Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"Perjanjian Kemitraan Ekonomi Komprehensif Indonesia-Australia (“IA-CEPA”), adalah perjanjian perdagangan yang baru-baru ini disimpulkan, yang mencakup ketentuan Persyaratan yang Adil dan Berkeadilan, Fair and Equitable Treatment, (“Persyaratan FET”)sebagai standar perlakuan bagi investor asing, dan klausula Penyelesaian Sengketa Investor-Negara (“PSIN”) sebagai metode penyelesaian sengketa yang disepakati dalam hal timbul perselisihan di antara para pihak. Ada dua poin utama IA-CEPA yang dibahas dalam tesis ini.Pertama, tesis ini meneliti perbedaan dalam menggunakan Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional tentang Perlakuan Standar Minimum (“PSM”),sebagai standar Persyaratan FET, dan Persyaratan FET hanya terbatas pada Penolakan Keadilan, sebagai dua standar yangdisebutkan dalam IA-CEPA. Kedua, penelitian tentang bagaimana efek yang berbeda dari Persyaratan FET akan mempengaruhi konsistensi antara Persyaratan FET dengan Klausa PSM di IA-CEPA. Melalui metode penelitian hukum normatif yuridis, ditemukan bahwa pertama, Hukum Kebiasaan Internasional PSM akan memberikan cakupan yang lebih luas dari Persyaratan FET di luar hanya penolakan keadilan, dan kedua, bahwa setiap perselisihansehubungan dengan Persyaratan FET di IA- CEPA terlepas dari formulasinya akan konsisten dengan Klausa PSIN di IA-CEPA. Dengan demikian, reformulasi tentang Persyaratan FET dalam IA-CEPA disarankan untuk menetapkan batasan yang jelas tentang ruang lingkup Persyaratan FET.

---

The Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement is a trade agreement recently concluded, which includes the provisions of Fair and Equitable Requirements (“FET Requirements”) as the standards of treatment for foreign investors, and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) Clause as an agreed dispute resolution in the case that a dispute arise between the parties. There are two key points of the IA-CEPA that is discussed in this thesis. Firstly, this thesis researches the difference in using International Customary Law of the Minimum Standard Treatment as the standards of FET Requirements, and FET Requirements to only limited to a Denial of Justice, as the two standards mentioned in the IA-CEPA. Secondly, the researches on how the different effects of FET Requirements would affect the consistency between the FET Requirements with the ISDS Clause in the IA-CEPA. Through a juridical normative legal research method, it was found that first, the International Customary Law of MST would render a wider scope of FET Requirements beyond only denial of justice, and second, that any dispute in relation with the FET Requirements in the IA-CEPA irrespective of its formulation would be consistent with the ISDS Clause in the IA-CEPA. Thus, a reformulation on the FET Requirements in the IA-CEPA is suggested establish clear limitations on the scope of FET Requirements."

"

---

ABSTRACTIn this study, Caroline Henckels examines how investment tribunals have balanced the competing interests of host states and foreign investors in determining state liability in disputes concerning the exercise of public power. Analyzing the concepts of proportionality and deference in investment tribunals' decision-making in comparative perspective, the book proposes a new methodology for investment tribunals to adopt in regulatory disputes, which combines proportionality analysis with an institutionally sensitive approach to the standard of review. Henckels argues that adopting a modified form of proportionality analysis would provide a means for tribunals to decide cases in a more consistent and coherent manner leading to greater certainty for both states and investors, and that affording due deference to host states in the determination of liability would address the concern that the decisions of investment tribunals unjustifiably impact on the regulatory autonomy of states."

"[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.]"