Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai bagaimana ketentuan mengenai imunitas negara dari eksekusi memberikan pengaruh pada upaya eksekusi putusan arbitrase ICSID yang ditujukan pada properti negara. Penelitian dilakukan dengan studi pustaka dan disertai dengan studi kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa keberadaan ketentuan imunitas negara dari eksekusi memberikan pengaruh yang sangat signifikan pada usaha eksekusi putusan arbitrase ICSID terhadap negara yang gagal menjalankan kewajibannya sesuai dengan putusan tersebut secara sukarela. Signifikansi dari keberadaan ketentuan ini terlihat pada kenyataan bahwa dalam banyak kesempatan, ketentuan inilah yang dijadikan dasar oleh pengadilan untuk menolak permohonan eksekusi putusan arbitrase ICSID yang ditujukan pada properti negara.

---

This mini thesis primarily discusses the issue of state immunity from execution and its impinge on the execution of ICSID award against state property. It shows that the existence of the rule concerning state immunity from execution provides a significant impact towards the execution of ICSID award against the state who fails to have a voluntary compliance upon the said award. Such significant impact can be clearly pictured by viewing the fact that in most cases, the particular rule of immunity had been the ground manufactured by the court as the reason in refusing to grant any request of execution towards state’s property."

"ABSTRACTThe tendency to use the BllateralInvestment Treaty (BITS) by investorsas a legal bas1s to flle an 1nternat1onalarbitration claim against the Host Countryis increasing recently. Denunciations ofthe Internatlonal Center for Settlementof Investment Disputes (ICSID) as Wellas the termination of several BITS bysome other countries reuse complex legalISSUES in the international investmentregime. Since Indonesia has been and stillexperiencing legal suits before the ICSIDinternational arbitrat1on the discourseto take the similar path i.e to denouncefrom ICSID Convention and terminate some of its BITS 1.9 emerging. This paperdiscusses the questions that arise Withrespect to the denunciation of the ICSIDConvention and With the termination ofBITS The denunciation 1s st1ll debatablesince there are different interpretationsas to whether the denouncing stateremains bound by the Conventionand the existence of survival clauseIII BIT creates the possibility for aninvestor to flle a claim before the ICSIDinnternational arbitration even though Ithas terminated the BIT"

"The tendency to use the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BITs) by investors as a legal basis to file an international arbitra hon claim against the HostCountry is increasing recently Denunciations of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as well as the termination of several BITs by some other countries raise complex legal issues in the international investment regime. Since Indonesia has been and still experiencing legal suits before the ICSID international arbitration, the discourse t6 take the similar path, Le. to denounce from ICSID Convention and terminate some of i'ts BITs, is emerging. This paper discusses the questions tha t arise with respect to the denunciation of the ICSID Convention and with the termination of· BITs. The denunciation is still debatable since there are differen t in terpreta tions as to whether the denouncing state remains bound by the Convention; and the existence of "survival clause" in BIT creates the possibility for an investor to file a claim before the ICSID international arbitration, even though it has terminated the BIT.;"

"Penelitian ini didasarkan pada permasalahan tentang bagaimana hukum yang hidup di Indonesia dan lingkup internasional mengatur mengenai kedudukan tindakan dan pertanggungjawaban dari Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN), yang dilihat dalam praktik yang ada berdasarkan putusan arbitrase internasional dalam forum ICSID dan Permanent Court of Atrbitration (PCA). Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode doktrinal. BUMN sejatinya merupakan badan yang sering meletakkan kakinya di lingkup privat dan publik. Dalam hukum Indonesia, BUMN sendiri dilihat dari definisi BUMN dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2003 tentang BUMN dan teori transformatif, yang menyebabkan tindakan BUMN dan pertanggungjawaban didasarkan status BUMN sebagai suatu Perseroan yang bersifat privat dan terpisah dari Negara. Dalam lingkup internasional, asas separate legal entity memang dihargai, tetapi tindakan BUMN dapat diatribusikan sebagai tindakan Negara berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip yang dirumuskan dalam International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles). Dalam analisis Majelis Arbiter dalam putusan PCA Case No. 2014-11, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/38, dan ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, ditemukan bahwa tindakan BUMN dan pertanggungjawabannya dapat diatribusikan berdasarkan ILC Articles dengan pembuktian adanya fungsi dan hakikat kegiatan BUMN yang termasuk dalam lingkup pemerintahan, adanya pengendalian yang menyebabkan otonomi BUMN menghilang, dan adanya unsur pemberian kewenangan.

---

This research questions how Indonesian law sees the acts of State-Owned Enterprise (SEO) and its liability and how it compares to the international law and doctrines, by studying international arbitration awards in the ICSID and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCS) forums. The methodology used in this research paper is the doctrinal method. The result of this paper shows that Indonesian law sees SEO as a private and separate entity from the State based on the definition of SEO in Law Number 19 of 2003 and the transformative theory of SEO, in which the legal status of SEO as private entity implies the act and its liability as private act and should be liable as such. It is different from the practices in international scope where the principles of separate legal entities principle is respected. Still, the actions of SOEs are attributable to the State based on the principles of SOE formulated in the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles). The PCA Case No. 2014-11, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/38, and ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4 shows that the actions of SOE and its liability can be attributed based on ILC Articles by proving the elements of governmental function and nature of SEO's act, the State's control that overrides the SOE's autonomy, and authority granted by the State."

"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."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai praktik penundaan eksekusi yang terjadi dalam peradilan Indonesia. Putusan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap pada dasarnya dapat segera dimintakan eksekusi. Eksekusi merupakan tujuan akhir dari suatu proses beracara di pengadilan. Suatu putusan yang telah diputus oleh pengadilan belumlah sempurna apabila putusan tersebut belum dapat dilaksanakan. Suatu putusan pengadilan tidak ada artinya apabila tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Akan tetapi pada kenyataannya, eksekusi suatu putusan seringkali mengalami banyak kendala, salah satunya adalah adanya penundaan eksekusi perdata. Penundaan eksekusi pada dasarnya tidak memiliki dasar hukum yang tegas dan jelas. Penundaan eksekusi merupakan kebijaksanaan dari Ketua Pengadilan Negeri yang dalam pelaksanaannya selalu dikoordinasikan dan dikonsultasikan kepada Mahkamah Agung. Mahkamah Agung kemudian akan mengeluarkan rekomendasi berkaitan dengan eksekusi tersebut. Penundaan eksekusi akan menyebabkan ketidakpastian hukum dan melanggar asas peradilan yang sederhana, cepat dan biaya murah.

---

Indonesian trial systems. A verdict which has a permanent legal force, by its nature, can be executed immediately. An Execution is the last procedure for court litigation. A verdict is not completed until it is executed. A court verdict is worthless if it is not been executed. But the fact is the verdict execution often times deal with a lot of problems, one of them is execution deferment in civil case. Execution deferment, basically, does not have a clear and bold legal basis. It is just Head of State Court decision in which practice always been coordinated and consultated to Supreme Court. Supreme Court, then, would release a recommendation prior to the execution. Execution deferment will cause confusion and violates simple, quick and inexpensive law enforcement."