Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) akan berkekuatan hukum tetap pada Juli 2020. Seperti perjanjian investasi bilateral pada umunya, perjanjian baru ini menimbulkan banyak pertanyaan mengenai hubungan antara hak-hak investor dan hak regulasi negara. Rumusan-rumusan masalah adalah 1) Bagaimana klausa Fair and Equitable Treatment dalam IA-CEPA mengatur hubungan antara investor dan negara, beserta dengan hak dan kewajiban mereka masing-masing? Dan 2) Mengingat IA-CEPA tidak mengandung klausa explisit mengenai kewajiban investor, apakah ada klausa-klausa lain yang membatasi klaim investor dalam rangka mencapai keseimbangan hak dan kewajiban para pihak secara substantif? Riset dilakukan secara Doctrinal Legal Research dan menggunakan metode-metode komparatif. Kesimpulannya adalah, IA-CEPA tidak memiliki inovasi yang signifikan dalam menyeimbangkan hak dan kewajiban para pihak di dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral. Namun, IA-CEPA telah mengimplementasikan doktrin Clean Hands untuk menghindari klaim investor yang mungkin illegal. Secara keseluruhan, IA-CEPA masih merefleksikan perjanjian investasi bilateral pada umunya dan tidak mengkontribusikan inovasi signifikan.
The Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) between Indonesia and Australia will enter into force in July 2020. Similar to any newly ratified bilateral investment treaty, it arises questions towards investors rights and the states right to regulate. The research questions are 1) How does the Fair and Equitable Treatment clause in the IA-CEPA strikes the balance between the host states’ obligations towards foreign investors on the one hand and the foreign investors’ expectations with respect to their investment in the host state on the other? And 2) Considering that IA-CEPA does not include any explicit obligations for investors, is substantive balance between investors and States achieved by placing jurisdictional conditions for foreign investor’s protection under IIA, in particular limitations of an access to Investor-State Dispute Settlement for fraudulent and illegal conduct? The form of research is a doctrinal legal research with comparative methods. The conclusions are that the IA-CEPA has not introduced significant innovations to balance the state’s right to regulate with the investors’ private rights under the treaty. However, it should be mentioned that it has managed to codify the lean hands doctrine to the text of the treaty, in order to dismiss claims for investors that may have been illegal in establishing the investment. Overall, it is still merely a reflection of the previous investment treaties and have not contributed to the development of International Investment Treaties.
"
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.
"
