Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penulisan ini membahas pengaturan Denial of Benefits dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral dan penerapannya dalam sengketa-sengketa arbitrase internasional. Klausul Denial of Benefits merupakan klausul yang memperbolehkan host state untuk tidak memberikan perlindungan dan keuntungan lainnya kepada investor asing dengan persyaratan sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian investasi. Klausul ini telah digunakan oleh berbagai lembaga arbitrase untuk menerima ataupun menolak sengketa investasi yang diajukan kepadanya. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisis yuridisnormatif. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan perkembangan penerapan klausul Denial of Benefits dalam menentukan yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dan Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

---

This writing discusses the Denial of Benefits clause under bilateral investment treaty and its application in international arbitration disputes. Denial of Benefits clause allows Host State to deny the treaty protection to foreign investors with certain conditions set forth in the investment treaty. This clause has been used by international arbitration tribunals to accept or reject investment disputes submitted to them. Legal normative study and normative-juridical analysis are used to analyse this issue. The result of this study shows the evolution of the use of Denial of Benefits clause in determining jurisdiction of international arbitration tribunal International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)."

"

Persoalan praktik suap kini tidak jarang ditemukan di dalam kasus-kasus arbitrase ICSID. Hal ini berhubungan erat dengan tingginya angka praktik suap di dunia penanaman modal asing, serta dengan kemampuan ICSID untuk menjatuhkan sanksi komersial yang berat terhadap penanaman modal yang melibatkan praktik suap. Setelah diteliti lebih dekat, ditemukan bahwa terdapat banyak inkonsistensi di dalam kasus-kasus ICSID yang membahas soal praktik suap dalam penanaman modal asing. Penelitian yuridis normatif ini dibuat menggunakan metode deskriptif analitis untuk menjelaskan perkembangan penanganan persoalan praktik suap dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing yang dilakukan oleh ICSID, dengan tujuan untuk menggarisbawahi persamaan prinsipil yang terdapat dalam perkembangan tersebut.

---

Bribery claims are now commonly found amongst ICSID-based arbitrations. This has a direct connection with the high number of bribery cases found in foreign investments and with ICSID’s ability to punish those bribery tainted investments with severe commercial consequences. Upon closer inspection, it is found that ICSID cases that deals with bribery are riddled with inconsistencies. This normative legal research uses descriptive-analytic method in order to describe the development of how ICSID deals with bribery claims in foreign investment disputes, with hopes in underlining the principle similarites found in the development of cases.

"

"Perjanjian Investasi Internasional terdiri dari Perjanjian Multilateral dan Bilateral. Perjanjian ini ditandatangani sebagai alat untuk memberikan jaminan perlindungan terhadap investor asing dan investasinya. Skripsi ini membahas dampak hukum bagi Indonesia dari keberadaan klausa penyelesaian sengketa penanam modal asing dan negara yang teracantum dalam Perjanjian Investasi Bilateral. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yuridis dan descriptive analysis sebagai bentuk penelitian. Skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa dampak hukum dari keberadaan pasal tersebut adalah dimana Indonesia telah melepaskan sebagian dari kedaulatannya sehingga penanam modal asing dapat menggugat negara dihadapan Arbitrase Internasional secara langsung. Hal ini berdampak pula pada berkurangnya kekuasaan negara dalam menerapkan peraturan untuk kepentingan publik. Lebih jauh, Skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa formulasi dari klausa tersebut tidak memberikan perlindungan terhadap Indonesia.

---

International Investment Agreement consists of Multilateral and Bilateral Investment Treaties. These treaties signed as instrument providing greater assurance for foreign investment and his investment. This thesis discusses the legal impacts of the investor-state dispute settlement clause stipulated in the Bilateral Investment Treaties for Indonesia and the legal protection for Indonesia by the existence of such clause. This thesis employs the juridical normative research methodology and uses descriptive analysis as type of research. The thesis concludes the legal impact is that since Indonesia has waived part of its sovereignty in the investor-state dispute settlement clause, foreign investor, hence, can have direct recourse against Indonesia in international arbitration. It curtails the sovereign power of the host state in enacting regulation for the public purpose, especially for matter related investment. Further, this thesis concludes that the formulation of the clause does not provide protection for Indonesia."

