Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji apa saja yang menjadi dasar diterimanya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc oleh Arbiter pada badan arbitrase ICSID dan menganalisa apakah dasar-dasar penerimaan gugatan tersebut menjadikan badan arbitrase ICSID memang memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa perkara yang diajukan oleh Churchill Mining Plc. Sehingga perlu untuk ditinjau secara yuridis apakah memang sepatutnya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc tersebut diterima oleh ICSID atau tidak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penulisan ini adalah metode yuridis-normatif. Metode yuridis-normatif tersebut akan digunakan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap data sekunder. Adapun bahan hukum primer yang digunakan berupa peraturan Konvensi ICSID, Undangundang Nomor 5 Tahun 1968 tentang Ratifikasi atas Konvensi ICSID dan bahan hukum sekunder berupa buku, jurnal ilmiah, dan artikel ilmiah

Bahwa adapun Churchill Mining Plc menggugat Indonesia dengan mendasarkan gugatannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 7 ayat (1) BIT UK-Indonesia. Dimana atas hal tersebut tergugat mengemukakan statement of defence tentang keberatan terhadap yurisdiksi ICSID, maka Dewan Arbitrase harus terlebih dahulu mengemukakan keputusan mengenai yurisdiksinya untuk menangani perkara. Dimana dewan arbitrase harus mendasarkan putusannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID yang mengatur secara khusus mengenai yurisdiksi ICSID

Bahwa berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut di atas, maka untuk kasus Churchill Mining Plc vs Republik Indonesia sepatutnya tribunal ICSID tidak menerima gugatan tersebut, hal ini karena seharusnya yang menggugat Indonesia adalah bukan Churchill Mining melainkan perusahaan Ridlatama Group, karena sesungguhnya yang dicabut Izin Kuasanya adalah Ridlatama Group dan bukan Churchill. Sehingga sepatutnya masalah ini tidak dicampuradukkan dengan masalah hukum internasional dan sepatutnya diselesaikan melalui ranah hukum nasional Indonesia. Adapun menurut penulis untuk menghindari terjadinya hal yang sama, ada baiknya Indonesia melakukan amandemen terhadap Billateral Investment Treaty dan bahkan Indonesia juga lebih baik mempertimbangkan untuk keluar sebagai anggota Konvensi ICSID, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 71 Konvensi ICSID hal tersebut diperolehkan

---

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to assess what is the basis of the acceptance of Churchill Mining Plc Lawsuit by the Arbitrator in ICSID and analyze whether the fundamentals of the acceptence of the lawsuit indeed made the ICSID does have a jurisdiction to examine the case. Therefore it is necessary to make a judicial review, whether the Lawsuit which had been filed by Churchill should be received by ICSID or not. The method used in this paper is a method of juridicalnormative. Juridical-normative methods will be used to conduct an analysis the secondary data. The primary legal materials use in this research are the regulations of the ICSID Convention and Law No. 5 of 1968 concerning the Ratification of the Convention ICSID and the secondary legal materials use in this research are books, scientific journals and scientific articles

Whereas Churchill file a lawsuit against Indonesia, based on Article 7 paragraph 1 BIT UK-Indonesia and the Approval of BKPM. Where based on the claim by Churchill, Indonesia as the Defendant also has submit the statement of defence regarding their objection toward the jurisdiction of ICSID. Based on Article 41 ICSID Convention, the Board of ICSID Arbitration in advance must make a decisions regarding its jurisdiction to handle the case. Where the decision of Board of ICSID Arbitration must be made under the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention that specifically regulates the jurisdiction of ICSID.

Based on the regulations as above, therefore for the case of Churchill Mining vs Republic of Indonesia, ICSID tribunal should not accept the claim of Churchill Mining. The reason is because the one who should suing Indonesia is not Churchill Mining but Ridlatama Group, because the party who‟s their mining license are revoked by the Regent of Kutai Timur is Ridlatama Group not Churchill Mining. So this problem should not be yoked with the international law and should be resolved through national (Indonesia) legal sphere. To prevent the same thing accure again, Indonesia should consider to amendment the Billateral Investment Treaty between United Kingdom and Indonesia and it is better to consider to drop out as a member of the ICSID Convention, where that is possible under Article 71 of the ICSID Convention

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
Dalam proyek investasi lintas negara, proyek investasi seringkali dilakukan melalui beberapa kontrak. Pada saat terjadi sengketa atas proyek investasi yang dilaksanakan melalui beberapa kontrak, tidak jarang claimant mengajukan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak yang berbeda dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase. Pengaturan mengenai pemeriksaan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase tidak ditemukan dalam aturan arbitrase pada lembaga ICSID. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan metode deskriptif analitis. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan penerapan prinsip-prinsip pemeriksaan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase yang diterapkan dalam praktik arbitrase internasional oleh majelis arbitrase ICSID.

