Print Hukum laut internasional / Mochtar Kusumaatmadja Send to Email Hukum laut internasional / Mochtar Kusumaatmadja. Books. My library · Help · Advanced Book Search · Get print book. No eBook available Bibliographic information. QR code for Hukum laut internasional. Hukum internasional harus dipublikasikan, dapat diakses, jelas dan prospektif. 28 .. Buku panduan IPU Pemantauan Parlementer untuk Sektor Keamanan: Prinsip .. pengadilan utama dalam PBB, Tribunal internasional untuk Hukum laut.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Semua judul ebook yg kami cantumkan merupakan ebook yg sudah tersedia secara gratis/bisa Pengantar ilmu Hukum tata negara Jilid I, Prof. Konservasi Ekosistem Sumberdaya Hayati Di Wllayah Peslslr Dan Laut Tropis, medical-site.info Pengantar Hukum Internasional karya Profesor Starke sudah sejak lama diakui sebagai sebuah buku standar yang menyajikan suatu tinjauan luas yang dapat. pengelolaan sumberdaya pesisir dan lautan, pemerintah ikut terlibat terutama dalam memberikan dukungan hukum bagi pelaksaaan dan penghargaan atas manfaatnya semakin meningkat, baik dalam kancah Nasional maupun ruang-lingkup Internasional. Penelaah buku ini berpendapat bahwa karangan-.
Secara baku penetapan Bagi bangsa Sementara menurut pasal 33 ayat 2, konvensi hukum laut tahun , Sementara dalam syarat- syarat dan atau persetujuan internasional Zona tambahan contiguous zone , merupakan suatu jalur dari laut lepas yang berbatasan dengan laut teritorial suatu negara. Latar Belakang Peraturan perundang-undangan Indonesia - Wikipedia bahasa Proses dan Produk Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika — ; Proses dan produk itu pada hakikatnya merupakan dua hal yang saling berkaitan satu sama lain, tidak bisa dipisahkan.
Keduanya harus seiring berdampingan sehingga PMK No. Google ; Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for. Geografi - Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas ; Bagian ini tidak memiliki referensi atau sumber tepercaya sehingga isinya tidak bisa dipastikan. Bantu dengan menambahkan referensi yang layak. Materi yang tidak Sistem Manajemen Kinerja.
Sub Pokok Bahasan: a. Kontrak Perkuliahan b. Penjelasan literatur yang digunakan d. Mahasiswa dapat menjelaskan mengenai sejarah lahirnya hukum laut b. Sejarah lahirnya konsep hukum laut b. Bilateral Indonesia dg RRC tentang dwi kewarganegaraan.
Setiap kasus sangat bergantung kepada bunyi spesifik The author recently graduated with an LL. Previously the author was an associate lawyer at Ignatius Andy Law Offices in Jakarta, specialising in commercial litigation and international arbitration. Khusus untuk Indonesia, masalah ini perlu diperhatikan ketika menegosiasikan dan merancang naskah perjanjian internasional di bidang investasi demi menghindari ketidakpastian hukum ketika muncul sengketa.
Introduction International investment arbitration is notorious for the profound disagreement among tribunals across various unsettled issues. One of the most important of which, from a jurisdictional standpoint, is the relation between the Most-Favored-Nation MFN clause and dispute settlement.
More specifically, the use of MFN clause to create or extend an investment tribunal s jurisdiction by applying more favorable terms from other investment treaties between the respondent state and third states. It is this issue that will be discussed here.
Given that the government is contemplating a preparation of a model BIT 2 following the termination of existing BITs, 3 it is now very 1 Hence the article will not deal with substantive MFN protections. This would still be useful even in the absence of a model BIT whenever the government negotiate an investment treaty, whether bilateral or multilateral. See also, e. This development is met with applause by some notable NGOs, while others are raising the specter of more protectionist foreign investment policies.
Several international law firms already issued client alerts, with some suggesting that corporate clients may need to restructure their foreign investment in Indonesia. I wish to point out my agreement with the objection against using the term termination as it is not a legally correct characterization of Indonesia s plan, which seems to be to simply let the existing BITs to expire and negotiate new, more favorable, ones. To avoid any doubt from the outset, it is the author s conclusion that in principle an MFN clause does not apply to dispute settlement unless it can be clearly ascertained that the state parties to the investment treaty intend to do so.