"[Bilateral Investment Treaty merupakan perjanjian internasional antara dua negara yang berfungsi untuk melindungi kepentingan investor asing dan host state. Klausul ekspropriasi merupakan salah satu kalusul penting dalam BIT guna melindungi hak investor asing dari perampasan property secara langsung maupun kerugian lain yang mungkin timbul. Ekspropriasi terbagi menjadi indirect expropriation dan indirect expropriation. Thesis ini mencoba mengalisis ruang lingkup dari indirect expropriation dalam hubungannya dengan kedaulatan negaradalam mengambil kebijakan berdasarkan pada hukum internasional;Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions to protect investor?s interest, as well as, the host state?s. Expropriation clause is one of the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from the act of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriation consists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State?s sovereignty in taking policies based on international law.;Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions toprotect investor?s interest, as well as, the host state?s. Expropriation clause is oneof the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from theact of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriationconsists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State?s sovereignty intaking policies based on international law., Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions toprotect investor’s interest, as well as, the host state’s. Expropriation clause is oneof the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from theact of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriationconsists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State’s sovereignty intaking policies based on international law.]"

"Dalam perjanjian penanaman modal asing, salah satu bentuk perlakuan yang wajib diberikan oleh negara penerima modal kepada penanam modal asing adalah perlakuan yang adil dan wajar yang dikenal dengan istilah Fair and Equitable Treatment. Saat ini, salah satu unsur standar Fair and Equitable Treatment yaitu legitimate expectations, kerap digunakan sebagai dasar gugatan oleh penanam modal asing terhadap negara penerima modal dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing. Dalam skripsi ini dianalisis putusan-putusan ICSID yang telah mempertimbangkan legitimate expectations. Hasil penelitian ini menjelaskan doktrin legitimate expectations dan pendekatan-pendekatan yang digunakan oleh Dewan Arbiter ICSID dalam menginterpretasikan doktrin legitimate expectations dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing.

---

In international investment agreements, one form of the treatments that shall be given by the host state to foreign investors is fair and equitable treatment. Nowadays, one of the elements of fair and equitable treatment, namely legitimate expectations, is oftenly used by foreign investors as a claim basis against the host state in foreign investment disputes. This thesis analyzed ICSID arbitration awards that have put legitimate expectations into consideration. The result of this research explains doctrine of legitimate expectations and the approaches used by the ICSID arbitration tribunals to interpret it in foreign investment disputes."

"

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.

 

"

"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."

"Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Indonesia dan Singapura yang dibentuk pada tahun 2005 diputuskan untuk tidak dilanjutkan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia pada tahun 2016 karena Pemerintah Indonesia memilih untuk menegosiasikan BIT yang baru. Pada tahun 2018, Pemerintah Indonesia dan Pemerintah Singapura telah berhasil membentuk BIT dengan ketentuan yang jauh berbeda dibandingkan dengan BIT terdahulu. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk meneliti perbandingan ketentuan dalam BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2005 dengan BIT dan Singapura tahun 2018. Selain itu, penelitian ini mencoba untuk mengetahui dampak BIT terhadap penanaman modal asing langsung di Indonesia. Bentuk penelitian ini bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan tipologi deskriptif analitis yang didukung oleh studi bahan pustaka dan wawancara sebagai alat pengumpul data. Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2018 dirumuskan secara lebih terperinci dan jelas dan memasukan banyak safeguard di dalamnya. Selain itu, BIT diketahui tidak memiliki dampak langsung untuk mendorong nilai investasi asing di Indonesia, tetapi kehadiran BIT tetap diperlukan untuk memberikan perlindungan dan meningkatkan kepercayaan investor Singapura, mendorong pembentukan iklim peraturan yang baik, dan pelengkap instrumen hukum perlindungan investasi. Saran yang dapat diberikan adalah Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal dalam merumuskan perjanjian investasi internasional kedepannya tetap mempertahankan rumusan perjanjian investasi yang jelas dan rinci demi menghindari penafsiran yang berbeda antara host state dengan penanam modal.

