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)."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat. Sengketa kewajiban kontraktual tunduk pada hukum nasional negara penerima investasi sehingga diselesaikan melalui pengadilan nasional negara penerima investasi. Sedangkan, sengketa kewajiban traktat tunduk pada hukum internasional, yang di antara lain meliputi prinsip hukum umum maupun hukum kebiasaan internasional sehingga diselesaikan melalui mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa seperti ICSID. Dalam praktik, seringkali terdapat tumpang tindih antara kedua jenis sengketa tersebut karena investor asing dapat mengajukan sengketanya ke ICSID secara langsung meskipun lahir dari pelanggaran kontrak investasi dan bukan perjanjian investasi bilateral (PIB). Hal ini disebabkan karena yurisdiksi ICSID berdasarkan Pasal 25 ayat (1) Konvensi ICSID didasarkan pada kesepakatan para pihak yang dituangkan dalam masing-masing kontrak investasi maupun PIB. Selain itu, majelis arbitrase ICSID memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda-beda untuk menentukan lingkup yurisdiksi ICSID.Skripsi ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis-normatif untuk meninjau penerapan ketentuan yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat dalam kasus Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, dan SGS v. Philippines. Berdasarkan keempat kasus tersebut, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ICSID memiliki yurisdiksi terhadap sengketa kewajiban traktat selama persyaratan dalam yurisdiksi ICSID terpenuhi. Akan tetapi, yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual bergantung pada konstruksi masing-masing kontrak investasi dan PIB. Skripsi ini menyarankan agar para pihak penyusun kontrak investasi dan PIB memperjelas sengketa yang masuk dalam lingkup kesepakatannya. Selain itu, negara penerima investasi dapat menyisipkan kewajiban untuk menempuh seluruh upaya dalam hukum nasional negara penerima investasi (exhaustion of local remedies) sebelum para pihak dapat bersengketa di ICSID.

---

This thesis provides an overview of ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims. Contract claims are claims based on contract which fall within the purview of the domestic law of the host state, hence subject to the courts of the host state. On the other hand, treaty claims are based on violations of a treaty (in this case a Bilateral Investment Treaty or BIT) and is subject to international law with its own dispute settlement mechanism, such as ICSID. Contract and treaty claims are often conflated in practice because of the direct access that investors have to ICSID. This situation is perpetuated by the fact that ICSID jurisdiction under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention is based on the consent of both parties, which differs in each investment contract or BIT. Furthermore, tribunals employ different approaches to determine the scope of ICSID jurisdiction.This thesis uses a juridical-normative approach to determine how tribunals apply ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims based on four cases, namely Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, and SGS v. Philippines. Based on these four cases, ICSID has jurisdiction over treaty claims, so long as its jurisdictional requirements are met. However, ICSIDs jurisdiction over contract claims is highly contingent on the construction of each specific investment contract or BIT. In conlusion, this thesis suggests that drafters of investment contracts and BITs should explicitly provide the disputes that fall within each agreement. Moreover, BIT drafters could include an exhaustion of local remedies requirement."

"

Pasal 25(4) Konvensi ICSID memperbolehkan suatu negara untuk melakukan pemberitahuan mengenai golongan sengketa penanaman modal yang dikecualikan dari yurisdiksi ICSID. Berdasarkan ketentuan ini, pemerintah Indonesia melalui Keputusan Presiden No. 31 Tahun 2012 (“Keputusan Presiden 31/2012”) telah melakukan pemberitahuan untuk  mengecualikan sengketa penanaman modal yang timbul dari keputusan tata usaha negara yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintah kabupaten. Namun, pemberitahuan mengenai pengecualian sengketa dianggap tidak dapat diberlakukan kecuali dimasukkan kedalam pasal dalam perjanjian investasi yang mengandung persetujuan negara terkait terhadap yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, ketentuan dalam pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia belum dimasukkan dalam seluruh perjanjian investasi yang mengikat Indonesia. Penelitian ini membahas, pertama, dampak hukum dari Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 terhadap pembatasan yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, penelitian ini membahas metode untuk menginkorporasi ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 dan pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia ke dalam klausul persetujuan terbatas dalam suatu perjanjian investasi. Penelitian ini juga membahas sejauh mana klausul persetujuan terbatas tersebut dapat digunakan untuk menolak yurisdiksi ICSID.  Dengan melakukan penelitian yuridis-normatif, dapat disimpulkan bahwa keberlakuan Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 akan membuat penyelesaian sengketa yang dikecualikan terbatas pada penyelesaian melalui Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia. Ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 harus dimasukkan dalam perjanjian investasi melalui cara reproduksi atau perubahan klausul persetujuan terbatas yang mengandung pengecualian dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 juga tidak akan memiliki dampak terhadap penolakan yurisdiksi ICSID.

