Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Third-Party Funding merupakan metode pendanaan di mana penyandang dana memberikan dana kepada salah satu pihak dalam sengketa untuk menggugat atau meminimalkan gangguan arus kas, dan jika kasus dimenangkan, penyandang dana akan mendapatkan bagian dari putusan akhir yang diperoleh. TPF awalnya dipergunakan dalam litigasi di beberapa yurisdiksi, namun kini semakin populer dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Peningkatan pemanfaatan TPF ini berpotensi menghadirkan dampak yang signifikan. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menganalisis data sekunder dari studi literatur, terutama ICSID Rules and Regulations setelah amandemen keempat. Amandemen ini menghadirkan aturan baru terkait praktik TPF, yakni Pasal 14 dalam ICSID Arbitration Rules tentang Notice of Third-Party Funding. Analisis Skripsi ini terutama difokuskan pada potensi dampak pengaturan baru terhadap praktik arbitrase investasi internasional, bagi Indonesia sebagai host state dalam ICSID, serta sebagai negara pelaksana arbitrase. Skripsi ini diharapkan dapat mendukung implementasi TPF yang lebih mengutamakan akses keadilan berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip Konvensi ICSID, menganalisis hambatan dan tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi oleh Indonesia di kemudian hari, serta dampak yang mungkin dihadirkan terhadap pengaturan arbitrase di Indonesia.

---

Third-Party Funding is a method in which a funder provides funds to one of the parties in a dispute to initiate a claim or minimize cash flow disruption. If the case is won, the funder will receive a share of the final award obtained. TPF was originally used in litigation in several jurisdictions, but is now increasingly popular in international investment arbitration. The increased use of TPF potentially presents significant implications. This thesis employs a normative legal research method by analyzing secondary data from literature studies, especially the ICSID Rules and Regulations after the fourth amendment. The amendment introduces new rules related to TPF practices, namely Article 14 in the ICSID Arbitration Rules concerning Notice of Third-Party Funding. This thesis analysis mainly focuses on the potential implications of the new regulation on international investment arbitration practices, for Indonesia as a host state in ICSID and a state that implements arbitration. This thesis is expected to support the implementation of TPF that prioritizes access to justice based on the principles of the ICSID Convention, analyze barriers and challenges that Indonesia may face in the future, and the potential impact on arbitration regulations in Indonesia."

"Pengenalan The Third Version of The Draft Code memperkenalkan tiga metode yang diusulkan untuk mengatur double hatting dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Pilihannya adalah "full prohibition", "modified prohibition", dan "disclosure with option to challenge". Diskusi telah muncul mengenai opsi mana yang paling sesuai dengan praktik dalam arbitrase investasi internasional yang telah membahas masalah double hatting dalam beberapa kasus. Skripsi ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang meliputi kajian doktrinal, yaitu kajian dan analisis terhadap doktrin-doktrin yang dianut oleh para sarjana hukum, serta dokumen-dokumen hukum yang relevan seperti yurisprudensi, perjanjian internasional. Setelah berkonsultasi dengan undang-undang kasus yang berhubungan dengan masalah pemalsuan topi, pedoman internasional, serta pendapat para sarjana pembenci ganda sebagai praktik tidak dilarang, melainkan keadaan khusus seputar pemalsuan topi adalah penyebab kekhawatiran terbesar. Selama seorang arbiter yang menjalankan peran ganda tidak menghalangi independensi atau ketidakberpihakan mereka, praktik itu sendiri diperbolehkan. Oleh karena itu, opsi "modified prohibition" akan paling cocok karena memberikan larangan yang ditargetkan terhadap keadaan yang telah terbukti menciptakan penampilan atau menunjukkan kurangnya independensi atau ketidakberpihakan.

