Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Summary:This book examines whether domestic courts in twelve countries actually provide remedies to private parties who are harmed by a violation of their treaty-based rights."

"Are international courts effective tools for international governance? Do they fulfill the expectations that led to their creation and empowerment? Why do some courts appear to be more effective than others, and do so such appearances reflect reality? Could their results have been produced by other mechanisms? This book evaluates the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals by comparing their stated goals to the actual outcomes they achieve. Using a theoretical model borrowed from social science, the book assesses their effectiveness by analysing key empirical data."

"This detailed evaluation of the relationship between trials and truth commissions challenges their assumed compatibility through an analysis of their operational features at national, inter-state and international levels. Alison Bisset conducts case-study analyses of national practice in South Africa, East Timor and Sierra Leone, evaluates the problems posed by the International Criminal Court and considers the challenges presented by the possibility of bystander state prosecutions. At each level, she highlights potential operational conflicts and formulates targeted proposals to enable effective coexistence."

"

Dalam situasi di mana terdapat sebuah badan hukum asing yang menjadi pihak dalam perkara di Pengadilan Indonesia, muncul apa pertanyaan Pengadilan Indonesia tersebut memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadili sengketa tersebut. Permasalahan ini berkaitan dengan hukum acara perdata Indonesia dan hukum acara perdata internasional di Indonesia. Dengan menggunakan metode yurisdis normatif, maka penerapan kewenangan lembaga peradilan Indonesia terhadap badan hukum asing akan dikaji dalam Pengadilan Negeri Malang No.79/Pdt.G/2014/PN.Mlg, Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta 348/Pdt/2018/PT DKI dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung 1142 K/Pdt/2019.

---

In cases where a foreign legal entity is a party in a dispute in Indonesian courts, the question arises of whether or not the Indonesian court has jurisdiction over the case. This is an issue related to Indonesian civil procedure and international civil procedure. In this thesis, using a normative legal method, the jurisdiction of the Indonesian courts towards foreign legal entities will be analyzed in the decisions by Pengadilan Negeri Malang No. 79/Pdt.G/2014/PN.Mlg, Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta No. 348/Pdt/2018/PT DKI dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung 1142 K/Pdt/2019.

"

"

---

ABSTRACTForum shopping, which consists of strategic forum selection, parallel litigation and serial litigation, is a phenomenon of growing importance in international adjudication. Preliminary objections (or a party's placement of conditions on the existence and development of the adjudicatory process) have been traditionally conceived as barriers to adjudication before single forums. This book discusses how adjudicators and parties may refer to questions of jurisdiction and admissibility in order to avoid conflicting decisions on overlapping cases, excessive exercises of jurisdiction and the proliferation of litigation. It highlights an emerging, overlooked function of preliminary objections: transmission belts of procedure-regulating rules across the 'international judiciary'. Activating this often dormant, managerial function of preliminary objections would nurture coordination of otherwise independent and autonomous tribunals."

"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."