---

ABSTRACT
In cross-border investment projects, it is common to find an investment project made through several contracts. When dispute over an investment project made through several contracts arises, the claimant in some case submitted a claim based on several contracts in a single proceeding. The rules regarding the hearing of claim based on several contracts in a single proceeding cannot be found in the arbitration rules of ICSID. Normative research with descriptive-analysis method is used to analyse this matter. The result of the research shows the application of principles of the hearing of claim that based on several contracts in a single proceeding that are applied in international arbitration practice

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
The tendency to use the Bllateral Investment Treaty (BITS) by investors as a legal bas1s to flle an 1nternat1onal arbitration claim against the Host Country is increasing recently. Denunciations of the Internatlonal Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as Well as the termination of several BITS by some other countries reuse complex legal ISSUES in the international investment regime. Since Indonesia has been and still experiencing legal suits before the ICSID international arbitrat1on the discourse to take the similar path i.e to denounce from ICSID Convention and terminate some of its BITS 1.9 emerging. This paper discusses the questions that arise With respect to the denunciation of the ICSID Convention and With the termination of BITS The denunciation 1s st1ll debatable since there are different interpretations as to whether the denouncing state remains bound by the Convention and the existence of survival clause III BIT creates the possibility for an investor to flle a claim before the ICSID innternational arbitration even though It has terminated the BIT

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
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.

---

ABSTRACT
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.;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.;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.;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., 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.]

Abstrak :

Persoalan praktik suap kini tidak jarang ditemukan di dalam kasus-kasus arbitrase ICSID. Hal ini berhubungan erat dengan tingginya angka praktik suap di dunia penanaman modal asing, serta dengan kemampuan ICSID untuk menjatuhkan sanksi komersial yang berat terhadap penanaman modal yang melibatkan praktik suap. Setelah diteliti lebih dekat, ditemukan bahwa terdapat banyak inkonsistensi di dalam kasus-kasus ICSID yang membahas soal praktik suap dalam penanaman modal asing. Penelitian yuridis normatif ini dibuat menggunakan metode deskriptif analitis untuk menjelaskan perkembangan penanganan persoalan praktik suap dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing yang dilakukan oleh ICSID, dengan tujuan untuk menggarisbawahi persamaan prinsipil yang terdapat dalam perkembangan tersebut.

---

Bribery claims are now commonly found amongst ICSID-based arbitrations. This has a direct connection with the high number of bribery cases found in foreign investments and with ICSID’s ability to punish those bribery tainted investments with severe commercial consequences. Upon closer inspection, it is found that ICSID cases that deals with bribery are riddled with inconsistencies. This normative legal research uses descriptive-analytic method in order to describe the development of how ICSID deals with bribery claims in foreign investment disputes, with hopes in underlining the principle similarites found in the development of cases.

Abstrak :
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.

Abstrak :

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.

 

Abstrak :
Dengan meningkatnya investasi asing yang dilakukan oleh BUMN, terdapat permasalahan yang dihadapi oleh BUMN sebagai investor asing yang hendak menuntut haknya melalui arbitrase ICSID. Negara yang digugat oleh BUMN sering kali mengajukan keberatan yurisdiksi Majelis Arbitrase ICSID dengan dasar bahwa BUMN tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum sebagai “National of another Contracting State” sebagaimana dipersyaratkan dalam Pasal 25 ayat (2)(b) Konvensi Washington. Penelitian dengan metode yuridis-normatif ini kemudian menemukan bahwa para Majelis Arbitrase ICSID yang dihadapkan permasalahan tersebut menggunakan Tes Broches sebagai upaya solusinya. Tes Broches dikembangkan oleh Sekretaris Jenderal ICSID pertama, Aron Broches, yang menyatakan bahwa BUMN tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum sebagai “National of another Contracting State” apabila bertindak sebagai agen dari pemerintah atau melaksanakan fungsi yang pada dasarnya pemerintahan negara asalnya. Dengan memahami perkembangan penerapan Pasal 25 ayat (2)(b), diharapkan Indonesia sebagai Negara Penandatanganan Konvensi Washington yang saat ini sedang menggencarkan program BUMN Go Global dapat mempersiapkan diri untuk permasalahan kedudukan hukum BUMN yang mungkin dihadapi di masa mendatang. ......With the increase in foreign investment made by SOEs, issues are faced by SOEs as foreign investors in claiming their rights through ICSID arbitration. Countries that are sued by SOEs often object to the jurisdiction of the ICSID Tribunal on the basis that SOEs do not have legal standing as “National of another Contracting State” as required in Article 25 paragraph (2)(b) of the Washington Convention. Using the juridical-normative method, this research later found that the ICSID Tribunal who was faced with this issue used the Broches Test to solve it. The Broches Test is developed by the first Secretary General of ICSID, Aron Broches, which states that SOE does not have legal standing as a “National of another Contracting State” if it acts as an agent for the government or is discharging an essentially governmental function. By understanding the development of the implementation of Article 25 paragraph (2)(b), Indonesia, as a signatory to the Washington Convention, which is currently launching the BUMNGo Global program, may prepare itself for the potential issue of SOEs legal standing in the future.