RPS minggu 9 · 2x50 menit (UTS minggu 8)
UNCITRAL Model Law, ICSID & Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) International Business Law — S1 Manajemen FEB UNDIP Selamat datang di pertemuan 8. Minggu lalu kita mendalami 8 institusi arbitrase komersial, ICC lifecycle, dan NY Convention. Hari ini kita lanjut ke dua topik fundamental: (1) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 — yang menjadi basis UU 30/1999 arbitrase Indonesia; dan (2) ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) yang menangani investor-state dispute (ISDS) berbasis bilateral investment treaty (BIT). UNCITRAL Model Law adalah soft law — bukan treaty, tetapi model yang di-adopt 118+ jurisdictions. Indonesia tidak formally adopt tetapi UU 30/1999 sangat dipengaruhi Model Law. ICSID Convention 1965 — 165+ member states, World Bank affiliate, menangani dispute investor vs state. ISDS controversial karena memungkinkan investor asing sue Indonesia di international tribunal. Hari ini kita akan pahami keduanya dan strategi drafting untuk masing-masing. Peta Pembelajaran Hari Ini Empat blok yang harus Anda kuasai tentang UNCITRAL Model Law dan ICSID.
UNCITRAL: PBB body, mandate, outputs UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 + amendment 2006 Struktur Model Law: 8 bab, 36 articles Influence ke UU 30/1999 arbitrase Indonesia ICSID Convention 1965: 165+ member states Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) — BIT, ICSID Indonesia BIT 60+, Model BIT 2018, terminasi Mini-case: Indonesia ISDS case (Churchill Mining) Output: mahasiswa mampu membedakan commercial arbitration (NY Convention) vs investor-state (ICSID) dan pilih strategi yang tepat.
Mari petakan empat blok pembelajaran. Blok pertama: UNCITRAL — United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, PBB body yang mengeluarkan convention, model law, model clause. Mandate: harmonisasi dan modernisasi international trade law. Outputs: CISG 1980, Model Law 1985, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976/2010, Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996, Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001. Blok kedua: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 + amendment 2006 — soft law yang di-adopt 118+ jurisdictions. Struktur: 8 bab, 36 articles. Influence ke UU 30/1999 Indonesia — Meskipun Indonesia tidak formally adopt, banyak provision sangat similar. Blok ketiga: ICSID Convention 1965 — 165+ member states, World Bank affiliate, menangani investor-state dispute (ISDS) berbasis BIT. Blok keempat: Indonesia BIT 60+, Model BIT 2018 yang lebih protective Indonesia sovereignty, terminasi BIT-Belanda 2015. Mini-case: Churchill Mining vs Indonesia — mining dispute. Output: mahasiswa mampu membedakan commercial arbitration (NY Convention) vs investor-state (ICSID) dan pilih strategi yang tepat. Mengapa UNCITRAL & ICSID Penting UNCITRAL Model Law = basis 118+ jurisdictions; ICSID = 165+ member states, 900+ ISDS cases.
UNCITRAL Model Law Adopters
118+ jurisdictions
Di-adopt di 80% trade global (di-hedge)
ICSID ISDS Cases
900+ known cases
Total sejak 1972 (UNCTAD, di-hedge)
Indonesia telah kena 5+ ISDS cases (Churchill Mining dll). Strategi: Model BIT 2018 + terminasi 60+ BIT lama untuk lebih protective.
Statistik ini menjelaskan magnitude UNCITRAL dan ICSID. UNCITRAL Model Law telah di-adopt oleh 118+ jurisdictions di 80% trade global (di-hedge, UNCITRAL stats). Model Law menyediakan framework modern dan harmonized untuk international commercial arbitration. Indonesia tidak formally adopt tetapi UU 30/1999 sangat dipengaruhi Model Law. ICSID Convention 1965 dengan 165+ member states menangani investor-state dispute (ISDS). Total 900+ known ISDS cases sejak 1972 (UNCTAD ISDS database, di-hedge). Indonesia telah kena 5+ ISDS cases — yang paling terkenal adalah Churchill Mining vs Indonesia (mining dispute, tribunal dismiss karena fraud), Amco Asia vs Indonesia (1980s hotel), Cemex vs Indonesia (cement), Worldwide Coal vs Indonesia (coal). Strategi Indonesia: Model BIT 2018 yang lebih protective Indonesia sovereignty (right to regulate, ISDS reform), terminasi 60+ BIT lama (Belanda, Australia, dll) untuk re-negotiation. UNCITRAL dan ICSID adalah dua pilar fundamental untuk international arbitration yang harus Anda pahami. Bagian 1 · 1/4
UNCITRAL: PBB Body, Mandate, Outputs
Diskusi kelas: UNCITRAL bukan treaty-making body — apa implikasi dari "soft law" outputs-nya?