Hence, a claimant investor cannot import more favorable dispute settlement provisions from other investment treaties when instituting arbitration proceedings against the host state. To that end, the article will start with an overview of the relevant investment tribunals jurisprudence and legal writings. The crux of the analysis will consist of i a discussion of International Court of Justice s ICJ precedents on MFN clause; and ii the fundamental concepts that should guide us to the correct understanding of MFN clause and jurisdiction.
There will be a review of the wording of MFN clauses in several of Indonesia s existing investment treaties and practical observations for drafting MFN and dispute settlement clauses in future investment treaties, before the article ends with the conclusion.
Therefore many of the 11 12 II. Spain in The basic treaty 5 in the case, the Argentina-Spain BIT, requires investors to submit investment dispute first to the domestic court of the host state. If no judgment is rendered in 18 months and the dispute still exists, the investor may then commence international arbitration proceedings against the host state.
In order to establish the tribunal s jurisdiction and bypass the months rule, the claimant invoked the MFN clause in the BIT to apply other Spanish BITs that do not contain such requirement. It should be noted that the MFN clause in Article IV of the Argentina-Spain BIT reads as follows: In all matters subject to this Agreement, this treatment shall be no less favorable than that extended by analysis in this article would be cursory and interested readers are invited to refer further to the materials cited if any.
Iran , ICJ Rep. The crux of the tribunal s reasoning is that dispute resolution arrangements are inextricably related to the protection of foreign investors, 7 and that international arbitration and other dispute settlement arrangements are essential to the protection of the rights envisaged under the pertinent treaties and are also closely linked to the material aspects of the treatment accorded.
The tribunal then carved out some limit on its ruling. An investor cannot rely on an MFN clause to get around the following aspects of dispute resolution arrangement: i a provision requiring the exhaustion of local remedies; ii a fork-in-the-road provision; iii a particular choice of arbitration system such as ICSID ; and iv precise rules of procedure in a highly institutionalized system of arbitration such as NAFTA. Int l.
In Salini v. Jordan, the dispute concerned final payment to the claimant pursuant to a construction contract with the Jordanian government.
While the basic treaty, the Jordan-Italy BIT, provides for ICSID arbitration for treaty violations, the treaty also expressly states that any dispute arising from investment contract is to be settled according to the dispute settlement clause in the contract. The tribunal rejected the claimant s arguments. Also, the claimant has not established any intention of the state parties to apply MFN clause in the BIT to matters concerning dispute settlement. On the 14 See Siemens AG v.
Another tribunal rendering decision at about the same time, in Plama v.
Bulgaria, produced a similar outcome. Yet the Plama tribunal went even bolder by expressly advocating a new presumption: that an MFN provision in a basic treaty does not incorporate by reference dispute settlement provisions in whole or in part set forth in another treaty, unless the MFN provision in the basic treaty leaves no doubt that the Contracting Parties intended to incorporate them.
Some other tribunals subsequently followed suit Salini, ibid at par Plama Consortium Limited v. The Latest Round of Cases and Taking Stock of the Debate Based on the illustration above, it is clear that in general the jurisprudence of investment arbitration tribunals is still sharply divided over the issue. The latest round of cases dealing with MFN and dispute settlement in and did nothing to end the discord.
In Impregilo v. Argentina 20 and Hochtief v. Argentina, 21 the tribunals ruled that the claimant may import a more favorable term from Argentina s other BITs in order to avoid the pre-arbitration requirement to litigate its claim before local court for 18 months.
These decisions, decided by a majority, attracted two very strong dissents that will be highlighted in the analysis below. Argentina 23 and Daimler v.
Argentina 24 refused to extend the application of MFN clause to dispute settlement. It seems that there is still a long way from jurisprudence constante on this issue. This is true even among various BITs signed by one state. It is one of the reasons that many tribunals have come to different conclusions on the relation between MFN clause and dispute settlement.
