Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Setiap negara, termasuk Indonesia, memiliki otonomi dan kedaulatan dalam membentuk peraturan nasional untuk mencapai tujuan kebijakan yang bukan perdagangan atau non-trade policy objectives yang dikehendaki oleh negara tersebut. Pada praktiknya muncul sengketa-sengketa di hadapan Dispute Settlement Body World Trade Organization (DSB WTO) dimana justifikasi berdasarkan non-trade policy objectives atas klaim ketidakpatuhan terhadap komitmen liberalisasi dalam General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) diuji keabsahannya, namun banyak negara gagal dalam menjustifikasikan non-trade policy objectivesnya, termasuk dalam hal ini, Indonesia. Terkait dengan hal tersebut, penelitian kritis mengenai pengaturan justifikasi berdasarkan non-trade policy objectives dalam GATT, praktik negara-negara, serta praktik justifikasi Indonesia berdasarkan non-trade policy objectives menjadi penting. Tesis ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. GATT pada dasarnya memiliki mekanisme justifikasi berdasarkan non-trade policy objectives sebagaimana diatur dalam Article XX GATT tentang General Exceptions. Praktik negara-negara dalam melakukan justifikasi menunjukan bahwa negara hanya dapat menjustifikasikan non-trade policy objectivesnya berdasarkan Article XX GATT apabila, berdasarkan bukti yang cukup, kebijakan negara tersebut secara murni dan berdasarkan itikad baik ditujukan untuk objectives yang tercakup dalam Article XX GATT seperti dalam Kasus EC - Asbestos. Praktik yang dilakukan Indonesia bahkan belum dapat menunjukan necessity dan keterhubungan antara non-trade policy objectives yang diadopsinya dengan objectives yang tercakup dalam Article XX GATT. Putusan DSB WTO cenderung menggunakan interpretasi dengan metode tekstual dan tidak menggunakan interpretasi berdasarkan pertimbangan deference to states yang mempertimbangkan Indonesia sebagai negara berkembang. Sehingga Indonesia tetap wajib menyesuaikan peraturan domestiknya dengan ketentuan-ketentuan GATT berdasarkan prinsip pacta sunt servanda dan menjalankannya dengan itikad baik. ......Any states, including Indonesia, has the autonomy and sovereignty to establish domestic regulations to achieve non-trade policy objectives which the states desired. In practices dispute appears before the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (DSB WTO) where justification based on non-trade policy objectives for claim of incompliances to liberalization commitment in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) is being tested for its legitimation, however many countries failed to justify its non-trade policy objectives, including in this case, Indonesia. In relation to that, the critical research on the rules of justification based on non-trade policy objectives in the GATT, state practices, as well as Indonesia’s justification practices based on non-trade policy objectives is important. This thesis is written with doctrinal research method. Fundamentally, GATT have justification of non-trade policy objectives mechanism based on Article XX GATT on General Exceptions. State practices in justifying its non-trade policy objectives shows that a country can only justify its non-trade policy objectives based on Article XX GATT if, based on sufficient proof, the state’s measure purely and based on good faith is aimed to achieve the objectives covered in Article XX GATT as appeared in EC – Asbestos case. Indonesia practices has not shown necessity and interlinkage between the adopted non-trade policy objectives with the objectives stipulated in Article XX GATT. The DSB WTO tends to use interpretation using traditional-textual methods, nor does it use interpretation based on considerations of deference to states where Indonesia is a developing country. Thus, Indonesia is still obliged to adapt its domestic regulations in accordance with the GATT provisions based on the pacta sunt servanda principle and implement them in good faith.

Abstrak :
Kewajiban internasional yang terdapat dalam GATT 1994 dapat menghambat Negara Anggota dalam memerangi Pandemi Covid-19. Mengingat adanya peningkatan permintaan global terhadap produk medis dan alat pelindung diri, Negara-Negara Anggota harus menerapkan kebijakan untuk memastikan bahwa pasokan produk tersebut, serta bahan untuk memproduksinya cukup untuk kebutuhan dalam negeri. Walaupun pembatasan ini merupakan pelanggaran terhadap GATT 1994, kewajiban tersebut dapat dikesampingkan menggunakan klausul general exceptions dan carve-out method. Akan tetapi, perlu diperhatikan bahwa agar dapat dijustifikasi, suatu kebijakan harus memenuhi beberapa elemen atau unsur yang terdapat dalam pasal pengecualian. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memaparkan unsur-unsur yang harus dipenuhi dan memberikan analisis tentang kesesuaian kebijakan pembatasan ekspor yang diterapkan Indonesia dan India terhadap bahan baku masker selama Pandemi Covid-19. Menggunakan metode normatif yuridis dan pendekatan kualitatif, penelitian menyimpulkan dua hal. Pertama, terdapat perbedaan antara carve-out method dan general exceptions, seperti objektif dari kebijakan, penggunaan necessity test, dan durasi kebijakan. Akibatnya, kebijakan yang konsisten dengan salah satu pengecualian dapat tidak sesuai dengan pengecualian yang lainnya. Kedua, Indonesia telah memenuhi unsur-unsur dalam kedua pengecualian tersebut, sedangkan India tidak memenuhinya. ......The international obligations under GATT 1994 could pose as an obstacle to Member States in fighting the Covid-19 Pandemic. Given the rise in the global demand for medical products and personal protective equipment, Member States must take measures to ensure the availability of these products, as well as the factors of production required to manufacture it. As a result, numerous states have imposed export restrictions on the raw materials of masks. Despite the fact that these restrictions may be a violation of GATT 1994, these measures could be exempted from liability through the use of the WTO general exceptions clause and the carve-out method. However, it must be noted that in order to be exempted, the measure in question must fulfill several cumulative criterion or elements. This study aims to elaborate the criterion that must be fulfilled and provide an analysis on the consistency of the measures imposed by Indonesia and India towards the raw materials of masks as a response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Using a normative-juridical method and a qualitative approach, this study resulted in two conclusions. First, there are several differences between the carve-out method and the general exceptions clause, such as the objective of measure, the use of the necessity test, and the duration of the measure. As a result, a measure that is justifiable using one clause may not be justifiable by the other. Second, Indonesia has fulfilled the elements required in both clauses, while India has failed to do so.