Blok pertama mendalami UNCITRAL. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law didirikan 1966 oleh PBB General Assembly. Mandate: promote harmonization dan unification of international trade law. UNCITRAL bukan treaty-making body di traditional sense — itu tetap prerogative negara. Tetapi UNCITRAL produces: (1) Conventions — binding treaty setelah ratification (CISG 1980, NY Convention-related); (2) Model laws — untuk adoption oleh negara (Model Law Arbitration 1985, Model Law E-Commerce 1996); (3) Arbitration rules — untuk incorporate oleh parties (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976/2010); (4) Legal guides — untuk guidance (Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts for Construction of Industrial Works). Implikasi soft law outputs (Model Laws): tidak otomatis binding — harus di-adopt oleh national legislator. Tetapi influence sangat besar karena 118+ jurisdictions adopt Model Law Arbitration. Strategi Indonesia: UU 30/1999 sangat influenced by Model Law, walaupun tidak formally adopt. UU ITE influenced by Model Law E-Commerce 1996. UNCITRAL adalah "soft power" di international trade law — produk influence via adoption, bukan ratification. UNCITRAL: Empat Kategori Output UNCITRAL produces empat kategori instrument — binding power berbeda.
Kategori Examples Binding? 1. Conventions CISG 1980, UN Convention on Assignments Binding setelah ratifikasi 2. Model Laws Model Law Arbitration 1985, Model Law E-Commerce 1996, Model Law Secured Transactions 2016 Tidak binding — adopt oleh national legislator 3. Arbitration Rules UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (revised 2010/2013), UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules 1980 Binding jika incorporated kontrak 4. Legal Guides Legal Guide on Industrial Works Construction, Legal Guide on International Countertrade Guidance — persuasive only 5. Notes Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings 1996 (revised 2016) Guidance — persuasive only 6. Digests CISG Digest, Model Law Digest Compendium case law
UNCITRAL "soft law" (Model Law, Rules) sering lebih influential dari "hard law" (Convention) karena fleksibel dan ter-update.
Mari pelajari empat kategori output UNCITRAL dengan binding power berbeda. Pertama, Conventions — binding setelah ratifikasi oleh negara. Contoh: CISG 1980 (97+ contracting states), UN Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade 2001 (sedikit adopters). Kedua, Model Laws — tidak binding; untuk adoption oleh national legislator dengan modifikasi sesuai kebutuhan. Contoh: Model Law Arbitration 1985 (amended 2006) — di-adopt 118+ jurisdictions; Model Law E-Commerce 1996 (basis UU ITE Indonesia); Model Law Electronic Signatures 2001; Model Law Secured Transactions 2016; Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency Related Judgments 2018. Ketiga, Arbitration Rules — binding jika incorporated di kontrak. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (revised 2010, 2013) sering dipakai untuk ad hoc arbitration. UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules 1980. Keempat, Legal Guides — guidance, persuasive only. Legal Guide on Drawing Up International Contracts for Construction of Industrial Works 1987; Legal Guide on International Countertrade 1992. Kelima, Notes — guidance, persuasive only. Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings 1996 (revised 2016). Keenam, Digests — compendium case law untuk help interpret. CISG Digest, Model Law Digest. PENTING: UNCITRAL "soft law" (Model Law, Rules) sering lebih influential dari "hard law" (Convention) karena fleksibel dan ter-update. Strategi Indonesia: UU 30/1999 Arbitrase — influenced by Model Law; UU ITE — influenced by Model Law E-Commerce 1996; UU JIP (Jaminan Kebendaan) — influenced by Model Law Secured Transactions. UNCITRAL Model Law Arbitration 1985 (Amended 2006) Struktur Model Law: 8 bab, 36 articles — framework modern untuk international commercial arbitration.
Bab Article Substansi I. General 1-6 Scope, definitions, written communication, waiver II. Arbitration Agreement 7-9 Definition, arbitration agreement and substantive claim III. Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 10-15 Number, appointment, challenge, jurisdiction IV. Jurisdiction of Tribunal 16 Kompetenz-kompetenz — tribunal decide own jurisdiction V. Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings 17-27 Equal treatment, evidence, interim measures VI. Making of Award & Termination 28-32 Decision-making, settlement, form, contents VII. Recourse Against Award 34 Set aside — very limited grounds VIII. Recognition & Enforcement 35-36 Conditions, grounds untuk refuse (selaras NY Convention)
Model Law 1985: framework balanced untuk party autonomy + minimal court intervention. Set aside Article 34 = sangat limited.
Mari pelajari struktur UNCITRAL Model Law Arbitration 1985 (amended 2006). Delapan bab, 36 articles. Bab I (Articles 1-6) — General provisions: scope (international commercial arbitration), definitions, written communication (interpreted broadly), waiver of right to object. Bab II (Articles 7-9) — Arbitration Agreement: definition (must be written), agreement and substantive claim before court (court shall refer to arbitration if agreement exists). Bab III (Articles 10-15) — Composition of Arbitral Tribunal: number of arbitrators (default 3 jika tidak specified), appointment procedures, challenge grounds (justifiable doubt as to impartiality/independence), termination of mandate, jurisdiction. Bab IV (Article 16) — Jurisdiction: kompetenz-kompetenz — tribunal has power to decide its own jurisdiction, including objections to existence atau validity of arbitration agreement. Bab V (Articles 17-27) — Conduct of Proceedings: equal treatment of parties, right to be heard, evidence, interim measures (post-2006: preliminary orders, ex parte). Bab VI (Articles 28-32) — Making of Award: decision-making by majority, settlement, form and contents of award, termination. Bab VII (Article 34) — Recourse: application to set aside — VERY limited grounds (mirrors NY Convention Article V). Bab VIII (Articles 35-36) — Recognition and Enforcement: conditions (dokumen), grounds untuk refuse (selaras NY Convention). Strategi: Model Law 1985 adalah framework balanced antara party autonomy (fleksibilitas) dan minimal court intervention (court shall intervene only where provided). Article 34 set aside sangat limited — finality prinsip. Set Aside (Annulment) Procedure Grounds untuk set aside arbitral award sangat limited — beda dengan appeal court decision.
