Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Thesis ini mengangkat isu mengenai peninjauan kembali Analisis Konsistensi Penerapan Prinsip Fair and Equitable Treatment ( FET ) terhadap Putusan Arbitrase atas Investor-State Dispute Settlement ( ISDS ) serta eksistensinya dalam Perjanjian Investasi Internasional yang terdapat dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Isu eksistensi dan inkonsisten ISDS saat ini telah memicu perdebatan mengingat banyaknya gugatan yang diajukan oleh korporasi (MNC/TNC) yang dalam hal ini sebagai investor kepada negara tuan rumah (host state) yang dianggap merugikan host state dalam menjalankan kebijakan di negaranya. Kekurangan-kekurangan yang ada pada ISDS telah membuat hilangnya kepercayaan publik dan karenanya, dibentuklah investment Court System ( ICS ) sebagai sebuah alternatif mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa yang lebih kredible dengan mencantumkan prinsip-prinsip International Arbitrator Independence. Prinsip Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) merupakan salah satu prinsip utama dalam hukum investasi internasional, dimana negara tempat investasi ditanamkan (host state) berkewajiban untuk menjamin perlakuan yang adil dan setara terhadap investasi yang dilakukan oleh investor asing. Dalam perkembangannya, terdapat perdebatan dalam mendefinisikan prinsip FET.

---

This research pose an issue concerning of reviewing the Consistency Analysis in the Application of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Principle to the Arbitration Award of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and existence which are accommodated in International Investment Agreements contained in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITS). The of the existence and incosistency of the current ISDS has sparked an intense debate considering a lot of a lawsuit filed by the corporation (MNC/TNC) which in this case as an investor to the host state were considered detrimental to the them in running the domestic. The shortcomings of ISDS have caused a loss of public confidence and hence, an Investment Court System (ICS) was formed as an alternative to a more credible dispute resolution mechanism by including the principles of the International Independence Arbitrator. The principle of Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) is one of the main principles in international investment law, where the country where investment is invested (host state) is obliged to guarantee fair and equal treatment of investments made by foreign investors. In its development, there is a debate in defining the principle of FET.

Abstrak :

Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) akan berkekuatan hukum tetap pada Juli 2020. Seperti perjanjian investasi bilateral pada umunya, perjanjian baru ini menimbulkan banyak pertanyaan mengenai hubungan antara hak-hak investor dan hak regulasi negara. Rumusan-rumusan masalah adalah 1) Bagaimana klausa Fair and Equitable Treatment dalam IA-CEPA mengatur hubungan antara investor dan negara, beserta dengan hak dan kewajiban mereka masing-masing? Dan 2) Mengingat IA-CEPA tidak mengandung klausa explisit mengenai kewajiban investor, apakah ada klausa-klausa lain yang membatasi klaim investor dalam rangka mencapai keseimbangan hak dan kewajiban para pihak secara substantif? Riset dilakukan secara Doctrinal Legal Research dan menggunakan metode-metode komparatif. Kesimpulannya adalah, IA-CEPA tidak memiliki inovasi yang signifikan dalam menyeimbangkan hak dan kewajiban para pihak di dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral. Namun, IA-CEPA telah mengimplementasikan doktrin Clean Hands untuk menghindari klaim investor yang mungkin illegal. Secara keseluruhan, IA-CEPA masih merefleksikan perjanjian investasi bilateral pada umunya dan tidak mengkontribusikan inovasi signifikan.

 

---

The Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) between Indonesia and Australia will enter into force in July 2020. Similar to any newly ratified bilateral investment treaty, it arises questions towards investors rights and the states right to regulate. The research questions are 1) How does the Fair and Equitable Treatment clause in the IA-CEPA strikes the balance between the host states’ obligations towards foreign investors on the one hand and the foreign investors’ expectations with respect to their investment in the host state on the other? And 2) Considering that IA-CEPA does not include any explicit obligations for investors, is substantive balance between investors and States achieved by placing jurisdictional conditions for foreign investor’s protection under IIA, in particular limitations of an access to Investor-State Dispute Settlement for fraudulent and illegal conduct? The form of research is a doctrinal legal research with comparative methods. The conclusions are that the IA-CEPA has not introduced significant innovations to balance the state’s right to regulate with the investors’ private rights under the treaty. However, it should be mentioned that it has managed to codify the lean hands doctrine to the text of the treaty, in order to dismiss claims for investors that may have been illegal in establishing the investment. Overall, it is still merely a reflection of the previous investment treaties and have not contributed to the development of International Investment Treaties.

 

Abstrak :
Investor-state dispute settlement adalah ketentuan yang umum terdapat di P4M. Ketentuan tersebut bertujuan untuk memberikan perlindungan kegiatan investasi asing di negara penerima investasi. Ketentuan tersebut juga terdapat di ACIA dan lebih dari satu P4M bilateral yang berlaku di ASEAN. Banyaknya P4M yang berlaku tersebut mengakibatkan banyaknya ketentuan investor-state dispute settlement yang berlaku pula di ASEAN karena tidak seragamnya ketentuan investor-state dispute settlement di setiap P4M. Adanya perbedaan ketentuan tersebut dapat dimanfaatkan oleh investor asing untuk mencari keuntungan dari suatu P4M bagi kegiatan investasi yang dilakukan di negara ASEAN lainnya. Keuntungan tersebut dapat diraih dengan cara treaty shopping dan forum shopping.

