Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"BIT Indonesia-Singapura yang disetujui tahun 2020 sempat menuai kontroversi karena BIT telah terbukti mengancam kedaulatan negara dengan adanya klausul yang memungkinkan investor asing menggugat langsung negara ke arbitrase internasional. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis alasan Indonesia dalam menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif dengan pengambilan data berupa wawancara, korespondensi dengan Kementerian, serta penelitian berbasis internet. Hasil penelitian dengan menggunakan analisis teori permainan dua tingkat adalah Indonesia menyetujui BIT dengan Singapura tahun 2020 karena terdapat keselarasan kepentingan antara Indonesia dan Singapura yang saling menguntungkan serta didukung oleh mayoritas aktor domestik Indonesia (Kementerian Luar Negeri, Kementerian Investasi, Kementerian Keuangan, Kementerian Perindustrian, Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Perekonomian, Sembcorp Development Ltd dan PT Jababeka Tbk). Kepentingan Indonesia yakni ingin memperbarui BIT untuk mengantisipasi kemungkinan adanya gugatan investor terhadap negara ke arbitrase internasional serta ingin meningkatkan jumlah investasi yang masuk ke Indonesia. Adapun kepentingan Singapura yakni ingin memberikan kepastian hukum bagi investor dan ingin memiliki DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) untuk meningkatkan kredibilitas dan daya saing sebagai investment hub. Meskipun terdapat perbedaan preferensi dalam proses negosiasi BIT Indonesia Singapura tahun 2020, yakni adanya penolakan BIT dari Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), namun ukuran win-set nya tetap besar sehingga mendukung ratifikasi perjanjian tersebut.

---

The Indonesia-Singapore BIT which was approved in 2020 caused controversy because the BIT has been proven to threaten the country's sovereignty with a clause that allows foreign investors to sue the country directly in international arbitration. This research aims to analyze Indonesia's reasons for agreeing to the BIT with Singapore in 2020. The method used in this research is qualitative by collecting data in the form of interviews, correspondence with the Ministry, and internet-based research. The results of research using two-level game theory analysis are that Indonesia agreed to the BIT with Singapore in 2020 because there is a mutually beneficial alignment of interests between Indonesia and Singapore and supported by the majority of Indonesian domestic actors (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Investment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Coordinator for Economic Affairs, Sembcorp Development Ltd and PT Jababeka Tbk). Indonesia's interests are to update the BIT to anticipate the possibility of investor lawsuits against the state in international arbitration and to increase the amount of investment entering Indonesia. Singapore's interests are that it wants to provide legal certainty for investors and wants to have a DTAA (Double Tax Avoidance Agreement) to increase credibility and competitiveness as an investment hub. Even though there are differences in preferences in the 2020 Singapore Indonesia BIT negotiation process, such as the rejection of the BIT from Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), the size of the win-set remains large, thus supporting the ratification of the agreement. "

"ABSTRAKConsent merupakan landasan utama terbentuknya yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) untuk dapat menyelesaikan sengketa investasi internasional. Dikarenakan pilihan forum penyelesaikan sengketa investasi pada ICSID bukan merupakan suatu hal yang mudah bagi host state, consent digunakan salah satunya untuk membatasi akses investor dalam menyelesaikan sengketa pada ICSID melalui berbagai persyaratan. Namun adanya klausula Most Favoured Nation (MFN) dan penerapannya pada consent dalam BIT secara tidak langsung memperbesar kesempatan bagi investor untuk menggugat host state di ICSID dengan merujuk pada BIT pihak ketiga. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, Tesis ini akan membahas 2 (dua) masalah utama yaitu (i) bagaimana pertimbangan arbiter dalam menentukan bahwa klausula MFN dapat diterapkan pada consent penyelesaian sengketa di ICSID dan (ii) bagaimana perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT yang dibutuhkan untuk menghindari ketidakjelasan penerapannya pada consent. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa penentuan apakah klausula MFN dapat diterapkan dalam consent penyelesaian sengketa atau tidak masih menjadi perdebatan di kalangan arbiter ICSID. Untuk menyikapi ketidakjelasan atas penerapan ini, host state dapat memilih alternatif perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT salah satunya dengan mengklarifikasi ruang lingkup klausula MFN dalam sebuah BIT apakah mencakup consent penyelesaian sengketa investasi atau tidak.