Ground (Art. 34) Substansi Burden 1. Incapacity party Party to agreement under incapacity Party applying 2. Invalid agreement Agreement not valid under applicable law Party applying 3. Lack of proper notice Unable to present case Party applying 4. Excess authority Award beyond scope of submission Party applying 5. Defective composition Composition atau procedure not per agreement Party applying 6. Subject-matter inarbitrable Subject not capable of arbitration Court ex officio 7. Public policy Award in conflict dengan public policy Court ex officio Time limit 3 bulan dari receipt of award — No appeal on merits Court hanya check procedure, NOT re-decide case —
Set aside bukan appeal. Court hanya check procedure (notice, jurisdiction, public policy), tidak re-decide merits of case.
Mari pelajari grounds untuk set aside arbitral award per Model Law Article 34. Set aside (annulment) adalah procedure untuk challenge award di court of seat. Grounds sangat limited — beda dengan appeal court decision. Pertama, Incapacity party (Art. 34(2)(a)(i)) — party to agreement under some incapacity (mis. minor). Kedua, Invalid agreement (Art. 34(2)(a)(i)) — agreement not valid under applicable law. Ketiga, Lack of proper notice (Art. 34(2)(a)(ii)) — party unable to present case (no proper notice atau unable to defend). Keempat, Excess authority (Art. 34(2)(a)(iii)) — award beyond scope of submission (ultra petita). Kelima, Defective composition (Art. 34(2)(a)(iv)) — composition of tribunal atau procedure not per agreement atau Model Law. Sixth, Subject-matter inarbitrable (Art. 34(2)(b)(i)) — subject not capable of settlement by arbitration. Court dapat raise ex officio. Ketujuh, Public policy (Art. 34(2)(b)(ii)) — award in conflict dengan public policy of State. Court dapat raise ex officio. Time limit: 3 bulan dari receipt of award (Art. 34(3)). PENTING: set aside bukan appeal. Court hanya check procedure (notice, jurisdiction, public policy), tidak re-decide merits of case. Tidak ada review substantif. Strategi defense: dokumentasikan bahwa semua procedure followed; success rate set aside hanya ~5-10% (ICC stats, di-hedge). Court akan interpret grounds narrowly untuk protect finality. Bagian 2 · 2/4
UU 30/1999 & Pengaruh Model Law
Diskusi kelas: apakah UU 30/1999 Indonesia formally adopt UNCITRAL Model Law? Apa implikasi?
Blok kedua mendalami hubungan UU 30/1999 dengan UNCITRAL Model Law. Pertanyaan: apakah UU 30/1999 formally adopt? Tidak, Indonesia tidak formally declare adoption of Model Law. Tetapi UU 30/1999 substantially influenced oleh Model Law — banyak provision sangat similar. Implikasi: (1) Pro: substansi UU 30/1999 modern dan harmonized dengan international practice; (2) Pro: interpretasi UU 30/1999 dapat refer ke Model Law dan Digest untuk persuasive authority; (3) Kontra: tidak ada formal guarantee harmonization — Indonesia court dapat interpret berbeda; (4) Kontra: UU 30/1999 tidak cover semua provision Model Law (mis. interim measures yang comprehensive). Strategi: untuk Indonesia arbitration, gunakan UU 30/1999 sebagai framework, tetapi consider choose seat di Model Law jurisdiction (mis. Singapore, Hong Kong) untuk arbitration international. Seat menentukan supervisory law — Singapore seat menggunakan Singapore International Arbitration Act yang adopt Model Law verbatim. Perbandingan UU 30/1999 vs Model Law Perbandingan UU 30/1999 dengan UNCITRAL Model Law — similar tetapi ada gaps.
Aspek UU 30/1999 Indonesia Model Law 1985 (am. 2006) Formally adopt Model Law? Tidak, tetapi influenced — Number of arbitrator Default 1 (Pasal 12) Default 3 jika tidak specified (Art. 10) Kompetenz-kompetenz Pasal 18 — tribunal decide jurisdiction Art. 16 — tribunal decide jurisdiction Interim measures Tidak regulated explicitly Art. 17 (post-2006: preliminary orders, ex parte) Set aside grounds Pasal 70 — limited (selaras Model Law) Art. 34 — limited Enforcement foreign Pasal 67-68 — exequatur PN Art. 35-36 — selaras NY Convention Seat concept Kedudukan arbiter (Pasal 24) Seat (Art. 16, 20, 31, 34, 36) Public policy Pasal 68 — contravene public order Art. 34(2)(b)(ii) — public policy
UU 30/1999 adalah hybrid — influenced Model Law tetapi dengan Indonesia specific (BANI, kedudukan). Strategi: untuk international, pilih seat Model Law jurisdiction.
