Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa investor dengan negara (investor-State dispute settlement atau ISDS) menghadapi kritik karena dianggap membatasi kedaulatan negara dan lebih menguntungkan investor asing, yang mendorong negara-negara seperti Indonesia dan India untuk meninjau kembali P4M dan BIT mereka. Kewajiban exhaustion of local remedies (ELR) atau kewajiban penyelesaian sengketa secara domestik sebelum arbitrase internasional diusulkan sebagai salah satu solusi reformasi ISDS. Penelitian ini menjelaskan dua hal, yaitu alasan-alasan P4M perlu mewajibkan ELR sebagai persyaratan sebelum proses arbitrase, dan apakah persyaratan-persyaratan sebelum memulai proses arbitrase dalam P4M dan BIT pasca peninjauan telah melindungi kepentingan masing-masing Indonesia dan India. Penelitian ini berbentuk doktrinal dengan pendekatan perbandingan dalam meninjau ELR dalam hukum internasional, sengketa investasi internasional, dan persyaratan-persyaratan sebelum arbitrase. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa ELR perlu diwajibkan dalam P4M yang ditandatangani oleh Indonesia karena, yaitu menghormati kedaulatan negara tuan rumah, memberi kesempatan untuk menyelesaikan sengketa secara domestik, mengurangi jumlah sengketa ke arbitrase internasional, dan membantu pengembangan sistem hukum domestik dalam penyelesaian sengketa investasi. Selanjutnya, persyaratan-persyaratan sebelum arbitrase dalam P4M Indonesia pasca peninjauan belum melindungi kepentingan Indonesia terhadap gugatan investor dibandingkan dengan BIT India pasca peninjauan, karena hanya mencakup penyelesaian sengketa secara damai dan tidak mewajibkan ELR. Hal ini menyebabkan investor lebih mudah menggugat Indonesia karena tidak ada tahapan persyaratan lainnya.

---

The investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism has faced criticism for allegedly limiting state sovereignty and favoring foreign investors, prompting countries such as Indonesia and India to review their BITs. The obligation of exhaustion of local remedies (ELR) before international arbitration has been proposed as one of the ISDS reform solutions. This study addresses two key points: the reasons why BITs should require ELR as a prerequisite before arbitration, and whether the conditions precedent to arbitration in the post-review BITs of Indonesia and India have adequately protected their respective interests. This study takes a doctrinal method and employs a comparative approach in reviewing ELR in international law and international investment disputes, and analyzing conditions precedent to arbitration. The study concludes that ELR needs to be required in BITs signed by Indonesia because namely, it respects the sovereignty of host states, provides an opportunity to resolve disputes domestically, potentially reduces the number of disputes submitted to international arbitration, and aids in the development of domestic legal systems in resolving investment disputes. Furthermore, the conditions precedent to arbitration in Indonesia's post-review BITs have not protected its interests against investor claims as effectively as India's post-review BITs, as they only include amicable settlement and do not require ELR. This results in investors finding it easier to bring claims against Indonesia due to the lack of additional prerequisite stages."

"Skripsi ini mengkaji penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam penyelesaian sengketa investasi internasional yang berasal dari Bilateral Investment Treaties. Melalui penelitian yuridis-normatif, skripsi ini membahas mengenai prinsip The Most Favoured Nation menurut hukum internasional, prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties dan sengketa-sengketa investasi internasional yang berkaitan dengan penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation menurut keputusan pengadilan dan arbitrase internasional. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada beberapa prinsip umum hukum internasional dan instrumen hukum internasional yang mengatur mengenai prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di bidang investasi, ragam ketentuan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties serta adanya perdebatan tentang penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam sengketa investasi internasional.

---

This study discusses about the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle in international investment dispute settlement originating from Bilateral Investment Treaties. Through juridical-normative research, this study elaborates about the Most Favoured Nation principle under international law, the principle of the Most Favoured Nation principle in the Bilateral Investment Treaties and international investment disputes related to the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle according to the decisions of international courts and international arbitration. The research of this study shows some general principles of international law and international legal instruments that governs the Most Favoured Nation principle in investment field, diversity of the Most Favoured Nation provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties and debates about the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle in international investment disputes."

"Menurut prinsip necessity, negara dapat dibenarkan melanggar hukum internasional jika ada ancaman terhadap kepentingan esensial negara. Untuk melindungi perekonomian dalam krisis, Argentina mengeluarkan kebijakan yang melanggar perlindungan investor dalam BIT. Argentina digugat ke ICSID dan terjadi variasi putusan, ada putusan yang membenarkan necessity dan ada pula putusan yang menolak. Tulisan ini meninjau penerapan prinsip necessity dikaitan dengan sengketa investasi yang terjadi. Penulis menelusuri perkembangan necessity dan penerapannya dalam sengketa, lalu meninjau pertimbangan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID. Necessity menurut Pasal 25 Draft Articles sulit diterapkan dalam sengketa investasi karena perumusan yang limitatif. Necessity lebih mudah diterapkan dalam BIT yang bersifat lex specialis, yaitu Pasal XI BIT AS - Argentina.

