is very fundamental in determining the Tribunal`s jurisdiction over the dispute. In the mentioned case, requirements ratione personae were not fulfilled. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks of jurisdiction over the dispute."

"International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) adalah forum penyelesaian sengketa penanaman modal asing yang memiliki yurisdiksi berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID. Dalam menentukan yurisdiksi, Majelis Arbiter ICSID mengualifikasi penanaman modal untuk memeriksa syarat ratione materiae. Majelis Arbiter ICSID menggunakan metode Piecemeal Test atau Dual-Test untuk mengualifikasi penanaman modal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kualifikasi penanaman modal oleh Majelis Arbiter ICSID pada sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dengan menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analitis. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penggunaan metode kualifikasi penanaman modal yang berbeda memengaruhi hasil kualifikasi.

---

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is foreign investment dispute settlement forum which has jurisdiction according to Article 25 of ICSID Convention. In determining its jurisdiction, ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal qualify investment to examine the requirement of ratione materiae. ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal uses the method of Piecemeal Test or Dual-Test to qualify investment.

This research is aimed to analyse the qualification of investment by ICSID's Arbitral Tribunal in the matter between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. the Republic of Indonesia using normative juridical approach conducted through descriptive-analytic method. This research finds that using different methods of investment qualification influence the result of such qualification."

"Security for Costs merupakan suatu fenomena hukum yang berkembang dalam penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara, yang dapat dipahami sebagai suatu bentuk tindakan sementara untuk investor asing memberikan jaminan mengenai pembayaran biaya yang dimintakan oleh negara tuan rumah dalam melakukan pembelaan atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh investor asing. Tesis ini menganalisis, pertama, alasan pentingnya pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional bagi Indonesia berdasarkan praktik permohonan security for costs dalam sengketa García Armas v. Venezuela yang diselesaikan menggunakan aturan arbitrase ICSID dan Herzig v. Turkmenistan yang menggunakan aturan arbitrase UNCITRAL, dan kedua, pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional yang dapat melindungi kepentingan Indonesia berdasarkan perkembangan pengaturan security for costs dalam aturan arbitrase ICSID dan aturan arbitrase UNCTIRAL, dalam undang-undang tentang arbitrase yang berlaku di Inggris dan Indonesia, serta contoh-contoh dalam perjanjian investasi internasional yang disepakati pada masa proses reformasi penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara. Penelitian tesis ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menganalisis penerapan security for costs berdasarkan aturan arbitrase dalam putusan-putusan arbitrase investasi, dan dalam perjanjian investasi internasional. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama, pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional dapat menyeimbangkan kepentingan investor asing dan negara tuan rumah, menghindari kemungkinan eksploitasi mendapatkan keuntungan yang dilakukan oleh investor asing, dan untuk menjaga integritas prosedural penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara. Kedua, Indonesia dapat menerapkan pengaturan security for costs yang telah ada dalam perjanjian investasi internasional mengenai kewenangan majelis arbitrase, syarat-syarat, mekanisme, dan akibat hukum dari perintah security for costs.

---

Security for Costs has been an emerging legal phenomenon in investor-state dispute settlement, which can be defined as a form of provisional or interim measure for a foreign investor to provide security for the payment of costs requested by the host state in defending a claim brought by the foreign investor. This research discusses, first, the importance of the privision of security for costs in international investment agreements for Indonesia based on the practice of the application of security for costs in the García Armas v. Venezuela dispute which was resolved under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and Herzig v. Turkmenistan dispute which was resolved under the ICSID Arbitration Rules, and second, discusses the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements that may protect Indonesia based on the development of the provision of security for costs in ICSID Arbitration Rules and UNCTIRAL Arbitration Rules, in the laws on arbitration in the United Kingdom and Indonesia, and examples in international investment agreements signed during the investor-state dispute settlement reform process. This research is a normative legal research by examining the application of security for costs under arbitration rules in investment arbitration awards, and in international investment agreements. The findings of this research are, first, the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements may balance the interests of foreign investors and host countries, may avoid the possibility of profit exploitation by foreign investors, and may maintain the procedural integrity of investor-state dispute settlement. Second, Indonesia may apply the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements based on the existing provision of security for costs on the authority of the arbitral tribunal, the requirements, the mechanism, and the legal consequences of the security for costs order."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini mengkaji putusan ICSID dalam sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia yang diputus berdasarkan Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) antara negara Indonesia dan negara Inggris, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, yang ditandatangani pada tanggal 27 April 1976 dan mulai berlaku tanggal 24 Maret 1977. Permasalahan utama yang menjadi fokus penelitian ini adalah (i) apakah yang menjadi pokok sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dan (ii) bagaimana pendapat majelis arbitrase ICSID yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut dikaitkan dengan penafsiran atas ketentuan BIT dalam sengketa penanaman modal. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pokok sengketa yang terjadi adalah masalah proses dan prosedur masuknya penanaman modal asing (admission process) yang harus dilalui investor berdasarkan BIT. Proses tersebut menentukan legalitas penanaman modal yang dilakukan. Tidak terpenuhinya admission process tersebut menjadikan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa tersebut sehingga pokok perkara tidak dapat diperiksa. Penafsiran atas ketentuan-ketentuan dalam BIT utamanya menggunakan Pasal 31 ayat (1) Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang Hukum Perjanjian, khususnya penafsiran berdasarkan makna biasa dari rumusan ketentuan BIT. Kajian tesis ini menyimpulkan bahwa penanaman modal yang dilakukan Penggugat tidak memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT mengenai admission process sehingga Majelis Arbitrase menyatakan tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa perkara tersebut. Majelis Arbitrase menafsirkan frasa ?granted admission in accordance with? dalam ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris berdasarkan Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang hukum perjanjian khususnya Pasal 31 ayat (1). Penggunaan aturan penafsiran tersebut juga ditemukan dalam putusan-putusan ICSID lainnya yang menafsrikan ketentuan BIT yang serupa dengan ketentuan BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom., This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant’s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase “granted admission in accordance with” in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.]"

"ABSTRAKTujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji apa saja yang menjadi dasarditerimanya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc oleh Arbiter pada badan arbitraseICSID dan menganalisa apakah dasar-dasar penerimaan gugatan tersebutmenjadikan badan arbitrase ICSID memang memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksaperkara yang diajukan oleh Churchill Mining Plc. Sehingga perlu untuk ditinjausecara yuridis apakah memang sepatutnya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc tersebutditerima oleh ICSID atau tidak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penulisanini adalah metode yuridis-normatif. Metode yuridis-normatif tersebut akandigunakan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap data sekunder. Adapun bahanhukum primer yang digunakan berupa peraturan Konvensi ICSID, UndangundangNomor 5 Tahun 1968 tentang Ratifikasi atas Konvensi ICSID dan bahanhukum sekunder berupa buku, jurnal ilmiah, dan artikel ilmiahBahwa adapun Churchill Mining Plc menggugat Indonesia dengan mendasarkangugatannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 7 ayat (1) BIT UK-Indonesia. Dimana atas haltersebut tergugat mengemukakan statement of defence tentang keberatan terhadapyurisdiksi ICSID, maka Dewan Arbitrase harus terlebih dahulu mengemukakankeputusan mengenai yurisdiksinya untuk menangani perkara. Dimana dewanarbitrase harus mendasarkan putusannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 25 KonvensiICSID yang mengatur secara khusus mengenai yurisdiksi ICSIDBahwa berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut di atas, maka untuk kasusChurchill Mining Plc vs Republik Indonesia sepatutnya tribunal ICSID tidakmenerima gugatan tersebut, hal ini karena seharusnya yang menggugat Indonesiaadalah bukan Churchill Mining melainkan perusahaan Ridlatama Group, karenasesungguhnya yang dicabut Izin Kuasanya adalah Ridlatama Group dan bukanChurchill. Sehingga sepatutnya masalah ini tidak dicampuradukkan denganmasalah hukum internasional dan sepatutnya diselesaikan melalui ranah hukumnasional Indonesia. Adapun menurut penulis untuk menghindari terjadinya halyang sama, ada baiknya Indonesia melakukan amandemen terhadap BillateralInvestment Treaty dan bahkan Indonesia juga lebih baik mempertimbangkanuntuk keluar sebagai anggota Konvensi ICSID, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 71Konvensi ICSID hal tersebut diperolehkan

---

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research is to assess what is the basis of the acceptance ofChurchill Mining Plc Lawsuit by the Arbitrator in ICSID and analyze whether thefundamentals of the acceptence of the lawsuit indeed made the ICSID does have ajurisdiction to examine the case. Therefore it is necessary to make a judicialreview, whether the Lawsuit which had been filed by Churchill should be receivedby ICSID or not. The method used in this paper is a method of juridicalnormative.Juridical-normative methods will be used to conduct an analysis thesecondary data. The primary legal materials use in this research are the regulationsof the ICSID Convention and Law No. 5 of 1968 concerning the Ratification ofthe Convention ICSID and the secondary legal materials use in this research arebooks, scientific journals and scientific articlesWhereas Churchill file a lawsuit against Indonesia, based on Article 7 paragraph 1BIT UK-Indonesia and the Approval of BKPM. Where based on the claim byChurchill, Indonesia as the Defendant also has submit the statement of defenceregarding their objection toward the jurisdiction of ICSID. Based on Article 41ICSID Convention, the Board of ICSID Arbitration in advance must make adecisions regarding its jurisdiction to handle the case. Where the decision ofBoard of ICSID Arbitration must be made under the Article 25 of the ICSIDConvention that specifically regulates the jurisdiction of ICSID.Based on the regulations as above, therefore for the case of Churchill Mining vsRepublic of Indonesia, ICSID tribunal should not accept the claim of ChurchillMining. The reason is because the one who should suing Indonesia is notChurchill Mining but Ridlatama Group, because the party who‟s their mininglicense are revoked by the Regent of Kutai Timur is Ridlatama Group notChurchill Mining. So this problem should not be yoked with the international lawand should be resolved through national (Indonesia) legal sphere. To prevent thesame thing accure again, Indonesia should consider to amendment the BillateralInvestment Treaty between United Kingdom and Indonesia and it is better toconsider to drop out as a member of the ICSID Convention, where that is possibleunder Article 71 of the ICSID Convention"

