Settlement of Investment Disputes Based on the Bilateral Investment Treaty through Arbitration of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Case Study of Rafat Ali Rizvi vs. the Republic of Indonesia)

Ade Rizki Saputra; Mira  Gunati; Ryan  Faisal; Songgi  Mardiansah; Imas Rosidawati  Wiradirja; Nugraha  Pranadita

doi:10.55927/fjsr.v3i11.12226

Authors

Ade Rizki Saputra Universitas Laglangbuana Bandung
Mira Gunati Universitas Laglangbuana Bandung
Ryan Faisal Universitas Langlangbuana Bandung
Songgi Mardiansah Universitas Langlangbuana Bandung
Imas Rosidawati Wiradirja Universitas Langlangbuana Bandung
Nugraha Pranadita Universitas Langlangbuana Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjsr.v3i11.12226

Keywords:

Investment Disputes, BIT, ICSID, Article 2 Paragraph (1) BIT, Foreign Investment Law (PMA Law), International Arbitration, Indonesia

Abstract

This study discusses foreign investment disputes involving Indonesia in international arbitration forums, particularly under the jurisdiction of ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes). The main focus of this study is on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) in the Indonesia-UK Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which regulates the conditions for the entry of foreign investment in Indonesia. In the Rafat Ali Rizvi case, the arbitration panel decided that the process of entering investment that does not comply with the provisions of the Foreign Investment Law (UU PMA) cannot be included in the scope of the BIT. This study provides important recommendations for Indonesia in re-evaluating the provisions in each BIT involving Indonesia, as well as conducting further studies on ICSID arbitration decisions to understand the interpretation of BIT articles related to jurisdiction and the subject matter. Thus, this study aims to strengthen Indonesia's position in facing investment disputes at the international level

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Fatah, R. R., Basri, B., Kurniaty, Y., & Hakim, H. A. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Doxing oleh Debt Collector Pinjaman Online dalam Penagihan Hutang Nasabah. Borobudur Law and Society Journal, 3(2), 43-51.

Nurhalifah, D. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Debt Collector dan Korporasi: Tinjauan Terhadap Pelanggaran Hukum dalam Penagihan Hutang. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, 17, 50-57.

Rakinaung, V. N. (2023). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Desk Collector Financial Technology Ilegal Serta Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bagi Pelaku. LEX ADMINISTRATUM, 11(2).

Saputra, M. I., Rizal, M., & Mursid, F. (2022). Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Debt Collector Pengaihan Hutang Dalam Pinjaman Online Ditinjau Dari Hukum Pidana Islam. Ta’zir: Jurnal Hukum Pidana, 6(2), 104.

Syahmi, T. F., & Nasution, K. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Emergency Contact Pada Praktik Pinjaman Online. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 4(3), 9858-9866.

Widarti, I. D. (2021). Pertanggung Jawaban Hukum Dalam Pinjaman Online Yang Berimplikasi Tindak Pidana (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Bhayangkara).