Mari bandingkan UU 30/1999 dengan Model Law 1985 (amended 2006). Pertama, formally adopt Model Law? Tidak, tetapi UU 30/1999 substantially influenced. Kedua, Number of arbitrator — UU 30/1999 Pasal 12 default 1 jika tidak specified; Model Law Art. 10 default 3 jika tidak specified. Beda praktis. Ketiga, Kompetenz-kompetenz — UU 30/1999 Pasal 18 tribunal decide jurisdiction; Model Law Art. 16 sama. Keempat, Interim measures — UU 30/1999 tidak regulated explicitly; Model Law Art. 17 (post-2006) comprehensive dengan preliminary orders dan ex parte. Gap signifikan. Kelima, Set aside grounds — UU 30/1999 Pasal 70 limited grounds selaras Model Law; Model Law Art. 34 limited. Keenam, Enforcement foreign — UU 30/1999 Pasal 67-68 exequatur di PN; Model Law Art. 35-36 selaras NY Convention. Ketujuh, Seat concept — UU 30/1999 kedudukan arbiter (Pasal 24); Model Law seat (Art. 16, 20, 31, 34, 36) yang determine supervisory law. Kedelapan, Public policy — UU 30/1999 Pasal 68 contravene public order; Model Law Art. 34(2)(b)(ii) public policy. Kesimpulan: UU 30/1999 adalah hybrid — influenced Model Law tetapi dengan Indonesia specific (BANI institutional arbitration, kedudukan arbiter). Strategi: untuk Indonesia domestic, UU 30/1999 framework. Untuk international dengan foreign counterparty, pilih seat di Model Law jurisdiction (Singapore, Hong Kong, London) untuk harmonized framework dan predictable procedure. Bagian 3 · 3/4
ICSID Convention 1965 & ISDS
Diskusi kelas: perusahaan Belanda investor di Indonesia. Apakah dapat sue Indonesia di ICSID?
Blok ketiga mendalami ICSID dan ISDS. Pertanyaan diskusi: perusahaan Belanda investor di Indonesia — apakah dapat sue Indonesia di ICSID? Syarat ICSID jurisdiction: (1) Both Indonesia dan Belanda adalah ICSID member states (Indonesia joined 1968; Belanda joined 1966) — terpenuhi; (2) Investor adalah national of Contracting State other than host State — perusahaan Belanda adalah national Belanda, beda dengan host Indonesia — terpenuhi; (3) Consent of both parties to ICSID jurisdiction — biasanya via BIT Indonesia-Belanda (signed 1994, terminated 2015) atau contract. Tetapi BIT Indonesia-Belanda telah diterminasi 2015 — sehingga tidak ada basis consent untuk new dispute. Untuk dispute yang arise sebelum terminasi (within sunset clause period, biasanya 15-20 tahun), masih dapat invoke BIT. Strategi Indonesia terminasi: kurangi exposure ISDS. Tetapi untuk existing investment yang dilindungi sunset clause, masih dapat sue. Mini-case: Churchill Mining vs Indonesia — investor UK menggunakan BIT Indonesia-UK, mining dispute di East Kalimantan. Tribunal dismiss karena fraud (forged documents). Indonesia won. ICSID Convention 1965: Investor-State Arbitration ICSID adalah World Bank affiliate yang menangani investor-state dispute — berbeda dari commercial arbitration.
Aspek ICSID Convention 1965 NY Convention 1958 (Comparison) Type Investor-State (ISDS) Commercial arbitration Parties Investor vs Host State Company vs Company Consent basis BIT, ICSID contract, investment law Commercial contract Member States 165+ (per 2024) 169+ NY Convention states Enforcement Self-enforcing di ICSID member states (Art. 54) Exequatur via NY Convention procedure Set aside Annulment committee (Art. 52) — 5 grounds Court of seat (NY Conv. Art. V) Subject-matter Investment dispute Commercial dispute Procedural law ICSID Convention + Rules (self-contained) National law of seat Confidentiality Default confidential (unless parties agree) Default confidential
ICSID = self-contained system. Enforcement Art. 54: all member states shall recognize award as binding. No public policy exception.
Mari pelajari ICSID Convention 1965 yang menangani investor-state dispute (ISDS). ICSID adalah International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, World Bank affiliate di Washington DC. Berbeda dari commercial arbitration. Pertama, Type — Investor-State (ISDS), bukan commercial. Kedua, Parties — Investor vs Host State, bukan Company vs Company. Ketiga, Consent basis — BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty), ICSID clause di investment contract, atau investment law of host state. Keempat, Member States — 165+ (per 2024); Indonesia ratified via UU 5/1968. Kelima, Enforcement — Article 54 self-enforcing di semua ICSID member states (shall recognize award as binding dan execute secara financial obligation di negara masing-masing). Beda NY Convention yang butuh exequatur procedure. Keenam, Set aside — annulment committee per Article 52, dengan 5 grounds (tribunal not properly constituted; tribunal manifestly exceeded powers; corruption; serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure; failure to state reasons). Ketujuh, Subject-matter — investment dispute (broad definition). Kedelapan, Procedural law — ICSID Convention + ICSID Rules (self-contained system, tidak refer ke national law). Kesembilan, Confidentiality — default confidential unless parties agree otherwise. PENTING: ICSID adalah self-contained system. Enforcement Article 54 — all member states shall recognize award as binding. Tidak ada public policy exception seperti NY Convention Article V(2)(b). Strategi: investor asing yang punya investment dispute dengan Indonesia dapat pilih ICSID jika ada consent basis (BIT, contract). Indonesia BIT 60+, Model BIT 2018, Terminasi Strategi Indonesia: reform BIT untuk lebih protective sovereignty — Model BIT 2018 dan terminasi BIT lama.
