Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID memberikan kewenangan kepada Majelis Arbitrase untuk menyaring perkara yang memenuhi unsur "manifestly without legal merit." Penulis melakukan kajian terhadap tiga dari dua puluh lima putusan yang telah dijatuhkan oleh Majelis Arbitrase ICSID terhadap keberatan yang diajukan berdasarkan Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis-normatif dalam penulisannya. Penelitian ini Penulis lakukan untuk menjelaskan secara jelas dan lengkap aspek Hukum Perdata Internasional dan hasil interpretasi Majelis Arbitrase ICSID terhadap Pasal 41 ayat 5 Peraturan Arbitrase ICSID, khususnya terhadap unsur "manifestly without legal merit," pada perkara Global Trading Resource Corporation and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/09/11 , Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/10/6 , dan Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Keresked h z Vagyonkezel Zrt. v. Hungary Perkara ICSID Nomor ARB/12/3.

---

Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rules gives Tribunal the authority to dismiss a case which is manifestly without legal merit. This thesis contains the analysis on three out of twenty five award or decisions rendered by Tribunal on the objection which invoked Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rules. The research for this thesis is conducted in a normative legal research method. It is the intention of this thesis to describe the aspects of Private International Law and the outcome of Tribunal's interpretation on Rule 41 (5) of ICSID Arbitration Rule, specifically regarding the element of "manifestly without legal merit," in the cases of Global Trading Resource Corporation and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6), dan Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. Nomor ARB/12/3)."

"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."

"Investor-state arbitration is a relatively new dispute settlement mechanism that allows foreign investors the opportunity to seek redress for damages arising out of breaches of investment-related treaty obligations by the governments of host countries. Claims are submitted to independent, international arbitration tribunals, which are called upon to interpret the treaty at hand. Because of the public interest involved in these cases, the awards of these tribunals are subject to much scrutiny and debate. Thus, it has already generated hundreds of cases and created new legal disciplines, inspiring a continuous string of legal writings. This book describes the process of investor-state arbitration in all of its phases, and provides the reader with comprehensive insight into investor-state arbitration. It includes contributions from many of the leading experts in the field, from private practitioners and academics to government and NGO officials. In this way, this book differs from other books on this topic because it includes contributions from all actors involved, providing more credibility in an area in which one of the main criticisms is bias against governments. This book provides pragmatic and reliable analysis of all aspects of this evolving topic."

"Independensi dan imparsialitas arbitrator merupakan hal yang harus dimiliki oleh anggota Majelis Arbitrase dalam mengadili dan memutus perkara, sebagaimana yang diatur di dalam Pasal 14 ayat 1 Konvensi ICSID. Apabila persyaratan tersebut tidak terpenuhi, para pihak yang berperkara diberikan kesempatan untuk mengajukan permohonan diskualifikasi atas anggota Majelis Arbitrase dalamperkara yang bersangkutan berdasarkan Pasal 57 Konvensi ICSID. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis bagaimana pihak berwenang dalam lembaga ICSID menerapkan Pasal 57 Konvensi ICSID dalam mengadili dan memutus permohonan diskualifikasi anggota Majelis Arbitrase. Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode penelitian normatif yang dianalisis secara kualitatif yang disampaikan bentuklaporan deskriptif. Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa dalam penerapannya, pihak berwenang dalam lembaga ICSID merujuk pada frasa manifest lack di dalam Pasal 57 Konvensi ICSID atas kualitas yang termuat pada frasa may be relied uponto exercise independent judgment yang disyaratkan untuk dimiliki oleh anggota Majelis Arbitrase di dalam Pasal 14 Konvensi ICSID dalam memutus permohonan diskualifikasi anggota Majelis Arbitrase pada suatu perkara. Ketentuan frasa manifest lack tersebut secara umum dianggap terpenuhi apabila terdapat fakta atau bukti yang dapat menimbulkan keragu-raguan (reasonable doubt) terhadapsikap independen dan imparsialitas anggota Majelis Arbitrase yang bersangkutan, sehingga anggota Majelis Arbitrase tersebut dapat didiskualifikasi sebagai anggotaMajelis Arbitrase dalam perkara yang diadilinya.

---

Independency and impartiality of an arbitrator that serves as member of an Arbitral Tribunal are required pursuant to Article 14 Paragraph 1 of ICSID Convention. If such requirements are not fulfilled, ICSID Convention provides a mechanism that allows both parties in a dispute to request a disqualification of member of anArbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 57 of ICSID Convention. The purpose of this research is to analyze how authorized party in ICSID institution apply Article 57 of ICSID Convention in deciding a request of disqualification of member of an Arbitral Tribunal. This research is carried out in a normative research principle. The writer concludes that in its application, authorized party in ICSID institution relies on manifest lack of qualities in may be relied upon to exercise independent judgment that are required of member of an Arbitral Tribunal. It is widely accepted that manifest lack of such qualities is considered to be fulfilled if there are any facts or proofs that raise a reasonable doubt towards independency and impartiality of such member of an Arbitral Tribunal, hence disqualifying such Arbitral Tribunal member would be an appropriate thing to do."

"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."