"Sebagai salah satu bentuk ekspropriasi tidak langsung, creeping expropriation kerap menimbulkan permasalahan dalam penyelesaian sengketa antara negara dan penanam modal. Creeping expropriation sering digunakan negara dalam mengambil alih penanaman modal asing. Empat putusan ICSID yang dibahas dalam skripsi ini telah mempertimbangkan mengenai konsep creeping expropriation. Meskipun demikian, tidak terdapat suatu konsep yang jelas dan konsisten mengenai creeping expropriation. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analisis. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan pemahaman dan penerapan konsep creeping expropriation dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing di ICSID.

---

As one form of indirect expropriation, creeping expropriation often rises problems in investor-state investment dispute. Creeping expropriation is often used by a state to undertake foreign investment. Four ICSID awards used in this thesis have acknowledged and put creeping expropriation into consideration. However, there is no clear and consistent understanding regarding creeping expropriation concept. This research is analyzed through normative legal research done through descriptive-analytic method. The research shows the different implementation of creeping expropriation concept in foreign investment dispute in ICSID."

"ABSTRAKSistem penyelesaian sengketa merupakan pilar utama dari suatu organisasiinternasional. Tanpa adanya sarana untuk menyelesaikan suatu sengketa, ruledbasedsystem akan kurang efektif karena aturannya tidak dapat dipaksakan untukdilaksanakan. Hal ini yang mendasari pembentukan sistem penyelesaian sengketapada World Trade Organization dan ASEAN terkait sengketa di bidang ekonomi.Selain itu, ASEAN dalam rangka membentuk suatu komunitas ekonomi danASEAN Free Trade Area membutuhkan suatu sistem penyelesaian sengketaekonomi yang lebih komprehensif yang banyak mengadopsi dari sistempenyelesaian sengketa WTO, meskipun didalamnya terdapat beberapa fleksibilitasyang menunjukkan ASEAN sebagai suatu organisasi regional. Denganmenggunakan teori perbandingan hukum didapatkan kesamaan dan perbedaanantara sistem penyelesaian sengketa ekonomi ASEAN dengan WTO terkaitmekanisme serta prinsip-prinsip yang terdapat dalam masing-masing sistemtersebut serta dasar pemberlakuan masing-masing sistem tersebut. Denganperbandingan tersebut dapat disarankan ASEAN untuk menghapus ketentuanyang membolehkan untuk memilih forum lain, sehingga sistem penyelesaiansengketa ekonomi ASEAN dapat dijadikan sebagai pilihan utama bagi paraNegara anggota ASEAN.

---

ABSTRACTDispute settlement system is the main pillar of an international organization.Without dispute settlement system, rule-based system would be less effective andlack to force of implementation. This is the underlying formation of the disputeresolution system of the World Trade Organization and the ASEAN economicrelateddisputes. In additional, in order to create an ASEAN EconomicCommunity and the ASEAN Free Trade Area requires an economic system ofdispute resolution that is much more comprehensive than adopting the WTOdispute settlement system, although there is some flexibility in it that indicatesASEAN as a regional organization. By using the theory of comparative lawobtained similarities and differences mechanism and principles between thedispute settlement system of the WTO and ASEAN, which contained in each ofthese systems as well as basic application of each of these systems. Suchcomparisons can be advised ASEAN to remove provisions that allow to chooseanother forum, so that ASEAN economic dispute settlement system can be used asthe primary choice for ASEAN member countries."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mengacu pada studi kasus sengketa impor hortikultura, hewan, danproduk hewan antara Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia di WTO. Sengketa iniberawal dari sikap keberatan AS terhadap kebijakan prosedur impor Indonesiayang didasari oleh perangkat hukum Indonesia berupa Undang-undang danPeraturan Menteri. Atas dasar acuan itu berimplikasi pada penerapan prosedurimpor yang baru dan dianggap oleh AS sebagai rezim perizinan impor tidaklangsung atau Non-Automatic Import Licensing menyalahi ketentuan-ketentuanWTO. AS telah mengajukan permohonan kosultasi dengan Indonesia ke WTOdan telah dilangsungkan konsultasi tersebut dimana tidak dapat diraih kesepakatanbersama terkait Sengketa Impor Hortkultura, Hewan dan Produk Hewan. Olehkarena itu AS mengajukan permohonan pembentukan Panel dan hingga saat inikasus tersebut masih dalam proses Panel. Dari hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkanbahwa pada dasarnya setiap negara baik AS maupun Indonesia memilikikepentingan nasional masing-masing yang diperjuangkan. Kepentingan nasionalAS ini sangat terlihat ketika AS berusaha menyimpulkan suatu ketentuan yangbersifat spesifik untuk dikorelasikan ke ketentuan yang bersifat umum. Melaluipenelitian ini penulis mencoba untuk menganalisa permasalahan dan menemukanupaya yang dapat diambil oleh pemerintah guna menghadapi tuntutan AS tersebut