BIT Indonesia Status Note Total BIT aktif (1990s-2014) 60+ BIT Banyak dari era 1990s dengan standard liberal BIT Indonesia-Belanda 1994 Diterminasi 2015 Paling sering invoked — terminasi strategis BIT Indonesia-Australia 1992 Diterminasi 2015 Re-negotiation BIT Indonesia-China Aktif Modern provision BIT Indonesia-Singapore Aktif (re-negotiated) Modern provision BIT Indonesia-UK Aktif (Churchill case basis) Sunset clause masih apply untuk existing Model BIT 2018 Indonesia template Right to regulate, ISDS reform, FFoR ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) Aktif (2009) Regional, ISDS provision
Strategi Indonesia: Model BIT 2018 yang lebih protective (right to regulate, FFoR limitation). Sunset clause 15-20 tahun untuk BIT diterminasi.
Mari pelajari Indonesia BIT landscape dan strategi reform. Total Indonesia aktif memiliki 60+ BIT dari era 1990s-2014, banyak dengan standard liberal (fair and equitable treatment luas, full protection and security, no performance requirements). BIT Indonesia-Belanda 1994 — yang paling sering invoked oleh investor Belanda di Indonesia — diterminasi 2015 secara strategis untuk kurangi exposure. BIT Indonesia-Australia 1992 juga diterminasi 2015 untuk re-negotiation. BIT Indonesia-China aktif dengan modern provision. BIT Indonesia-Singapore re-negotiated dengan modern provision. BIT Indonesia-UK aktif — basis untuk Churchill Mining case. Sunset clause: untuk BIT diterminasi, investor yang sudah invest sebelum terminasi masih dapat invoke BIT untuk 15-20 tahun (sunset clause), tergantung BIT. Model BIT 2018 — Indonesia template yang lebih protective: (1) Right to regulate — explicit reservation untuk regulatory measures; (2) ISDS reform — prosedur lebih strict; (3) Fair and Equitable Treatment (FFoR) — defined narrow, tidak open-ended; (4) Denial of benefits — untuk shell companies; (5) Carve-outs untuk public welfare (health, environment). ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) 2009 — regional investment treaty dengan ISDS provision. Strategi: untuk new investment, Indonesia promote Model BIT 2018 standard. Untuk existing investment, sunset clause masih apply. Investor harus cek BIT yang applicable dan sunset clause. Bagian 4 · 4/4
Mini-Case: Churchill Mining vs Indonesia
Diskusi kelas: investor UK claim US$ 2 miliar untuk mining licenses di East Kalimantan. Apa pelajaran?
Blok penutup mini-case Churchill Mining vs Indonesia. Churchill Mining (UK) dan Planet Mining (Australia) filed ICSID arbitration against Indonesia pada 2012 berbasis BIT Indonesia-UK dan BIT Indonesia-Australia. Claim US$ 2 miliar untuk dicabutnya mining licenses (IUP) di East Kalimantan untuk PT Ridlatama Group. Allegation: Indonesia illegally revoked licenses. Pertama, jurisdiction challenge: Indonesia argued claimant bukan proper investor (controls PT Ridlatama yang forged documents). ICSID tribunal find jurisdiction. Kedua, merits: Indonesia counter-claimed bahwa licenses obtained via fraud (forged documents — Dirjen Mineral disebutkan padahal belum menjabat). Tribunal examine dan find bahwa documents (Power of Attorney from NTT) forged. Ketiga, award 2016: tribunal dismiss semua claims dengan unanimous vote karena fraud (forged documents). Claimant ordered to pay Indonesia's legal costs. Keempat, annulment 2020: claimant file annulment — ad hoc committee uphold award (annulment denied). Pelajaran: (1) Fraud vitiates everything — Indonesia won karena documented fraud; (2) Strategi defense Indonesia: thorough investigation, strong evidence; (3) ICSID tidak selalu pro-investor; (4) Cost: Indonesia spend ~US$ 30 juta untuk defend (di-hedge). Strategi: Indonesia harus document semua regulatory action dengan baik untuk defense ISDS potential. Hitung dari Nol: Strategi Defense ISDS Skenario: Indonesia akan defend ISDS case dari investor X. Estimasi cost dan strategi.