---

The introduction of The Third Version of The Draft Code introduces three proposed methods of regulating double hatting within international investment arbitration. The options are “full prohibition”, “modified prohibition”, and “disclosure with option to challenge”. Discussions have arisen concerning which option best fits with practice in international investment arbitration that has already addressed the issue of double hatting in several cases. This thesis shall utilize normative legal research which includes doctrinal study, meaning the study and analysis of doctrines adopted by legal scholars, as well as relevant legal documents such as jurisprudence, international agreements. After consulting case laws dealing with the issue of double hatting, international guidelines, as well as the opinions of scholars double hatting as a practice is not prohibited, but rather the specific circumstances surrounding double hatting are the biggest cause of concern. So long as an arbitrator practicing multiple roles does not impede on their independence or impartiality the practice itself is permissible. Therefore, a “modified prohibition” option would be best suited as it provides targeted prohibitions toward circumstances that have been proven to create an appearance or manifest lack of independence or impartiality."

"ABSTRAKSktipsi ini membahas tentang konsep dana pihak ketiga (DPK) yaitumetode pendanaan alternatif sebagai solusi untuk mengatasi kenaikan biaya diperlukan dalam penyelesaian sengketa dan penerapannya di Indonesia. Di Secara khusus, tesis ini mengkaji apa itu konsep DPK dan kegunaannya yang mulai berkembang dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase. Kemudian, juga membahas upaya beberapa negara untuk mengatur konsep ini dalam undang-undang perjanjian nasional maupun internasional, serta yang penting harus diatur untuk mengajukan TPF dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase. Pembahasan dalam tesis ini disusun berdasarkan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan konseptual, normatif, historis, dan hukum. Berdasarkan hasil Hasil penelitian, tulisan ini menyimpulkan bahwa DPK adalah metode pendanaan resolusi perselisihan sekarang semakin populer dan penggunaannya dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase, yang kemudian disambut dengan upaya-upaya yang diatur oleh beberapa negara dalam hukum nasional serta dalam instrumen perjanjian internasional tentang hal-hal penting dapat mengatur dan meminimalkan risiko dalam penggunaan DPK. Meskipun mengenali praktik pendanaan informal dan mulai terlibat dalam perselisihan arbitrase internasional yang melibatkan TPF, Indonesia masih belum punya pengaturan khusus terkait TPF. Mengenai masalah ini, maka makalah ini mengusulkan beberapa hal yang perlu diatur untuk menerapkan konsep DPK dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase di Indonesia.ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the concept of third party funds (DPK), namelyAlternative funding methods as a solution to address rising costs are required in dispute resolution and implementation in Indonesia. In particular, this thesis examines what the DPK concept is and its uses which have begun to develop in dispute resolution through arbitration. Then, it also discusses the efforts of several countries to regulate this concept in national and international treaty laws, and what is important must be arranged to submit TPF in dispute resolution through arbitration. The discussion in this thesis is prepared based on normative juridical methods with conceptual, normative, historical, and legal approaches. Based on the results of the research, this paper concludes that TPF is a method of funding dispute resolution which is now increasingly popular and its use in dispute resolution through arbitration, which is then greeted by efforts regulated by several countries in national law as well as in international treaty instruments on matters it is important to be able to regulate and minimize risks in the use of TPF. Despite recognizing informal funding practices and starting to get involved in international arbitration disputes involving the TPF, Indonesia still does not have specific arrangements regarding the TPF. Regarding this issue, this paper proposes several things that need to be regulated to apply the DPK concept in dispute resolution through arbitration in Indonesia."

"The tendency to use the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BITs) by investors as a legal basis to file an international arbitra hon claim against the HostCountry is increasing recently Denunciations of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as well as the termination of several BITs by some other countries raise complex legal issues in the international investment regime. Since Indonesia has been and still experiencing legal suits before the ICSID international arbitration, the discourse t6 take the similar path, Le. to denounce from ICSID Convention and terminate some of i'ts BITs, is emerging. This paper discusses the questions tha t arise with respect to the denunciation of the ICSID Convention and with the termination of· BITs. The denunciation is still debatable since there are differen t in terpreta tions as to whether the denouncing state remains bound by the Convention; and the existence of "survival clause" in BIT creates the possibility for an investor to file a claim before the ICSID international arbitration, even though it has terminated the BIT.;"

"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."

"Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID memberikan kewenangan kepada Majelis Arbitrase untuk menyaring perkara yang memenuhi unsur "manifestly without legal merit." Penulis melakukan kajian terhadap tiga dari dua puluh lima putusan yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Majelis Arbitrase ICSID terhadap keberatan yang diajukan berdasarkan Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis-normatif dalam penulisannya. Penelitian ini Penulis lakukan untuk menjelaskan secara jelas dan lengkap aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional dan hasil interpretasi Majelis Arbitrase ICSID terhadap Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID, khususnya terhadap unsur "manifestly without legal merit," pada perkara Global Trading Resource Corporation and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/09/11 , Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/10/6 , dan Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Keresked h z Vagyonkezel Zrt. v. Hungary Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/12/3.

---

Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rules gives Tribunal the authority to dismiss a case which is manifestly without legal merit. This thesis contains the analysis on three out of twenty five award or decisions rendered by Tribunal on the objection which invoked Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rules. The research for this thesis is conducted in a normative legal research method. It is the intention of this thesis to describe the aspects of Private International Law and the outcome of Tribunal's interpretation on Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rule, specifically regarding the element of "manifestly without legal merit," in the cases of Global Trading Resource Corporation and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6), dan Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. Nomor ARB/12/3)."

"BIT Indonesia-Singapura yang disetujui tahun 2020 sempat menuai kontroversi karena BIT telah terbukti mengancam kedaulatan negara dengan adanya klausul yang memungkinkan investor asing menggugat langsung negara ke arbitrase internasional. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis alasan Indonesia dalam menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif dengan pengambilan data berupa wawancara, korespondensi dengan Kementerian, serta penelitian berbasis internet. Hasil penelitian dengan menggunakan analisis teori permainan dua tingkat adalah Indonesia menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020 karena terdapat keselarasan kepentingan antara Indonesia dan Singapura yang saling menguntungkan serta didukung oleh mayoritas aktor domestik Indonesia (Kementerian Luar Negeri, Kementerian Investasi, Kementerian Keuangan, Kementerian Perindustrian, Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian, Sembcorp Development Ltd dan PT Jababeka Tbk). Kepentingan Indonesia yakni ingin memperbarui BIT untuk mengantisipasi kemungkinan adanya gugatan investor terhadap negara ke arbitrase internasional serta ingin meningkatkan jumlah investasi yang masuk ke Indonesia. Adapun kepentingan Singapura yakni ingin memberikan kepastian hukum bagi investor dan ingin memiliki DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) untuk meningkatkan kredibilitas dan daya saing sebagai investment hub. Meskipun terdapat perbedaan preferensi dalam proses negosiasi BIT Indonesia Singapura tahun 2020, yakni adanya penolakan BIT dari Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), namun ukuran win-set nya tetap besar sehingga mendukung ratifikasi perjanjian tersebut.

---

The Indonesia-Singapore BIT which was approved in 2020 caused controversy because the BIT has been proven to threaten the country's sovereignty with a clause that allows foreign investors to sue the country directly in international arbitration. This research aims to analyze Indonesia's reasons for agreeing to the BIT with Singapore in 2020. The method used in this research is qualitative by collecting data in the form of interviews, correspondence with the Ministry, and internet-based research. The results of research using two-level game theory analysis are that Indonesia agreed to the BIT with Singapore in 2020 because there is a mutually beneficial alignment of interests between Indonesia and Singapore and supported by the majority of Indonesian domestic actors (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Investment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Coordinator for Economic Affairs, Sembcorp Development Ltd and PT Jababeka Tbk). Indonesia's interests are to update the BIT to anticipate the possibility of investor lawsuits against the state in international arbitration and to increase the amount of investment entering Indonesia. Singapore's interests are that it wants to provide legal certainty for investors and wants to have a DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) to increase credibility and competitiveness as an investment hub. Even though there are differences in preferences in the 2020 Singapore Indonesia BIT negotiation process, such as the rejection of the BIT from Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), the size of the win-set remains large, thus supporting the ratification of the agreement. "

"Sebagai salah bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap investor, arbitrase investasi internasional memberikan sarana kepada investor asing untuk mengajukan klaim atas dasar perlindungan-perlindungan substantif yang menjadi hak investor. Dalam perkembangannya, tribunal arbitrase seringkali dihadapkan dengan isu korupsi yang dijadikan argumentasi oleh para pihak untuk menolak yurisdiksi tribunal atau meniadakan klaim pihak lain. Kondisi tersebut menimbulkan komplikasi dan ketidakpastian terkait perlindungan investor mengingat sarana terhadap arbitrase merupakan bentuk perlindungan prosedural bagi investor. Sifat dari tindak pidana korupsi yang luas, multi-dimensional dan memiliki sisi pemberi dan penerima juga berperan dalam menambah komplikasi permasalahan ini. Penelitian ini akan membahas komplikasi tersebut serta mengkaji kesiapan hukum investasi Indonesia dalam menghadapi permasalahan tersebut.

