Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :

---

ABSTRACT
In this study, Caroline Henckels examines how investment tribunals have balanced the competing interests of host states and foreign investors in determining state liability in disputes concerning the exercise of public power. Analyzing the concepts of proportionality and deference in investment tribunals' decision-making in comparative perspective, the book proposes a new methodology for investment tribunals to adopt in regulatory disputes, which combines proportionality analysis with an institutionally sensitive approach to the standard of review. Henckels argues that adopting a modified form of proportionality analysis would provide a means for tribunals to decide cases in a more consistent and coherent manner leading to greater certainty for both states and investors, and that affording due deference to host states in the determination of liability would address the concern that the decisions of investment tribunals unjustifiably impact on the regulatory autonomy of states.

Abstrak :
This is the first comprehensive study of corruption in international investment arbitration. The book considers the limited effectiveness of efforts to combat transnational corruption in international law and the emergence of international investment arbitration as a singular means foreffective control of corruption within the international legal order. The case law on corruption by investment tribunals is studied exhaustively, jurisprudential trends are identified, and reforms aimed at enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of investment arbitration as a mechanism to combatcorruption are proposed. Divided into three parts, part I focus on the phenomenon of corruption in foreign investment and attempts at its control through international law. Part II analyses the available case law in international investment arbitration dealing with corruption. Llamzon identifies nine distinct trendsemerging from the case law and provides a table summarizing the key areas of corruption decision-making and each relevant tribunal's approach, which is an invaluable tool for practitioners engaging in "live" issues of corruption within arbitral proceedings. Part III reflects on the implications ofthese trends for both the "supply" and "demand" sides of corruption in international law, and proposes a integrative framework of decision for corruption issues in international investment arbitration.

Abstrak :
This article explores the main features of exceptions to enforcement under Article V of the NYC, including its exhaustive and discretionary natures. It then specifically provides an overview of narrow judicial control over the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Article V of the NYC. It points out the fundamental principles of the provision in determining the enforceability of international arbitral awards. Then this article will occasionally refer to international arbitral cases in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, France and Switzerland. It is noted that courts and legislatures in those jurisdictions have moved towards pro-enforcement policy to questions of recognition and enforcement arising under Article V of the NYC. Therefore, this approach is a good signal and a promising development to promote the finality and enforeability of foreign arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration. This approach can also be a good lesson for the Indonesian judiciary system in relation to the enforcement and recognition of international arbitral awards in the future.

Artikel ini menganalisis tentang alasan-alasan penolakan pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional yang diatur di dalam Pasal V Konvensi New York 1958, termasuk sifat limitatif dan diskresi dari ketentuan tersebut. Beberapa putusan pengadilan di berbagai negara seperti Amerika Serikat dan Perancis menunjukkan adanya tendensi untuk menerapkan ketentuan Pasal V Konvensi New York secara restriktif. Fenomena ini mencerminkan adanya kecenderungan dari berbagai negara untuk menerapkan prinsip ‘pro enforcement’ terhadap pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional sehingga lebih memberikan jaminan kepastian hukum terhadap pengakuan/pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional di berbagai negara yang telah meratifikasi Konvensi New York. Penerapan prinsip ‘pro enforcement’ juga dapat memberikan paradigma baru bagi Pengadilan di Indonesia terkait dengan pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional.