Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) menjadi salah satu pilihan popular untuk penyelesaikan sengketa investasi internasional antara negara dengan investor. Konvensi Washington 1965, sebagai konvensi yang mengamanatkan dibentuknya forum tersebut memberi kewajiban kepada Majelis Arbitrase untuk menerapkan hukum yang berlaku sesuai dengan Pasal 42 ayat (1) Konvensi Washington, hanya saja, interpretasi pasal tersebut tidaklah tanpa kontroversi. Tulisan ini akan membahas mengenai hukum mana yang berlaku dalam perkara internasional dalam forum ICSID menurut Pasal 42 ayat (1), baik dalam perkara berdasarkan traktat maupun perkara berdasarkan kontrak, serta menganalisis metode Majelis Arbitrase pada Putusan ICSID No.ARB/10/7, Putusan ICSID No.ARB /07/26, Putusan ICSID No.ARB/09/18 dan Putusan ICSID No.ARB/06/13, dalam menafsirkan pasal tersebut dalam hal terdapat pertentangan kewajiban internasional, antara kewajiban negara sebagai host state dan kewajiban negara menurut hukum internasional selain hukum investasi internasional dalam perkara berdasarkan traktat, dan apabila hukum internasional dianggap oleh para pihak sebagai hukum yang berlaku dalam perkara berdasarkan kontrak. Tulisan ini menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat perkembangan penafsiran dari maksud perancang konvensi (travaux preparatoires) dalam 12 tahun terakhir.

---

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) is popular option of Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Washington Convention 1965 which laid down the foundation of the forum gives mandate to arbitral tribunal to apply the proper law as stipulated on Article 42(1) of the Convention. However, the interpretation of aforementioned article is not without controversy. This writing analyses the applicable law according to Article 42(1) Washington Convention on treaty-based dispute and contract-based dispute, and further analyses the methods used to interpreting the aforementioned article by arbitral tribunal in ICSID Award No. No.ARB/10/7, ICSID Award No.ARB /07/26, ICSID Award No.ARB/09/18 and ICSID Award No.ARB/06/13, in case of apparent conflict of international obligation  on treaty-based dispute and  in case of claim of international law as applicable law on contract-based dispute. This writing concludes that there is a development of interpretation, departing from travaux preparatoires, in the last 12 years."

"Arbitrase merupakan salah satu cara penyelesaian sengketa alterntif yang diminati oleh para pelaku bisnis. Para pelaku bisnis mencari penyelesaian sengketa yang cepat, murah, dan putusan yang dihasilkan bersifat final dan mengikat. Banyak lembaga arbitrase yang ada pada saat ini, contohnya adalah Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia dan Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Pada penelitian ini akan dibahas mengenai perbedaan antara peraturan prosedur arbitrase dari kedua badan arbitrase tersebut. Dengan adanya perbandingan ini diharapkan para pelaku bisnis dapat mempertimbangkan apakah akan menggunakan lembaga arbitrase yang berada di Indonesia.

---

Arbitration is one of the example of alternative dispute resolution which many businessman interested. Businesses/Investors seeking to resolve disputes quickly, cheap, and the result is final and binding. Many arbitration institutions that exist, for example Indonesian National Board of Arbitration and Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

In this paper, will be discussed about the differences between the arbitration rules of two arbitration bodies, e.g Indonesian National Board of Arbitration and Singapore International Arbitration Centre. With this comparison, I hope that businesses/investors are expected to use arbitration in Indonesia. "

"The authors, each of whom is an experienced practitioner in the field of international arbitration, draw on experience in a wide variety of national jurisdictions. In addition to drafting chapters independently, each has made invaluable contributions to other authors? chapters. Authoritative case law research was further provided by dozens of contributors with expertise in specific jurisdictions worldwide. The analysis thoroughly covers the major issues that have arisen in the application of the Convention, including the following: the use of reservations made by Contracting States; the distinctions between recognition and enforcement and between recognition sought at the seat of the arbitration and outside the seat; the role of the courts in reviewing arbitral awards and, in particular, the Convention?s focus on safeguarding due process standards; the ?more favourable rights? principle embodied in Article VII(1); the relevance of forum shopping and asset spotting to the application of the Convention; and the role of formalities and formalism"

"Skripsi ini membahas penerapan frase ‘under the law of which’ dalam Pasal V (1) (e) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 oleh Pengadilan Indonesia dalam Perkara Karaha Bodas. Penerapan oleh Pengadilan Indonesia ini akan dibandingkan dengan satu putusan dari Pengadilan India dan dua putusan dari Pengadilan Amerika Serikat. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kuantitatif dengan desain deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian ini di antaranya menyarankan agar sebuah klausula arbitrase disusun dengan hati-hati dan para pihak yang berarbitrase memiliki itikad baik untuk melaksanakan suatu putusan arbitrase.

---

This study is to analyse the interpretation of the phrase ‘under the law of which in Article V (1) (e) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 by Indonesian Court. The interpretation is compared to that of Indian and American Court. The researcher suggests that the parties to a contract draft their arbitration clause carefully and undertake to carry out the arbitral award with good faith. This is a quantitative and descriptive-analytical research."

"Terlepas dari peran penting putusan arbitrase dan kesetaraannya dengan putusan pengadilan, penegakan dalam praktis dan pelaksanaan putusan ini menghadapi tantangan berat, khususnya dalam konteks keterlibatan negara berdaulat. Pihak negara sering mengajukan argumen yang menentang yurisdiksi arbitrase atau menegaskan hak untuk pengabaian, memerlukan panduan yang tepat yang berasal dari ketentuan undang-undang yang menghindari ambiguitas dan bias, memohon kekebalan kedaulatan mereka sebagai perisai terhadap penegakan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase. Studi ini secara komprehensif menganalisis interaksi rumit antara sistem pengadilan nasional dan proses ISDS. Menggunakan pendekatan studi kasus yang mencakup yurisdiksi hukum umum seperti Australia, Hong Kong, dan Kanada, penelitian ini mengeksplorasi bagaimana pengadilan nasional dengan sistem hukum yang berbeda menyelaraskan kerangka hukum mereka dengan tujuan dan tujuan mendasar arbitrase ICSID. Temuan penting dari penyelidikan ini menekankan pentingnya keadilan bagi pihak-pihak yang terlibat, yang bergantung pada kejelasan dan integritas peraturan arbitrase itu sendiri.

---

Despite the vital role of arbitration awards and their equivalence to court judgments, the practical enforcement and execution of these awards encounter formidable challenges, particularly in the context of sovereign state involvement. State parties often raise arguments contesting the arbitration jurisdiction or asserting entitlement to waivers, necessitating precise guidance derived from statutory provisions that avoid ambiguity and bias, invoking their sovereign immunity as a shield against the enforcement and execution of arbitration awards. This study comprehensively analyses the intricate interplay between national court systems and ISDS processes. Employing a case study approach encompassing common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Hong Kong, and Canada, this research explores how national courts with distinct legal systems align their legal frameworks with the ICSID arbitration's fundamental objectives and purposes. A salient finding of this investigation emphasizes the essentiality of justice for the parties involved, which hinges on the clarity and integrity of the arbitration rules themselves."