Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The limit of host states? right to regulate foreign investment within their jurisdiction has been the main, yet unresolved issues in international investment law. This makes it more difficult, given the global structure of investment law that consists of networks of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). This article will not deal with the question of optimal structure of regulatory discretion under BITs which is still debatable among scholars. The central agenda of this article is to address the precondition for an efficient outcome to materialize within the complex web of BITs already signed among states. It is even more complex to be concluded. This issue is due to the absence of international coordinating institution, letting alone that of global supranational authority. This is different from the case of domestic regulatory takings which ?simply? requires the correct information and measure from the benevolent government, that means, the existence of an efficient provision, if any, will not necessarily result in an efficient outcome. The main research question addressed in the article is: under what condition a capital exporting state could introduce higher flexibility for regulating public interest in an investment treaty negotiation? The article offer the answer on issue linkage between the level of protection under BIT, the degree of openness of access to domestic legal and regulatory making of the host state, and the foreign investor?s capabilities to deal with the trade-off. Ceteris paribus, the linkage enables a set of feasible Pareto improving deals out of BIT negotiation"

"Penelitian ini mengkaji standar Full Protection and Security (FPS) dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), dengan fokus pada perannya secara historis dalam menjamin perlindungan fisik dan kontroversi terkait perluasannya ke perlindungan hukum. Secara tradisional, FPS mewajibkan negara tuan rumah untuk melindungi investor asing dan aset mereka dari ancaman fisik, seperti kekerasan atau kerusuhan sipil. Namun, putusan arbitrase baru-baru ini telah memperluas cakupan FPS untuk mencakup keamanan hukum, yang memunculkan kritik terkait ketidakjelasan, tumpang tindih dengan standar Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), serta beban yang berlebihan pada negara tuan rumah. Sementara kasus seperti Azurix v. Argentina dan CME v. Czech Republic mendukung interpretasi yang diperluas ini, kasus lain seperti Suez and Vivendi v. Argentina dan Infinito Gold v. Costa Rica menegaskan kembali fokus asli FPS pada perlindungan fisik, dengan menekankan pentingnya kejelasan dan kesesuaian dengan maksud historisnya. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa standar FPS sebaiknya tetap dibatasi pada perlindungan fisik untuk menjaga koherensi hukum dan mencegah kewajiban berlebihan bagi negara tuan rumah. Rekomendasi meliputi penentuan yang jelas tentang FPS dalam BITs di masa depan, mendorong majelis arbitrase untuk mempertahankan interpretasi tradisional, serta memastikan kewajiban yang seimbang yang menghormati otonomi regulasi negara tuan rumah. Langkah-langkah ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan kepastian hukum dan stabilitas dalam hukum investasi internasional, terutama bagi negara-negara untuk menyempurnakan BIT-nya dan menghadapi tantangan dalam Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).

---

This research investigates the Full Protection and Security (FPS) standard in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), focusing on its historical role in ensuring physical protection and its controversial expansion to legal protection. Traditionally, FPS obligated host states to protect foreign investors and their assets from physical harm, such as violence or civil unrest. However, recent arbitral decisions have broadened FPS to include legal security, leading to criticisms of vagueness, overlaps with the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard, and undue burdens on host states. While cases like Azurix v. Argentina and CME v. Czech Republic support this expanded interpretation, others, such as Suez and Vivendi v. Argentina and Infinito Gold v. Costa Rica, reaffirm FPS's original focus on physical security, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to its historical intent. The study concludes that the FPS standard should remain limited to physical protection to maintain legal coherence and prevent excessive obligations for host states. Recommendations include clearly defining FPS in future BITs, encouraging tribunals to uphold its traditional interpretation, and ensuring balanced obligations that respect host states' regulatory autonomy. These measures aim to enhance legal certainty and stability in international investment law, especially for countries to refine its BITs and addressing Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) challenges."

"This thesis is aimed to discuss the arrangement of investment dispute settlement through the investor-state dispute settlement ("ISDS") mechanism in international investment agreements.The agreements are the Bilateral Investment Treaty ("BIT") and the Investment Chapter Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (" IC-CEPA ”) which involves the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia as parties to both agreements. This research is a normative legal research and uses secondary data which are analyzed descriptively by a method of systematic and comparative interpretation. The results of the study revealed that the ISDS mechanism settlement at BIT was not much different when compared to the mechanism settlement at the IC-CEPA even though both of them appointed ICSID and UNCITRAL as international arbitration institutions for ISDS. However, with the enactment of IC-CEPA which replaced BIT, it will guarantee legal certainty for both partiesespecially related to avoiding claims that are filed separately but contain the same substance.

