Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Penelitian tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu metode penelitian yang mengacu kepada norma-norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan pengadilan. Tesis ini membahas sengketa yang timbul di dalam perusahaan patungan atau yang juga sering disebut dengan perusahaan joint venture. Dalam perusahaan joint venture sengketa mungkin timbul antara patner asing dan patner lokal, maupun antara patner asing dengan pemerintah. Tesis ini membahas sengketa yang sebenarnya bermula antara patner asing dan patner lokal, yang kemudian berujung menjadi sengketa antara patner asing dan pemerintah Republik Indonesia yaitu dengan Badan Koordiantor Penanaman Modal ( BKPM ). BKPM digugat melalui Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara atas surat pencabutan izin penanaman modal asing yang diajukan oleh patner lokal tanpa sepengetahuan dari patner asing. Tesis ini juga membahas perkembangan perusahaan joint venture, dimana sebelumnya untuk penanaman modal asing di Indonesia tidak ada kewajiban untuk melakukan joint venture. Namun sejak terjadinya peristiwa Malari maka timbulah kewajiban untuk melakukan joint venture. Dibahas juga mengenai bentuk badan hukum sebuah perusahaan joint venture dalam hukum Indonesia. Selain masalah tersebut di bahas juga mengenai pola penyelesaian sengketa dalam penanaman modal dimana cara yang ideal adalah bila timbul penyelesaian sengketa dilakukan terlebih dahulu musyarawah, apabila tidak tercapai kemudian diajukan ke arbitrase atau pengadilan. ......This thesis research using normative legal research methods, the method of research which refers to the legal norms contained in legislation and court decisions. This thesis describes the disputes which arise in the joint venture, or who are also often called a joint venture company. In its joint venture partners dispute may arise between foreign and local partners, as well as between foreign partners with the government. This thesis discusses the actual dispute began between foreign partners and local partners who then led into a dispute between foreign partners and the government of the Republic of Indonesia, namely the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). BKPM was sued by the State Administrative Court for revocation of letters of foreign investment put forward by local partners without the knowledge of a foreign partner. This thesis also discusses the development of a joint venture company, which previously for foreign investment in Indonesia, there is no obligation to do joint ventures. But since then the incident of Malari made obligation to do joint ventures. Considerations about the legal entity form a joint venture company under Indonesian law. In addition to these problems are discussed also about the patterns of settlement of investment disputes in which the ideal way is when a dispute arises deliberation is done first, if not achieved then submitted to arbitration or court.

Abstrak :

Pasal 25(4) Konvensi ICSID memperbolehkan suatu negara untuk melakukan pemberitahuan mengenai golongan sengketa penanaman modal yang dikecualikan dari yurisdiksi ICSID. Berdasarkan ketentuan ini, pemerintah Indonesia melalui Keputusan Presiden No. 31 Tahun 2012 (“Keputusan Presiden 31/2012”) telah melakukan pemberitahuan untuk  mengecualikan sengketa penanaman modal yang timbul dari keputusan tata usaha negara yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintah kabupaten. Namun, pemberitahuan mengenai pengecualian sengketa dianggap tidak dapat diberlakukan kecuali dimasukkan kedalam pasal dalam perjanjian investasi yang mengandung persetujuan negara terkait terhadap yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, ketentuan dalam pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia belum dimasukkan dalam seluruh perjanjian investasi yang mengikat Indonesia. Penelitian ini membahas, pertama, dampak hukum dari Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 terhadap pembatasan yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, penelitian ini membahas metode untuk menginkorporasi ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 dan pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia ke dalam klausul persetujuan terbatas dalam suatu perjanjian investasi. Penelitian ini juga membahas sejauh mana klausul persetujuan terbatas tersebut dapat digunakan untuk menolak yurisdiksi ICSID.  Dengan melakukan penelitian yuridis-normatif, dapat disimpulkan bahwa keberlakuan Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 akan membuat penyelesaian sengketa yang dikecualikan terbatas pada penyelesaian melalui Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia. Ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 harus dimasukkan dalam perjanjian investasi melalui cara reproduksi atau perubahan klausul persetujuan terbatas yang mengandung pengecualian dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 juga tidak akan memiliki dampak terhadap penolakan yurisdiksi ICSID.

 

---

Article 25(4) of the ICSID Convention allows a state to notify the exclusion of certain classes of investment disputes from ICSID jurisdiction. Pursuant to this provision, the Indonesian government through Presidential Decree No. 31 of 2012 (“Presidential Decree 31/2012”) made a notification to exclude investment disputes arising from administrative decisions issued by the regency governments. Notifications of exclusion, however, are considered inoperable unless incorporated into the investment treaty provision expressing the notifying state’s consent to ICSID jurisdiction. Moreover, the terms of Indonesia’s notification of exclusion have not been included in any investment treaty that Indonesia is a party to. This research discusses, firstly, the legal consequence of Presidential Decree 31/2012 with regards to limiting ICSID jurisdiction. Secondly, this research discusses the methods through which the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 and Indonesia’s notification of exclusion may be incorporated into a limited consent clause of an investment treaty. Thirdly, this research also discusses the extent to which such a limited consent clause may be invoked to deny ICSID jurisdiction. By conducting a juridical normative legal research, it can be concluded that the operation of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would limit the forum for the settlement of the excluded disputes to the Indonesian Administrative Judiciary. Moreover, the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would have to be incorporated into an investment treaty by way of reproduction or amendment. Further, a consent clause that expresses the exclusion made in Presidential Decree 31/2012 would be inconsequential in denying ICSID jurisdiction.

 

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
The tendency to use the Bllateral Investment Treaty (BITS) by investors as a legal bas1s to flle an 1nternat1onal arbitration claim against the Host Country is increasing recently. Denunciations of the Internatlonal Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as Well as the termination of several BITS by some other countries reuse complex legal ISSUES in the international investment regime. Since Indonesia has been and still experiencing legal suits before the ICSID international arbitrat1on the discourse to take the similar path i.e to denounce from ICSID Convention and terminate some of its BITS 1.9 emerging. This paper discusses the questions that arise With respect to the denunciation of the ICSID Convention and With the termination of BITS The denunciation 1s st1ll debatable since there are different interpretations as to whether the denouncing state remains bound by the Convention and the existence of survival clause III BIT creates the possibility for an investor to flle a claim before the ICSID innternational arbitration even though It has terminated the BIT