{"title":"INDONESIA’S NEW MODEL OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY: COMPARISON WITH BRAZIL","authors":"Resha Roshana Putri","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v3i2.314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIn the past few years, there has been a surge in lawsuits against the mechanism for resolving international investment disputes through the Investors State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) forum proposed by foreign investors who are host states, including Indonesia. Most of the claims are caused by the policies of the host country which are intended to protect the basic rights of the people such as the right to health, the right to a healthy environment, taxes, as well as the minimum standard of wages for workers. This policy provides a loss for foreign investors and is considered a violation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). BIT is often recognized to be detrimental to Indonesia, because it can disrupt the sovereignty of the country, especially when dealing with international disputes with foreign investors. This study uses a comparative juridical approach, comparing the BIT model in Indonesia with Brazil, namely Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA). Brazil was chosen because it succeeds to reform its investment regime, specifically on its BITs. The results obtained were that Indonesia had to change several provisions in its BITs, which has been regulated CIFA provisions in Brazil, which is not member of the ICSID Convention.Keywords: BIT, CIFA, Investor State Dispute Settlement. AbstrakBeberapa tahun terakhir, ada lonjakan tuntutan hukum terhadap mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa investasi internasional melalui Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) forum yang diusulkan oleh investor asing yang menjadi host states, termasuk Indonesia. Sebagian besar klaim disebabkan oleh kebijakan negara tuan rumah yang dimaksudkan untuk melindungi hak-hak dasar masyarakatnya seperti hak atas kesehatan, hak atas lingkungan yang sehat, pajak, juga standar minimum upah pekerja. Kebijakan ini memberikan kerugian bagi investor asing dan dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). BIT seringkali dianggap merugikan bagi Indonesia, karena dapat mengganggu kedaulatan negara, khususnya ketika berhadapan dengan sengketa internasional dengan investor asing. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan metode perbandingan, yaitu dengan membandingkan model BIT di Indonesia dengan Brazilia, yaitu Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA). Brazil dipilih karena merupakan negara yang berhasil melakukan reformasi terhadap rezim investasinya, khususnya pada BIT. Hasil yang diperoleh adalah bahwa Indonesia harus merubah beberapa ketentuan dalam BITs nya, seperti yang terkadung dalam CIFA di Brazil, yang bukan merupakan negara anggota dari Konvensi ICSID. Kata Kunci: BIT, CIFA, Penyelesaian Sengketa Investor-Negara","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v3i2.314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
AbstractIn the past few years, there has been a surge in lawsuits against the mechanism for resolving international investment disputes through the Investors State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) forum proposed by foreign investors who are host states, including Indonesia. Most of the claims are caused by the policies of the host country which are intended to protect the basic rights of the people such as the right to health, the right to a healthy environment, taxes, as well as the minimum standard of wages for workers. This policy provides a loss for foreign investors and is considered a violation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). BIT is often recognized to be detrimental to Indonesia, because it can disrupt the sovereignty of the country, especially when dealing with international disputes with foreign investors. This study uses a comparative juridical approach, comparing the BIT model in Indonesia with Brazil, namely Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA). Brazil was chosen because it succeeds to reform its investment regime, specifically on its BITs. The results obtained were that Indonesia had to change several provisions in its BITs, which has been regulated CIFA provisions in Brazil, which is not member of the ICSID Convention.Keywords: BIT, CIFA, Investor State Dispute Settlement. AbstrakBeberapa tahun terakhir, ada lonjakan tuntutan hukum terhadap mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa investasi internasional melalui Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) forum yang diusulkan oleh investor asing yang menjadi host states, termasuk Indonesia. Sebagian besar klaim disebabkan oleh kebijakan negara tuan rumah yang dimaksudkan untuk melindungi hak-hak dasar masyarakatnya seperti hak atas kesehatan, hak atas lingkungan yang sehat, pajak, juga standar minimum upah pekerja. Kebijakan ini memberikan kerugian bagi investor asing dan dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). BIT seringkali dianggap merugikan bagi Indonesia, karena dapat mengganggu kedaulatan negara, khususnya ketika berhadapan dengan sengketa internasional dengan investor asing. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan metode perbandingan, yaitu dengan membandingkan model BIT di Indonesia dengan Brazilia, yaitu Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA). Brazil dipilih karena merupakan negara yang berhasil melakukan reformasi terhadap rezim investasinya, khususnya pada BIT. Hasil yang diperoleh adalah bahwa Indonesia harus merubah beberapa ketentuan dalam BITs nya, seperti yang terkadung dalam CIFA di Brazil, yang bukan merupakan negara anggota dari Konvensi ICSID. Kata Kunci: BIT, CIFA, Penyelesaian Sengketa Investor-Negara
摘要在过去几年中,针对东道国(包括印度尼西亚)的外国投资者提出的通过投资者-国家争端解决机制(ISDS)解决国际投资争端的诉讼激增。大多数索赔是由东道国的政策引起的,这些政策旨在保护人民的基本权利,如健康权、健康环境权、税收以及工人的最低工资标准。这一政策给外国投资者带来了损失,被认为违反了双边投资条约(BIT)。BIT通常被认为对印尼有害,因为它会破坏印尼的主权,尤其是在处理与外国投资者的国际争端时。本研究采用比较司法的方法,比较印尼与巴西的双边投资协定模式,即合作与投资便利化协定(CIFA)。之所以选择巴西,是因为它成功地改革了投资体制,特别是在双边投资协定方面。取得的结果是,印度尼西亚不得不改变其双边投资协定中的若干条款,这些条款在巴西受到CIFA条款的监管,而巴西不是ICSID公约的成员。关键词:BIT、CIFA、投资者国争端解决。[摘要]beberapa tahun terakhir, ada lonjakan tuntunan hukum terhadap mekanisme penyelesan senketa investasi国际多边投资者国家争端解决(ISDS)论坛,yang diusulkan oleh投资者,yang menjadi东道国,termasuk印度尼西亚。西巴吉亚州的州称disebabkan oleh kebijakan negara tuan rumah yang dimaksudkan untuk melindungi hak-hak dasar masyarakatnya seperti hak atas kesehatan, hak atas lingkungan yang sehat, pajak, juga标准最低upah pekerja。Kebijakan - ini成员和kerugian投资者签署了双边投资条约(BIT)。印尼投资发展局,印尼投资发展局,印尼投资发展局,印尼投资发展局,印尼投资发展局,印尼投资发展局。印尼、印尼、巴西、印尼合作与投资便利化协定(CIFA)。巴西dipilih karena merupakan negara yang berhasil melakukan reformasi terhadap rezim investasinya, khususnya pada BIT。Hasil yang diperoleh adalah bahwa印度尼西亚harus merubah beberapa ketentuan dalam BITs nya, sepperti yang terkadung dalam CIFA di巴西,yang bukan merupakan negara anggota dari Konvensi ICSID。Kata Kunci: BIT, CIFA, penyelesan senketa Investor-Negara