SpringerLink
Log in

ICS from South East Asia Perspective

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 287 Accesses

Abstract

International investment agreement (IIA) has long become a “trend” in the world, and Indonesia is no exception in following the trend. However, this “trend” comes as two-edged sword, at one side it did bring benefit to the country as in FDI and its’ spillovers, but on the other side, it contained the risk comes from the provision of investor to state dispute settlement (ISDS) within the text agreement. Indonesia involved in many ISDS cases throughout the decades since the liberalization of foreign investment in 1967. The new investment policy established in 2007 did not give any desirable effect in dodging the bullet of ISDS claims. Presently, Indonesia is still in ongoing process of negotiation with European Union on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. There is no publication on the draft of the agreement, but for sure the agreement will have provision on a new dispute settlement system which is called Investment Court System, and looking at the free trade agreement EU has entered with Canada, Vietnam, and Singapore, there is no doubt the provision will be more or less similar with those agreements. This system offers an improved mechanism of any investment dispute arise; however, the new system is still not proven to be beneficial for Indonesia in facing the ISDS claim and this chapter will explain the reason.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hill H (2000) The Indonesian economy, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, p 101

  2. 2.

    Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board, International Agreement. https://www.bkpm.go.id/ko/peluang-investasi/perjanjian-internasional

  3. 3.

    Investment Policy Hub UNCTAD (2019) https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/97/indonesia

  4. 4.

    David Price (2017) Indonesia’s bold strategy on bilateral investment treaties: seeking an equitable climate for investment. Asian J Int Law 7:124–151, p. 124

  5. 5.

    Business Times (2018) Singapore, Indonesia ink pact to offer protection, global arbitration access to investors. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-indonesia-ink-pact-to-offer-protection-global-arbitration-access-to

  6. 6.

    Crockett A (2017) The termination of Indonesia’s BITs: changing the bathwater, but kee** the baby?, J World Invest Trade 18:836–857, 842

  7. 7.

    Kementerian Perdagangan (2019) Indonesia trade negotiations. http://ditjenppi.kemendag.go.id/assets/files/publikasi/doc_20190521_perundingan-perdagangan-internasional1.pdf

  8. 8.

    Kementerian Perdagangan, Australia-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement Joint Feasibility Study. http://ditjenppi.kemendag.go.id/assets/files/publikasi/doc_20180523_joint-feasibility-study-report-on-fta-between-indonesia-and-australia.pdf

  9. 9.

    European Commission (2018) Report of the fourth round of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and Indonesia. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/march/tradoc_156642.pdf

  10. 10.

    ASEAN (2016) Regional comprehensive economic partnership. https://asean.org/?static_post=rcep-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership

  11. 11.

    See generally Chaisse J, Vaccaro-Incisa M (2018) ‘The EU investment court: challenges on the path ahead’ 218 Columbia FDI Perspectives 1–3; Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (2018) From bilateral arbitral tribunals and investment court to a multilateral investment court, options regarding the institutionalization of investor-state dispute settlement, European yearbook of international economic law, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, p 174.

  12. 12.

    UNCTAD (2003) Dispute Settlement: Investor-State. https://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit30_en.pdf. p 85

  13. 13.

    Alvarez Zárate JM (2018) Legitimacy concerns of the proposed multilateral investment court: is democracy possible? Boston College Law Rev 59(8):2765–2790

  14. 14.

    Crockett (n 6): 847–849. See also Chaisse J (2015) The shifting tectonics of international investment law – structure and dynamics of rules and arbitration on foreign investment in the Asia-Pacific Region’ 47(3) George Wash Int Law Rev 563–638

  15. 15.

    Losari JJ, Ewing-Chow M (2015) Difficulties with decentralization and due process Indonesia’s recent experiences with international investment agreements and investor-state disputes. J World Invest Trade 16:981–1017, 995. Also see Investment Policy Hub UNCTAD (2019). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/97/indonesia

  16. 16.

    Investment Policy Hub UNCTAD (2019) See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/97/indonesia

  17. 17.