---

According to necessity principle, state can be excused for breach of international law if there are threats to the essential interest of the State. To protect its economy during crisis, Argentine enacted policies that violate investor protection in BIT. Argentine was sued to ICSID, and awards are varied. Some Tribunals accept Argentine's necessity defense, and some others don?t. This thesis revisits the application of necessity principle in the context of investment disputes. Author will trace the development of necessity and its application in various disputes, then analyze related ICSID Tribunal awards. Necessity according Article 25 Draft Articles is considered inapplicable in the context of investment dispute because of its strict formulation. Invocation of necessity is considered less difficult if stipulated in BIT as lex specialis, in this particular case is Article XI of US - Argentina BIT."

"Penelitian ini membahas apakah rumusan klausul Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) dalam perjanjian investasi internasional Indonesia (PII) pasca peninjauan ulang dapat mencegah penggunaan klausul tersebut untuk pembebanan kewajiban substantif yang berasal dari third-party treaty. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga membahas faktor-faktor apa saja yang dipertimbangkan oleh majelis arbitrase untuk menerima atau menolak penggunaan klausul MFN dalam basic treaty untuk membebankan kewajiban substantif dari third-party treaty. Menggunakan metode doktrinal dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa rumusan klausul MFN dalam dua dari tiga PII Indonesia pasca peninjauan ulang dapat mencegah pembebanan kewajiban substantif yang berasal dari third-party treaty. Kedua PII tersebut adalah BIT Indonesia – Singapura (2018) dan BIT Indonesia – Uni Emirat Arab (2019). Sementara itu, rumusan klausul MFN dalam Indonesia – Australia CEPA (2019) belum dapat mencegah. Selanjutnya, penelitian ini juga menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat setidaknya tiga faktor yang dipertimbangkan oleh majelis arbitrase untuk membebankan kewajiban substantif dari third-party treaty berdasarkan klausul MFN, yaitu rumusan klausul MFN, prinsip ejusdem generis, dan intent atau niat dari para pihak dalam perjanjian investasi internasional. Berdasarkan kesimpulan tersebut, pemerintah Indonesia sebaiknya lebih konsisten dalam merundingkan PII kedepannya untuk memasukkan larangan pembebanan kewajiban substantif dalam rumusan klausul MFN.

---

This research discusses whether the formulation of the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clause in Indonesia's post-review international investment agreements (IIA) can prevent the use of such clause for the importation of substantive obligations originating from third-party treaties. In addition, this study also discusses what factors are considered by arbitral tribunals to accept or reject the use of the MFN clause in the basic treaty for the importation of substantive obligations from third-party treaties. Using the doctrinal method as well as the statutory approach and case approach, this research concludes that the formulation of the MFN clauses in two out of three of Indonesia's post-review IIAs can prevent the imporation of substantive obligations derived from third-party treaties. The two IIAs are the Indonesia - Singapore (2018) BIT and the Indonesia - United Arab Emirates BIT (2019). However, the formulation of the MFN clause in one out of the three IIAs analyzed, namely the Indonesia - Australia CEPA (2019), is not able to prevent such practice. Furthermore, this research concludes that there are at least three factors considered by arbitral tribunals to import substantive obligations from third-party treaties through the MFN clause, namely the formulation of the MFN clause itself, the ejusdem generis principle, and the intent of the contracting parties to the IIA. Based on the conclusions, the government of Indonesia should be more consistent when negotiating future IIAs to include the prohibiton of importing substantive obligations from third-party treaties in the MFN clause."

"Sistem Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) dikenal dengan sifatnya yang asimetris, yang dianggap lebih mengutamakan perlindungan hak-hak investor dan membebankan kewajiban yang besar bagi negara tempat suatu investasi dilakukan (host state). Dalam perkembangannya, sistem ISDS seperti demikian kemudian dikritik dan mendorong upaya reformasi dari negara-negara yang tergabung dalam PBB melalui United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (UNCITRAL WG III). Salah satu upaya reformasi yang dilakukan adalah untuk menjawab kritik terkait kurangnya mekanisme untuk menangani counterclaim dari host country yang menjadi pihak tergugat (respondent state) dalam suatu perkara ISDS. Skripsi ini membahas (i) apakah bilateral investment treaty (BIT) Indonesia telah efektif dalam menyediakan counterclaim sebagai mekanisme pembelaan yang dapat digunakan oleh Indonesia dalam menghadapi gugatan arbitrase investasi internasional dan (ii) hal-hal apa saja yang mempengaruhi pertimbangan majelis arbitrase investasi dalam menerima atau menolak counterclaim. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal dengan pendekatan kasus yang menghasilkan kesimpulan sebagai berikut: pertama, BIT Indonesia belum secara efektif menyediakan counterclaim sebagai mekanisme pembelaan yang dapat digunakan oleh Indonesia dalam forum ISDS karena tiga alasan, yakni (a) eksistensi consent terhadap counterclaim dalam BIT Indonesia masih ambigu; (b) terdapat ketidakpastian hukum terkait kriteria “hubungan yang dekat” antara counterclaim dengan gugatan utama; dan (c) walaupun terdapat ketentuan baru mengenai kewajiban investor, ketentuan tersebut berkontradiksi dengan klausul ISDS yang menutup kemungkinan counterclaim bagi Indonesia. Selanjutnya, terdapat setidaknya empat hal yang menentukan pertimbangan majelis arbitrase untuk menerima atau menolak counterclaim, yakni pertama, cakupan atau ruang lingkup “sengketa” (dispute) berdasarkan BIT yang berlaku; kedua, legal standing untuk mengajukan gugatan arbitrase berdasarkan klausul ISDS; ketiga, klausul applicable law dalam BIT; dan keempat, pasal yang berkaitan dengan kewajiban investor.