Komponen Perhitungan Nilai 1. Legal counsel international Major firm (Fulbright, White & Case dll) US$ 8-15 juta (3-5 tahun, di-hedge) 2. Local counsel Indonesia Major Indonesia firm US$ 1-3 juta 3. ICSID admin fee US$ 52K/thn (di-hedge) US$ 150-250K (3-5 thn) 4. Arbitrator fee (3 arb) US$ 1.000-3.000/jam × 3 US$ 1-3 juta 5. Expert witness Industry expert, damages expert US$ 500K-1,5M 6. Hearing venue + logistics Washington DC atau Paris US$ 200K-500K 7. Translation (jika perlu) English + Indonesia US$ 100K-300K 8. Total defense cost — US$ 11-25 juta (di-hedge) 9. jika lose (US$ 2B claim) Liability + cost US$ 2 miliar + cost 10.ROI defense (jika win) Save US$ 2B − spend US$ 11-25M ~US$ 1,97 miliar (98,8% save)
Defense ISDS: US$ 11-25 juta vs US$ 2 miliar claim. ROI 99% jika win. Strategi: investasi top counsel dari awal.
Mari hitung dari nol strategi defense ISDS untuk Indonesia. Pertama, Legal counsel international — major firm seperti Fulbright & Jaworski, White & Case, Freshfields — US$ 8-15 juta untuk 3-5 tahun duration (di-hedge). Kedua, Local counsel Indonesia — major Indonesia firm (Hadiputranto Hadinoto, SSEK, Mochtar Karuwin) — US$ 1-3 juta. Ketiga, ICSID admin fee US$ 52 ribu per tahun — US$ 150-250K untuk 3-5 tahun (di-hedge). Keempat, Arbitrator fee 3 arbitrator US$ 1.000-3.000/jam × 3 — US$ 1-3 juta. Kelima, Expert witness industry + damages (forensic accounting) — US$ 500K-1,5 juta. Keenam, Hearing venue Washington DC atau Paris — US$ 200K-500K. Ketujuh, Translation English + Indonesia — US$ 100K-300K. Total defense cost US$ 11-25 juta (di-hedge, conservative). Jika lose dengan US$ 2 miliar claim: liability US$ 2 miliar + cost. ROI defense jika win: save US$ 2 miliar − spend US$ 11-25 juta = US$ 1,975 miliar (98,8% save). Strategi: investasi top counsel dari awal. Churchill Mining adalah pelajaran — Indonesia spend ~US$ 30 juta untuk defense tetapi save US$ 2 miliar liability. ROI 99%. Untuk ISDS potential, Indonesia harus: (1) Document semua regulatory action dengan baik; (2) Ensure due process dan transparency; (3) Engage top international counsel dari awal; (4) Build strong evidence trail. Investasi defense jauh lebih murah dari liability. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (Revised 2010/2013) UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules — untuk ad hoc arbitration. Banyak diadopsi institution.
Aspek UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Comparison dengan ICC Type Ad hoc rules (bukan institution) Institutional (ICC Court) Adopted 1976, revised 2010, 2013 2021 (latest) Admin body None (party/Appointing Authority) ICC Secretariat + Court Scrutiny None ICC scrutinize draft award Terms of Reference Tidak ada ICC ToR unique Use case Investor-State, treaty arbitration Commercial disputes Emergency relief Appendix IV (post-2010) ICC Emergency Arbitrator Cost Rendah (no admin fee ICC) Tinggi (admin fee ICC)
UNCITRAL Rules: ad hoc flexible. Strategi: investor-State arbitration sering pakai UNCITRAL Rules.
Mari pelajari UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (revised 2010, 2013). UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules berbeda dari ICC karena ad hoc (bukan institution-administered). Adopted 1976, revised 2010 (untuk emergency relief), 2013 (untuk transparency treaty arbitration). Admin body: none — party atau Appointing Authority (mis. PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration sering appointing authority) untuk appoint arbitrator jika party disagree. Scrutiny: none — tidak ada ICC-like scrutiny draft award. Terms of Reference: tidak ada (ToR unik ICC). Use case: investor-State arbitration (BIT-based) sering pakai UNCITRAL Rules. UNCITRAL Transparency Rules 2013 untuk treaty arbitration (open proceedings, public award). Emergency relief: Appendix IV (post-2010) untuk Emergency Arbitrator provisions. Cost: rendah (no ICC admin fee). Strategi: investor-State arbitration sering pakai UNCITRAL Rules. Commercial arbitration sering pakai ICC, SIAC, dll. Ad hoc UNCITRAL lebih flexible tetapi requires robust party cooperation untuk procedural matters. ICSID Procedural Framework ICSID Convention + ICSID Rules — procedural framework untuk investor-State arbitration.
Document Substansi Latest Version ICSID Convention 1965 Framework binding — ICSID Institution Rules Submit dispute ke ICSID 2022 (latest amendment) ICSID Arbitration Rules Procedure arbitration 2022 ICSID Conciliation Rules Procedure conciliation 2022 ICSID Additional Facility Rules Untuk non-ICSID parties atau non-investment disputes 2022 ICSID Administrative & Financial Regulations Admin + fees 2022 ICSID Secretariat Washington DC, World Bank — ICSID Cases database https://icsid.worldbank.org —
ICSID procedural framework: Convention + 6 Rules. 2022 amendments modernisasi. Strategi: pahami procedure sebelum file.
Mari pelajari ICSID procedural framework. ICSID Convention 1965 — framework binding yang mengatur jurisdiction, procedure, recognition dan enforcement (Article 54). ICSID Institution Rules — procedure submit dispute ke ICSID (request arbitration). ICSID Arbitration Rules — procedure arbitration (issue-by-issue, document production, hearing, award). Latest version 2022 dengan significant amendments untuk modernize dan simplify. ICSID Conciliation Rules — procedure conciliation (non-binding). ICSID Additional Facility Rules — untuk non-ICSID Convention parties (mis. Russia) atau non-investment disputes. ICSID Administrative dan Financial Regulations — admin dan fees. ICSID Secretariat berlokasi di Washington DC, World Bank. 2022 amendments modernize: electronic filing, transparency, third-party funding disclosure, dll. ICSID cases database publik di https://icsid.worldbank.org dengan list semua registered cases. Strategi: pahami procedure sebelum file ICSID arbitration. Engage counsel dengan ICSID experience. Strategi Indonesia: maintain capability untuk ICSID defense (Churchill Mining precedent). ISDS Reform & UNCITRAL Discussions ISDS reform di UNCITRAL Working Group III — ongoing multilateral discussions.
Reform Option Substansi Proponents 1. Status quo + tweaks Minor reforms current system Some developing countries 2. Code of Conduct Ethics, conflict of interest arbitrators Broad support 3. Advisory Center Capacity building developing countries Like-minded group 4. Multilateral Investment Court Permanent court, salaried judges EU strong proponent 5. Bilateral appellate mechanism Appeal layer untuk ISDS EU, US some support 6. Domestic remedies first Local court exhaustion Some developing 7. Carve-outs (regulatory) Right to regulate explicit Indonesia, India 8. Exhaustion local remedies Mandatory sebelum ISDS Some
ISDS reform: UNCITRAL WG III ongoing. Strategi Indonesia: engage actively untuk protect interests.
Mari pelajari ISDS reform discussions di UNCITRAL Working Group III (established 2017). Reform options di meja: Pertama, Status quo dengan tweaks — minor reforms current ISDS system. Some developing countries comfortable dengan existing system. Kedua, Code of Conduct untuk arbitrators — ethics, conflict of interest disclosure, dual-hat issue (arbitrator + counsel). Broad support. Adopted 2024 sebagai soft law. Ketiga, Advisory Center on International Investment Law — capacity building untuk developing countries dalam ISDS defense. Like-minded group (Indonesia supportive). Keempat, Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) — permanent court dengan salaried judges (bukan ad hoc arbitrators). EU strong proponent. Major structural reform. Kelima, Bilateral appellate mechanism — appeal layer untuk ISDS untuk consistency. EU, US some support. Keenam, Domestic remedies first — local court exhaustion mandatory sebelum ISDS. Some developing. Ketujuh, Carve-outs untuk regulatory measures — right to regulate explicit untuk health, environment, safety. Indonesia, India proponents. Indonesia Model BIT 2018 reflects. Kedelapan, Exhaustion local remedies — mandatory sebelum ISDS. Some. Strategi Indonesia: engage actively di UNCITRAL WG III untuk protect Indonesia interests (right to regulate, capacity building, defend sovereignty). Indonesia juga via Model BIT 2018 implement unilateral reform untuk new BITs. Indonesia Investment Treaty Practice Indonesia BIT practice — re-negotiation, Model BIT 2018, dan new generation treaties.
Generasi BIT Karakteristik Examples 1. Generasi 1 (1990s) Liberal, FET open-ended, broad ISDS BIT Indonesia-Belanda 1994 2. Generasi 2 (2000s) Modern provisions, narrower BIT Indonesia-Korea 2003 3. Generasi 3 (Model BIT 2018+) Protective sovereignty, right to regulate BIT Indonesia-Afrika Selatan 2019 4. ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) Regional 2009 ISDS provision 5. RCEP Investment Chapter Mega-regional 2022 — 6. IP-CEPA Investment Chapter Indonesia-Australia 2020 Modern provisions 7. IK-CEPA Investment Chapter Indonesia-Korea 2021 Modern provisions 8. Sunset clauses Untuk BIT terminasi, existing investment protected 15-20 tahun —
Indonesia BIT practice: 3 generasi. Model BIT 2018 template untuk new. Strategi: balance protection + sovereignty.
Mari pelajari Indonesia investment treaty practice. Tiga generasi BIT. Generasi 1 (1990s) — liberal dengan open-ended Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), broad ISDS access. Examples: BIT Indonesia-Belanda 1994, BIT Indonesia-Australia 1992, BIT Indonesia-UK 1994, dll. Kebanyakan BIT Indonesia ~60+ adalah generasi 1. Generasi 2 (2000s) — modern provisions, narrower FET, more defined expropriation. Examples: BIT Indonesia-Korea 2003 (re-negotiated). Generasi 3 (Model BIT 2018+) — protective sovereignty, explicit right to regulate, narrow FET, expropriation carve-out regulatory, performance requirements allowed, strict ISDS (fork-in-the-road). Examples: BIT Indonesia-Afrika Selatan 2019. Model BIT 2018 Indonesia adalah template untuk new BIT dan re-negotiation. Regional: ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) 2009 dengan ISDS provision. Mega-regional: RCEP Investment Chapter 2022. Bilateral modern: IP-CEPA Indonesia-Australia 2020 Investment Chapter. IK-CEPA Indonesia-Korea 2021 Investment Chapter. Sunset clauses: untuk BIT terminasi, existing investment protected 15-20 tahun (tergantung BIT specific). Strategi Indonesia: balance investor protection + host state sovereignty. Re-negotiate BIT generasi 1 ke generasi 3 standard. Strategi investor: check applicable BIT + sunset clause untuk existing investment. Indonesia ISDS Case Lessons Indonesia ISDS cases — pelajaran untuk policy dan compliance.