    Investment Policy Hub UNCTAD (2019) https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement?status=1000

  18. 18.

    Diana Rosert (2014) The Stakes Are High: A review of the financial costs of investment treaty arbitration, International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/library/stakes-are-high-review-financial-costs-investment-treaty-arbitration

  19. 19.

    OECD (2012) Government perspectives on investor-state dispute settlement: a progress report, Freedom of Investment Roundtable 14 December 2012, online: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/ISDSprogressreport.pdf, p 8

  20. 20.

    David Gaukrodger and Kathryn Gordon (2012) Investor-state dispute settlement a sco** paper for the investment policy community, OECD working papers on international investment 2012/03. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46b1r85j6f-en. p 19

  21. 21.

    Rafat Ali Rizvi (Claimant) and The Republic of Indonesia (Respondent) (16 July 2013) Award on Jurisdiction, (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13).

  22. 22.

    Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia (15 December 2014) Final Award, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4164.pdf

  23. 23.

    Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd. v. Republic of Indonesia (29 November 2016) Award, (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40). https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7893.pdf, p 199

  24. 24.

    Schill SW (2017) In defense of international investment law, ACIL Research Paper 2017–09, p 29

  25. 25.

    Gaukrodger and Gordon (n 20): p 23.

  26. 26.

    See Chaisse J and Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1) 47–67. See also Qian X (2020) Rethinking judicial discretion in international adjudication 35(2), Connecticut J Int Law 251–310

  27. 27.

    The Hindu Business Line (9 April 2017) India’s bilateral investment pacts under cloud. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/indias-bilateral-investment-pacts-under-cloud/article9625580.ece

  28. 28.

    Tralac (2017) Investment policy reforms in Africa: how can they be synchronised?. https://www.tralac.org/discussions/article/11779-investment-policy-reforms-in-africa-how-can-they-be-synchronised.html

  29. 29.

    Lars Markert and Catherine Titi (2015) States strike back – old and new ways for host states to defend against investment arbitrations. In: Bjorklund AK (Ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2013–2014, Oxford University Press, p 427

  30. 30.

    Gordon Kathryn, Pohl J (2015) Investment treaties over time – treaty practice and interpretation in a changing world. OECD working papers on international investment 2015/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5js7rhd8sq7h-en, p 7

  31. 31.

    Stiglitz J (2015) The secret corporate takeover, project syndicate. In: Gaukrodger D (2017) The balance between investor protection and right to regulate in investment treaties, A sco** paper, OECD working papers on international investment, 2017/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82786801-en, p 7.

  32. 32.

    Gallagher KP, Shrestha E (2011) Investment treaty arbitration and develo** countries: A re-appraisal, global development and environment institute working paper no. 11–01, Tufts University

  33. 33.

    Schill (n 24):p 22.

  34. 34.

    Kelsey J (2017) Regulatory chill: learnings from New Zealand’s plain packaging tobacco law. QUT Law Rev 17(2):21–45

  35. 35.

    Gross SG (2003) Inordinate chill: bits, Non-NAFTA MITS, and host-state regulatory freedom-an Indonesian case study. Mich J Int Law 24(3):2003, pp 893–960

  36. 36.

    Id, p. 954.

  37. 37.

    Tienhaara K (2017) Regulatory chill in a warming world: the threat to climate policy posed by investor-state dispute settlement. Transnational Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press, pp 1–22, p 7

  38. 38.

    UNCITRAL WORKING GROUP III, Possible reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Comments by the Government of Indonesia, see https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.156

  39. 39.

    Id.

  40. 40.

    Sornarajah M (2015) Resistance and Change in The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 7. See also Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – general exceptions clause as a forced perspective 39(2/3). Am J Law Med 332–361

  41. 41.

    Unfortunately no english translation is available, Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Presidential Decree No 31 Year 2012 regarding Dispute Which Not Settled Under ICSID Jurisdiction, See http://ditjenpp.kemenkumham.go.id/arsip/ln/2012/kp31-2012.pdf.