"Third-Party Funding merupakan metode pendanaan di mana penyandang dana memberikan dana kepada salah satu pihak dalam sengketa untuk menggugat atau meminimalkan gangguan arus kas, dan jika kasus dimenangkan, penyandang dana akan mendapatkan bagian dari putusan akhir yang diperoleh. TPF awalnya dipergunakan dalam litigasi di beberapa yurisdiksi, namun kini semakin populer dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Peningkatan pemanfaatan TPF ini berpotensi menghadirkan dampak yang signifikan. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menganalisis data sekunder dari studi literatur, terutama ICSID Rules and Regulations setelah amandemen keempat. Amandemen ini menghadirkan aturan baru terkait praktik TPF, yakni Pasal 14 dalam ICSID Arbitration Rules tentang Notice of Third-Party Funding. Analisis Skripsi ini terutama difokuskan pada potensi dampak pengaturan baru terhadap praktik arbitrase investasi internasional, bagi Indonesia sebagai host state dalam ICSID, serta sebagai negara pelaksana arbitrase. Skripsi ini diharapkan dapat mendukung implementasi TPF yang lebih mengutamakan akses keadilan berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip Konvensi ICSID, menganalisis hambatan dan tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi oleh Indonesia di kemudian hari, serta dampak yang mungkin dihadirkan terhadap pengaturan arbitrase di Indonesia.

---

Third-Party Funding is a method in which a funder provides funds to one of the parties in a dispute to initiate a claim or minimize cash flow disruption. If the case is won, the funder will receive a share of the final award obtained. TPF was originally used in litigation in several jurisdictions, but is now increasingly popular in international investment arbitration. The increased use of TPF potentially presents significant implications. This thesis employs a normative legal research method by analyzing secondary data from literature studies, especially the ICSID Rules and Regulations after the fourth amendment. The amendment introduces new rules related to TPF practices, namely Article 14 in the ICSID Arbitration Rules concerning Notice of Third-Party Funding. This thesis analysis mainly focuses on the potential implications of the new regulation on international investment arbitration practices, for Indonesia as a host state in ICSID and a state that implements arbitration. This thesis is expected to support the implementation of TPF that prioritizes access to justice based on the principles of the ICSID Convention, analyze barriers and challenges that Indonesia may face in the future, and the potential impact on arbitration regulations in Indonesia."

"The Backlash against Investment Arbitration : Perceptions and Reality /​ Michael Waibel ... [et al.]Disregarding the Corporate Veil and Denial of Benefits Clauses : Testing Treaty Language and the Concept of "Investor" /​ Rachel Thorn &​ Jennifer DoucleffPrivate Enforcement of International Investment Law : Why We Need Investor Standing in BIT Dispute Settlement /​ Stephan W. SchillDrawing the Limits of Free Transfer Provisions /​ Alejandro Turyn &​ Facundo Perez AznarA Comparison of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration : Areas of Divergence and Concern /​ Stephen Jagusch &​ Jeffrey SullivanThe Issues Raised by Parallel Proceedings and Possible Solutions /​ August ReinischParallel Proceedings : A Practitioner's Perspective /​ Richard KreindlerAnnulment and its Role in the Context of Conflicting Awards /​ Christina KnahrCompensation for Non-expropriatory Investment Treaty Breaches in the Argentine Gas Sector Cases : Issues and Implications /​ Kathryn KhamsiArbitrator Integrity /​ William ParkAmicus Curiae : A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration? /​ Nigel Blackaby &​ Caroline RichardParticipation of Non-governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae /​ Amokura KawahruLegality of Investments under ICSID Jurisprudence /​ Gabriel BottiniInvoking State Defenses in Investment Treaty Arbitration /​ A MartinezBacklash to Investment Arbitration : Three Causes /​ Louis T. Wells"

"Pengenalan The Third Version of The Draft Code memperkenalkan tiga metode yang diusulkan untuk mengatur double hatting dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Pilihannya adalah "full prohibition", "modified prohibition", dan "disclosure with option to challenge". Diskusi telah muncul mengenai opsi mana yang paling sesuai dengan praktik dalam arbitrase investasi internasional yang telah membahas masalah double hatting dalam beberapa kasus. Skripsi ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang meliputi kajian doktrinal, yaitu kajian dan analisis terhadap doktrin-doktrin yang dianut oleh para sarjana hukum, serta dokumen-dokumen hukum yang relevan seperti yurisprudensi, perjanjian internasional. Setelah berkonsultasi dengan undang-undang kasus yang berhubungan dengan masalah pemalsuan topi, pedoman internasional, serta pendapat para sarjana pembenci ganda sebagai praktik tidak dilarang, melainkan keadaan khusus seputar pemalsuan topi adalah penyebab kekhawatiran terbesar. Selama seorang arbiter yang menjalankan peran ganda tidak menghalangi independensi atau ketidakberpihakan mereka, praktik itu sendiri diperbolehkan. Oleh karena itu, opsi "modified prohibition" akan paling cocok karena memberikan larangan yang ditargetkan terhadap keadaan yang telah terbukti menciptakan penampilan atau menunjukkan kurangnya independensi atau ketidakberpihakan.

---

The introduction of The Third Version of The Draft Code introduces three proposed methods of regulating double hatting within international investment arbitration. The options are “full prohibition”, “modified prohibition”, and “disclosure with option to challenge”. Discussions have arisen concerning which option best fits with practice in international investment arbitration that has already addressed the issue of double hatting in several cases. This thesis shall utilize normative legal research which includes doctrinal study, meaning the study and analysis of doctrines adopted by legal scholars, as well as relevant legal documents such as jurisprudence, international agreements. After consulting case laws dealing with the issue of double hatting, international guidelines, as well as the opinions of scholars double hatting as a practice is not prohibited, but rather the specific circumstances surrounding double hatting are the biggest cause of concern. So long as an arbitrator practicing multiple roles does not impede on their independence or impartiality the practice itself is permissible. Therefore, a “modified prohibition” option would be best suited as it provides targeted prohibitions toward circumstances that have been proven to create an appearance or manifest lack of independence or impartiality."