---

Tesis ini akan membahas pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa penanaman modal melalui mekanisme investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) dalam perjanjian investasi internasional, dalam hal ini the Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) serta Investment Chapter Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement(“IC-CEPA”) yang melibatkan Republik Indonesia dan Australia sebagai para pihak dalam kedua perjanjian tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dan menggunakan data sekunder yang dianalisis secara deskriptif dengan metode penafsiran sistematis dan komparatif. Hasil penelitian mengungkapkan bahwa pengaturan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa ISDS pada BIT tidak banyak perbedaan jika dibandingkan dengan pengaturan mekanismenya pada IC-CEPA meskipun keduanya sama-sama menunjuk ICSID dan UNCITRAL sebagai institusi arbitrase internasional bagi ISDS. Namun demikian, dengan diberlakukannya IC-CEPA yang menggantikan BIT, akan memberikan jaminan kepastian hukum bagi kedua pihak terutama terkait menghindari gugatan yang diajukan secara terpisah namun berisi substansi yang sama."

"

---

ABSTRACTBilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation organizes, summarizes and comments upon the arbitral awards interpreting and applying BIT provisions. Policymakers and practitioners will find a thorough introduction to the operation of the BITs, including the principal arguments and case authorities on both sides of the major issues in international investment law. The book is intended to be a single-volume reference covering every important development in the 50 years of BIT programs worldwide, from 1959 until 2009.Author Kenneth Vandevelde argues that the primary purpose of the BITs is to promote the application of the rule of law to foreign investment, while a secondary purpose is to create a liberal investment regime. He further argues that BITs are based on six core principles: reasonableness, security, nondiscrimination, access, transparency and due process. The book explains each of these principles and analyzes the major BIT provisions based on them. Vandevelde addresses the host of complex questions that BITs engender: Do bilateral investment treaties attract foreign investment or otherwise contribute to economic development? Do BITs limit host state regulatory discretion too much? Why should countries continue to conclude BITs? What is meant by BIT guarantees of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security"? What is the scope of the BIT provision for most-favored-nation treatment? The book's expert analysis of these questions makes it useful to policy makers in the area of international economic relations, attorneys representing multinational companies, and anyone interested in the process of economic globalization."

"Penelitian ini membahas tentang perlindungan investor asing dalam hukum penanaman modal di Indonesia dengan perbandingan hukum penanaman modal asing Indonesia dan Korea Selatan. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana perlindungan investor asing dalam hukum penanaman Modal di Indonesia dan bagaimana perbandingan hukum penanaman modal asing di Indonesia dan Korea Selatan. Tujuannya ialah untuk mengetahui tentang bagaimana perlindungan investor asing dalam hukum penanaman Modal di Indonesia dan bagaimana perbandingan hukum penanaman modal asing di Indonesia dan Korea Selatan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan penelitian kualitatif.Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal No. 25 Tahun 2007 (UUPM) dan Undang-Undang Promosi Penanaman Modal Asing Korea Selatan (UUPPMA) mempunyai persamaan sebagai peraturan perundangundangan yang dibuat oleh pemerintah untuk memberikan perlindungan hukum terhadap investor asing serta untuk memberikan manfaat sebesar-besarnya terhadap kemakmuran rakyat. Yang membedakan diantara keduanya adalah bahwa UUPPMA mengatur mengenai ketentuan pidana sementara UUPM tidak mengaturnya. Selain pelayanan dan proses pendaftaran yang berbeda. Pada akhirnya semua menuju kepada satu tujuan untuk kemakmuran bersama rakyatnya.

---

This research examined about foreign investment in Indonesia and comparative study of foreign investment law of Indonesia and South Korea. The main issues in this research is how the protection of foreign investors in the investment law of Indonesia and South Korea. The main purpose of this research is to find out the protection of foreign investors in the investment law of Indonesia and South Korea. The research method used in this research is normative law research.

This research found that the investment law in Indonesia and South Korea has the equation as the legislation made by the government to provide legal protection for foreign investors as well as to provide maximum benefit to the public welfare. The differences between Investment Law in Indonesia and South Korea are criminal provisions, the services and the registration process. In South Korea criminal provisions governing by the Investment Law while in Indonesia not set it."

"This book outlines the protection standards typically contained in international investment agreements as they are actually applied and interpreted by investment tribunals. It thus provides a basis for analysis, criticism, and stocktaking of the existing system of investment arbitration. It covers all main protection standards, such as expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, the non-discrimination standards of national treatment and MFN, the prohibition of unreasonable and discriminatory measures, umbrella clauses and transfer guarantees. These standards are covered in separate chapters providing an overview of textual variations, explaining the origin of the standards and analysing the main conceptual issues as developed by investment tribunals. Relevant cases with quotations that illustrate how tribunals have relied upon the standards are presented in depth. An extensive bibliography guides the reader to more specific aspects of each investment standard permitting the book's use as a commentary of the main investment protection standards."