  42. 42.

    Aiyub Kadir MY, Murray A (2019) Resource nationalism in the law and policies of Indonesia: a contest of state, foreign investors, and indigenous peoples. Asian J Law Int Law 9(2):298–333

  43. 43.

    Ministry of Finance (2016) Government currently preparing draft of government regulation on settlement of investment dispute. See https://www.kemenkeu.go.id/en/publications/news/government-currently-preparing-draft-of-government-regulation-on-settlement-of-investment-dispute/

  44. 44.

    Hukumonline, June 28, 2018, RPP Penyelesaian Sengketa Investasi Dikritik, See https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt5772459d2a551/rpp-penyelesaian-sengketa-investasi-dikritik/

  45. 45.

    Fontanelli, F, Ameli K, Bantekas I, Ciurtin H, Lavranos N, Rubino-Sammartano M (2016) Lights and shadows of the WTO-inspired international court system of investor-state dispute settlement. Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev Online 1(1):191–263. p 194

  46. 46.

    Gantz DA (2017) The CETA ratification saga: The demise of ISDS in EU trade agreements?, Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion paper no. 17–10, The University of Arizona, pp. 11–13

  47. 47.

    Channel News Asia (19 October 2018) Singapore, EU ink landmark free trade agreement, See https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/singapore-eu-ink-landmark-free-trade-agreement-10846210

  48. 48.

    European Commission, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, See https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

  49. 49.

    European Commission (2018) EU-Mexico global agreement section (X): resolution of investment dispute, see https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/april/tradoc_156814.pdf

  50. 50.

    EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-balanced-and-progressive-trade-policy-to-harness-globalisation/file-eu-vietnam-fta

  51. 51.

    IISD (2017) European Union and Canada co-host discussions on a multilateral investment court, see https://www.iisd.org/itn/2017/03/13/european-union-and-canada-co-host-discussions-on-a-multilateral-investment-court/

  52. 52.

    European Commission, EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: texts of the agreement, see https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1684

  53. 53.

    European Council, Trade with Australia and New Zealand: negotiating directives made public, see https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/06/25/trade-with-australia-and-new-zealand-negotiating-directives-made-public/

  54. 54.

    European Commission, Indonesia, See https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/indonesia/

  55. 55.

    European Union, Report of the eighth round of negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement between European Union and Indonesia, 17–21 June 2019, Jakarta, See https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/july/tradoc_158207.pdf

  56. 56.

    Article 8.29 CETA, Article 3.12 EUSFTA, Article 3.41 EUVFTA.

  57. 57.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27.

  58. 58.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38.

  59. 59.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9.

  60. 60.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38 (5).

  61. 61.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38 (6).

  62. 62.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (5).

  63. 63.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (6).

  64. 64.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9 (5).

  65. 65.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9 (7).

  66. 66.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (4); EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38 (4); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9 (4).

  67. 67.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (6); EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38 (6); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9 (7).

  68. 68.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (9); EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.38 (9); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.9 (9).

  69. 69.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.28 (2).

  70. 70.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.39 (2)

  71. 71.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.10 (2)

  72. 72.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.39 (2); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.10 (5).

  73. 73.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.39 (7); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.10 (4).

  74. 74.

    EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 3.43.

  75. 75.

    José Manuel Alvarez Zárate (2018) Legitimacy concerns of the proposed multilateral investment court: is democracy possible? Boston Coll Law Rev 59:2765, pp 2765–2790, p 2770

  76. 76.

    European Union, Why the new EU proposal for Investment Court System in TTIP is beneficial to both States and investors, see https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6060_en.htm

  77. 77.

    Id.

  78. 78.

    Robert W Schwieder (2016) TTIP and the investment court system: a new (and improved?) paradigm for investor-state adjudication. Columbia J Transl Law 55:178–227, p 195

  79. 79.

