Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[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.]"

"ABSTRAKDalam perjanjian penanaman modal asing, salah satu bentuk perlakuan yang wajib diberikan oleh negara penerima modal kepada penanam modal asing adalah perlakuan yang adil dan wajar yang dikenal dengan istilah Fair and Equitable Treatment. Saat ini, salah satu unsur standar Fair and Equitable Treatment yaitu legitimate expectations, kerap digunakan sebagai dasar gugatan oleh penanam modal asing terhadap negara penerima modal dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing. Dalam skripsi ini dianalisis putusan-putusan ICSID yang telah mempertimbangkan legitimate expectations. Hasil penelitian ini menjelaskan doktrin legitimate expectations dan pendekatan-pendekatan yang digunakan oleh Dewan Arbiter ICSID dalam menginterpretasikan doktrin legitimate expectations dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing.

---

ABSTRACTn international investment agreements, one form of the treatments that shall be given by the host state to foreign investors is fair and equitable treatment. Nowadays, one of the elements of fair and equitable treatment, namely legitimate expectations, is oftenly used by foreign investors as a claim basis against the host state in foreign investment disputes. This thesis analyzed ICSID arbitration awards that have put legitimate expectations into consideration. The result of this research explains doctrine of legitimate expectations and the approaches used by the ICSID arbitration tribunals to interpret it in foreign investment disputes.;;"

"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."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat. Sengketa kewajiban kontraktual tunduk pada hukum nasional negara penerima investasi sehingga diselesaikan melalui pengadilan nasional negara penerima investasi. Sedangkan, sengketa kewajiban traktat tunduk pada hukum internasional, yang di antara lain meliputi prinsip hukum umum maupun hukum kebiasaan internasional sehingga diselesaikan melalui mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa seperti ICSID. Dalam praktik, seringkali terdapat tumpang tindih antara kedua jenis sengketa tersebut karena investor asing dapat mengajukan sengketanya ke ICSID secara langsung meskipun lahir dari pelanggaran kontrak investasi dan bukan perjanjian investasi bilateral (PIB). Hal ini disebabkan karena yurisdiksi ICSID berdasarkan Pasal 25 ayat (1) Konvensi ICSID didasarkan pada kesepakatan para pihak yang dituangkan dalam masing-masing kontrak investasi maupun PIB. Selain itu, majelis arbitrase ICSID memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda-beda untuk menentukan lingkup yurisdiksi ICSID.Skripsi ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis-normatif untuk meninjau penerapan ketentuan yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat dalam kasus Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, dan SGS v. Philippines. Berdasarkan keempat kasus tersebut, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ICSID memiliki yurisdiksi terhadap sengketa kewajiban traktat selama persyaratan dalam yurisdiksi ICSID terpenuhi. Akan tetapi, yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual bergantung pada konstruksi masing-masing kontrak investasi dan PIB. Skripsi ini menyarankan agar para pihak penyusun kontrak investasi dan PIB memperjelas sengketa yang masuk dalam lingkup kesepakatannya. Selain itu, negara penerima investasi dapat menyisipkan kewajiban untuk menempuh seluruh upaya dalam hukum nasional negara penerima investasi (exhaustion of local remedies) sebelum para pihak dapat bersengketa di ICSID.

---

This thesis provides an overview of ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims. Contract claims are claims based on contract which fall within the purview of the domestic law of the host state, hence subject to the courts of the host state. On the other hand, treaty claims are based on violations of a treaty (in this case a Bilateral Investment Treaty or BIT) and is subject to international law with its own dispute settlement mechanism, such as ICSID. Contract and treaty claims are often conflated in practice because of the direct access that investors have to ICSID. This situation is perpetuated by the fact that ICSID jurisdiction under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention is based on the consent of both parties, which differs in each investment contract or BIT. Furthermore, tribunals employ different approaches to determine the scope of ICSID jurisdiction.This thesis uses a juridical-normative approach to determine how tribunals apply ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims based on four cases, namely Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, and SGS v. Philippines. Based on these four cases, ICSID has jurisdiction over treaty claims, so long as its jurisdictional requirements are met. However, ICSIDs jurisdiction over contract claims is highly contingent on the construction of each specific investment contract or BIT. In conlusion, this thesis suggests that drafters of investment contracts and BITs should explicitly provide the disputes that fall within each agreement. Moreover, BIT drafters could include an exhaustion of local remedies requirement."