---

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is known for its asymmetrical nature, which is deemed to prioritize the protection of investor rights and, on the other hand, impose large obligations on the host state. Over the course of its development, such an ISDS system was later criticized and encouraged reform efforts from the member states of the United Nations through the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (UNCITRAL WG III). One of the reform efforts is aimed to address criticism related to the lack of mechanisms to handle counterclaims from the host country, which is the respondent state in an ISDS case. This thesis discusses (i) whether Indonesia's bilateral investment treaty (BIT) has been effective in providing counterclaims as a defense mechanism that can be used by Indonesia in the face of international investment arbitration claims and (ii) what are the factors that influence the consideration of investment arbitration tribunals in accepting or rejecting counterclaims. This thesis uses a doctrinal research method with a case approach which results in the following conclusions: first, the Indonesian BIT has not effectively provided counterclaims as a defense mechanism that can be used by Indonesia in the ISDS forum for three reasons, namely (a) the existence of consent to counterclaims in the Indonesian BIT is still ambiguous; (b) legal uncertainty pertaining the “close connection” criteria between the counterclaim and the primary claim; and (c) although there are new provisions regarding investor obligations, these provisions contradict the ISDS clause which closes the possibility of counterclaims for Indonesia. Furthermore, there are at least four things that determine the consideration of the arbitral tribunal to accept or reject a counterclaim, namely first, the scope of the “dispute” under the applicable BIT; second, legal standing to file an arbitration claim based on the ISDS clause; third, the applicable law clause in the BIT; and fourth, the existence of a provision relating to investor obligation."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis prinsip dan standard fair and equitable treatment FET dalam kerangka hukum investasi internasional dan menganalisis interpretasi prinsip FET pada sengketa investasi internasional terutama dalam sengketa yang melibatkan Indonesia untuk kemudian dijadikan suatu pembelajaran dan materi evaluasi bagi kebijakan hukum Indonesia mengenai investasi asing di masa yang akan datang. Prinsip FET sebagai prinsip fundamental dalam hukum investasi internasional sudah dipraktekkan secara global. Tetapi, prinsip yang bertujuan untuk menjaga dan memberikan perlakuan sama rata dan non-diskriminatif terhadap investor dan investasi asing ini tidak luput dari permasalahan hukum. Ragam klausula FET di tiap perjanjian investasi internasional menimbulkan multiinterpretasi mengenai standard keberlakuan FET terutama dalam sengketa investasi internasional. Dalam kerangka hukum investasi internasional terdapat beberapa klasifikasi standard FET: FET sebagai ldquo;FET unqualified rdquo;/FET sebagai autonomous/ independent standard, FET sebagai customary international law minimum standard dan FET mencakup standard lainnya seperti salah satu contohnya full protection and security FPS . Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode doktrinal melalui studi kepustakaan. Melalui penelitian ini, kesimpulan yang diraih adalah klasifikasi FET sebagai customary international law minimum standard merupakan standard yang menjadi preferensi investor dan juga host States dan pengaturan hukum Indonesia mengenai investasi asing masih lemah dan belum berhasil mengakomodir perkembangan hukum investasi internasional. Langkah strategis untuk memperbaiki dan memperkuat pengaturan hukum investasi asing di Indonesia diperlukan agar posisi dan kepentingan Indonesia sebagai host States lebih solid tanpa melanggar hak-hak investor asing terutama hak asasi yang mendasar.

---

This research aims to scrutinize and to provide answers to three matters the workings of principle of fair and equitable treatment FET within the framework of international investment law, the rationale and approach of FET interpretation in investment disputes, especially those involving Indonesia, and also possible update s or reform s for Indonesia rsquo s future investment policies. Without a doubt, FET has become and is a fundamental principle in international investment law hence its global practice. Contemporary international investment law recognises some FET classifications ldquo FET unqualified rdquo FET as autonomous independent standard, FET as customary international law minimum standard and FET that embraces other standards of treatment such as full protection and security FPS among others. However, FET existence to guard and guarantee equitable and non discriminative measures toward foreign investor and investment is inevitably exposed to legal problem s . Due to different wordings and classifications of FET, different arbitral tribunals subsequently produced multiple interpretations of FET. In essential, the research employs doctrinal method and library based research method. As reflected in the research, one may see that FET as customary international law minimum standard is a much favoured standard by host States and foreign investors alike. One may also see that there are weaknesses in Indonesia foreign investment policies thus strategic moves are necessary to be made in order to update and strengthen Indonesia rsquo s interests and position as host States without putting basic rights of foreign investor in jeopardy."