Some investment treaties expressly determine whether the MFN clause there apply to dispute settlement or not. See section V a. It is submitted that the basic position should be the one put forth by the Plama tribunal: that an MFN clause does not apply to dispute settlement unless it can be clearly ascertained that the state parties intend otherwise. Therefore claimants cannot benefit from more favorable provisions in other treaties in order to establish or expand the jurisdiction of a tribunal.
Afterwards, there will be an elaboration of the fundamental concepts that should be applied when dealing with the issue of MFN and dispute settlement section IV. It will be shown below that those three cases cannot be used to support the view that MFN clause extend to dispute settlement as a procedural matter. This is because Iran had concluded another treaty with Denmark in that would enable Denmark to submit a dispute with Iran concerning the interpretation and application of that treaty to the ICJ.
This is especially telling when put within the context of the modern debate on MFN clause and jurisdiction because the MFN clause in the UK-Iran treaty was couched in broad terms, requiring MFN treatment in every respect and in all respect. Article IX of the Treaty of The High Contracting Parties engage that, in the establishment and recognition of Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, each shall be placed in the dominions of the other on the footing of the most-favored nation; and that the treatment of their respective subjects, and their trade, shall also, in every respect, be placed on the footing of the treatment of the subjects and commerce of the mostfavored nation.
Article II of the Commercial Convention of It is formally stipulated that British subjects and importations in Persia, as well as Persian subjects and Persian importations in the British Empire, shall continue to enjoy in all respects, the regime of the most-favored nation.
If Denmark is entitled under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, to bring before the Court any dispute as to the application of its Treaty with Iran, it is because that Treaty is subsequent to the ratification of the Iranian Declaration. This can not give rise to any question relating to most-favored-nation treatment.
The court effectively distinguished between substantive benefit emanating from an MFN clause and jurisdictional matters that fall outside the ambit of that clause.
When it comes to the issue of the court s jurisdiction, the court was unequivocal in its rejection to applying the MFN clause to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limit prescribed by Iran s declaration.
On the other hand, the tribunal in Plama faithfully followed ICJ s conclusion that the MFN clause has no relation to jurisdictional matters. Case Concerning the Rights of US Nationals in Morocco At the heart of the case was the question of whether the United States is entitled to exercise consular jurisdiction in Morocco in cases where an American citizen is the defendant.
In the United States concluded a bilateral treaty with Morocco conferring consular jurisdiction to the United States in all civil and criminal cases between American citizens. The United States here asserted that, by virtue of the MFN clause in the US-Moroccan treaty, all cases in which an American citizen is the defendant also fall within its consular jurisdiction to the extent that subsequent treaties between Morocco and Great Britain and Spain confer such broader jurisdiction on those states.
USA , I. It should be noted, however, that the court s jurisdiction in the case, based on France s and the United States declarations under the optional clause, was never in dispute.
Hence the MFN clause in the US- Moroccan treaty was invoked not in relation to any aspect of the court s jurisdiction or procedure. It was instead invoked in relation to the United States substantive right to exercise consular jurisdiction under the treaty.
The Plama tribunal indeed made such observation. For example, the tribunal in Siemens stated, it is evident that the ICJ accepted that MFN clauses may extend to provisions related to jurisdictional matters, but this was not really the issue between 42 See Douglas, supra note 11 at In short, the court rejected the United States assertion of permanent incorporation by reference so that any right to exercise broader consular jurisdiction, which the United States may have enjoyed under the MFN clause, will cease insofar as Morocco treaties with third states that confer such broader rights have expired.
Ambatielos Case Mr. Ambatielos was a Greek ship owner who had concluded a contract with the British Ministry of Shipping.
When a dispute subsequently arose, Ambatielos brought a claim before the English Admiralty Court in accordance with the contract. The admiralty court ruled against Ambatielos, and a subsequent appeal also failed. While the court ruled that it is without jurisdiction to hear the merit Greece s claim, the court nevertheless found it has jurisdiction to rule that the United Kingdom must submit to arbitration pursuant to a Declaration to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two states TCN Treaty.