Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) adalah forum penyelesaian sengketa penanaman modal asing yang memiliki yurisdiksi berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID. Dalam menentukan yurisdiksi, Majelis Arbiter ICSID mengualifikasi penanaman modal untuk memeriksa syarat ratione materiae. Majelis Arbiter ICSID menggunakan metode Piecemeal Test atau Dual-Test untuk mengualifikasi penanaman modal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kualifikasi penanaman modal oleh Majelis Arbiter ICSID pada sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dengan menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analitis. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penggunaan metode kualifikasi penanaman modal yang berbeda memengaruhi hasil kualifikasi.

---

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is foreign investment dispute settlement forum which has jurisdiction according to Article 25 of ICSID Convention. In determining its jurisdiction, ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal qualify investment to examine the requirement of ratione materiae. ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal uses the method of Piecemeal Test or Dual-Test to qualify investment.

This research is aimed to analyse the qualification of investment by ICSID's Arbitral Tribunal in the matter between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. the Republic of Indonesia using normative juridical approach conducted through descriptive-analytic method. This research finds that using different methods of investment qualification influence the result of such qualification."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis pengaturan mengenai yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter berdasarkan Konvensi ICSID dan penerapannya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID, yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dalam mengadili suatu sengketa ditentukan oleh adanya kesepakatan para pihak, ketentuan ratione materiae dan ratione personae. Pentingnya ketiga persyaratan tersebut untuk dipenuhi dalam menentukan yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dapat dilihat dalam perkara Pemda Kaltim melawan PT Kaltim Prima Coal dkk. Dalam perkara tersebut, ketentuan ratione personae tidak terpenuhi sehingga Majelis Arbiter ICSID menyatakan diri tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk mengadili perkara tersebut.

---

This research is aimed to describe and analyze the rules regarding the Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction based on the ICSID Convention and its implementation. The result of this research shows that based on Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction is determined by the consent of the disputing parties, requirements ratione materiae and ratione personae. In GPEK v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others, it is obvious that the compliance of those requirements is very fundamental in determining the Tribunal`s jurisdiction over the dispute. In the mentioned case, requirements ratione personae were not fulfilled. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks of jurisdiction over the dispute."

"[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.]"

"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."

"Sebagai salah satu bentuk ekspropriasi tidak langsung, creeping expropriation kerap menimbulkan permasalahan dalam penyelesaian sengketa antara negara dan penanam modal. Creeping expropriation sering digunakan negara dalam mengambil alih penanaman modal asing. Empat putusan ICSID yang dibahas dalam skripsi ini telah mempertimbangkan mengenai konsep creeping expropriation. Meskipun demikian, tidak terdapat suatu konsep yang jelas dan konsisten mengenai creeping expropriation. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analisis. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan pemahaman dan penerapan konsep creeping expropriation dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing di ICSID.

---

As one form of indirect expropriation, creeping expropriation often rises problems in investor-state investment dispute. Creeping expropriation is often used by a state to undertake foreign investment. Four ICSID awards used in this thesis have acknowledged and put creeping expropriation into consideration. However, there is no clear and consistent understanding regarding creeping expropriation concept. This research is analyzed through normative legal research done through descriptive-analytic method. The research shows the different implementation of creeping expropriation concept in foreign investment dispute in ICSID."

"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"

"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."

"

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.

"

"ABSTRAKKerjasama ekonomi antar negara yang melibatkan perdagangan dan investasi didalamnya akan semakin meningkat. Salah satu pemicu meningkatnya pengaturan perdagangan dan investasi dalam satu perjanjian internasional adalah munculnya NAFTA pada tahun 1993. Ketentuan NAFTA menimbulkan konsekuensi hukum kepada Host State yakni untuk melaksanakan prinsip non-diskriminasi. Dalam Kasus penerapan pajak produk HFCS, Meksiko melakukan tindakan yang tidak konsisten dengan NAFTA terkait ketentuan National Treatment dan Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET). Berdasarkan tindakan tersebut maka muncul sengketa di bidang perdagangan dan investasi dalam kasus yang sama. Kasus ini akan menjadi suatu pembelajaran yang menarik dalam melakukan kerjasama antar negara di bidang ekonomi.

---

ABSTRACT

Economic Partnership between countries that involved to trade and investment will be increase more. One of the trigger of many agreement that carried trade and investment in it was appears of NAFTA on January 1st 1994. The content of NAFTA caused legal obligation to the Party especially Host State to applied the nondiscrimination principle. In the application of HFCS tax, Mexico did inconsistent action to the NAFTA which are to National Treatment obligation and Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) obligation. Based on Mexico?s action, that arise conflict both in trade and investment. This case would be interesting lesson in doing economic partnership between countries."