---

ABSTRACTConsent is the cornerstone of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) jurisdiction to resolve international investment disputes. Because the choice of an investment dispute resolution forum in ICSID is not an easy thing for host states, consent is used to limit investor access to resolve disputes on ICSID through various conditions. However, the existence of the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause and its application to consent in BIT indirectly increases the chance for investors to sue host state in ICSID by referring to third party BIT. Based on this, the Thesis discusses two main issues: (i) how the arbitrator's consideration in determining that the MFN clause can be applied to the dispute resolution consent in ICSID and (ii) how the MFN clause formulation in BIT is needed to avoid the unclear of its application on consent. The method used in this research is the normative juridical method. This study concludes that the determination of whether the MFN clause can be applied in dispute resolution or not is still a debate among ICSID arbitrators. To address the ambiguity of this application, the host state may determine alternatives for the formulation of the MFN clause in the BIT by clarifying scope of the MFN clause in a BIT whether or not to cover investment dispute resolution."

"Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Indonesia dan Singapura yang dibentuk pada tahun 2005 diputuskan untuk tidak dilanjutkan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia pada tahun 2016 karena Pemerintah Indonesia memilih untuk menegosiasikan BIT yang baru. Pada tahun 2018, Pemerintah Indonesia dan Pemerintah Singapura telah berhasil membentuk BIT dengan ketentuan yang jauh berbeda dibandingkan dengan BIT terdahulu. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk meneliti perbandingan ketentuan dalam BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2005 dengan BIT dan Singapura tahun 2018. Selain itu, penelitian ini mencoba untuk mengetahui dampak BIT terhadap penanaman modal asing langsung di Indonesia. Bentuk penelitian ini bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan tipologi deskriptif analitis yang didukung oleh studi bahan pustaka dan wawancara sebagai alat pengumpul data. Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2018 dirumuskan secara lebih terperinci dan jelas dan memasukan banyak safeguard di dalamnya. Selain itu, BIT diketahui tidak memiliki dampak langsung untuk mendorong nilai investasi asing di Indonesia, tetapi kehadiran BIT tetap diperlukan untuk memberikan perlindungan dan meningkatkan kepercayaan investor Singapura, mendorong pembentukan iklim peraturan yang baik, dan pelengkap instrumen hukum perlindungan investasi. Saran yang dapat diberikan adalah Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal dalam merumuskan perjanjian investasi internasional kedepannya tetap mempertahankan rumusan perjanjian investasi yang jelas dan rinci demi menghindari penafsiran yang berbeda antara host state dengan penanam modal.

---

Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and Singapore that was signed in 2005 was discontinued by the Government of Indonesia in 2016 because the Government of Indonesia elected to renegotiate a new BIT. In 2018, the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Singapore successfully agreed on a new BIT with new and different provisions. This research tries to do a comparative analysis on the BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2005 and BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018. This research also looks to determine the impact of BIT on foreign direct investment. The research method of this thesis is juridical-normative with a descriptive research approach through literature review and desk study, and key informant interviews as a tool for collecting data. This research concludes that BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018 was formulated with more details, containing explicit clauses and safeguards. This thesis also argues that BIT does not have any direct impact on increasing foreign direct investment in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the presence of BIT is still necessary and effective to provide protection of investment and increase investor confidence, encourage the creation of favourable regulatory climate, and complement other legal instruments for investment protection. In the future, the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) should seek to establish international investment agreements that maintain

a clear and detailed clause of investment agreements in order to avoid different interpretations between the host state and investors."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"This book outlines the protection standards typically contained in international investment agreements as they are actually applied and interpreted by investment tribunals. It thus provides a basis for analysis, criticism, and stocktaking of the existing system of investment arbitration. It covers all main protection standards, such as expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, the non-discrimination standards of national treatment and MFN, the prohibition of unreasonable and discriminatory measures, umbrella clauses and transfer guarantees. These standards are covered in separate chapters providing an overview of textual variations, explaining the origin of the standards and analysing the main conceptual issues as developed by investment tribunals. Relevant cases with quotations that illustrate how tribunals have relied upon the standards are presented in depth. An extensive bibliography guides the reader to more specific aspects of each investment standard permitting the book's use as a commentary of the main investment protection standards."

"Tesis 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.

---

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."

"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."