---

Investor-state dispute settlement is a common provision in a BIT. The provision is intended to provide protection of foreign investment activity in the host state. The provision could also be found in ACIA and more than one BIT in ASEAN. Those investment agreements resulted many investor-state dispute settlement are in force in the ASEAN because there is no uniform provision of the investor-state dispute settlement in each of those agrements. The difference in those provisions could be used by foreign investors to get benefits from a BIT or ACIA for their investment activities in other ASEAN countries. The benefits could be achieved by treaty shopping and forum shopping.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS yang terdapat di dalam sebagian besar Bilateral Investment Treaties secara global mengandung beberapa kekurangan utama. Kekurangan-kekurangan ini menyebabkan mekanisme ISDS ini dikritisi oleh berbagai pihak dalam masyarakat termasuk para pakar, masyarakat umum, dan juga pemerintah-pemerintah itu sendiri, terutama dalam wacana dimasukannya ISDS ini ke dalam Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP . Karena itu, pemikiran untuk dibuatnya Investment Court System ICS dimunculkan oleh Uni Eropa sebagai solusi dari kekurangan-kekurangan pada ISDS untuk TTIP beserta seluruh perjanjian investasi Uni Eropa di masa yang akan datang. Dengan demikian, kekurangan-kekurangan utama pada ISDS beserta dengan fitur-fitur ICS yang dirumuskan dalam mengatasi kekurangan-kekurangan ISDS tersebut merupakan topik utama sekaligus tujuan dari penelitian ini. Di sini, berdasarkan metode penelitian normative di mana analisa dari sumber data sekunder telah dilakukan, telah ditemukan bahwa terdapat enam kekurangan utama di ISDS. Kekurangan-kekurangan utama tersebut terdiri dari tiadanya kontrol terhadap putusan yang dikeluarkan, transparansi, kempetensi dari para arbitrator, benturan kepentingan, dan dampak pada kedaulatan. Berkenaan dengan hal demikian, ICS mengatasi masing-masing dari kekurangan tersebut dengan membentuk Appeal Tribunal, Judges yang bersifat tetap untuk menciptakan konsistensi, mengadopsi UNCITRAL Rules of Transparency, menentukan standar kualifikasi dari para Judges, menghilangkan system penunjukan arbitrator oleh pihak bersengketa serta dualisme fungsi arbitrator, dan perlindungan yang lebih kuat untuk kedaulatan Host States melalui diatasinya kekurangan-kekurangan tersebut. Kesimpulannya, fitur-fitur dari ICS yang diajukan akan dapat memperbaiki kekurangan-kekurangan yang terdapat dalam mekanisme ISDS dan karenanya, ICS merupakan mekanisme yang lebih baik disbanding dengan ISDS yang sekarang ini ada.

---

ABSTRACT
The Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS that exists in the most Bilateral Investment Treaties in the globe contains protuberant drawbacks. These drawbacks had lead the current ISDS mechanism to be criticized by many parts of society that includes the scholars, general society, and the governments themselves, especially in its inclusion in the current Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP . Thus, the idea to establish an Investment Court System ICS is conceived by the European Union EU as the solution to the drawbacks of ISDS for the TTIP and all prospective investment agreements of the EU. In relation to this, the prominent drawbacks of the current ISDS along with the ICS as the solution to those drawbacks had been the main questions and objectives of this research. Here, based on the normative research method, in which the analysis of secondary data sources is conducted, it had been found that there are six prominent drawbacks of ISDS. Those main drawbacks consist of the inexistence of control toward the awards, inconsistency, transparency, arbitrators rsquo competence, conflict of interest, and effects on the sovereignty. Respectively, ICS encounters each of the drawbacks through the establishment of Appeal Tribunal, Judges with secure tenancy in upholding the consistency, adopting the UNCITRAL Rules of Transparency, setting the minimum qualification for the Judges, eradicating the party appointment for the arbitrators along with the dual roles of the arbitrators, and a stronger protection to the sovereignty of the Host States through tackling the aforementioned drawbacks. In the conclusion, the features of the proposed ICS shall be able to fix the problems in the current ISDS and therefore, ICS is a better mechanism compared to the current ISDS.