---

As one of a form of protection toward investors, international investment arbitration provides a way for foreign investor to file a lawsuit based on the substantive protection provided to them as a right. In its development, arbitral tribunal often faced with an issue of corruption that serve as a killing argument against the claim of other parties, this condition has the potential to complicate the issue and create uncertainty towards investor protection in which the international investment arbitration itself serves as a procedural protection of investor. The nature of the corruption which is broad, multi-dimensional, and got supply and demand side in it, furtherly complicate the issue. This study will discuss on this complicated issue and review about the readiness of Indonesian Investment Law to deal with the issue."

"Investor-state arbitration is a relatively new dispute settlement mechanism that allows foreign investors the opportunity to seek redress for damages arising out of breaches of investment-related treaty obligations by the governments of host countries. Claims are submitted to independent, international arbitration tribunals, which are called upon to interpret the treaty at hand. Because of the public interest involved in these cases, the awards of these tribunals are subject to much scrutiny and debate. Thus, it has already generated hundreds of cases and created new legal disciplines, inspiring a continuous string of legal writings. This book describes the process of investor-state arbitration in all of its phases, and provides the reader with comprehensive insight into investor-state arbitration. It includes contributions from many of the leading experts in the field, from private practitioners and academics to government and NGO officials. In this way, this book differs from other books on this topic because it includes contributions from all actors involved, providing more credibility in an area in which one of the main criticisms is bias against governments. This book provides pragmatic and reliable analysis of all aspects of this evolving topic."

"Terlepas dari peran penting putusan arbitrase dan kesetaraannya dengan putusan pengadilan, penegakan dalam praktis dan pelaksanaan putusan ini menghadapi tantangan berat, khususnya dalam konteks keterlibatan negara berdaulat. Pihak negara sering mengajukan argumen yang menentang yurisdiksi arbitrase atau menegaskan hak untuk pengabaian, memerlukan panduan yang tepat yang berasal dari ketentuan undang-undang yang menghindari ambiguitas dan bias, memohon kekebalan kedaulatan mereka sebagai perisai terhadap penegakan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase. Studi ini secara komprehensif menganalisis interaksi rumit antara sistem pengadilan nasional dan proses ISDS. Menggunakan pendekatan studi kasus yang mencakup yurisdiksi hukum umum seperti Australia, Hong Kong, dan Kanada, penelitian ini mengeksplorasi bagaimana pengadilan nasional dengan sistem hukum yang berbeda menyelaraskan kerangka hukum mereka dengan tujuan dan tujuan mendasar arbitrase ICSID. Temuan penting dari penyelidikan ini menekankan pentingnya keadilan bagi pihak-pihak yang terlibat, yang bergantung pada kejelasan dan integritas peraturan arbitrase itu sendiri.

---

Despite the vital role of arbitration awards and their equivalence to court judgments, the practical enforcement and execution of these awards encounter formidable challenges, particularly in the context of sovereign state involvement. State parties often raise arguments contesting the arbitration jurisdiction or asserting entitlement to waivers, necessitating precise guidance derived from statutory provisions that avoid ambiguity and bias, invoking their sovereign immunity as a shield against the enforcement and execution of arbitration awards. This study comprehensively analyses the intricate interplay between national court systems and ISDS processes. Employing a case study approach encompassing common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Hong Kong, and Canada, this research explores how national courts with distinct legal systems align their legal frameworks with the ICSID arbitration's fundamental objectives and purposes. A salient finding of this investigation emphasizes the essentiality of justice for the parties involved, which hinges on the clarity and integrity of the arbitration rules themselves."