---

Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and Singapore that was signed in 2005 was discontinued by the Government of Indonesia in 2016 because the Government of Indonesia elected to renegotiate a new BIT. In 2018, the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Singapore successfully agreed on a new BIT with new and different provisions. This research tries to do a comparative analysis on the BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2005 and BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018. This research also looks to determine the impact of BIT on foreign direct investment. The research method of this thesis is juridical-normative with a descriptive research approach through literature review and desk study, and key informant interviews as a tool for collecting data. This research concludes that BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018 was formulated with more details, containing explicit clauses and safeguards. This thesis also argues that BIT does not have any direct impact on increasing foreign direct investment in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the presence of BIT is still necessary and effective to provide protection of investment and increase investor confidence, encourage the creation of favourable regulatory climate, and complement other legal instruments for investment protection. In the future, the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) should seek to establish international investment agreements that maintain a clear and detailed clause of investment agreements in order to avoid different interpretations between the host state and investors."

"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."

"BIT Indonesia-Singapura yang disetujui tahun 2020 sempat menuai kontroversi karena BIT telah terbukti mengancam kedaulatan negara dengan adanya klausul yang memungkinkan investor asing menggugat langsung negara ke arbitrase internasional. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis alasan Indonesia dalam menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif dengan pengambilan data berupa wawancara, korespondensi dengan Kementerian, serta penelitian berbasis internet. Hasil penelitian dengan menggunakan analisis teori permainan dua tingkat adalah Indonesia menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020 karena terdapat keselarasan kepentingan antara Indonesia dan Singapura yang saling menguntungkan serta didukung oleh mayoritas aktor domestik Indonesia (Kementerian Luar Negeri, Kementerian Investasi, Kementerian Keuangan, Kementerian Perindustrian, Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian, Sembcorp Development Ltd dan PT Jababeka Tbk). Kepentingan Indonesia yakni ingin memperbarui BIT untuk mengantisipasi kemungkinan adanya gugatan investor terhadap negara ke arbitrase internasional serta ingin meningkatkan jumlah investasi yang masuk ke Indonesia. Adapun kepentingan Singapura yakni ingin memberikan kepastian hukum bagi investor dan ingin memiliki DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) untuk meningkatkan kredibilitas dan daya saing sebagai investment hub. Meskipun terdapat perbedaan preferensi dalam proses negosiasi BIT Indonesia Singapura tahun 2020, yakni adanya penolakan BIT dari Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), namun ukuran win-set nya tetap besar sehingga mendukung ratifikasi perjanjian tersebut.

---

The Indonesia-Singapore BIT which was approved in 2020 caused controversy because the BIT has been proven to threaten the country's sovereignty with a clause that allows foreign investors to sue the country directly in international arbitration. This research aims to analyze Indonesia's reasons for agreeing to the BIT with Singapore in 2020. The method used in this research is qualitative by collecting data in the form of interviews, correspondence with the Ministry, and internet-based research. The results of research using two-level game theory analysis are that Indonesia agreed to the BIT with Singapore in 2020 because there is a mutually beneficial alignment of interests between Indonesia and Singapore and supported by the majority of Indonesian domestic actors (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Investment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Coordinator for Economic Affairs, Sembcorp Development Ltd and PT Jababeka Tbk). Indonesia's interests are to update the BIT to anticipate the possibility of investor lawsuits against the state in international arbitration and to increase the amount of investment entering Indonesia. Singapore's interests are that it wants to provide legal certainty for investors and wants to have a DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) to increase credibility and competitiveness as an investment hub. Even though there are differences in preferences in the 2020 Singapore Indonesia BIT negotiation process, such as the rejection of the BIT from Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), the size of the win-set remains large, thus supporting the ratification of the agreement. "