Case Indonesia Outcome Pelajaran 1. Amco Asia v Indonesia (1980s) Lost (initially), re-arbitration Foreign investment expropriation sensitif 2. Cemex v Indonesia (2000s) Settled Cement industry FDI 3. Worldwide Coal v Indonesia — Coal mining 4. Churchill Mining v Indonesia (2012-2020) WON (fraud) Strong defense, fraud documentation 5. UTS v Indonesia — Mining 6. IPA (Indonesia Philip Morris) — Tobacco FDI 7. PLN Cases Various State-owned enterprise
Indonesia ISDS cases: 5+ total. Mix outcomes. Pelajaran: document regulatory actions, robust defense, strategic reform BIT.
Mari pelajari Indonesia ISDS cases dan lessons. Pertama, Amco Asia v Indonesia (1980s) — hotel investment dispute. Indonesia initially lost di ICSID, re-arbitration. Pelajaran: foreign investment expropriation sensitif; need strong due process. Kedua, Cemex v Indonesia (2000s) — cement industry FDI dispute. Settled. Pelajaran: negotiated settlement dapat alternative. Ketiga, Worldwide Coal v Indonesia — coal mining dispute. Pelajaran: natural resources regulation. Keempat, Churchill Mining v Indonesia (2012-2020) — UK investor mining license dispute di East Kalimantan. ICSID tribunal dismissed semua claims (2016) karena forged documents. Annulment 2020 denied. Indonesia WON. Pelajaran: (1) Fraud vitiates everything — strong defense dengan fraud documentation; (2) Strategi defense Indonesia excellent; (3) Cost US$ ~30 juta tetapi save US$ 2 miliar; (4) Document regulatory action dengan baik. Kelima, UTS v Indonesia — mining dispute. Pelajaran: regulatory takings. Keenam, Indonesia Philip Morris — tobacco FDI dispute. Pelajaran: industry-specific FDI. Ketujuh, PLN cases — state-owned enterprise disputes. Pelajaran: BUMN sebagai respondent. Indonesia ISDS cases total 5+. Mix outcomes (won, lost, settled). Pelajaran untuk Indonesia policy dan compliance: (1) Document regulatory actions dengan baik untuk defense; (2) Robust ISDS defense dengan top counsel; (3) Strategic BIT reform (Model BIT 2018) untuk future protection; (4) Engage UNCITRAL WG III untuk ISDS reform. Ringkasan Kunci Pertemuan 8 UNCITRAL Model Law
Soft law 1985 (am. 2006) — 118+ jurisdictions; basis UU 30/1999
ICSID Convention
165+ states; investor-state (ISDS); Art. 54 self-enforcing
Indonesia BIT Reform
60+ BIT, Model BIT 2018, terminasi BIT liberal — protective sovereignty
UNCITRAL = harmonized commercial arbitration. ICSID = investor-state defense. Strategi Indonesia: reform BIT + strong defense.
Persiapan P9: baca UU 25/2007 Penanaman Modal, PP 5/2021 positive list FDI. Pertemuan dekat tentang FDI/BKPM/investor asing.
Sebagai penutup, tiga pesan kunci. Pertama, UNCITRAL Model Law Arbitration 1985 (amended 2006) — soft law yang di-adopt 118+ jurisdictions. Basis UU 30/1999 Indonesia. Framework balanced party autonomy + minimal court intervention. Set aside sangat limited (Article 34). Kedua, ICSID Convention 1965 — 165+ member states, World Bank affiliate. Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) berbasis BIT atau contract. Self-contained system dengan Article 54 self-enforcing di semua member states. Annulment Article 52 dengan 5 grounds. Ketiga, Indonesia BIT reform — 60+ BIT aktif dari era 1990s dengan standard liberal. Model BIT 2018 yang lebih protective sovereignty (right to regulate, ISDS reform, FFoR narrow). Terminasi BIT liberal (Belanda, Australia) untuk re-negotiation. Churchill Mining case — Indonesia won karena documented fraud. Strategi: UNCITRAL = harmonized commercial arbitration. ICSID = investor-state defense. Strategi Indonesia: reform BIT + strong defense. Persiapan P9: baca UU 25/2007 tentang Penanaman Modal, PP 5/2021 tentang positive list FDI (Bidang Usaha Tertutup dan Terbuka dengan Persyaratan). P9 akan mendalami FDI/BKCM/investor asing — bagaimana Indonesia mengatur foreign investment. Kuis singkat 10 menit di awal P9 tentang UNCITRAL Model Law, ICSID, dan Indonesia BIT.