Abstrak :
Perjanjian Kemitraan Ekonomi Komprehensif Indonesia-Australia (“IA-CEPA”), adalah perjanjian perdagangan yang baru-baru ini disimpulkan, yang mencakup ketentuan Persyaratan yang Adil dan Berkeadilan, Fair and Equitable Treatment, (“Persyaratan FET”) sebagai standar perlakuan bagi investor asing, dan klausula Penyelesaian Sengketa Investor-Negara (“PSIN”) sebagai metode penyelesaian sengketa yang disepakati dalam hal timbul perselisihan di antara para pihak. Ada dua poin utama IA-CEPA yang dibahas dalam tesis ini. Pertama, tesis ini meneliti perbedaan dalam menggunakan Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional tentang Perlakuan Standar Minimum (“PSM”),sebagai standar Persyaratan FET, dan Persyaratan FET hanya terbatas pada Penolakan Keadilan, sebagai dua standar yang disebutkan dalam IA-CEPA. Kedua, penelitian tentang bagaimana efek yang berbeda dari Persyaratan FET akan mempengaruhi konsistensi antara Persyaratan FET dengan Klausa PSM di IA-CEPA. Melalui metode penelitian hukum normatif yuridis, ditemukan bahwa pertama, Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional PSM akan memberikan cakupan yang lebih luas dari Persyaratan FET di luar hanya penolakan keadilan, dan kedua, bahwa setiap perselisihan sehubungan dengan Persyaratan FET di IA- CEPA terlepas dari formulasinya akan konsisten dengan Klausa PSIN di IA-CEPA. Dengan demikian, reformulasi tentang Persyaratan FET dalam IA-CEPA disarankan untuk menetapkan batasan yang jelas tentang ruang lingkup Persyaratan FET. ......The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement is a trade agreement recently concluded, which includes the provisions of Fair and Equitable Requirements (“FET Requirements”) as the standards of treatment for foreign investors, and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) Clause as an agreed dispute resolution in the case that a dispute arise between the parties. There are two key points of the IA-CEPA that is discussed in this thesis. Firstly, this thesis researches the difference in using International Customary Law of the Minimum Standard Treatment as the standards of FET Requirements, and FET Requirements to only limited to a Denial of Justice, as the two standards mentioned in the IA-CEPA. Secondly, the researches on how the different effects of FET Requirements would affect the consistency between the FET Requirements with the ISDS Clause in the IA-CEPA. Through a juridical normative legal research method, it was found that first, the International Customary Law of MST would render a wider scope of FET Requirements beyond only denial of justice, and second, that any dispute in relation with the FET Requirements in the IA-CEPA irrespective of its formulation would be consistent with the ISDS Clause in the IA-CEPA. Thus, a reformulation on the FET Requirements in the IA-CEPA is suggested establish clear limitations on the scope of FET Requirements.

Abstrak :
Dalam perjanjian investasi internasional pada umumnya, penanam modal asing diberikan hak untuk menggugat negara penerima investasi secara langsung (Investor-State Dispute Settlement / “ISDS”). Dalam beberapa putusan arbitrase, adanya unsur pelanggaran hukum dalam kegiatan investasi mengakibatkan tidak dapat diterimanya gugatan ISDS dengan berlandaskan kepada doktrin clean hands. Doktrin clean hands pada esensinya menekankan adanya kewajiban penanam modal asing untuk memiliki ‘tangan yang bersih’ atau bebas dari pelanggaran hukum agar ia berhak mengajukan gugatan. Skripsi ini membahas kedudukan doktrin clean hands hukum investasi dan penerapannya dalam beberapa yurisprudensi, yakni putusan arbitrase Hesham Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia dan Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum dengan metode pendekatan yuridis-normatif yang bersifat deskriptif analitis untuk menggambarkan berbagai pandangan mengenai kedudukan doktrin clean hands dalam hukum investasi dan penerapannya dalam beberapa yurisprudensi. Hasil penelitian dari skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa kedudukan doktrin clean hands dalam sumber hukum investasi masih menuai pro dan kontra dari berbagai pihak. Sebagian menilai bahwa doktrin ini telah menjelma menjadi prinsip hukum umum dalam Pasal 38 ayat (1) ICJ Statute, sedangkan sebagian lagi menilai bahwa doktrin ini masih berstatus doktrin semata. Namun, konsep dasar doktrin ini telah termanifestasi dalam beberapa putusan arbitrase untuk menolak gugatan ISDS penanam modal asing yang telah melakukan pelanggaran hukum, termasuk dalam studi kasus Hesham Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia dan Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia. ......Most of international investment agreement granted foreign investors the right to resolve disputes with the government of the host state where their investment was made (Investor- State Dispute Settlement / “ISDS”). In several arbitral awards, an incompliance or illegal conduct related to the investment has rendered the claims deemed inadmissible based on the clean hands doctrine. Clean hands doctrine requires a claimant to comply with the law in order to be entitled to sue and obtain remedies. This thesis addresses the status of clean hands doctrine in investment law and its manifestation in Hesham Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia's and Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia's arbitral awards. This research is a legal study with normative juridicial approach and descriptive analytical analysis which aim is to illustrate the status of clean hands doctrine in investment law and its application in various jurisprudences. The result of this thesis concludes that the status of clean hands doctrine as one of the source of international law is remain unclear. There are debates regarding its status as a general principle of law stated in Article 38 (1) ICJ Statute. Nonetheless, the fundamental concept of this doctrine has been manifested in some of the arbitral awards as a bar relief for the claims brought by investors which investments were either made or operated in violation with the host state's domestic law, including in the Hesham Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia's and Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia's case.

Abstrak :
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.