Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas ketentuan State of Necessity dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo sebagai dasar bagi para pihak dalam BIT untuk mengesampingkan pelaksanaan tanggung jawab negara atas tindakan pelanggaran kewajiban internasional dalam BIT Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan studi kasus atas sengketa LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo melawan Republik Argentina melalui pendekatan metode yuridis normatif Permasalahan utama dari penerapan State of Necessity dalam kasus tersebut antara lain sifat self judging klausul State of Necessity dalam BIT serta akibat penerapan State of Necessity terhadap keberlakuan BIT dan kewajiban pemberian ganti rugi Hasil pembahasan skripsi ini menyarankan perlunya pengaturan State of Necessity dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh setiap negara termasuk dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh Indonesia untuk menyeimbangkan kewajiban perlindungan investasi dan kepentingan esensial negara.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis explores the provision of State of Necessity in Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo as a basis for the Parties to preclude the implementation of state responsibility against its wrongful act violating international obligations of BIT. The analysis will be conducted with regard to the case of LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo against Argentine Republic by using normative legal method The main problems of the implementation of state of necessity in the case are the self judging characteristic of State of Necessity provision in BIT and the consequences of its implementation on the enforceability of BIT and the obligation of reparation The result of this thesis suggest the importance of the regulation of State of Necessity in the BIT including the BIT agreed by Indonesia in order to balance investment protection and the safeguarding of essential interests of the State."

"[Bilateral Investment Treaty merupakan perjanjian internasional antara dua negara yang berfungsi untuk melindungi kepentingan investor asing dan host state. Klausul ekspropriasi merupakan salah satu kalusul penting dalam BIT guna melindungi hak investor asing dari perampasan property secara langsung maupun kerugian lain yang mungkin timbul. Ekspropriasi terbagi menjadi indirect expropriation dan indirect expropriation. Thesis ini mencoba mengalisis ruang lingkup dari indirect expropriation dalam hubungannya dengan kedaulatan negaradalam mengambil kebijakan berdasarkan pada hukum internasional;Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions to protect investor?s interest, as well as, the host state?s. Expropriation clause is one of the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from the act of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriation consists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State?s sovereignty in taking policies based on international law.;Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions toprotect investor?s interest, as well as, the host state?s. Expropriation clause is oneof the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from theact of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriationconsists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State?s sovereignty intaking policies based on international law., Bilateral Investment Treaty is a treaty between two States which functions toprotect investor’s interest, as well as, the host state’s. Expropriation clause is oneof the importent clauses in BITs to protect the right of foreign investor from theact of confiscation of property directly, and its subsequent injuries. Expropriationconsists of direct expropriation and indirect expropriation. This thesis tries toanalyze the scope of indirect expropriation, related to the State’s sovereignty intaking policies based on international law.]"

"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. "

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti apakah perjanjian penghindaran pajak berganda P3B memberikan pengaruh terhadap investasi asing langsung FDI di Indonesia, kemudian apakah penambahan P3B akan meningkatkan investasi asing langsung yang masuk ke Indonesia, serta ingin melihat faktor apa saja selain P3B yang memiliki pengaruh terhadap investasi asing langsung di Indonesia, dan apakah P3B merupakan faktor utama yang paling berpengaruh. Penelitian ini menggunakan sample sejumlah data P3B Indonesia dengan mitra dari negara-negara maju dalam kurun periode 1990 sampai dengan 2014. Pengolahan data menggunakan analisis regresi OLS dengan data time series yang struktur datanya merupakan nilai variabel-variabel pada waktu yang berbeda. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penambahan P3B akan meningkatkan aliran investasi asing yang masuk ke Indonesia, sehingga hal ini berarti juga bahwa P3B memberikan pengaruh terhadap investasi asing langsung di Indonesia. Selain itu, faktor PDB per Kapita, resource rent, dan kondisi politik juga mempengaruhi investasi asing langsung di Indonesia, namun P3B merupakan faktor utama yang paling berpengaruh terhadap FDI di Indonesia.

---

This study aims to examine whether the agreement on avoidance of double taxation P3B give an effect to foreign direct investment FDI in Indonesia, and then whether the addition of P3B will increase foreign direct investment into Indonesia, and want to see what factors besides P3B who have influence on foreign direct investment in Indonesia, and whether P3B are the main factors that most influence the FDI. This study uses a number of data samples P3B Indonesia with partners from the developed countries within the period of 1990 till 2014. Data is processed with regression analysis approach, and the type of data use is time series structure. The results of this study show that the addition of P3B will increase the flow of foreign direct investment into Indonesia, so this means also that P3B influence on foreign direct investment in Indonesia. In addition, the GDP factor per capita, resource rent, and political conditions also affect foreign direct investment in Indonesia, as well as P3B have been the main factors that most influence on FDI in Indonesia."