 

---

Article 25(4) of the ICSID Convention allows a state to notify the exclusion of certain classes of investment disputes from ICSID jurisdiction. Pursuant to this provision, the Indonesian government through Presidential Decree No. 31 of 2012 (“Presidential Decree 31/2012”) made a notification to exclude investment disputes arising from administrative decisions issued by the regency governments. Notifications of exclusion, however, are considered inoperable unless incorporated into the investment treaty provision expressing the notifying state’s consent to ICSID jurisdiction. Moreover, the terms of Indonesia’s notification of exclusion have not been included in any investment treaty that Indonesia is a party to. This research discusses, firstly, the legal consequence of Presidential Decree 31/2012 with regards to limiting ICSID jurisdiction. Secondly, this research discusses the methods through which the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 and Indonesia’s notification of exclusion may be incorporated into a limited consent clause of an investment treaty. Thirdly, this research also discusses the extent to which such a limited consent clause may be invoked to deny ICSID jurisdiction. By conducting a juridical normative legal research, it can be concluded that the operation of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would limit the forum for the settlement of the excluded disputes to the Indonesian Administrative Judiciary. Moreover, the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would have to be incorporated into an investment treaty by way of reproduction or amendment. Further, a consent clause that expresses the exclusion made in Presidential Decree 31/2012 would be inconsequential in denying ICSID jurisdiction.

 

"

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini mengkaji putusan ICSID dalam sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia yang diputus berdasarkan Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) antara negara Indonesia dan negara Inggris, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, yang ditandatangani pada tanggal 27 April 1976 dan mulai berlaku tanggal 24 Maret 1977. Permasalahan utama yang menjadi fokus penelitian ini adalah (i) apakah yang menjadi pokok sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dan (ii) bagaimana pendapat majelis arbitrase ICSID yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut dikaitkan dengan penafsiran atas ketentuan BIT dalam sengketa penanaman modal. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pokok sengketa yang terjadi adalah masalah proses dan prosedur masuknya penanaman modal asing (admission process) yang harus dilalui investor berdasarkan BIT. Proses tersebut menentukan legalitas penanaman modal yang dilakukan. Tidak terpenuhinya admission process tersebut menjadikan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa tersebut sehingga pokok perkara tidak dapat diperiksa. Penafsiran atas ketentuan-ketentuan dalam BIT utamanya menggunakan Pasal 31 ayat (1) Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang Hukum Perjanjian, khususnya penafsiran berdasarkan makna biasa dari rumusan ketentuan BIT. Kajian tesis ini menyimpulkan bahwa penanaman modal yang dilakukan Penggugat tidak memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT mengenai admission process sehingga Majelis Arbitrase menyatakan tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa perkara tersebut. Majelis Arbitrase menafsirkan frasa ?granted admission in accordance with? dalam ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris berdasarkan Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang hukum perjanjian khususnya Pasal 31 ayat (1). Penggunaan aturan penafsiran tersebut juga ditemukan dalam putusan-putusan ICSID lainnya yang menafsrikan ketentuan BIT yang serupa dengan ketentuan BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom., This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant’s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase “granted admission in accordance with” in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.]"

"ABSTRAKTujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji apa saja yang menjadi dasarditerimanya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc oleh Arbiter pada badan arbitraseICSID dan menganalisa apakah dasar-dasar penerimaan gugatan tersebutmenjadikan badan arbitrase ICSID memang memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksaperkara yang diajukan oleh Churchill Mining Plc. Sehingga perlu untuk ditinjausecara yuridis apakah memang sepatutnya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc tersebutditerima oleh ICSID atau tidak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penulisanini adalah metode yuridis-normatif. Metode yuridis-normatif tersebut akandigunakan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap data sekunder. Adapun bahanhukum primer yang digunakan berupa peraturan Konvensi ICSID, UndangundangNomor 5 Tahun 1968 tentang Ratifikasi atas Konvensi ICSID dan bahanhukum sekunder berupa buku, jurnal ilmiah, dan artikel ilmiahBahwa adapun Churchill Mining Plc menggugat Indonesia dengan mendasarkangugatannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 7 ayat (1) BIT UK-Indonesia. Dimana atas haltersebut tergugat mengemukakan statement of defence tentang keberatan terhadapyurisdiksi ICSID, maka Dewan Arbitrase harus terlebih dahulu mengemukakankeputusan mengenai yurisdiksinya untuk menangani perkara. Dimana dewanarbitrase harus mendasarkan putusannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 25 KonvensiICSID yang mengatur secara khusus mengenai yurisdiksi ICSIDBahwa berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut di atas, maka untuk kasusChurchill Mining Plc vs Republik Indonesia sepatutnya tribunal ICSID tidakmenerima gugatan tersebut, hal ini karena seharusnya yang menggugat Indonesiaadalah bukan Churchill Mining melainkan perusahaan Ridlatama Group, karenasesungguhnya yang dicabut Izin Kuasanya adalah Ridlatama Group dan bukanChurchill. Sehingga sepatutnya masalah ini tidak dicampuradukkan denganmasalah hukum internasional dan sepatutnya diselesaikan melalui ranah hukumnasional Indonesia. Adapun menurut penulis untuk menghindari terjadinya halyang sama, ada baiknya Indonesia melakukan amandemen terhadap BillateralInvestment Treaty dan bahkan Indonesia juga lebih baik mempertimbangkanuntuk keluar sebagai anggota Konvensi ICSID, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 71Konvensi ICSID hal tersebut diperolehkan

---

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research is to assess what is the basis of the acceptance ofChurchill Mining Plc Lawsuit by the Arbitrator in ICSID and analyze whether thefundamentals of the acceptence of the lawsuit indeed made the ICSID does have ajurisdiction to examine the case. Therefore it is necessary to make a judicialreview, whether the Lawsuit which had been filed by Churchill should be receivedby ICSID or not. The method used in this paper is a method of juridicalnormative.Juridical-normative methods will be used to conduct an analysis thesecondary data. The primary legal materials use in this research are the regulationsof the ICSID Convention and Law No. 5 of 1968 concerning the Ratification ofthe Convention ICSID and the secondary legal materials use in this research arebooks, scientific journals and scientific articlesWhereas Churchill file a lawsuit against Indonesia, based on Article 7 paragraph 1BIT UK-Indonesia and the Approval of BKPM. Where based on the claim byChurchill, Indonesia as the Defendant also has submit the statement of defenceregarding their objection toward the jurisdiction of ICSID. Based on Article 41ICSID Convention, the Board of ICSID Arbitration in advance must make adecisions regarding its jurisdiction to handle the case. Where the decision ofBoard of ICSID Arbitration must be made under the Article 25 of the ICSIDConvention that specifically regulates the jurisdiction of ICSID.Based on the regulations as above, therefore for the case of Churchill Mining vsRepublic of Indonesia, ICSID tribunal should not accept the claim of ChurchillMining. The reason is because the one who should suing Indonesia is notChurchill Mining but Ridlatama Group, because the party who‟s their mininglicense are revoked by the Regent of Kutai Timur is Ridlatama Group notChurchill Mining. So this problem should not be yoked with the international lawand should be resolved through national (Indonesia) legal sphere. To prevent thesame thing accure again, Indonesia should consider to amendment the BillateralInvestment Treaty between United Kingdom and Indonesia and it is better toconsider to drop out as a member of the ICSID Convention, where that is possibleunder Article 71 of the ICSID Convention"