"ABSTRAKConsent merupakan landasan utama terbentuknya yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) untuk dapat menyelesaikan sengketa investasi internasional. Dikarenakan pilihan forum penyelesaikan sengketa investasi pada ICSID bukan merupakan suatu hal yang mudah bagi host state, consent digunakan salah satunya untuk membatasi akses investor dalam menyelesaikan sengketa pada ICSID melalui berbagai persyaratan. Namun adanya klausula Most Favoured Nation (MFN) dan penerapannya pada consent dalam BIT secara tidak langsung memperbesar kesempatan bagi investor untuk menggugat host state di ICSID dengan merujuk pada BIT pihak ketiga. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, Tesis ini akan membahas 2 (dua) masalah utama yaitu (i) bagaimana pertimbangan arbiter dalam menentukan bahwa klausula MFN dapat diterapkan pada consent penyelesaian sengketa di ICSID dan (ii) bagaimana perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT yang dibutuhkan untuk menghindari ketidakjelasan penerapannya pada consent. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa penentuan apakah klausula MFN dapat diterapkan dalam consent penyelesaian sengketa atau tidak masih menjadi perdebatan di kalangan arbiter ICSID. Untuk menyikapi ketidakjelasan atas penerapan ini, host state dapat memilih alternatif perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT salah satunya dengan mengklarifikasi ruang lingkup klausula MFN dalam sebuah BIT apakah mencakup consent penyelesaian sengketa investasi atau tidak.

---

ABSTRACTConsent is the cornerstone of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) jurisdiction to resolve international investment disputes. Because the choice of an investment dispute resolution forum in ICSID is not an easy thing for host states, consent is used to limit investor access to resolve disputes on ICSID through various conditions. However, the existence of the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause and its application to consent in BIT indirectly increases the chance for investors to sue host state in ICSID by referring to third party BIT. Based on this, the Thesis discusses two main issues: (i) how the arbitrator's consideration in determining that the MFN clause can be applied to the dispute resolution consent in ICSID and (ii) how the MFN clause formulation in BIT is needed to avoid the unclear of its application on consent. The method used in this research is the normative juridical method. This study concludes that the determination of whether the MFN clause can be applied in dispute resolution or not is still a debate among ICSID arbitrators. To address the ambiguity of this application, the host state may determine alternatives for the formulation of the MFN clause in the BIT by clarifying scope of the MFN clause in a BIT whether or not to cover investment dispute resolution."

"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."

"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."

"Penulisan ini membahas pengaturan Denial of Benefits dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral dan penerapannya dalam sengketa-sengketa arbitrase internasional. Klausul Denial of Benefits merupakan klausul yang memperbolehkan host state untuk tidak memberikan perlindungan dan keuntungan lainnya kepada investor asing dengan persyaratan sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian investasi. Klausul ini telah digunakan oleh berbagai lembaga arbitrase untuk menerima ataupun menolak sengketa investasi yang diajukan kepadanya. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisis yuridisnormatif. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan perkembangan penerapan klausul Denial of Benefits dalam menentukan yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dan Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

---

This writing discusses the Denial of Benefits clause under bilateral investment treaty and its application in international arbitration disputes. Denial of Benefits clause allows Host State to deny the treaty protection to foreign investors with certain conditions set forth in the investment treaty. This clause has been used by international arbitration tribunals to accept or reject investment disputes submitted to them. Legal normative study and normative-juridical analysis are used to analyse this issue. The result of this study shows the evolution of the use of Denial of Benefits clause in determining jurisdiction of international arbitration tribunal International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)."