    Rogers CA (2016) Apparent dichotomies, covert similarities: a response to Joost Pauwelyn, AJIL Unbound 109, p 294, as quoted in Elsa Sardinha (2018) Party-appointed arbitrators no more the EU-led invetment tribunal system as an (Imperfect?) response to certain legitimacy concerns in investor-state arbitration. The Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 17:117–134, p 123

  80. 80.

    Schwieder (n 77) p 196.

  81. 81.

    Chi-Chung Kao (2019) Assessing the rules of appointing arbitrators under the EU’s investment court system. Eur Rev 27(2):210–219, p 217

  82. 82.

    Schwieder (n 77) p. 195.

  83. 83.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.16.

  84. 84.

    Ghori U (2018) Investment court system or ‘Regional’ dispute settlement?: the uncertain future of investor-state dispute settlement. Bond Law Rev 30(1):Article 7, p 98

  85. 85.

    Id, p. 99.

  86. 86.

    Butler N, Subedi S (2017) The future of international investment regulation: towards a world investment organisation?, Neth Int Law Rev 64:43–72, p 65

  87. 87.

    UNCITRAL (n 37)

  88. 88.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.32 (1); EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 18 (1); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 9.20 (1).

  89. 89.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.33 (1); EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, Article 19 (1); EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 9.21 (1).

  90. 90.

    Hindelang S (2014) Study on investor-state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) and alternatives of dispute resolution in international investment law, study for the european parliament, September 2014, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2525063, p 107, in European Parliament (2017) In Pursuit of an International Investment Court: Recently negotiated investment chapters in EU Comprehensive FTA in comparative perspective, Directorate-General For External Policies, Policy Department, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/603844/EXPO_STU(2017)603844_EN.pdf

  91. 91.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.39 (3) Section F.

  92. 92.

    Mohamadieh K, Uribe D (2016) Approaches to international investment protection: divergent approaches between the TPPA and develo** countries. Model investment treaties, Research paper 68, South Centre, p 34

  93. 93.

    Van Harten G, Malysheuski P (2016) Who has benefited financially form investment treaty arbitration? An evaluation of the size and wealth of claimants, Research paper no. 14, Vol. 12, Issue 3, Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, p 1

  94. 94.

    Katz RL (2016) Modeling and international investment court after the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body. Harv Negot Law Rev 22:163, 187

  95. 95.

    Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement (17 Maret 2019) Working Group Four: Incorrectness of ISDS Decisions, Academic Forum on ISDS, https://www.cids.ch/images/Documents/Academic-Forum/4_Incorrectness_of_ISDS_Decisions_-_WG4.pdf, p 22

  96. 96.

    Lee Katz (n 93) p 185.

  97. 97.

    Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Article 8.27 (13).

  98. 98.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.19 (5).

  99. 99.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, Article 3.21.

  100. 100.

    Schill SW (2015) Reforming investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): conceptual framework and options fort he way forward, The E15 Task Force on investment policy. www.e15initiative.org, p 3

  101. 101.

    Samples TR (2019) Winning and losing in investor-state dispute settlement. Am Bus Law J 56(1):115–175, p 145.

  102. 102.

    Schill (n 24) p.6.

  103. 103.

    Van Harten G (2015) The European Commission’s push to consolidate and expand ISDS: an assessment of the proposed Canada-Europe CETA and Europe-Singapore FTA, Research paper no. 23, Vol. 11, Issue 5, Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, p 9

  104. 104.

    Lee Katz (n 93) p. 169.

  105. 105.

    Menon T, Issac G (2018) Develo** country opposition to an investment court: could state-state dispute settlement be an alternative?, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/02/17/develo**-country-opposition-investment-co urt-state-state-dispute-settlement-alternative/

  106. 106.

    BBC (2019), Trade disputes settlement system facing crisis. see https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50681431

  107. 107.

    Marceddu ML (2016) The EU dispute settlement: towards legal certainty in an uneven international investment system?, Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev Online 1(1):33–75, p 72

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

    Wenny Setiawati

Authors
  1. Wenny Setiawati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenny Setiawati .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Setiawati, W. (2020). ICS from South East Asia Perspective. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_17-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_17-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation