Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This book brings together foreign investment and investment arbitration in Asia, the fastest growing economic region in the world. It provides a critical analysis of foreign investment, its benefits and the legal regimes of the jurisdictions studied at a time when investor-state disputes are on the rise and investment arbitration is under growing scrutiny. Governments are under greater pressure to balance the promotion of investment with public policy development and interests and calls for a permanent court for investment arbitration are getting louder. To assess future possibilities, this book takes stock of, brings together and analyses the legal regimes on foreign investment in 12 major Asian jurisdictions, namely China, Hong-Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. These constitute paradigmatic examples of what is happening in the legal framework of Asian foreign investment and the impact that the current system of investment arbitration has in all of them. The analysis shows the existence of changing positions and degrees of openness towards foreign investment in the region, as well as a distinct level of exposure to and involvement in investment arbitration. Predictably, their situation will change in the near future, at least in relation to investment arbitration. Proposals for reform have already been made and international institutions are working on the development of an alternative to the proceedings of investment arbitration as it is currently constructed and understood. Consequently, the last two chapters of this book are devoted to the analysis of these developments that will most probably affect the existing situation in the region."

"

Pasal 25(4) Konvensi ICSID memperbolehkan suatu negara untuk melakukan pemberitahuan mengenai golongan sengketa penanaman modal yang dikecualikan dari yurisdiksi ICSID. Berdasarkan ketentuan ini, pemerintah Indonesia melalui Keputusan Presiden No. 31 Tahun 2012 (“Keputusan Presiden 31/2012”) telah melakukan pemberitahuan untuk  mengecualikan sengketa penanaman modal yang timbul dari keputusan tata usaha negara yang diterbitkan oleh pemerintah kabupaten. Namun, pemberitahuan mengenai pengecualian sengketa dianggap tidak dapat diberlakukan kecuali dimasukkan kedalam pasal dalam perjanjian investasi yang mengandung persetujuan negara terkait terhadap yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, ketentuan dalam pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia belum dimasukkan dalam seluruh perjanjian investasi yang mengikat Indonesia. Penelitian ini membahas, pertama, dampak hukum dari Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 terhadap pembatasan yurisdiksi ICSID. Selanjutnya, penelitian ini membahas metode untuk menginkorporasi ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 dan pemberitahuan pengecualian Indonesia ke dalam klausul persetujuan terbatas dalam suatu perjanjian investasi. Penelitian ini juga membahas sejauh mana klausul persetujuan terbatas tersebut dapat digunakan untuk menolak yurisdiksi ICSID.  Dengan melakukan penelitian yuridis-normatif, dapat disimpulkan bahwa keberlakuan Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 akan membuat penyelesaian sengketa yang dikecualikan terbatas pada penyelesaian melalui Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Indonesia. Ketentuan dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 harus dimasukkan dalam perjanjian investasi melalui cara reproduksi atau perubahan klausul persetujuan terbatas yang mengandung pengecualian dalam Keputusan Presiden 31/2012 juga tidak akan memiliki dampak terhadap penolakan yurisdiksi ICSID.

 

---

Article 25(4) of the ICSID Convention allows a state to notify the exclusion of certain classes of investment disputes from ICSID jurisdiction. Pursuant to this provision, the Indonesian government through Presidential Decree No. 31 of 2012 (“Presidential Decree 31/2012”) made a notification to exclude investment disputes arising from administrative decisions issued by the regency governments. Notifications of exclusion, however, are considered inoperable unless incorporated into the investment treaty provision expressing the notifying state’s consent to ICSID jurisdiction. Moreover, the terms of Indonesia’s notification of exclusion have not been included in any investment treaty that Indonesia is a party to. This research discusses, firstly, the legal consequence of Presidential Decree 31/2012 with regards to limiting ICSID jurisdiction. Secondly, this research discusses the methods through which the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 and Indonesia’s notification of exclusion may be incorporated into a limited consent clause of an investment treaty. Thirdly, this research also discusses the extent to which such a limited consent clause may be invoked to deny ICSID jurisdiction. By conducting a juridical normative legal research, it can be concluded that the operation of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would limit the forum for the settlement of the excluded disputes to the Indonesian Administrative Judiciary. Moreover, the terms of Presidential Decree 31/2012 would have to be incorporated into an investment treaty by way of reproduction or amendment. Further, a consent clause that expresses the exclusion made in Presidential Decree 31/2012 would be inconsequential in denying ICSID jurisdiction.

 

"