---

ABSTRACTThe research‘s objective based on its case of study The Dispute of Importation ofHorticulture, Animal, and Animal Product Between United States and Indonesiain WTO. These research shows the explanation of Indonesia‘s interest and stepsthat might be used by the government in facing US complaint whose questioningIndonesia‘s transparency and by making an accusation related to the practice nonautomaticimport licese regime based on its law and regulations.US complaintderive from United States of Trade Representative that Indonesia weren‘ttransparent in practicing the import regulation. By implemeting those regulation,Indonesia have made a fallacies against the provision of WTO.As the conclussionof this research that naturally both US and Indonesia has it own national interestwhich suppose to be fight for.As in these case, US claimed that this barrier isagainst their national interest and they feel legitimate to propose it to WTO whichnow is in Panel Process. US national interest is clearly described when the USbegan to generate a specific provision in order to find its corelation as beingstrated in general provission.By doing this research, the author try to analyze theissues and finding the proper step that might be use by the government."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana aspek hukum dari keputusan dan pelaksanaan arbitrase di Indonesia dengan maksud untuk mempelajari penegakan arbitrase, upaya hukum terhadap putusan arbitrase serta kendala dalam pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase di Indonesia. Pasal 60 UU No. 30/1999 (UU Arbitrase dan APS) menyatakan bahwa putusan arbitrase bersifat final dan mengikat para pihak, artinya putusan tersebut tidak dapat diajukan banding, kasasi dan peninjauan kembali. Akan tetapi, berdasarkan Pasal 70 putusan arbitrase dapat dibatalkan. Selain itu, pelaksanaan putusan arbitase masih menghadapi kendala di dalam praktek. Penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase hanya akan efektif jika para pihak yang terlibat sengketa adalah para pihak yang bona fide, pihak yang menang berusaha supaya putusan arbitrase didaftarkan pada pengadilan negeri agar memiliki kekuatan hukum, dan pihak yang kalah tetap menghormati dan tidak menghalanghalangi eksekusi. Penelitian ini termasuk jenis penelitian hukum normatif yang bersifat deskriptif. Penelitian yang bersifat deskriptif dimaksudkan untuk menggambarkan serta menguraikan semua data yang diperoleh, terkait dengan permasalahan yang diteliti. Dalam penelitian ini, teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi kepustakaan, yaitu dengan menganalisis putusan pengadilan serta membuat catatan dari buku literatur, peraturan perundang-undangan, dokumen dan hal-hal lain yang relevan dengan masalah yang diteliti. Selanjutnya data yang diperoleh diolah dan dianalisis lebih lanjut untuk menjawab permasalahan yang diteliti.

---

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to find out how the legal aspects of the decision and enforcement of arbitration in Indonesia with a view to study the enforcement of arbitration, the legal effort against the decision of arbitration as well as constraints in the execution of arbitration decision in Indonesia. Article 60 of Law No. 30/1999 (Arbitration and ADR Law) states that arbitral award is final and legally binding the parties, which means that the award could not be corrected by an appeal, cassation and review. However, in accordance with the Article 70 of the arbitration law the arbitral award can be annulled. Furthermore, the decision of arbitration is very hard to be implemented. It is due to the settlement of disputes through arbitration that will only be effective if the parties involved in the dispute are bona fide parties. The winning party tried to keep the decision of the Arbitration filed in state court in order to have legal force, and the losing party still respects and does not hinder the execution. This research includes the study of normative and descriptive legal. The research which is descriptive of this study are intended to illustrate and describe all the data obtained, related to the problem being investigated. In this research, data collection techniques used are literature studies, namely by analyzing court decisions and make notes of books of literature, legislation, documents and other matters relevant to the issues being investigated."